##VIDEO ID:4jyIb-gmGFw## okay Mr Marshall um ammer media is with us the attendees are coming in it is 6:35 you have a quum of the board I do believe we're good to go all right thank you Pam you're welcome welcome to the emers planning board meeting of January 22 2025 my name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the emmer planning board I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. this meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amis media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 this planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform the zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the zoom link is listed at the top of the page no in-person attendance of the public is permitted however every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means in the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute Bruce [Music] Cen I tried the space bar but it didn't work I'm here Fred Hartwell Fred Hartwell is present Lawrence CL I am present Jesse major present I Doug Marshall I'm present and I do not see Johanna Newman at this point and we know that car and winter will be absent so we will proceed with the folks that are here board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting if the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes please not please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself to the general public the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period public comments may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star n on your phone when called on please identify Yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking residents can express their views typically for up to 3 minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair if a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time their participation may be disconnected from the meeting okay time is 9:38 and we'll go to the first item on the agenda which is uh review and approval of minutes drafted by our hardworking staff um the minutes we have in the packet for this meeting are from November 20th of last year did anyone have any comments on these minutes okay I guess they were perfect um does anybody want to make a motion to accept these minutes Jesse sure I Mo we accept the minutes thank you anybody want a second that I'll second thank you Bruce uh one more or call for any comments from the board no comments All right we will go ahead and do a roll call vote for acceptance of the November 20th minutes starting with you Bruce I vote to approve and Fred I vote to approve Lawrence I vote to approve Jesse I and I'm and I as well so that is five votes in favor and two members absent motion passes and those minutes are accepted thank you all time now is 6:40 we'll go to the public comment period as I stated earlier this is the time for comments about topics that are not showing up later on the agenda so anything to do with the Amity Drive Amity Street and University Drive project or the University Drive overlay uh those comments should be held until later does anyone in the public want to make a comment at this time while I wait for your hands to go up I will read the names of the uh public attendees I can see on Zoom here I see we have nine members at the nine members of the public at the moment Arthur H Haskins Barry Roberts Christin brep Gail flood Jonathan salvan J Smith Ken Rosenthal Mara Keane and Tom REI so I have yet to see any hands come up from the public so I am going to conclude that there are no public comments uh to be offered this evening all right in that time case we will go on it is now 6:41 and we will go to the first of our public hearings in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 4A this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding spr 224-1 udrive Amity LLC located at University Drive at Amity Street request a site plan review approval under Section 3.32 Five of the zoning bylaw to redevelop existing commercial space into an 85 residential unit and commercial space mixed use development including parking landscape lighting and storm water infrastructure located at Parcels 133b -18 27 28 and 54 located in the B zoning District this hearing is is continued from August 7th September 18th November 6 and December 18th of last year before I ask for board member disclosure I will just State for the record that Johanna Newman joined us uh at the beginning of that uh intro to the hearing so time is now 6:43 it was probably 6:41 or 642 I I noted it as 641 if that's okay okay that sounds good Pam and then I have one other question for um Mr Rey Mr Rey is Jonathan salvon part of your application team tonight he is Pam thank you okay thank you all right um board members is there any disclosures are there any disclosures you need to make for the discussion of this topic I do not see any so we will go on to the applicant presentation welcome Mr REI thanks for having us uh Mr chair for the record Tom Rey attorney with bacon Wilson out of Amer here on behalf of you drive Amity and its application for a site plan approval for a mixed use development at the corner of University Drive in Amity Street here in ammer with me uh principal of you drive Amity Barry Roberts uh site architect Jonathan salvon from cun riddle um so just to refresh everybody's memory we had proposed an 85 unit 259 bed uh 186 parking space mixed use project over buildings on this site I was at uh a previous meeting of the planning board and and gave a preview of Coming Attractions because once uh those two buildings were going to have uh what's called a Podium build and so they'd be part steel and part wood there were going to be five or six stories depending upon what was happening with your overlay district and also a potential variance process we were going through um because part of the podium build was to have have parking uh interior parking and so uh Barry and his due diligence was getting pricing from all you know for materials and labor and the pricing for the steel came back at a at a point that just frankly made the project infeasible as designed uh it was I think maybe $10 million for the steel um and that was now before any additional tariffs come in to play when we actually have to order this deal and so at that time I want to say it was in around November Barry made a decision to Pivot to redesign the project uh to to create a single building and I'll share my screen so you can see I'll probably show Jonathan's plan first just so you get a sense of what it's going to look like and and I have the other files from the the previous iteration if anybody wants to say well what was it and what is it I've somewhat skipped over that because I think it's important to see what we're actually proposing and so the proposal is for a single building that's five stories it's going to be Allwood it is 77 units 224 beds and then about 12,200 Square ft of commercial space on the first floor facing University Drive and so and it's supported by 160 parking spaces and and the the parking ratio uh of the 259 to 186 is the same as 224 to 160 so we're still hitting that same parking ratio that that Barry feels comfortable with talk a little bit about the past project just simply you may recall it had a an L shape similar to this that stopped probably about here and then there was a second building running back in this direction both of those buildings had as I had said a Podium they were Podium build and so they had parking on the first floor this eliminates any internal parking so all of the parking is going to be uh exterior so site parking um one of the other I'd call it benefits of this project is you may work call that we had three curb Cuts where we had one on Amity Street one about here on University Drive and then a third um probably an exit only but a third one a little bit further down on the south uh We've eliminated that curb cut in total and pushed the uh full AIS curb cut down towards the South uh so now there are only two curb cuts and uh lastly before I get into walking you through the site plan uh We've reduced the Environ enironmental impact of the project as well and so where we had I want to say it was uh maybe 39,000 square feet of of proposed buffer alteration which is about a 10,000 foot increase over existing we're now only proposing 33,000 feet of buffer impact which is about a 3500 SQ foot increase over existing and the mitigation was 30,000 fet now it's 37,000 squ fet so it it's moved in the right direction to give a little bit of context of Permitting uh we're in front of you now hoping to get a site plan approval um we were in front of the Conservation Commission they were what I would say is ready to approve the project and we re we we we've redesigned the project and so I've submitted that information to the conservation agent she's getting the abutters list because we've agreed to Ren notice the abut and will'll be on I believe February 12th for hopefully their issuance of an order of conditions um we do have a variance on this project from the zoning board of appeals the variance allows increased density and it also allows us to go up go up to 57 feet in height uh we are act we are asking we've submitted an application to modify that variance uh which we have to because they approve the variance based on that previous site plan so we have to bring this site plan to them and then instead of 57 ft we've asked for 59.5 ft and the the reason really is um based on how ammer calculates its Building height and that this is a corner lot um and so you've got University Drive and you also have Amity Street they both have varying elevations you need to measure it from average grade on the street side and so between that and uh the the High groundwater on the site and to make our storm water system work we have to we have to raise the elevation of the first floor just slightly so to step back planning board site plan approval Conservation Commission order of conditions and then zoning board of appeals variance modification um ideally we get all those approvals uh this month or in February and then appeals period passes and Barry is taking the the building down at 422 Amity Street in the spring starting site work which is going to likely coincide with the town's work on the roundabout and having a foundation starting to pour in the fall for a delivery of this building uh in August of 2026 so tight timeline we'd ask for whatever help you can give but that's kind of high level where we are uh where we've been where we are and where we'd like to go um I'll stop there for any procedural questions otherwise I I'll turn to the site plan and and and walk everyone through the site plan uh thanks Tom I think you can continue okay so I'll share my screen for the site plan and so what you see on this first page is a aerial overlay you can see 2535 University Drive under and 422 Amity Street this gives you a sense of where the building will be in the context of the existing site we actually we have some other PL but they get a little busy so we won't go there unless the board requests it you see your Wetlands uh to the west and to the South you see your buffer zones um and then you can see here's your parking and here's your access so full access curb cut um and then full AIS curb cut in this area here I'll scroll down that's an existing conditions plan this is a uh Construction Demolition and erosion control plan and then this is the site plan so we'll stay on this page for a little bit again L-shaped building about a 30,000 square foot footprint um 160 parking spaces 24 of them are proposed to be compact in this area internal uh should I say external parking but interior to the site so we've pulled the building up to the street and then tuck the parking behind we've got a um 10 foot wide path up to this point uh we cannot go farther there is an easement so if if you're familiar and I've said this plenty of times but uh University Drive has a access restriction which Allowed no more than I think six curb Cuts onto it uh for 70 University Drive Barry went in petition town meeting and got it changed to allow an additional curb cut there um what folks did on the Westerly side of University Drive was was put that access road that access road from this which is now Mass Alternative Care um they have an easement to access Amity Street and so what we've done is we've left this portion of that access Drive available where they can through going through the site access Amity Street and so it doesn't frustrate the intent or purpose of that easement and it allows them to continue to use it practically I don't know if they will but that's why we've done what we've done here and not extended that uh 10- foot wide sidewalk at some point in the future if this development were to be acquired or to seek Redevelopment in the town could have them release that easement I think we'd be happy to put in that 10- foot wide path continuing to their property we're just unable to do so we've done the title exam we've talked to our title insurer this is what we're stuck with so that's why you'll see it doesn't extend all the way there uh what you'll also see is a bus a proposed bus um stop turnout and this was done in consultation with the the town's engineer and the superintendent of the DPW so Guilford and Jason had asked for a bus pulloff and this was the most appropriate place to put it uh for Far Enough from the roundabout it may need to be extended in length a little bit um but this is the general location of the uh turnout and so the building complies with the setbacks of the new overlay District again like I said it's it's five stories and we'll get into the architectural details a little bit um and you've got your parking spaces full access and then your parking spaces here I will show the storm water system and so there's an existing detention Basin similar to what there was before in this southwest corner we're retaining that you've got um catch basins proprietary system which ultimately discharges into this drainage area and then also discharges to this drainage area to the West if you're familiar with the site to the West is wetlands and so what we're doing is collecting treating and then discharging in that water in the same path that it was going before um Barry has agreed to install a pretty sizable 30 foot 34 foot long box Culvert on this side of the site uh and then also to clean up uh if you're familiar there's a bunch of cat and N taals over in this area um it this takes essentially all the drainage from the center of town and so we've sized it appropriately to allow that water to flow uh through pipes and then open air under this access and then West into Hadley Tom is the is the Hadley border shown on this or is it farther west it's further west there's uh I could probably bring up the gis but I know that's right I just you know it kind of goes at a diagonal to University Drive and I didn't know if it showed up here okay no and there's there's a bit of um and I've done the title on for other clients who were looking at the land over the Border in Hadley and and the title's a mess uh but there's a sliver of tit sliver of land here in ammer owned by whoever owns the balance of this which has gone through I mean you'd have to go through the Airs of that person um and so it's not just right into Hadley that's fine okay another utility plan I don't know that folks necessarily care about that and then we've got the rest of the detail sheets what I'll do is I'll go over to the architectural just to show you that and then we can always come back to the um me get this up we can always come back to the site plan and so I shown you the the rendering we'll go back to that after this one and then we'll do landscaping and then I'll probably stop talking because you're sick of it um high level and quickly here is the the footprint and here's what it's going to look like from a L plan standpoint if you recall the previous proposal had uh parking here those have been replaced by units so which has allowed us to essentially eliminate that other building along University Drive you've got your office or retail space taking up uh essentially all of that area which fronts on um University Drive your bedroom mix so of the 77 units you've got five one-bedrooms 32 bedrooms nine three bedrooms and 33 four bedrooms when you look at the size of the the units they're sizable you know you got 1,400 plus square feet for a four bedroom 900,000 square feet for a two bedroom Etc uh we've got the EV parking spaces identified here on the p on the plan and then these are eight EV pre-wired parking spaces uh the electrical service will be in this back corner here and when we get to the rendering I'll show you how it's screened because on the exterior is where the meter bank will be but where we've appropriately screened that so this is the first floor we've got amenity space amenity space and I'll go up to the upper floors again amenity space here a fitness center we've got you know four bedrooms two bedrooms three bedrooms all what I'd say is good sized uh units uh 2 three four is similar and then the fifth Story is a little bit different just because as we'll see from the rendering uh it steps back a little bit and you've got some exterior space here and then some exterior space here so these will be these ends will be four stories uh with like a essentially a rooftop patio so here the here are the elevations non rendered but the elevations so that you'll be able to see you know you've got the screening of the rooftop mechanical right up at the top here flat roof five stories fenestrations bump outs to try to reduce the massing um and then you've got that fourth story with that fifth Story we'll call it deck uh and then same thing you know North elevation this is looking from say the university um and then west elevation and this is where you see the meter bank and I'll show you how it's we think it's it's appropriately screened sced and then this is that corner elevation with the with the majority of glass and these are the inside elevations so if you're in the parking area this is what it's going to look like from from inside uh Tom while we're on these could you describe what materials are being depicted by the the red the White and the yellow sure and I'm going to ask Jonathan phon a friend uh maybe to describe the materials certainly uh the red and the yellower tones those are two uh uh proposed different colors of brick um and then the lighter tone is really intended to be a gray but it reads as a white here um and that is a siding product um a metal siding product thank you the uh I should note that the screen that we'll put up for the uh mechanical equipment will be made out of that same metal siding product sorry to interrupt you Tom no no that's quite all right I'll bring back the renderings just so we can now that we've walked through the site a little bit more and seen the architectural elevations here's the rendering so as Jonathan noted you've got the screening of the rooftop Mechanicals up there and set back from the surrounding area you've got building bump outs fenestrations um plenty of windows 10 foot wide path leads down to this access uh driveway here and then I'll show you some other uh angles this is from the Northeast looking Southwest so where the roundabout this this renders the roundabout too so this is looking at the building this area here that's the screening we're proposing for that electrical Bank you've got uh look from theth looking North so 40 University Drive would be over my right shoulder if I was standing here looking at towards the Northwest where the building is and then this one obviously is from the interior of the site back where that of drainage area is looking towards um uh Northeast then this one is a rendering of one of the top floor units I think this one is in the northwest Corner um and you'll see this is one that has that outdoor space and uh the views from the from the fifth Story and just to give you a sense of the the finishes that this building uh will have okay couple more I'll go to the landscape plan quickly so this is the landscape plan uh as you can expect a pretty robust landscape plan um you'll see and I haven't even counted all of the uh number of uh trees and shrubs and perennials but you know a quick look you've got 28 and nine and five and seven and 10 and 9 and 13 and 14 so just to give you a sense of the trees on the site um for landscape shrubs one two three maybe 400 of those perennials uh at least 300 of those Etc so you'll see that it's a very robust landscape plan the trees are identified by these larger circles uh we are keeping there's a willow back here we're we're doing our best in planning to keep that Willow in this area um looking to supplement some Street trees along University Drive and then this is a a bior retention and pollinator habitat here and then we've got some Upland buffer zone planting here we've got some round stones in here and then Wetland enhancement area and then this is all um Native Basin bottom plantings and then other um upper Meadow plantings we call it so a very robust plan we've worked with the landscape architect to make sure that they are we'll say like heat island sensitive uh just because of their proximity to the parking area and they can all take the the um the Heat and I I think that's probably good for the landscape plan and then I'll show you one more this one Mr Marshall is for you it's one of the things you had asked for at the last meeting that we were at and this is just a a side elevation cut through the building to show you know University Drive uh existing sidewalk that tree zone that multi-purpose path and then the proximity to building and what that building will look like um and this is looking from the north and obviously you got your rooftop Mechanicals up here with the screen of the rooftop Mechanicals um I should mention trash will be internal uh and so there will be a trash room or trash rooms plural with in the building it's something Barry's done at uh one University Drive South it keeps the site really uh clean and and neat and he's looking to do the same thing here um as far as traffic just somewhat quickly uh we had a letter that we had submitted from the last iteration of this project that suggested there was no detrimental impact no uh overburdening of the surrounding roadway I reached back out to stanch who was a traffic engineer told them the updated plan and they said well if it wasn't bad before it's certainly not going going to be bad I'm paraphrasing but that that's essentially what they had said I had provided that email um to you to Pam I think maybe yesterday and then I suppose I can show I'll show it uh the the lighting plan it's a little small on the screen but at least it'll give you a sense of where the lights are uh I had also submitted the cut sheets for a lot of these um so if you're you're curious about what they look like I can always bring it up again I don't want to belabor it but we've got um there's no light trespass there's no light bleed it's it's a big site um so you're not going to have any issues with light trespass there will be sufficient illumination of the site you've got larger um you know pole lights in these areas here identified in the black same thing sorry about having that pop up and then you've got lower pole lights here and then you've got um essentially reset ceiling lights in these areas here here here here here here here and then you've got almost tan lights above the doorways in those areas uh above the doorways and so like I said we can get into um you can see the heights called out as well you know 18 ft and some 12T and others 18 ft over here and obviously you know that the the balance is you want lower um if you want lower fixtures you need more of them you if you have a few higher fixtures they're able to illuminate a greater swath you know this site again given how the building is oriented the building's going to be blocking a lot of that light uh and we just want to focus that light in this back area here so I think that's high probably greater than high level um I don't know Barry or Jonathan if you've got anything to add please feel free otherwise I'm happy to answer any questions you have so Jonathan and Barry do you want to add anything or shall we go on to the discussion I'm good Tom did a good job as he always does i''ll be happy to answer any questions but I don't have anything special to say Okay um Tom since I don't I just want to ask a few kind of check off a few things right up front um the EV Char the EV spaces at the parking lot is are each of those that are on the North side against the building uh are all of those where a an EV charging station is located connection or is that just signed for Ev vehicles let me grab the Tomy you want me to chime in here a little bit yeah yeah if you want to I was just going to break up the plan but yeah if you want to so uh Tom didn't mention it but you know this will be one of the first projects in town that will be going through the opin code so these those eight will be fully ready for use so they'll they'll have signage but there will also be a a a charging station between each pair of um um parking spaces for the ones closest to the building on the opposite side of the driveway those those will be wired but they won't necessarily be um you know the charging station itself won't be there yet necess all right and that's a that the number here is dictated by what we have to do to meet uh the opin code specific okay I think Jonathan just froze yeah okay you're back okay how about bike racks do we have bike racks we do I don't know if they are shown on the plan if not I will make sure that they are shown they were Tom they you go go back to to Phils unless he took them off I know where they are okay let me go back and then you can and is possible in the redesign he lost some of them but in the in the kind of center of our V on the back side there's a large stretch of them oh yeah Y and then on the front side of the building I think there's one or two sets okay just just one set there's a set of Loops by that that double set of doors yeah okay all right um from the uh the way the units are configured is it correct that this is not really targeted at families since I don't since all the bedrooms are basically the same size great question um I don't know that it's how do I answer this I don't know that it's necessarily targeted at families or not families I think we expect students to be living here there are going to be affordable units and I think Barry's mix in the projects that he has they he has families right and so I I don't when I say like oh it's not targeted towards just because we're not designing a larger let's say primary and then smaller secondary um I think this is a function of the layout I would expect that families would still look to reside here okay and that's been I guess Barry's experience with other projects that even though the bedrooms are all the same size families do occupy them yeah and I think 70 University Drive is probably a great example because I think bar it's like 50% students and then 50% pick right gradu professionals folks with kids Etc okay um I asked about exterior materials earlier and as far regarding the uh metal sighting that jonthan described um it looked like the corner the outside corner is all metal panel rather than brick which seemed a little bit inconsistent or or undesirable just that you might treat that corner a little more uh more elegantly I guess I'll use that word um Jonathan is that do I am I reading that right is that metal panel you're you're muted of course I am um there is a section of metal panel in the center right at that corner but it's kind of bookended by two sections of brick I wouldn't be opposed to to looking at that in brick um it was just another way of trying to break down the mass and scale of of this fairly large building into into different kind of textural pieces um but uh I guess when you say metal panel I can think of gee is it is it aluminum sighting or is it large panels or you know is this would be a larger scale panel we we can can provide a is it a sort of residential feel or does this feel like a kind of major not quite institutional but you know a major it's it's a upgraded panel from something you'd put on your house yes the intent is that it be upgraded from what would be on your house okay we we can provide a sample all right well I guess I guess that that corner just seems like something you might want to I mean to the extent you have time to think about it some more um I think it might be something that could be more uh more prominently you know DET treated as a very prominent element that should be kind of the high point of the exterior um on the site plan or on the the planting plan are there any invasive species like uous or burning bush or um those kind everything's native as far as what we're we would only be planting native species okay and um and is all the lighting dark sky compliant it is all right and uh do you expect to get an updated traffic letter from I think the email is is what we're expecting okay all right um Pam do you in your experience is that email uh adequate to assure us of the tra traffic adequacy um record Nate I'm actually going to defer to you I believe it is but I think Nate is much more qualified to answer that question yeah um the letter I have to just go back and see what was initially uh provided in terms of the traffic and then what you know what the letter says so I I didn't I haven't you know okay but just it just feels like if we're relying on an Engineers um right it should be on a lad you know it it probably should be on a letter head but I hate I you know I hate to have to do that but it's changed a lot yeah no I mean it is mean I mean it's an email that looks like it's on like legalized paper like eight and a half by 14 it would be nice if were're on letterhead something I could fit in a file they can but they can say the same thing just put it on a different form is what you're saying well I I haven't seen what you actually sent is this a an email from you Tom saying I talked to the engineer no it's it's directly from the engineer and so what so just to kind of go back we had a traffic impact statement done for the first iteration of it right so they had calculations and here's what the morning Peak and afternoon they all of that and they determined that that wasn't going to be impactful to the road to the surrounding roadways and so when I said and I I had sent to them the updated plan saying instead of 85 units we're 77 units we've eliminated that third curb cut um and I could find exactly what his response was but it was and like I said I paraphrased if it wasn't a problem before it's certainly not going to be a problem now and he sent that to me in an email what I did was took that email printed it scanned it submitted it and said here you go you know substance over form for me all right so it's from it's from the engineer and that I guess my question would be if like is the retail space changing a lot you know so there are other factors in terms of traffic so I mean the email just doesn't say a lot in terms of qualifying that statement so I I me I kind of want to know like okay is it you know is there you know if you now you have bigger retail or office space is it a different kind of traffic peak times or something I don't you know just seems a little brief yeah I mean so we weren't uh for the previous iteration if anything I think they did a calculation based upon it being a potential Starbucks in that southernly building because it had that driveth through and so they calculated it based on that drive-thru the the square footage of commercial space is about the same in in that the previous version to this version um and I don't want to say like no it's just I mean time money Etc to get them to say what I think they're going to say anyways uh and so that's why I'm belaboring it a little bit you want me to bring it up I think that I can bring it up I put it I put it in the packet so if you bear with me you can I know well I can oh you've got it great where did the whole thing go all we see is your Bridge Pam a nice sorry do you have a second screen that it might show up on or something let me try to do this Pam I've got it all right thanks Tom sure there it is and so this is Walt woo from Stant uh all our things being equal between the original and revised development proposal a same type of residential units same proposed size type of office space same propos size use of retail space a reduction in residential units from 85 to 77 would expected would be expected to result in fewer site generated trips and therefore less impact on the adjacent roadway Network all right Nate what do you think is that sufficient um yeah I'd want just want to see again what the original you know traffic report says and then I'd like it on letterhead we can yeah I can get that on letterhead that's not a problem it's just I said it's a little brief um you know but okay all right that was my sort of list of questions and thank you for answering those we'll go on to the other members of the board Jesse thanks Doug um thanks for the presentation uh a couple related questions to topics that just came up uh I think I said this originally it's just a comment I'm a little not traffic engineer seems a little I'm a little skeptical that adding 160 something spots will have no effect on traffic patterns there but I won't go into that um I am curious about if there's some kind of plan to designate spots for commercial use for for nonresidents is that is it a parking management plan anything like that um and then a second unrelated question is really having to do with again that front corner that Doug pointed out seems to be a large open space there that looks like it's um cement or sidewalk material what's what's imagine there I'm just curious what that design featur is and what what's imagined to happen in that space Jonathan I don't know if you want to talk about what material you're envisioning or Barry if you know what material you're envisioning in that uh Corner area I think we were thinking of it as as kind of a port concrete um kind kind of a patio surface um and then with a with a brick wall with a stone cap that kind of Hedges it so so p patio like your residents will do something there will there be tables or benches or anything well I don't know that that tenant space the commercial tenant space has been um filled yet for that spot and so that whether it ends up being residential tenant use or or commercial tenant use um you know Barry may be able to speak speak to that because he probably has a better sense of of which which commercial spaces are filled yeah maybe I'll hop in say we don't have a so none of these spaces have tenants yet we've been talking with different folks um to occupy these spaces but we don't have anyone yet I uh given parking demands of restaurants cafes Etc this is probably not the right space for them um so I don't know that it would be like an outdoor dining area or anything like that uh there's a couple of banks that have expressed interest in being in this location I could imagine that they may want to have some seating um out here whether it's temporary or you know I don't know that it's permanent but whether it's temporary and I think that's when we would look to program that space a little bit more tightly as when we do in fact have a end user for this this area I guess if I refine my question a little I was wondering why it's more concrete if it's not there's not there not a planned activity there why I add more impervious surface but yeah I mean I it's a great question um we'll take a look at it my sense is that it it it does lead to it's it's almost like a grand entrance to the building and it feels like that's a little bit of a focal point um I'm just trying to think on the fly if there's something else that you know we could put there and Jonathan maybe we'll put our heads together and see if there's something else we could um put there okay good suggestion um you had a couple of the questions that they're escaping me one commercial parking versus residential parking great thank you yeah uh so similar to so one University Drive South which is down at the other end of University Drive has a commercial space in it and then residential spaces what we do is manage between the two so it's um commercial space between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and then from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. it's residential space there will be some spaces here that are solely designated to residential and then some that have that commercial and then residential um I can't tell you the exact number that's going to be a little bit dependent on who the commercial tenant is and what we're finding in the market for residences y great thank you all right uh Bruce uh first of all I I like your suggestion Jesse line of questioning I think that uh it was nice to have a garden there or some kind of garden that would uh um perhaps be have many more potential uses and and and so for so I thought that I was I thought that was a very good idea um question on the EV parking little I assume that uh the the charging stations that you are talking about would be Meed to some common meter and that people would pay uh there would be some kind of charge Point type uh Arrangements they wouldn't be connected to any uh particular residential units or any of that sort is that the way is that the way these uh this uh uh regulation is is sugaring out sugaring out Jonathan do you know if the EV charging stations can be I'll call them commercial yes okay and so basically where satisfying the uh the the stretch code Type uh um current uh minimum requirement for uh EV stations EV charging stations I mean correct yeah okay more specifically though it's the it's the opt-in code that we're applying with stretch I note that the I think I noted that the existing sidewalk on University Drive is staying there and which seems like a a Lost Child for a past generation and the main uh multi-use thoroughfare that's close to the building inside the trees and so forth uh I assume that that's there simply because it's not your business to remove it it's not your sidewalk um uh but it does seem that the trees would be better off and and everything would be better off if again if that was you know to further Jesse's aspiration here to improve the uh the eliminate unnecessary impervious surface uh but do I understand correctly that that would be a matter for the town to do we couldn't ask you to do that that's that's correct that's not our property you know so let's let's note that uh it's there and it's probably uh not helping anybody and uh it would be nice if somehow or other in the fullness of time it were to be made to go away um Bruce uh on that topic you know it might be useful to see what the you know what the what the pedestrian path is from the roundabout to the 10- foot sidewalk versus the public sidewalk and whether there's any continuity there um Tom do you does your uh what you're looking for so there's an outer sidewalk that goes around the corner yeah and feeds in and then there's some connections back to the 10 foot okay so you know it could stop yeah sorry I was gonna just know there's inconsistency in the plan so um some don't show this outer sidewalk you know along the road around the roundabout and other you know so is there a way to actually keep it on the inside of the wall and not have it just you know right on the corner around the roundabout it's a good question um I think from yeah this whole this whole area it seems really odd right here if you have all this sidewalk here and is there a way I mean I'm assuming there's you're expecting a crosswalk here at some point right right right but yeah you know just extended if you extended what you just like that crosswalk just straight towards like the corner of the building and then eliminated that lip on the outside that probably does what you're saying and again we have to be a little bit sensitive of who's going to be the end user here I I don't suspect they'll mind that it leads to their front door um or it leads to right in front of their their business but I think that's certainly we can look at that as we're looking at that U patio area out there and and I think Tom there is some some kind of continuation of of what was in the the rotary design that we had kind of received Once Upon a Time um and I don't I don't know if that design has has progressed um by by others as it were okay uh a couple more I guess um the uh uh the the the the the light fixtures uh for uh of them were in the in the packet but I didn't see Pam I didn't see the lighting plan the photometric plan in the packet um so I wasn't able to um B basically put the fixtures together with where they were on the site did I just not see that plan that is in the packet the photometric plan did anybody else see the photometric plan in the packet I don't believe I received that just the cut sheets okay Tom did I miss it it should be it's it's if you go to the the Dropbox it should be 422 Amity Street SL1 rev1 alt beautiful name um yes my favorite child's name so perhaps then I'll hold my question because one of those lights had a it was the scon light had a very very tight photometric uh um it was the type T of the uh of the uh ARS T4 and as far as I could tell by looking at the cut the uh photometric pan was is basically a very sharp defined pool of light and that seemed to me rather harsh and so therefore said well where are they using this because if it's so maybe if if I can get the plan I can have a look at it and then depending presuming they will continue this hearing and uh I'll follow that question up later once I've looked at the lighting plan uh the photometric plan I think and the only other question for now which is not really a question it's a comment but I thought it might be appropriate I did take the trouble to look to some degree at the storm water management plan and calculations it's a heroic document and I think I understand uh something about what you said for the you mentioned proprietory system catch basins which I haven't heard of before but I did see them in the the plan and so the so only really only read the uh the the the the 10 pages at the beginning about the general and then skimmed the rest of it but I think I would comment that from my half hour spent looking through that document and it seems that someone is doing a very thorough job of trying to understand storm water management on this site and uh I know it'll be the Conservation Commission that'll do the heavy lifting here but we have consistently gotten public comment that we should be concerned and so I thought I would at least acknowledge that I've taken the trouble to look at it to some degree and I uh find nothing to uh uh cause concern and everything to indicate that someone's doing good job so having said that I'll said that and that's it all right hold down my hand thank you Bruce Tom a a proprietary storm water system is that going to be a maintenance headache over the life of the project when the you know the the supplier gets bought out and they change the models of everything and it it's really just a fancy way of saying oil water separator uh and the like oil Grit separ seator and water grit separator and it's just how that like the total suspended solids fall out of the water and so they don't go where the rest of the water goes and different companies have different ways of doing it it's not something where um there are all these intricate parts to it I mean I'm sure if you needed to we could find somebody to manufacture a whatever's in there but it's a really simple system it's just they've used like whether it's a like a Vortex system versus a different style system so when we say proprietary it's more of like there storm scepter as as an instance of what a a proprietary system is so no we don't think any there'll be any maintenance issues plus as part of the Conservation Commission approval there's an onm plan which includes uh annual preventative maintenance and also checking so there's both and suspenders okay hey Jesse thanks um quick comment uh someone who mostly tries to be on bike and would love to encourage cyclists I count room for maybe 30 bikes assuming this is somewhat accurate with 20 how many bets 224 bets I would love to think that more than 14% of students would have a bike so maybe you could think about increasing that to encourage more cycling yeah no it's it's a great suggestion I guess the only thing that we would say is or that I would say is um if you're a cyclist you know how expensive some bikes are and so often like if it was me I'd be bringing my bike up to my room probably every time that I would go out just so that I have it in my room uh the rooms are large enough and there's an elevator in the building so you know if we find that there's like you know I go buy some and there's just you know pick a number of bikes tied up to the to the bike we'll put in some more right I think we can be reactive and certainly um you know to the greatest extent we can like a non Transit oriented development given our proximity to the pvta bus stop here and across the street proximity to UMass proximity to Big Y CVS Etc it feels like it'd be a good project for that um I think we can look to see if we can fit them just kind of at your suggestion and then I then rely on the rest of the answer to say people are probably going to schle it up anyways the the other thing I could add is that um we haven't fully since we've changed the shape of the building we haven't fully reprogrammed the the common space um and part of the prior uh design we had a dedicated bik room um and so I while I can't tell you today where we would put that it is something that we're looking to accommodate great glad to hear it Jonathan that's what I thought Jesse was gonna ask is for covered bike storage so good um any other board comments at this point all right I'm going to ask uh the public any comments from the public on this project now's your chance to talk Pam could we bring over whoops I saw yeah could we bring over Ken [Music] Rosenthal hi Ken hello Ken need your name and your address and you have three minutes thanks Mr chairman Ken Rosen all I live at 53 Sunset Avenue in ammer and I appreciate the chance to uh comment and thank you again Mr chairman for telling us in advance who the members of the public are here you're the only chair that does that and I'm glad you do I have a technical comment and the general one the technical one Mr salvon you were talking about a row of charging stations and then you said on the other on another row you were going to be wiring but not putting the charging stations in I I think that makes sense but I would like to suggest to you you're not allowing for enough wiring because this is I hope going to be a building that's going to be with us for decades and the number of electric vehicles is only going to increase and to avoid having to dig up that parking lot and put in more wires I think I would just prepare it now for additional charging stations by putting those wiring in even though you don't put the stations in I think that would be wise in the future unless you want to leave that problem to a future owner I hope that's not what you want to do the the more general statement is what we need in ammer is housing for people who live and work here not just students who come here temporarily so I hope Barry that at least uh some of these units look really attractive to people maybe not large families but people who are AC academics who people who work at the University of Massachusetts who want to be able to walk to work those are the kinds of units we really need in this town especially on a place like University Drive so I hope that you'll you'll make them as appealing in that way as possible including if you can design some bedrooms that are are accommodating for uh couples that might have one child I know that's something you're not planning to do now but I hope you'll change your mind the other thing I hope you will do aggressively is Market these units to places other than where students are in other words get the academic building uh uh uh offices to let their new faculty and staff know that there's a place here where they can live and I know vary that you like to have tenants who stay in a unit longer than a year because it saves you the trouble and expense of having to redo and repaint when the tenants leave I know you like long-term tenants much better than short-term tenants it so I hope you will not only uh design them to the extent you can now to attract those people but also Market it that way uh I think this is going to be a very good project but I think we need to consider the needs of the town for people to be able to live where they work and that would be University mostly University people thank you very much Mr chairman for letting me speak very well Ken thank you for participating uh Pam could we bring over Janet Keller I Fred I do see your hand and we'll get to you when we're done with public comment I Janet hello Janet you there you are you're now unmuted if you could give us your name and your street address sure Janet Keller um 120 Pulpit Hill Road in um yeah so I would just like to Echo um Ken's comment about uh making this uh uh development on a very attractive Street um even more attractive to tenants that could be um expected to um a variet of tenants Beyond and above uh the students we expect um especially important as we're approaching the expected uh drop off in uh student um students at the colleges thank you all right thank you Janet uh one more let's bring over Pam Rooney wrong one sorry Bob here we are hi pam pam hello Pam it's Pam Rooney 42 Cottage Street thanks for letting me speak uh I would I would Echo the concern about the the facade of the building because that as it faces the roundabout is sort of the the The prominent uh facade of the building and and I think agree that it needs to be dressed up a bit um my other comments though and thank you for um presenting this project I understand why you have gone to a taller building uh different different configuration um and the what I was looking at is the um the open space for the use by the uh occupants of the building and it seems that the prob the likely spot would be on the south side of the building in the V where it gets a little bit more of the of the South Sun um there isn't much there it looks like again I didn't excuse me didn't see these uh site plans ahead of time but it looks like there's not much in the way of amenity in that small um casting place or pting place concrete area and presumably that is your one and only public um occupant open space it looks from comparing to the previous version that there are more parking spaces being provided I do not remember the count um what I am what I trying to understand is with the um parking layout the parking lot now extending into the 50 Foot buffer of the wetlands how are you actually remediating what I what I saw by the grading plan was that there was in fact a great deal of grading within the actual Wetland and within the 50- foot buffer um where is what is what is being considered as remediation thank you all right um Tom and team are you do you have anybody to answer that or is that more something we would be you would be prepared for at the Conservation Commission it's certainly a Conservation Commission issue but I can happily answer um the nice thing about this site is that it's already developed right it's not like we're taking an existing vacant parcel and looking to put something on there so there's already I think um uh there's already about 30,000 square feet of existing alteration in the buffer zone and what we would be doing is increasing that alteration by about 3,000 square feet and so we're we're pulling it out of know what I can do is show [Music] you this one you should be seeing um the blue represents existing conditions yep and the black line represents proposed conditions and so you'll see you know here we're closer to the wetlands at the blue here you've got a building closer to the wetlands and so we're pulling those areas back uh we may be touching a little bit more in in the buffer in other areas but on balance you know we've got pretty robust mitigation in the form of uh Wetland restoration detention Basin upgrades uh Wetland plantings pollinator plantings uh increasing right now I think it's maybe a 36 inch corrugated pipe that goes under the the existing curb cut we're increasing that size and making it a box covert so we're doing all of these different environmental approvals and part of what the Conservation Commission does as you know is they look at what your impacts are what your mitiga is to make sure that you are offsetting anything that you are doing appropriately and so that's why know we haven't gone through that process completely but they were Conservation Commission was ready to issue an order of conditions based on the previous plan and this one's even less impactful to the environment and we have more mitigation so we expect to have a a good result so this is just to put it into context for you Tom um since since Pam had asked what what what is the mitigation what are the kinds of things that this plan does that are considered mitigation like pulling back from the you know some of the extensions into the to the buffer area or the wetlands have been pulled back you've got your special proprietary storm water system um are there other things that that you could mention just sort of as a bullet list of mitigation efforts sure and so this is probably what I would say the mitigation plan and so um we've got here on the left side square footages of the different plantings associated with uh the different mitigation areas so you got your Basin bottom planting right here so this is it's something that has deteriorated over time so you you pull it up you Churn it and then you replant it and then it functions better ecologically then you've got all of your surrounding area here in the buffer where you don't have native species you've got overgrowth um and same in the back here and so what all this is going to do is it's going to be better Habitat For Animals it's going to be better water treatment for not only rainwater but also any storm water once it's clean so we have to meet the massachusett storm water standards that include um total suspended solids because in a project like this you can't put suspended solids into the resource areas so we that's where that proprietary system comes out to clean the water before it does then discharge into the wetlands so those are a couple the the number of plantings both the trees shrubs perennials and then the Wetland planting mix and then over on the Northerly side of the site so right now right where this cursor is is a catch Basin if you followed this drain line you would you could go all the way up Amity Street to the center of town um right at the intersection uh outside a Subway everything to on the the Westerly side flows down that hill and ultimately and all the side streets collect into that drain line blows here and currently uh discharges into an area that has not been maintain there's Kat a Ninetails it's full of sludge that's all going to get cleaned out we're going to put in Native rounded stones at the bottom to allow for better filtration of the water and um then like I said we are upsizing that box covert to allow better flow so that there aren't any storm water consequences Upstream if there's additional rainfall and then we're putting new Wetland plants in this area like I said we've got um pollinator habitat here and then we've got um just Upland Meadow in all of of those areas so just like couple of high levels when you talk about mitigation it's not only pulling some areas you know pulling buildings back um not encroaching as far we're doing that and then we're restoring all of this stuff will remain untouched right there's some maintenance that'll have to happen you touch it during construction you plant it and it's like a set it and forget it there's like I said some upkeeping maintenance but you're not getting in there on a on a day-to-day basis to disturb it okay all right great um I don't see any more hands from the public Fred uh yeah two things uh one is um and this may be a little controversial but um I'm not convinced that uh Apartments necessarily have to have different sized bedrooms in order to be construed as designed for families uh just from my own personal experience uh the free family that I live in I bought 53 years ago and I didn't live in it the year that I bought it uh my wife and I moved into it the next year after that so I've been living here for 52 years and at that point we did not have children we subsequently have four children and uh the uh all the bedrooms are the are roughly the same size it's a 1868 uh uh Victorian but uh so there's some differences in bedroom sizes but it's it it never even occurred to me that uh uh that there needed to be different sized bedrooms and we raised four children in roughly the same siiz bedrooms so I don't think that's necessarily uh anything that uh preludes families from moving in uh and the you know affordable is going to be the the more decisive thing there uh the other uh question I I think Tom you may have uh gotten into this in a prior but I want to just double check now and that is uh whether there's been conversations about how to transition uh the businesses in the uh particularly the insurance agency that that building's coming down at the first iteration of this there was a very clear plan they're going to build the two two buildings at different times and that made it simple and I'm just wondering whether uh there's going to be a problem with that great uh thanks for the question Fred so yeah so we we have had and are having um conversations with the tenants of 2535 University Drive um trying to get in Charter Insurance negotiating a lease right now to have them actually occupy a part of this new building they they would be one of the tenants they've expressed interest and we're having those conversations um I think the other tenant is an attorney's office and we've been talking with them about when we would have to take that building down and so the way that we are thinking about it is um this is a rather large building and so I think what Barry would be able to do is to build a portion of it and then as of let's say may of 2026 he'd get to a certain point he'd then have to take 2535 down which should work for everybody's timing and then he'd finish the rest of this building and then do the the site work associated with it um there may be a way even take down a portion of that 2535 to finish this whole building um so we are justay answer the question we were in constant communication with encharter and the attorney's office um Cheryl Nina had left to go somewhere else uh Barry occupies you know his office occupies some of the space and I think that's all that occupies that uh 2535 University Drive so we are having those conversations to make sure that they're not inappropriately displaced uh could I chime in a little bit on the um the kind of bedroom size size piece on if we could bring back up the the first FL plan while a lot of the bedrooms are the same there there is actually some variance in some units um in fact you can see one of them right there on the first floor there's a um a two bedroom unit um right near your cursor there there's a couple of them that that for example have a larger bedroom with an on Suite um bathroom so they the the the layouts are not uniform there is variety is true the the larger four bedroom units uh tend to have very similar size bedrooms um but we we are trying to make a diversity of um M types to attract a diversity of of folks to the building great thank you [Music] Jonathan all right Nate sure yeah thanks Doug I just want to ask about you know the outdoor space again and then access to the roof decks and if it's really just the two ends of the building or if there any other upper story outdoor space um and then you know say for the outdoor deck space you know is there looks like on the south part it's open to anyone but then it also AB buts a unit so I don't know about privacy concerns or separating that and then I think the um Courtyard space in the back is nice but it would actually get pretty hot so I don't know if there's ideas about shade structures or actually making it usable uh you know whether there's a portico or some other elements there and seating I think that would actually could be a nice space right now but it it looks you know pretty bare um and so there could be some improvements there in terms of making it more usable I'll respond I'll say a good suggestion in that that back space let us think about that a little bit um I don't know that the Oro I I know exact I kind of see it in my mind's eye what you're talking about so let us explore that a little bit more and then as far as that uh we'll call it rooftop space you know I think if there's going to be areas designated for a unit and then either two units are splitting it or it's unit and then open to to other folks we'd put a fence in between that open and that which is uh just designated for a unit so that there's no privacy concerns there sure thanks just follow the upper unit on the corner doesn't have access to that roof deck on the corner do they is is it really only the two ends of the building the treatment in the you know the graphically it looks the same so on the on the floor plan so it's just hard to say you're saying this on this end mate and then in the corner facing the roundabout like is that actually oh up here yes it should be Jonathan right I'm babbling away muted um the one in the corner that's has a dedicated uh deck space for that that unit um and then down at the other end I we have to come up with some notion about how we want to divide these and we really haven't had a chance to program them with with Tom and Berry um you know so there may have to be a fence divider there or maybe that one is just you know the one on the south side is just a public amenity for the residents um and then the one on the west is split between the two units There's an opportunity to do some small decks um off some of those other ones you know in those other little areas um but we we we need to kind of balance that with the honestly with the amount of glazing that that we're going to be allowed uh uh as part of the passive house process I've had to kind of prune back some of the glazing um and so not all of those will necessarily be decks or or maybe they will but they'll be you know maybe fewer access points to them sure yeah thanks I do think the southern one the community room you know that my only you know question would be then how does that other unit have privacy if it's you know if it is all open to the I think we'd have to put a fence there I don't see any other way because otherwise I mean unless there's no windows on this wall and even still people could be outside I think the best way to do it is probably just to put a fence between the the two right there yeah could be an ill-shaped fence okay um is there any provision for solar at all solar panels is there anywhere to put them I don't yes clear so we have to reserve 40% of the roof area um to be soore ready in the future um and that'll mostly be at the at the most at at the the roof above the fifth floor okay all right um Nate uh do do we need to continue this meeting in order to get a little more information from the concom process or could we vote and accept this tonight no I'd recommend continuing it the Conservation Commission will probably pick it up in February it is going back to the zba near the end of February for the variance and so right now there really is no variance for this project and so although it's a modification of what was previously approved the variance is tied to the building plan or you know the site plan that was a part of it and so that's changed and so you know staff hasn't had time to you know look at this and write a development application report although it is similar to what was proposed we'd want to wait to hear from fire and public works and so you know I would continue it to um probably the second meeting in February AR and then you know at that time it may not have gone to the zba but I think concom maybe at least and either way staff will have a better sense of where it's going um all right Tom any objection to continuing to February I think it's probably the hand we're being dealt all I can ask is that if if we were continued to February and it's the second meeting um I don't know if the first meeting is better even I know we know we have these Loose Ends um even if your approval is contingent upon receiving those other approvals just because I'm I I start to get worried about a time crunch if we were to come in February and you'd say sure we can approve it that night assuming we take care you know assuming zba either is fine with it or we condition on it and concom is fine with what we're doing which again I suspect they will be and we've dealt with the treatment of the corner roundabout the materials and all of that stuff that the board would be comfortable to approve it that night then I'd say fine second February meeting I just I don't want to tell you what to do but we're starting to get crunched for time as you can probably feel well um you know it seems like there were a few documents that we did not receive as part of the package that maybe you uploaded and just didn't get distributed um you know the the landscape I'm not sure I received the landscape plan I don't see it um Bruce is that that you did see it okay so maybe I just didn't receive it um maybe it's just the lighting plan uh yeah but uh you know I I would C it doesn't seem like we've gotten very much comment tonight you know in terms of objection to what you're doing you know we've kind of picked around the edges at this and that it's mostly to educate ourselves so I think we probably could approve this at the next time we see it um I'm not going to promise that but I I think you know that's kind of how I see where we're at so um I think that would be I I'd like to accept Nate's recommendation and um Pam what's the what's the date of our second meeting in March or in in February that's February 19th February 19th okay and we can do 6:35 all right all right um so board members um unless anybody wants to make any additional comments I think uh we would uh Bruce are you are you hoping to make the motion yep all right motion go I think you need to go ahead and do that then move the continuation of the hearing to uh February 19th at 635 amm thank you second that all right all right uh any additional conversation from the board all right we'll go through it starting with you Bruce I approve and Fred Fred I unmute myself I thank you Lawrence I thank you Jesse hi I'm and I as well five and favor to whoops no Johanna is here this one thanks I'm an i all right six in favor one absent uh the motion C passes we will see you for this project on February 19th thank you very much thanks very much Tom and Barry thank you see you then all right good night all right the time is 803 on the clock that I'm looking at why don't we take a five minute break and we'll come back and continue with our next hearing hey Pam as promised I I think I'm hitting my wall here okay I'm gonna I will say you left at 803 a sorry no I'm so sorry I I um this has been a rough one so uh was trying to stick around as long as I could but at least wanted to make make it through the first presentation so all right lence I'll let everybody know all right good luck feel better thank you bye bye e e e for e e e e all right looks like we are reassembling Mr Marshall Mr clutz um actually so they left the meeting okay okay at 8:03 okay all right looks like we still need Nate well Pam you know Nate doesn't need to hear the intro that I have to read okay maybe we should just go ahead here there he is sorry I was trying to need a quick dinner I was going to um maybe recommend having the adjust the order I know there may be people here for the construction Logistics plan for Fort River and I don't they don't need to waight okay there's definitely two okay um Nate would you be presenting that no uh Bob parent and I think jar Smith are here for that okay well that's fine with me so why don't we go ahead and bring Bob over and I'll read that all right Pam all right with you if I go ahead and start reading okay yes all right time is 811 and we're going to resume our meeting now we're gonna change the order of uh the agenda a little bit we're going to go to the old business item number one SP are 202 24-4 and SP 202 24-3 town of ammer at 70 Southeast Street review and make recommendations on construction Logistics plans submitted in accordance with condition number 28 of the site plan review decision for the Fort River School site plan review was approved under section 3.30 of the 3.33 of the zoning by law to construct a three-story 10 15,750 ft Elementary School building with Associated site improvements including parking and athletic fields uh map 15a parcel 47 in the v in the RVC and FPC zoning districts welcome Bob thanks for coming back good evening um actually I'm not planning to make much of the presentation we have Jared Smith okay from our contractor CTA construction who construction managers um who's put the logistics plan together uh we also have a project architect on hand if necessary if there's any questions that might come up so uh Pam I believe you yeah Jared was brought over I brought over Jared I don't I don't see um Mr Cooper or Mr rice here okay that's fine they we were thinking we might not be on till 8:30 so they may be joining us a little bit late but I they're really here just in case so I think Jared is the key guy so I'd suggest we start with him all right uh Jared we we we don't see an image uh can you let us know that you're there I I am here yeah my uh my camera is not uh cooperating uh but I can certainly share my screen if you would like me to bring up the plan or Well yeah if you if you want to bring it up uh to walk us through that would be great all right you do you see my my screen yes we do okay so we plan to utilize the U the existing I guess call it the pre- enabling construction entrance as our our primary means of um entering and exiting the uh construction site um as you pull in the site we'll have a you know there's the existing construction fence that's there which we um int intend to maintain for um you know the duration of the uh the project um as you pull in you'll see you know this the approximate location of our um construction field offices we'll have two two offices one for CTA and one for the um uh the owners uh site rep and um you know we'll have some designate parking right in front there for um kind of you know uh architect Engineers uh people that that aren't there on kind of a a daily uh uh basis but you know we'll be there for uh for various meetings and so forth um you know we'll have some some ground storage trailer for some of cta's uh miscellaneous uh you know tools and and and so forth um up in the I guess called the North West corner of the uh the site this is where we plan to um utilize this area for um a majority of our um subcontractor parking for the project you know there may be some points in time where we may have to have people people parking in some other areas on site temporarily uh depending on what's going going on but you know that'll kind of have to uh change you know as as as the job progresses um uper up in the uh on the right hand side of the page which is the east side is kind of where we're anticipating the Mason kind of staging a lot of his um you know his brick and so forth kind of kind of out of the way he'll have a a decent amount of material but um there'll be you know deliveries that that come for him through various parts the uh the project um on the North corner of the site we have uh you we intend to use this for some uh contractor storage boxes just to secure materials um and a couple of them may just set up some some field offices but they're you know storage boxes that that also serve as a as a field office um up in the uh the north corner or the I guess call it the North Center of the site we plan to utilize this for our concrete wash outing area the trucks would pull up wash wash out here uh and then um go back out of out of the site want to keep that kind of up up and out of the way of any um uh sight perimeter area I will most likely have some uh additional temp toilets set up in this uh General vicinity um uh just you know they don't have to end up getting moved as as much um we have multiple areas throughout the building where we're going to probably have some some dumpsters uh and will'll keep some areas accessible so um debris can be taken out of the building uh relatively easily and and again you know some of these might might end up moving to some different locations around the building depending on um some of the other site activities around uh the building itself um let's see here um so we also um I think here we intend to kind of put our our temporary electrical service panel once we get temp electric uh into the site over over near our trailers and then we'll we'll run that into the uh into the building um uh we we may end up utilizing some of this area along the existing driveway as uh some overflow parking for contractors uh but that's going to kind of only be on a u an as needed basis uh depending on you know if we're erecting Steel in this corner of the site we may have to keep people away from you know the you know this area temporarily until the steel goes up and then we can kind of resume some of this you know parking some of this area here um let's see what else we have currently there's an existing gate that's that's between the um the existing School driveway and um the northwest corner of our current work area that we intend to to keep locked and shut at all times however um we are going to keep the gate there in the event that we did need to use it for um you know emergency U access uh but that's you know should shouldn't really need to be uh utilized at any point in time hopefully um our construction timeline um we're looking to mobilize for Phase 1 C uh hopefully next week with the soft mobilization we've been going through some of the permitting with the various uh Town departments including conservation um we're starting to uh going to be doing some site layout um and establishing um controls out there uh tomorrow uh we have our our Wetlands um consultant going out to do an inspection of the existing erosion controls uh as requested by uh con cons a department they'll report back to them and we're looking at scheduling our um conservation preconstruction uh site meeting on U Monday with um conservation department and um our site contractor and a couple other subcontractors in terms of uh you know traffic U you know again this is going to be our primary uh entrance into the site we're going to have you know a sign you know it's a it's a construction entrance no unauthorized vehicles are allowed to enter here so that'll be you know prominent so so people see that um and then up at the school's existing current um driveway we're going to put some additional signage just indicating that it is uh not a construction entrance um just to prevent anybody from you know coming down down this way anticipate be able to get into the site they they shouldn't but um you know we're going to put these signs up and you know we distribute the logistics plan to all the subcontractors um it's part of our you know U welcome package when when we send out contracts so the message will be uh conveyed to all the subcontractors that uh you know there's a specific way that you have to enter the site and you know it's an existing school and so forth so um in terms of um you know some additional uh Logistics clarifications uh we talked about the parking um you know we're going to be able to accommodate probably at least 40 40 vehicles in the northwest corner of the site um it's it's it's believed that a number of our our larger subcontractors such as the you know the Mason and and the and the framers and drywall contractors um most of them will will travel you know with you know a van you know have two or three vans with 10 guys in them each so that'll help reduce the uh the need for on-site parking um which you know we encourage whenever uh whenever possible um uh deliveries of the site will be scheduled to be outside of the school pick up and drop off hours to the greatest extent possible there may be some times if we have a large concrete for where you know concrete needs to come in every you know trucks will be coming in every 20 minutes every half hour uh but again we're going to coordinate that closely with the um with the school and the owners on-site rep and um but again that should be fairly limited and chance are by time we get to some of those larger fls will probably be closer when school is um is out for the year uh but but again you know we're just cognizant that it is a uh an active school and um it it's something is a company that we we deal with all the time being uh a company that builds primarily uh schools um subcontractors will schedule their deliveries with CTA in advance and the logistics plan and delivery will be provided subcontractors to assist in the coordination scheduling of the deliveries uh trucks will not need to wait on the road prior to pulling in the site so the intent is to have you know deliveries come in they're not going to wait and idle on the road they're going to pull in you know in through here you know wait and and be directed as to where where on site they need to go to make their um their drop off depending on who they're uh delivering for but the intent is to not have anybody sitting on um on on the road out here uh all all materials are anticipated to be stored on site so you know we're not anticipating having to store anything outside of our limit of work so you know stuff will be delivered as as needed or as close to as needed you know again we'll be able to utilize some of these these storage boxes and and once you know the building starts going up um you know a lot of material will just go right into the site and be stored inside the building building until it's uh time to be installed um and uh CTA and our our our field staff will coordinate with the clerk of the works U the own project rep and the uh school regarding uh noisy activities um you know again you know once we get you know we get into the drilling you know probably anticipating that being um you know closer to the tail end of the um of the school year but even that acity isn't um isn't Extremely Loud it's not it's not as bad as one might um imagine but you know we'll we'll make sure we're letting them know you know what's up and coming and uh we've already been having conversations with them about you know you know we're doing X you know and they'll say okay we have testing on on these dates and we'll try to work with the with the school as best as possible to to minimize any um any impact act um dust will be managed and mitigated um as outlined in the project specifications but you know in this in the summer months you know the the site contractor will have water trucks um you know just driving around hosing down um any areas um and then uh they'll also have a street sweeper on site you know in the event that you know anything will you know get tracked onto this part of the driveway prior you know but the intent is to maintain this maintain the existing tracking pad uh and make sure that we're not tracking anything into the uh into the roadway um there qu questions thank you board members any questions about Mr Smith's plan hands I don't see any hands seems very thorough to me thank you Bruce uh Bob any any comments you want to make or you have nothing to add no I think J Jared's done a very good job in a short amount of time putting it all together so yeah okay I think he covered it well yeah all right and this this uh you know the plan somewhat going to be somewhat fluid and we'll make adjustments as we go but you know we're you know we meet weekly with the U the project team in the town know okay this is what's upcoming here's our three-week look look ahead schedule and you know we'll make sure that we're keeping everybody um informed and we're make going to make sure that you know we're coordinating and communicating through the OPM with the school in terms of um you know what what they might need from us I guess I'll ask you one question which is why is the wash off area so far from the exit seems like if if you wash off you might pick up some dirt on your way out after you it's not for washing off the the wheels of the truck it's for washing out the the concrete so after the concrete trucks oh um place the concrete um they have to wash out their truck and typically they end up having a you know a lot you know a decent amount of um water and concrete slurry that you know we have them wash out into a line dumpster uh so that it doesn't you know get get spilled onto the ground um so they'll wash out there and then and then turn around and pull off site um we' wanted to kind of keep it away from you know other areas where there's going to be a lot of um you know you know vehicles coming in in and out constantly you know if we put it in here it's just going to block access into the site we don't want to put it down here because you're you know you're closer to the wetlands and to the river and so forth so this was kind of the most in our mind the most logical place to put this so is there a TR a truck wash off area or or there is a you're relying on the mat there's a there's a a tracking pad that is that is here um currently you know in the winter we can't we can't do a a wash off area for for Wheels but um just because you know too cold U plus the ground's pretty well Frozen through here but um you know if if needed we can you know hook up uh to to um one of the hydrants and uh you know we have a we have a meter that we got from the town and um you know we'll we'll have to manage uh cleaning wheels and and so forth to make sure you know we're not not tracking anything offs site okay yeah that would probably be my main [Music] concern okay um I saw a hand briefly and then it went down so I guess I should assume there aren't any other questions right now [Music] um I guess Jared thank you for coming Bob thanks for coming uh Nate do we need to formally accept this or or have we satisfied the condition of the of the approval earlier yeah the condition doesn't necessarily say that it needs approval I think this was just for review by the planning board and then if there are any recommendations or suggestions they would be forwarded to the Building Commissioner so you know right now the inspection services is at a point where they could issue a building permit to get work started and they're trying to keep the you know the end deadline the the you know the end of the contract period the same even though the starting point has been pushed back and so you know if there was any questions or recommendations it can always be sent to the Building Commissioner through staff uh if there's not any now then this can move forward and like Jared said you know the Building Commissioner and staff in the town will work closely with the contractor so if for instance Doug in the spring it seems like you know the tracking pad isn't as effective you know we can they can you know then talk about having a you know some wash out there for tires or something so I think it you know there's a you know there's a long construction period over the seasons and you the Building Commissioner is pretty comfortable if this you know this is the starting point and if it needs to be adjusted it can be adjusted and respond to any any issues that may come up okay all right sounds good then thank you very much yeah and we we we appreciate the uh the opportunity for the for the project and we're looking forward to uh work working together with the town so all right we're excited so thank thank you very much for everybody's time thank you thank you okay all right time is 8:31 and we'll go back to our regular published order of our agenda for tonight let's see the next item was the second of our public hearings in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 40a this public hearing has been duy advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is been held is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding University Drive overlay District continued from October 30th November 20th December 4th and December 18th all of last year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting the University Drive overlay District as article 17 and amending the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District the overlay District would include properties on the east and west sides of University Drive between Northampton Road and AMD Street and establishes its own requirements for mixed use buildings including dimensional standards standard and conditions and design guidelines is there are there any board disclosures for this evening's conversation I do not see anybody raising their hand um Nate uh do you want to make the uh initial presentation or walk us through this yeah sure thanks everyone uh Nate Malloy just in case there's other members of the public the Community Resources committee met um last I think it was just last week on review this and so um there are some changes made and so there's an updated document that was sent with a date of January 14th there are some additional comments provided uh you know um there were from Individual members it wasn't necessarily a consensus of the CRC but just so we could talk about those uh you know my hope is that actually the planning board if we have time tonight could get to a recommendation point or at the next meeting um you know I think some of the changes that are I'll go through tonight are are just to see you know in response to some of the CRC comments and other comments and I'm not necess you know not sure we're not necessarily recommending them you know um there's different ways to phrase things and I think those could be looked at uh and I guess I'll start with sharing my screen and going through the document if that's visible for everyone I'll make it a little bigger yep the uh so one thing we hadn't done and we asked our uh Town attorney about this and they didn't think they think it is within the scope of this article is in article two we Define zoning districts and so we hadn't before included um a discussion about what what it would say in article two and so what we're recommending is you know adding what's in bold here University Drive overlay District um you know the University Drive overlay district is an overlay District intended to encourage economic IC development and expand Housing Opportunity including housing for undergraduate students by allowing mix use buildings in an area that is currently Zone limited business and Office Park along the east and west sides of University Drive between Northampton Road and amid Street and so it's a a descriptor of the district uh and so it's actually a little bit more uh it has a little bit more description than some of the other statements sometimes it's only one line or two lines in article two but we think this is a a good way to describe it in terms of changes you know we we we were calling this University Drive overlay District there's some discussion about would we say it's a mixed use over University Drive overlay District um so my recommendation is not to have mixed use in the title it's just it's an overlay District that you know in the for instance in the future we might want it to allow something else we typically don't get that specific in terms of the definition of a of an over District so mixed use is one use category in the bylaw but that was something that was discussed at CRC and I'm I'm not sure it's confusing that if it doesn't say it we Define it more in the next section but that's a change uh you know our bylaw has different titles for subsection so we had this considered a general or it could be called applicability I think there's different um you know like I said a different structure in our bylaw but but what has been added is you know in track changes to clarify the overlay District should apply only to mixed use buildings um that way it's just pretty clear and then uh therefore the standards and conditions in section 3.32 five of the zoning bylaw do not apply on the overlay district and any mixed use building proposed in the overlay District shall be permitted using the mixed use overlay district and so that clarifies that if a property is in the overlay District someone couldn't opt to use the base owning or opt to use the overlay they would use the overlay we don't I'm not sure anyone would actually want to use the the base zing in The Limited business you have the additional lot area for family and other standards and conditions that would really limit the size of a mix use building and and and possibly its placement uh so those are the changes at the you know right now I can you know take questions or comments as I come Doug yeah I mean Bruce has got his hand up um and and you've had a couple of instances where you you know you you're showing a revision but it doesn't sound like you're really convinced you want to do that do you want us to comment as you go through as you as you talk about each one or come back and go through it you can go through it I think what I just read in this paragraph here is you know is helpful you know in terms of the def the you know the title changes to me it's um I'm not sure those first two I don't see the need for them if you know if somebody else doesn't we don't really need mixed use in the article 17 title and we don't really need I mean I think General is just as good as applicability or even better Bruce you've got a comment I agree with both of those I was only raising my hand to say that if you did put article 17 mixed use as the title you would should do it also in the section two or article two above and and and it looked like if we were to carry with mixed use that there might be a There's an opportunity for an inconsistency there so if while you've got mixed use uh here you should also have it um above or have it like you have now I would go for the way you have it now that's it okay thank you Bruce what about you Jesse uh I agree with those points but mostly I was going to just clarify Nate you've made changes based on the CRC conversation or or we're then going to look at the comments that were sent and discuss those as well both so I think during the CRC hearing you know say the changes that are made in this paragraph um are a result of some of that conversation just to help clarify you know what you know what how the M mix use District applies to the mixed use buildings right how the overlay District applies only to mix use buildings and so um the comments that we received after we can go through after you know if we want to pull them in now I was going to just walk through the changes and so the last time the planning board talked about this uh staff had already had talked about how we would change the BW but you actually didn't see those revisions so we just we we talked through them and so um you know I can try to discern which ones were from a result of the most recent CRC meeting and which ones were ones we talked about previously and so um but I think the changes here are you know I agree I think this is you know not necessary I think the ones in this paragraph are actually great clarifications and help you know so if someone comes in the future they're not saying well I want to do a mixed use building using the BL zoning we'll say actually you can't um and then you know if someone wants to put an apartment building in the overlay will say well you have to use the base zoning because the overlay only applies to mix these buildings and so I think you know that clarification helps um for purpose we just say it is in close proximity to the University of Massachusetts I think as opposed to adjacent a clarification that this area you know isn't um you so jent um we changed this provision right here about waving or modifying dimensional standards and we just say as um provided below and so essentially we we have this statement for two reasons one typically in our dimensional table we have footnotes or ways in our bylaw to modify standards uh in the overlay we really don't except for in one instance with lot and building coverage and so um so this will guide you you know this this allows you know if we have we if you want to wave it it's however it is described specifically in the overlay in these next sections and it really applies to right here to this lot coverage um because someone could develop a property using the overlay and not using the overlay so there could be an existing building apartment building or office building and then they have enough of a property size that they want to put a mix these building uh there you know what we're saying here is that the maximum lot and building coverages shall be determined by the permit granting Authority anytime a mixed use building is located on the same lot with another building with a different principal use however in no case shall the total building or lot coverage exceed the amount listed here so if for instance it's a pretty big property they have an office building in one corner they want to put a mix small mix use building in the other corner of the property and they proposed to have all this Paving between the buildings it can't exceed 85% at the same time the planning board or the permit gring Authority could say well we don't think you need to be at 85% that's a lot of surface parking we want you at 80% uh and so this is really the only you know somewhat discretionary piece here is when there's kind of multiple principal uses on a property however there is still a limit 60 and 85 uh there was discussions about what is you know is that you know what you know why the maximum building and lock coverage I will say that in the BL the lock coverage is 85% so we're still at 85% The Office Park is 70% where the overlay is you know um allows for more development is we have 60% building coverage whereas the other Zone districts don't and so essentially like in in the office Park we say you can only have 20% building coverage but 20% or 70 and 20% building coverage and 70% lock coverage so what that tells me is we're saying have a building and then put a lot of surface parking but in the overlay we're saying you can have a big big building up to a big building and then limited parking or you still could have a small building 60 is the max and still have a fair amount of parking but you know we're allowing that flexibility in the overlay so you know we think that this provision will allow someone to like I said develop it using the overlay and not using the overlay if they want to have you know an R&D Building and a mix use building okay we made the setbacks consistent on Northampton Road it was 25 we reduced it to 20 given where the property line and the RightWay are on the properties it's also consistent with AMD Street uh this is a new one we had discussed but it hadn't been provided when the side or rear yard a buts of residential use in a residential district there shall be a minimum 30 foot buffer measured from the property line that is vegetated and has a perious surface and shall not be used for dumpsters mechanical equipment driveways parking delivery access or other activities that support the mixed use building and so you know this this was actually generated uh in discussions with say Charles Lane and the property behind it so right now the park lot and the payment basically goes to the property line and you know there's a dumpster and you know whatever uh that can remain if they're if they're however if they're putting a mix use building uh on the property and they want to they need to put a 30 they need to put a 30 foot buffer now between um you know if that is going to serve the mix use building between the property line and you know what's happening uh and so you know there's discussions about is this you know too much you know we don't require NE we don't necessarily require this when there's other mixed use buildings we do require additional setbacks in our bof for instance when the office in an office Park zoning or PRP zoning but a residential district we actually have a 50 foot um side or rear setback um it doesn't necessarily prescribe that it be vegetated and cannot be used for certain things um so you know staff's idea is that this is a provision we'd want given uh you know we're allowing a lot of you know Flex ility and height in the overlay and really want to encourage development along the street so this is saying you know what if and it only applies in a few instances so it's a residential use in a residential district so it's not for every residential property it's only if there's a residential use um and so we think this buffer is a good idea to help you know help limit some impacts from having you know Redevelopment close to a neighborhood um it could apply Nate if you're thinking of Charles Lane as the sort of the rationale for this everybody you know who AB buts this these these properties along Charles Lane is already accustomed to having you know the drive and the dumpsters and everything pretty close to the property line so I guess I'm I'm not sure why we would need to make that change uh if you know just because somebody might put a mixed use building on the property um Jesse do you have a comment about something like this yes yes this section exactly because I was reading and rereading the comment from I guess from CRC and I a little confused by what point was being made there and my memory of why partly why this happened was because yes Doug I agree that those of Butters are currently used to that but potential for a five story building instead of what's there now was I think the part of the motivation to give a little more buffer because it would could be a pretty dramatic difference and not so yeah well we've already we've also I think later we've we've probably reduced the height any you know like 150 feet with from the property line to three stories so I don't know I mean it just seems like that's a good point you know we we're already way cutting back on the massing so so you know doing this for the surface seems kind of negligible uh Bruce what do you think um I I kind of agree with you uh it seems uh unnecessary to go this I've read I assume it's Mandy Joe because a lot of these comments seem to be individual comments and uh and and and the comments uh that we received from the CRC and I I was parenthetically I was kind of confused as to how we should take these because if they're individual views they presumably don't or we can't assume they represent the views of the CRC and if they don't then we don't know whether there's anything to be gained by uh uh embracing them because it doesn't necessarily mean we could get a consensus between the two organ the two bodies but but that aside I um I see think uh that uh with with the reduction to three stories and so forth it does seem as though these uh these brothers are used to this kind of behavior however Nate did say in his piece that uh to the extent that this is uh um part of what would push development or Redevelopment I should say toward the front which is what we want um then I kind of understand there's a an ulterior motive which actually does further the goals and objectives that we've had so um very whereas I I agree with what both you and Jesse have said I also understand that it might have the effect of achieving another objective that we have which is strengthening the street Frontage because a lot of these Parcels this is one of them and of course Big Y is the other solid exam example really have huge parking areas in front of them and buildings behind and we really would like to reverse that so quickly yeah while you're talking about you know I I drew 30 feet here off the property line and then you know line here so what we're saying is if a you know mixes building were to occur that this area can't be used to support the mixes building with you know a drive a or dumpsters or things like that um you know some of that is in the overlay we have a pretty small setback uh we could just change it to have a different setback we could say a 20 foot rear setback and you know not prescribed the vegetation or screening or what it can't be and then to the point about reducing height what we're saying is if a mix use building is it within 150 feet so here's 150 feet it can only be three stories and so you still can put a mix building pretty close here but it would have to be three stories you get to five stories when you're outside the 150 feet or you know six stories or whatever it is and so you know this property here on the corner would only be able to have a three-story building it was asked you know does this reduce the number of units that staff had thought about in the overlay and I'll say AB it doesn't because when we considered a a rough buildout I didn't I consider these buildings as remaining and not even consider those as being redeveloped and so when you know we were estimating that there could be you know a thousand beds or however many beds 1,200 beds in so many projects it was a Redevelopment of say the front of this or some modification but not really coming back here with a a mix building and keeping the surface parking here here um so yeah I mean I think the that buffer is something that was discussed there hasn't been a conclusion by the CRC I think Bruce right so some of those comments that were um provided yesterday or today haven't been agreed upon by the CRC staff has looked at them and I think there's um you know some of the points can be uh could be incorporated and so one would be I'll go back to our my um Word document is um if you like this idea of a buffer the word vegetated is you know seems to describe something as opposed to we could say a landscape buffer um or something if if if the planning board likes this language so this is something we talked about and now you're seeing what it looks like and so you know this is a point that can be you know talked about a bit more Chris oh I'm got my hand up uh I hadn't intended but uh I think vegetated is okay I can see that Mandy Joe I presum it's her said that maybe it could all be stoned and everything and I think that doesn't or Zer escaped I I don't think vegetated necessarily means it has to be well watered it could be uh some kind of meadow and so forth um it could be vegetated it could be landscaped I don't really care could be one or the other all right yeah I I agree it could be landscaped doesn't make much difference I also think with the 150t three story we could reduce or eliminate the 30 foot buffer also as you point out Doug I don't think we need both yeah um I see Pam Rooney's hand why don't I bring her over Pam field Sadler can you bring over Pam Rooney hi Pam hi Pam hi Pam tamon 42 Cottage Street are you speaking as a citizen or as a counselor um I'm actually well I guess I'm speaking as a um as member of the CRC who had this discussion and I I just wanted to double check when I looked at the measurement lines that Nate just showed you my understanding had been that the 150 ft was actually from the nearest residential structure not from the property line and so his the area of the area of three foot excuse me three story limitations is actually much smaller than than what he was showing you in the diagram okay thanks for that clarification anything else you wanted to say at this point uh it just that it that it felt very important to have some sort of buffer um especially if it were to go to a mixed use building as Nate said as it currently stands today it stands and people are used to that but it's also a one and one and a half and twostory building if it went to anything taller than that having a setback an actual setback from the property line seemed to be important to some of the members of the CRC okay thank you all right could we see the map again Nate with sorry yeah I thanks Pam for that clarification I I would say that you know if we wanted to we could reward this and say that there you know that the side of rear setback when it abuts a residential use in a residential district shall be a minimum of 20 feet in provide screening and then that could that's it right and so you'd still have an increased setback uh it be more than what's there now between uh that building uh and then we we could erase this other stuff and saying what It Isn't So you basically are saying you have a 20 foot setback and there needs to be some screening um you know and we're not saying that the whole setback then has to be screening but we're saying there has to be some screening to the adjacent property you mean a setback of 20 feet to the building or to anything yeah well right now we're saying that the side of rear setback is 10 feet so if they really wanted to they could put a mix building 10 feet from that property line I see and so I do think that we need to have an additional setback there yeah I mean adjacent so something like adjacent to a residential property the setback would be 20 feet or 30 feet I mean right now if we go back let me share my screen it's about 30 feet to the building so you know do we want to bring a building closer it's a pretty big property um so yeah here's the 30 foot Mark so the building is a little further than that and right 150 ft from the residential from the unit not the property line so then 150 ft is you know in this location um you know so if someone put a mix use building you know 30 feet off the property line then a mix use building here would be three stories yeah and you know it'd be three stories here and then three stories up this could only be three stories and you know I think given the the way the site is you know the orientation and solar and everything it does reduce Shadows if we actually allow a six story building to be here then you know this would there's a lot of shade here you know if this was a different orientation for instance I don't think we necessarily need that 150 feet in that three floors but given you know how the directionality of all this then I I think it makes sense right all right uh Bruce and then [Music] Jesse um I was just saying you s to support the 30 ft and I think I'll hold on my comment about the 150 ft until we get to it is it further in yes yes I'll I'll hold that because I got a comment on that as well okay so one vote in favor of 30 feet Jesse and sorry Jess yeah thanks with with this clarification I think 30 feet is fine uh not to be too nitpicky but that one property where you did not draw the line n would that little shed apply or how how is the structure defined so the one right in the middle um uh I don't how describe it so the you mean the 150 feet or the yeah because there is that little structure way at the back of that one property we say a budding it's a residential um dwelling okay so that wouldn't count yeah okay so I guess I'm not clear what's happening with this I think I think we said there needed that that we'd be okay with a is it just is it just a setback and not necessar of Fe right yeah I mean you're going to need 20 feet just for the fire department so you're thinking let me just do this it could be this and we get rid of all of this yeah and it you know it's not prescribing any screening or anything although that again that could happen through the permitting that there you know the planning board could say we want some screening behind this building whether it be fencing or plantings yeah I mean does that seem fine for every I mean we don't have the full board at the moment but uh it seems fine to have several of us I think letting the uh the the perm graning agency weigh in on screening which typically is done without uh uh um it's it comes as part of the findings and so forth I would say I think because it's going to I mean we have the advantage here that we have essentially simply Charles lane and then we we are going to we're we're being uh I think led to think that we can actually be quite specific because it's such a limited specific area where we're talking about but I think we should pretend that this is a little more generalized and and and the uh and let the perm gring agent say figure out what kind of screenings and and and uh uh and so forth is might need to be in a setback or a longer setback yeah this might also apply to some properties on route nine so you know there's a some residential uses near the C Dickinson properties down on route nine where this may also apply right I think letting these other things happen in there I I think is principally fine that's not really the big problem here shading and other things are I'll keep moving down then we changed it to 70 feet you know 65 to 70 I think that that was seen before here's this other provision so any mix use building with an exterior wall within 150 feet of an abing residential dwelling on a lot in a residential district shall not exceed 37 feet or three floors and so again it's the whole building it's not like they can get outside this 150 feet and then step the building up you know if we go back to the map it's like if you're within if you want to get to that setback and you're within 150 fet that building has to be limited to three floors um you know the whole building um is it the entire building or just the portion of the building within 150 feet no it's the whole building so that that was a question that was asked so if we go back here right you're asking like if the building was put here and then it goes outside the 150 could the C outside the 150 bumped up and the way that's written it's not it seems kind of odd like you know I guess we could say that it just seems like you know really we want the development to be here do we really want someone to put a building here come out 40 feet and then the other 40 feet become six stories I mean I guess if you want I guess if we want to say that we could but that's not how it's written well I you know I just uh I'm always worried about the cost of elevators and uh you know I mean why would I want to have to make a small three-story building when I could you know include it with a taller building and then the same elevator can do the do you know all all of the floors um it's really the massing that we're worried about right not the the massing within proximity to a residential dwelling and so right we could say that P of a mixed use building you know or something that qualifies yeah I think I think that that to me would be more uh logical I guess I'd say it it's it's it's controlling what we actually want to control well and I mean and now I'm I think um let's see I have to take out the exterior wall language there yeah I think that's right that portion of a mixed use building within within 150 ft of a residential dwelling shall only be y yada yeah sorry I hadn't gotten that far and so when we say in a budding residential dwelling you know it really is you know say so it doesn't cross route nine that's not that that's not considered a budding uh in zoning uh terms that's really you know if it's you know touches property so across streets doesn't count uh it's really properties are touching all right so so given that you know usually the first floor is taller than the upper floors is 37 Feet adequate to you know if your first floor is let's say 18 feet and then you've got two floors at 11 then you're at 40 feet so I wonder whether we'd be better off just bumping that up a little more than half you know a littleit more oh you know what I mean Bruce um yes but it seems to me that uh that the 10ft floor to floors is what I understand if I were doing it I would do nine if I could because you don't want to add height where you don't need it um but 10 foot is seems to be a um a pretty generous floor to floor allowance for residential um and it wouldn't apply to the Upper Floor because uh you know it's not load very and so forth so so I think 20 that's 20 and then you've got 17 for the for the first floor it seems 37 seems fine but I think it's a a very good question to have asked Doug so that we actually look at 40 is way too much well I will say we don't allow exceptions though so you know if they don't have to go to 40 right that's the m so if you're right they're going to be driven to make it as as as low as possible because gratuitous height is is to gr to is this expense right I mean we don't right we don't unlike say what happens elsewhere in the BW or Zing districts you know we don't we don't allow a waiver or um any changes so if we said 37 and then they well say we needed 37 and a half they're they just they couldn't get there okay I don't know we could change this to 39 I don't know whatever I think okay well I guess it's something worth thinking about um we uh you know mix use build is a defined term we haven't been great in our BW about capitalizing defined terms and so you know whenever we can now we will okay so one question um go back to your um your your Google map of that parcel along University Drive in that area in that at this little Mall yeah there's this Swale that looks like it's a wet land right and and basically precludes you from having any Street Frontage right so how does the street Frontage requirement apply here we so they would put it you know we have a setback anyways and then you know we say you know I think we say you know it's really whatever you know so if there's a psych con straint like a wetland they can't build in the Wetland so it's however close they can get and they still have a street facing facade so if someone were to put a building here there's still a street facing facade that needs to have the 75% to a depth right okay all right so you think that would still apply on this paral yeah so we've the way it's written now and we can go on it a little bit later but right if say say they were to redevelop this a building here this is the street facing facade so 75% to a depth of 24t needs to be yeah you know and the same along Amity Street we don't have that provision for Amity Street okay but let's just say this building say this where the building and it's a big property and they they want to make this a Mixie building back here this still is the street facing facade so we're saying that this still has to be 75% to depth of 24 ft needs to be mixed use as well and so that was a a discussion at the CRC would there be the ability to say this is the total mixed use or non-residential space required with these two buildings could you take some of this maybe half of this space and put it on the front one and have you know so you still have the total kind of total gross area but it's reduced on the second building and so in my um word version we uh there was some language asking that or commenting on that so okay you can get there um what 17412 is saying that Nate before you go forward Jesse's hands up and sure uh I wanted to before we leave that area Jesse great thank you um this has come up a couple times over the all these discussions around the commercial space and existing shops or or trying to prevent the fate of the carriage shop shops and again I just want to ask I guess step is there really no way we can encourage or require some kind of lower rent for existing Properties or small businesses is you know can we be creative and really try and encourage that I mean look bar just before was so great he's already negotiating with those tenants to keep them there potentially new developers won't do that so is there a way we can build this into this new plan because again I think we've all agreed The Profit here is going to be in all the apartments most likely and the commercial might be an afterthought and if we can encourage small businesses and existing businesses to stay around I think that would be a huge plus I just don't know what those mechanisms are yeah that was a comment to too I don't think we can require it in zoning that's getting too much into the use uh interior of the building we could encourage it and I'd say we can encourage it by keeping the 75% requirement for all mix use buildings whether or not they're on the front or the back right so the more more non-residential space you have the likelier is that some of that could be a lower rent space um but we can't say require that if the Hampshire Bike exchange properties revelop that that the Hampshire Bike exchange be put back in the new building right we what we have done is we said that the new building has to have this amount of space and then it's really you know we could encourage the applicant or developer they could talk to the town manager assessor to see what could happen but it's really a to me that's a it's not a zoning discussion at that point but I I understand what people are saying in that worry I would say well let's try to provide space to allow those businesses to remain um that's kind of how we could do it um okay I see Fred uh yeah I I agree with uh what Nate said uh I I understand the uh the desire to essentially have affordable commercial space um but um I I I don't think you can get there uh in the zoning bylaw affordable housing those parameters have been around for a long time and developers uh you know like Barry Roberts and so forth they know how to price those into things um but uh affordable commercial that's not it's it's a great idea but I I don't see how we can how we can write it in I think we have to just hope that the uh that we create conditions that allow uh that to succeed in the market but I think that's as far as we can go okay thank you Fred Nate let's keep let's go on sure 17412 this is describing the area south of the post office so all these parcels map 13d Parcels 235 through 70 uh is that whole southwest corner we're saying the first or ground floor shall be exclusively occupied by any permitted non-residential use other than parking however up to 15% of the ground floor may be used as incidental or common space to support the use on the upper floors and so you this is a way of saying that in the Big Y Plaza Ginger Garden AutoZone in those areas that if they want to redevelop using the overlay they have to have a really high percentage basically the whole ground floor being non-residential except for this incidental space okay and the owners and operators a big why both the owners and The Operators said that they would they support this um so here's where there's a few um you know iterations of language that you know is in response to comments and trying to clarify a few things so we're saying multiple buildings and uses 1751 say more than one building uh with any permanent use may be located on a single lot so that's always been in there the question is okay what does that mean if you have you know a mix use building and a non- mix use building what follows the overlay and what doesn't so there's been some language here you know more than one mix use building may be permitted on a single lot using the overlay District I mean I I think you know it's implied that it's you know if we don't say no then that it can it's a yes but if we want to clarify it doesn't hurt more than one building permitted without the overlay District may be located on the same lot as mixed use buildings permitted with the overlay District so um you know clarification so so you proposed to have all three of these sentences in this section yeah I think okay so you know the Building Commissioner hasn't reviewed it necessarily I think to me they don't hurt they just they clarify um I I think that if they weren't there we would say that the overlay allows this anyways but I think they're just clarification okay so so you would indent the last two right right okay um 17511 additional mix use buildings on a single lot whether or not they're adjacent to the street shall provide the required percentage of non-residential use on the street facing facade so that is what I just talked about if it's behind the building kind of this this this markup down below is is enough idea additional mix use building buildings permitted on a single lot behind a mix use building adjacent to the street May reduce the non-residential space on the first or ground floor to half the required amount provided that the other half be located in the mix use building adjacent to the street I mean it's just language that you know it's different it's either it's either this or it's this um and so is just trying to capture what you know do we like that idea of having some flexibility of moving the mixed use requirement if you know if there's a secondary building behind the first one yeah I mean that that works for those Parcels that are north of the post office right obviously it doesn't work for South because you're already fully and and that s Southern requirement those Parcels you listed are they all on the west side of University drive or are some of them on the east side all on the west side so if I go back to my map okay um those Parcels are um that's the easiest way to do this are um it's it's just it's it's this this these properties here okay so the other side is not right so that the pions I just read would be like for instance um you know if you know this site wherever say this site were redeveloped and they put a building here they put a second building here say I shared parking over here right now we're saying right 75% 75% could they take some of this and put it in the first building is what that second statement had okay that's the discussion I don't know I like that idea because I think it it basically puts more the non-residential use allows more of it on the front on on the street Frontage which is I think clearly where we want it although some of it maybe so I think uh the the uh the lower um if you choosing between [Music] 17.51% had his thumbs up and I'm fine with that too all right and johanna's been very quiet tonight Johan you're yeah I'm I'm not feeling particularly well so I'm I'm listening in I'm appreciating everyone's engagement you can always send comments to staff after the fact anyone can actually so um uh we're going down the product open space we removed some language here uh we Consolidated one of the standards and conditions and so right now it says every project shall have provided um provide usable open space we deleted on the inside or exterior of a building and some other things we say product open space on the site shall be provided in areas that are not required parking driveways multi-use path service areas or steep sloped areas there's some questions about what is you know what is what does that mean there's no you know parameter metric there so you know it's at the discretion of the permitting uh permit graning Authority um you know for instance in the project we just reviewed is are are the roof decks in that South Courtyard or the courtyard on the interior of the property or the building enough of open space um you know when we've done this before when we try to do the the mixed use building um or BL overlay in downtown we try to say like 10% of something or you know some some number and it just seems like it gets complicated when you try to do that but you know you there's has some has been questions about what is what's a what is you know what's Ausable open space we uh made this uh phrase stronger on the west side of University Drive there shall be a minimum 10 foot wide multiuse path for public access and use between the front of any building and the property line and so staff talked with attorney and a developer and you know we would for instance um on the access Drive there's easements there now that has to it has to be vehicular access and so it's easy enough if you can work through University Drive and extinguish those easements like Barry's doing on the corner you still have that space to be turned into pedestrian access uh and through easements or agreements the town can maintain that and there you know the town does this in other spots where sidewalks enter onto private property through easements in agreement so it's not there's been some questions about that I think we can require it Tom Rey said sure go for it it's not not a big obstacle to development okay uh you know before it was saying something like you know there should be a multi-use path but we made it shell and we you know defined it um A Little Bit Stronger we say the planting of Street trees shall be required we clarified you know the whole section 7.0 doesn't apply in terms of parking I think that had been there um you know but an applicant is required to submit a parking utilization study and a parking management plan so that the permit gring Authority can determine enough off street parking is provided uh design guidelines we've clarified a few of these so we say to the extent feasible a majority of the street facing facade shall be built along the length of the lot Frontage you know so the width of the lot and be generally located along the minimum FR front setback line to reinforce a sidewalk Street Edge and so dug to your point if there's Wetlands or something that make it you have to step have the building back further then that's not feasible and so you have the building as you know where it can be located in across the lot as much as possible but you know if that's not the case then you have the buildable portion and so um 70 University Drive uh which isn't shown here uh the aerial is a little older um you know the 70 University Drive was put where there say there's wetlands and so the building is um is something like this and you could say well why isn't it built across like this and it wasn't feasible because there's wetlands and so the building was built so that to the extent feasible there is a street facing facade um you know I I don't know you know if we didn't have that provision I think what someone could do even if there weren't Wetlands they could put a building you know back here or something and not really up along the front edge and along the front of the property and so that condition is really trying to get buildings to be developed you know Al along a streetcape so when you get back to your yeah to your draft you had some language about additional buildings on the lot additional mixed use buildings [Music] um I'm I'm wondering whether you need UPF front a statement like everything I'm about to say concern is applies to the first or the primary mixed use building on the lot and then you know then you can say well in one instance there's a some language about an additional building well is that is that what we want so say there is a pretty big property and you could have two mixed use buildings I know Pam loves it when I I when I annotate but if um say this is the street and it's a big property and they put one mix building here wouldn't we want another mix use building here too so feasible they do this otherwise you know they could do this okay all right they could do like this and then this becomes parking and I'm I'm not sure that's what how how we'd want that occur you know even like Tom re's first design they had the main building I'm it and then a narrow building like that still works right because a majority is still built out along the front set back line okay all right I'll drop that no it's a good it's a good discussion I don't know well I wasn't thinking about having two buildings right on the street I was thinking about you want to make sure that all of this stuff applies to the first building and that it's along the street or the second right it depends on the LA hard all right y um so we we changed everything say to say the street facing facade that was a a a previous change but consistency in terms of you know the street basic facade have variations in architecture uh detail change in plane oh I'm still doing this hold on a second um that surface parking shall be you know on the side or uh rear of a building at least 30 feet from a public way and then she'll be screened from adjacent properties um you know this 30 ft you know really we don't want it to be closer than the building um you know so you know if the building if the setback is 25 ft or something we don't want parking to be in front of the building I don't think there's an issue here but um we deleted this uh one condition about louvers and other things NE can't be visible we kind of say it here already rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened and then we say here loading docks dumpsters mechanical equipment uh utility meters we say except as required by the public utilities shall be located in low visibility locations and so you know whatever is in red here is new sometimes public utilities are pretty strict about their requirements but we you know want to have some way to negotiate or discuss it and so you those are the changes right now to the amendment okay well okay so I think we've got kind of a consensus from the folks that are here um you know I mean if we wanted to tonight could we just say yep we endorse this let's send it to Town Council and and you can write up your report on our public hearing yep so I think the um you know what the crc's meeting next week and so really what what's happening is we presented a draft to Town Council that was referred back and that draft was say the the base version of this and what the planning board and CRC will do is say well we recommend this you know the changes so we would you know it' be a clean version and a track change version so what would go back to council would be we recommend what's here you know the differences and the new changes the CRC May recommend something different usually right I mean we can have we can each each body can have its own recommendations right you can though y well I feel like we're pretty we're pretty there if if we were I just want to um just make the few changes we talked about sorry about the scrolling um Jesse you want to uh talk before he's finished or not no I'll wait till he's done okay um we we we're okay with this I think it was this buffer here we were going to delete this yeah H that that portion we like that um we like these two statements and we would delete this and uh I change the form but we like this idea of having [Music] in the product open space we we you know these changes here we're okay with in terms of you know having the permit gring Authority determine what is kind of the usable the right amount of usable open space yeah um parking yeah so there's no parking requirements like it's it was asked again and I don't I guess people are incredulous to think that we are not doing that so like I said before I think given the location of University Drive and how we regulate Park on Street uh in the neighborhood and what's available I think this provision works I wouldn't necessarily say let's have the same kind of parking standard in East amst I think for University Drive it works right in other parts of town I I would have maybe a different standard um okay and we like this to the extent feasible a majority of the street facing facade will be built along the length of the lot front edge is that how long do we say the width you know I just want to make sure it's clear enough um there's a clear if we like the width or length better any language there well I mean could you also say that the street facing facade shall be located at the at the setback line or something we do say and and be generally located at the minimum front setback line I think when when we talk about Lots uh we talk we usually talk about the frontage width so I think probably width is better than length but it's a line close to a line ball Nate I was going to say uh what's the reason my hand is up if I'm buting in on Mr chair but just to say that as far as the parking is concerned I think what we've seen tonight evidence that what we're proposing is is intelligent and responsible um because the applicant Barry Roberts has made a determination of what parking needs and if people are concerned that people will build buildings with no parking I we just have to say well the the first cab off the rank has not demonstrated uh that kind of um um it's not not is not INF is not self-inflicted wounds by not providing enough parking for the needs that they themselves think they need and we recognize that their capacity to assess parking needs in this location is probably better than ours so I think that's the justification for the the 17 531 and 53 2 I think uh we've talked this through a lot but I think we're not seeing any evidence that we're um have made the wrong making a an incorrect recom recommendation here okay Bruce I'll put your hand for you I will say that there's um there's like a you know a deed um restriction on the number of curb cuts on University Drive um and there's been some questions about that for 70 University Drive it was as easy as going getting the planning board approval and then town meeting to say that you know the planning board has to say and DPW it looks good and so in the future if something happens and we need another curb cut access on University Drive you know the planning the way the Deeds written the planning board needs to approve it and then the town needs to but it doesn't seem like that's actually another um a barrier it's you know it's really on a case-by Case basis and so you that would come about if the access Drive is eliminated in parts and all of a sudden there's a property that needs access directly to rout or to University Drive because of the way um you know developments occurred on either side then they could propose to have a direct curb cut you know or have some other creative solution on how to access it with vehicles okay all right um Bruce Bruce you're muted thanks I'm sorry about that I I would move that uh we submit the the uh document as uh amended this evening uh as our recommendation to the uh to the to the council for the uh take for the for the uh for promulgation is the intended overlay bylaw some words to that effect okay great Jesse I would second that all right how about other board members any other comments from board members other than that we're tired of talking about this [Music] overlay okay uh one last okay Johanna I was just gonna say it's a long time coming and there's a lot of detail in here that you know we didn't have worked out six months ago so kudos to everybody who engaged and here's here's hoping fingers crossed that it advances policy and immer right okay so I would like to ask the public if there are anybody who wants to make a public comment about this before we vote um uh can we bring over Pam Rooney hi Pam hi Pam I'm Pam Rooney 42 Cottage Street I'm speaking as a resident I am continuing to think about the 150 foot setback from a residence uh for uh maintaining a a three-story height the building given your recent rewarding of that to say that portion of the building within 150 feet is three stories it means that just outside of that 150 foot mark this the the building can go to six stories and I have to admit that I am thinking about this from a very personal perspective and that is that I get to look at Kendrick Place building which is uh five stories and uh it is 400 feet away from my from my window the sun sets literally at least a half an hour earlier for me in my office than it does for the um uh the rest of the town because that building does in fact block my light at at 400 ft if I imagine a six-story building nearly uh you know 150 feet away from um my neighbor's house for instance uh it is it is very much um in the same tone as the 40R blocks that were being proposed a number of years ago where it was five stories within you know literally with a 20 foot setback um from a residential area so I if you are if you have the energy to talk about that subject for a couple more minutes I would greatly appreciate uh that kind of consideration thank you all right thank you Pam um I don't see other hands from members of the public um board members any comments in response to Pam's comment Jesse then then Bruce uh I think that's a very valid point I maybe we can look at the map quickly again sorry to labor this but yeah Bruce what were you gonna say if we while Nate brings up the M I was going to say um P mentioned the sun sets well the we could make that setback go from 150 to the whole of the lot and it's uh it's it's it's it's not going to make a huge amount of difference uh it's going to make some difference clearly but at some point uh a fivestory building on that lot is going to make a difference um they've got pretty good Sun up until um late afternoon and of course this is only late after afternoon in in winter in summer the uh that won't create any shadowing in those houses so it's a portion of the this time of the year so I don't know we could make it go from 150 to 200 ft or um and maybe that's what Jesse wants to explore so let's do that but I think it would be a matter of deciding whether 150 should be more and how much more so so my my first thought after listening to Pam was I'm not sure any thing above three stories and that whole lot wouldn't cause the same problem right yeah so if you put five stories even just way on the edge which will be 400 feet away that's the same issue so unless we remove that whole lot from this overlay I don't know how to accomplish that but but I definitely understand the point being made yeah I mean I understand the the impact I guess I'm you know we're trying to balance competing interests here um and at least at least we all started with the objective of trying to have a lot of you know a lot of houses or a lot of beds down here and that that sort of necessitates that I mean we did get an we did it does remind me we got a public comment at one point from I think it was Cinda Jones who lived up the hill here who was saying you know if there's anywhere in town that a tall building would probably be easily Mo most easily tolerated it's down here at the bottom of the hill um so to that extent you know this is probably the best the least detrimental place we could do this um Bruce you still have your hand up and then Fred I do I'm also noting that uh in many Lots this this kind of shading and shading happens because people plant trees and sometimes it's their own trees even that they plant uh carelessly and stupidly that end up shading uh but we could uh create this uh U thing and make it a three-story right across the whole lot and somebody could plant not very tall trees along the uh the buffal then uh and defeat the whole purpose so I'm inclined to leave it the way it is although I appreciate Pam forcing us to be a little more deliberate here yeah Fred yeah I had to unmute myself yeah I I agree also uh I have a a lot of sympathy for uh what Pam is is confronting but uh uh I I don't know where this ends uh and I I I I think it to to follow through the on this logically results in the tail wagging the dog and I don't think that's good public policy so I have a lot of sympathy for this but I think the way we've got it is correct all right uh I'm basic basically in the same camp with Bruce and Fred um so the way it reads now is that sorry that you know you can have a building within 150 feet it's limited to three floors once it hits 150 feet it can jump up uh you know so you know that that's that's what it says and that's I just want to make sure everyone understands that yep and Johanna you are fine with where we're at Jesse anything else you want to say I guess we you know Pam we hear you uh okay all right in that case um we have a motion on the floor a yes vote is to recommend this current draft to Town Council for enactment and I'll just go through our our list here Bruce I'm a yes and Fred hi Jesse hi Johanna I and I'm an i as well that's five in favor two uh absent all right so um Nate I guess uh do you pre prepare a sort of a it's probably a relatively brief report is that right along with this uh track track [Music] changes um yeah this will be uh discussed with the CRC next week and then you know when it um and then when it moves to council there'll be a memo and right a track you know yeah me the memo rather than the report but I'm not sure you need to you know recap all seven meetings in which we talked about this um you know that yeah it used to be that the memo would be like 20 pages and not sure anyone wants to read 20 Pages yeah they can go back to the minutes for those seven meetings if they want to get the blow by below Bruce um I recall you perhaps Doug and others maybe who were at the or viewed the town uh Council discussion on this which I I confess I have not um being surprised that there was uh less discussion about the fundamental objective of creating housing then uh you you know given the where we started from and so forth and that that was surprising to you so Nate I'm encouraging that uh your report U front and center uh you know in the first paragraph make a a very powerful statement that this is what's driving this and uh and make sure that people understand that that's the objective and and at least um make sure it's involded into the deliberation proper okay yeah thanks Nate do you need anything else from us on this topic no thanks that's good okay all right um moving along it is now 9:42 let's see if we can run through our remaining business pretty quickly so that Johanna can get to bed um we did the we did the uh old business with the uh construction Logistics plan do we have any old business not reasonably anticipated Pam or Nate nothing no how about for new business anything just come up uh no all right form a anr subdivision I think there was one in the package right there is one and I'll do my best to try to pull up these documents this was dividing an existing taking two parcels and changing the boundary between them right that is correct so it's 26 and 34 shamway Street which are owned by the um same person um and this is it here can you see it yep perfect so it's these two lots right here lot one and lot two this is the existing dividing line right now that this would go away and so they're just changing this partial line here so the owner of the two lots is adjusting the lot line so that this one has a little more property um this already has a rental unit on it and there's talk about trying to fit a duplex also on this property um and this is the sort of the homestead of the family that owns this property all right and so the question before the board is whether you're all okay with me signing this that subdivision approval is not required and it's clear both both Parcels have Street Frontage doesn't look like you need to build a subdivision uh Access Road Fred sorry about that I wasn't m i was muted uh Pam I I don't understand how you're going to add two units to uh a 14,500 foot parcel that already has one uh this is the general resident zoning District uh it looks to me like he's uh proposing to add one unit to make a total of two am I am I missing something well really that part isn't the concern for us tonight Fred um this individual went to the building department to try to seek permitting and was told that they needed to seek an anr because they didn't have enough property um on lot two so this is what they have chosen to do so they what what we're looking at is whether they can move that lot line and if there is enough um coverage and Frontage Nate actually pointed out um that lot two is already a non-conforming law in terms of Frontage but they're actually decre Nate correct me if I'm if I'm saying this incorrectly that they're actually decreasing the non-conformity um so it's allowed the Building Commissioner has looked at this and said it's okay yeah I think Fred right so you know if you look at this the 25 they they're giving themselves 2 200 square feet additionally for for one other unit you know the the owner may want to you know try to get a third unit by some other you know some permitting but that's not I'm not sure about that okay all right [Music] um all right so Fred I assume you're not objecting to this being a a no acceptable change in the partiel boundaries yeah it's it just the way it was presented it seemed very strange but yeah he can do it uh he may not be able to do what he thinks he can do but he can do it yeah and and I assume Nate and Pam that he hasn't just drawn a straight boundary front to back a little farther to the left because he wants to maintain the 100 feet of Frontage on parcel one that is what he needs for by the zoning right correct so he's really not allowed to do that without a permit okay all right well then uh Pam will make it make a time for me to come and and sign the an anr okay thank you all right moving along the time is 9:48 uh do we have any upcoming zba applications that we should hear about um I don't have any to report okay Fred by the way I just lowered your hand and I hope that was okay it was a legacy all right um any SP spr Su applications we would want to hear about upom jsh jsh community of ammer has submitted a site plan review application for solar canopies over their parking lot and then some other small site changes in terms of um equipment location or things so that'll be coming to the board in February very likely okay all right um time is 9:49 planning board committee and liaison reports um Bruce anything for pvpc no all right Jesse housing subcomittee two two two quick things uh the subcommittee is hoping to bring discussion of footnote m to the planning board as soon as we can get on the agenda uh I think we're hoping sooner than later and and what's the what's the general yeah we would like to propose that the uh square footage info notem returned to its original format which was 6,000 it's currently at 4,000 uh and we're thinking about the new Adu by right uh law going into place and not suddenly having three units on properties where there could be to just to sort of limit the infill density that way um that that was our discussion so I will write up something and get it for you to put on the agenda whenever we can okay you gonna help us figure out why it changed from six to 4,000 in the first place which no one seemed to really understand what the rationale was so we're going to look back and try and figure that out as well okay um is Pam is there any reason we couldn't put that on the agenda next time do we have very much uh coming for um February 5 yeah nope I think that it could go on there Nate what do you think oh yeah yeah okay all right why don't we do that and with your permission Doug can I have a quick show until I can share my screen very briefly go ahead um do you need us to do something no no he should be able to okay so we had some discussion about the adus and whether property owners are going to rush to do them this ad went up today for 88 a e Street and you can see my highlighted text in the ad perfect for an Adu so it's now a selling point for our houses in town yeah I know that that's just a couple of houses away from me y so it is it is going to happen to what degree we'll see but that was very obvious to me and a little disappointed is what it is okay all right um Karen is not here to give us a drb update uh I really don't have any report of chair Nate anything from you and Pam for staff yeah I'll just say a few things the Adu piece you know we're kind of in a a wait and see the state had a pretty big hearing earlier this month in terms of number of um speakers and then comments that were received and they're hoping uh I think actually in the next week within the next week to publish updated rules and regulations and that'll help guide staff in terms of what to do we did ask the town attorney about the student home definition and a few other Provisions we had in the you know we were proposing in a in the Adu bylaw and they said given the the Draft rules and regulations most of those were considered reasonable uh even you know additional dimensional standards that you know an Adu couldn't be in the front you know between the front of the home and the in the property line so it couldn't be in the front yard so you know the way they were written you couldn't have any you know kind of stricter guidelines or conditions than you would for single family homes and so you know we're kind of we're waiting to see what happens uh the Building Commissioner attended the a workshop in other towns are doing the same thing just because it was was such a moving Target right we didn't just didn't seem worth to keep trying to revise the Adu bylaw if the regulations will change a lot so when they do we'll jump on it um we do have a bylaw in place and the Building Commissioner can still ask for things that we ask in our bylaw that's not inconsistent with the state law um I agree we've had more inquiries in the last week or two than you know like you know half dozen or more people calling to ask that seems serious about moving forward with an Adu okay Jesse thanks uh there was something else related to both Adu and housing General I want to mention and I can send the link to staff to send around the planning board but UMass announced today had a press release about a pretty big long-term housing uh effort it's basically a request for private Public Partnerships for a very long-term large Vision plan so I'll send the link for you all to see yeah that yeah that is pretty neat um uh yeah so um two other things the downtown design standards is still ongoing just so people can hear it you know there'll be more meetings coming up uh Dodson and flinker is still working on like the vision statement and goals they're getting refined with the working group and so I think they have a really good understanding of kind of how to frame everything and now they're trying to get into the the nuts and bolts and actually get some some standards and conditions happening the housing production plan is moving forward so thanks for all the comments on the the needs assessment the consultant is now working on the other parts of the plan including strategies and goals and and that's something the planning board will look at again uh and then the open space and Recreation plan staff is working on an update to that uh and maybe in February uh we we'll bring uh the we have kind of final draft goals and strategies and objectives that we could bring back to the board uh the plan itself is keeps growing it's a good plan it's always surprising how long they get uh but the planning board would then also be asked to review the whole plan probably in March or so okay Bruce um I'm just reminded myself that tomorrow night there's a a housing panel uh at Town Hall I think it's a both inperson and zoom uh thing it's h Nate you probably know more about this Jesse maybe you do too I just wanted to say that I'm intending to attend this thing at Town Hall it's uh it's I think Mindy involved it seems to be a um a gathering triggered by the Healey um housing bill this colossal bill that the Administration has put through which the Adu is a actually a small fraction of right and uh so I just thought I'd mention that uh just so people can choose either to tune in on Zoom or not or go but it seems that uh there's going to be quite a few um parties involved and so it it might be a good time to to see who the players in the affordable housing game in town now um it's more than just the trust it's more than us and and and others so I I I thought I would I thought I would attend what time is that 7 o'clock I believe till 9: yeah it's a hybrid format so you can um you could be able to join by Zoom or attend in person it's a panel the league of woman voters is sponsored onor in it and then there's been co-sponsors but it's about about housing um different organizations will be represented as part of a panel and have you know give presentations and then maybe have discussion okay right J I might say something to it at the next housing subcommittee if you choose okay time is 9:57 and I think we are finished for tonight next meeting is Fe February 5th and 7 6:30 still works Nate for for you y okay all right see you in a couple of weeks well done Doug good night you all a good night thanks for staying with us Johanna