##VIDEO ID:1iFjycU9hRo## e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] good evening this is the planning board hybrid meeting January 27th 2025 at 5:30 p.m. U this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair don't say anything on that screen there so oh I have to wait oh okay maybe the remote didn't come up uh pursuant to Governor H's March 29 2023 signing of the act of 2023 extending certain Co 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law General Law chapter 38 section 20 until March 30 31 2025 this meeting of the chat and planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 158 712 224 pound or join the meeting online via uh Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simcast on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we make may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible I'll start with a roll call vote um Katherine hurn present uh Warren chain Warren chain present uh uh Bob wter is absent um Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenal cheer um Frank Shear present uh Bob dubis Bob dubis here again and art sprw and uh Bob is we welcome you back uh I'd like to uh start with the um uh review and approval of the minutes let's start with December 9th 2024 um there is um some edits that were made uh principally by my myself and i' just uh like to highlight what those are on the December 9th um even though the first paragraph Was highlighted I think it was only the middle sentence and really what it was is uh to uh reflect the language that was used in the memo that uh Mr fley submitted to the to the planning board I just wanted to make sure that his his statements were consistent with that memo so there wasn't any confusion because there was a lot of discussion going on but the memo is really what we should uh try to follow so that's principally the the changes there and I think do you want to do one set of minutes at a time yeah I would like to do one at a time okay all I think there's one um Omission that you just didn't make it in there the second of the last word of your addition is missing and I think it ought to be would not have to be rebuilt oh that's a good one okay so um Can to hear a motion for with those amendments I would move that we approve oh right sorry this is this very small on page two third paragraph from the bottom uh it says Mr dubis asked if there how much flow I just delete if there is so you want to take how much out and place I would take out if there if there okay how much yes okay okay good one all right so with those edits um with those uh edits amendments I would move that we approve the December 9 2024 meeting minutes and do I have a second Warren chane I second all right U let's take a roll call vote um kathern Harper I approve uh Warren Warren chain approve uh Charlene approve Frank Shar approve and Bob you were here so you can vote for this one I approve and art sprw I approve uh next one is December 23rd 2024 I had no edits to this so if there's any comments or edits on this one um yes oh excuse me uh the first paragraph under West chadam uh Neighborhood Center the last sentence was deleted it says he provided board members with a copy of the research as background for future discussion I never did give the board members uh any background on it um so at least it shouldn't be reflected of here certainly I welcome to give board members any any background that they they want from my research but I never did distribute that so so that's the only item that was going to be deleted and Warren um Warren chain I have a um suggested deletion the Larry last sentence on page one indicates that I said something that I never said he noted that the draft zoning is unsustainable because of infrastructure in utilities that's that's the one you want deleted that's correct waren I I couldn't believe that you actually said that ex me I couldn't believe you actually said that so I went back and looked at the video you did yeah believe it or not and you said something along these lines he took issue with the idea that the draft zoning uh was not attainable because of infrastructure and utilities that's basically what well that's sort of the opposite of what the the opposite of what I suggest it just be deleted you can take it out that's right um so that's the suggestion that we delete that last sentence um any other comments um could I uh hear a motion with those amendments I move that we approve the December 23rd 2024 meeting minutes and a second a second um let's take a roll call vote Katherine helper I approve uh waren chain Warren chain approve uh charlon Greenhall charling greenhalge approve Frank Shear I approve and uh Bob dubis you're your stain and arts Brew I approve uh the last one this is catching up on everyone is actually it's it's in the package it's dated December 133 2024 and that was the first edit that I picked up it's actually the January 13th meeting 2025 so and I think I just had some minor edits if you take a look um okay so how come I said 4 p.m. oh first one was I called the meeting to order at 4 P.M that's I guess I wanted to make a note of that because that was not in our normal time so I wanted to make a note of that on the second page you see highlights two parking spes and uh I guess the third paragraph down toward the end uh two parking spaces per unit I wanted to clarify what the two meant because it's just had two and no reference to any units I just want to clarify that um on the next uh paragraph down it only said um I think in L and I and I added the word payment in L which is the reference that's in the bylaw again it's just a a more defined detail of it and then there are some edits that I picked up on page four um the new Stormer regulations were active as of December mcber 15th 2024 that's um I think I mentioned that that that date and it and I did follow up to make sure that that was the actual date that they were initiated on the paragraph below that where it starts with a motion I remember that we wanted to add the condition that was suggested by staff and I added that in here that lot A and B shall be conveyed into uh into separate shall not be conveyed into separate ownership until such time as the existing garage structure is located to one of the two lots or demolished so that was a that was part of the motion that was made at that meeting and and I believe that that was the case unless somebody remembers it differently than I did um Mr wter on the next page kep highlighted is that an edit next one okay um next one top of page five I just inserted the word the article from town meaning will withdraw the article I just again the detail about what is it that we were withdrawing and uh the last one was a highlighted paragraph on one 2 3 four down and I I just wanted to clarify it was it is unit six not five yeah because he wanted to have unit five and unit six be attainable correct I said to me it didn't make sense to have unit six be attainable so it was correct in the original meeting minutes oh you think it was correct in the original yes okay because I said it all right so let's go back to what it said in the original that's that's fine if if if that's your understanding of it it's in when I said Mrs Greenhouse said she didn't believe requiring unit six to be attainable would work that's where it should be unit six okay and I also commented that then we were getting higher percentages right push to pushing developers to 40b yep go back okay Bob said I think is reflected is it is okay yep all right so the reason why I went through these a little closer is because there was a lot of discussion we had I just want to make sure if anyone goes back into these minutes they reflect as best as we we uh remember them and record them right are there any other comments that board members have um Frank yeah just just one and I'm not sure this requires a change but you go to page two um the paragraph ends uh the board agreed on restricting short-term rentals to two months a year pending comments by Town Council the prior sentence says uh be short-term rental allowance for all households with a 10-year ownership residency you think it's understood I'm not sure where you are on page two yeah where are you the first block first paragraph oh the first paragraph end of the the end of the first paragraph she proposed an eight week where we're talking about short-term rentals oh are you there she proposed 8-week short-term rental allowance for yeah the board yeah and then the next sentence the board agreed on restricting short-term rentals of two months a year but you might insert with a 10-month ownership requirement to make it clear that okay we're not deleting that requirement and also rental requir yeah rental or ownership I think we actually residency would do it yeah I I I agree I think we wanted to include rent we want to put in there with a 10mon residency requirement yeah we're we're just following the words in the prior sentence yeah per year per calendar year you know something okay good no no we just insert that yeah um anything that you had Katherine um just that again to make if if this makes it more clear I'm not sure 8we short-term rental allowance for all households with 10mth residency per year mon residency PR okay all right and Warren do you did you have anything I just want to clarify that I thought we had agreed that it would be whether owned or rental would have the same restrictions and given the changes that I just heard I wasn't sure that that's I think that's why we took ownership out that's why we use residency because that applies to both okay okay so you want to PR replace that ownership with residency I think ownership you're right about that because it could be either or and when we say per year do we wish to make it you know per 12 months because otherwise it ends up being per calendar year and that's not the way leases necessarily are well we do I know we went back and forth on this but the intent has always been per 12 month period right I think that's the best way to administer it 12 months yeah because it's easier but therefore yeah it shouldn't be saying per year therefore yeah that's fine it's better all right with uh with those edits do we uh have a motion with all those edits I move we approve the January 13 2025 meeting minutes I'll second that all right vote uh Katherine her I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh Charlene Greenhall charlon greenal approve Frank Shear Frank Shar approve uh Bob dubis stain stain art sprew I approve okay so what I'd like to do with the boards before we go on uh this I don't know if this is the right place but as a follow-up item from the minutes uh um I had suggested that we either remove the buildout analysis or at least highlight that it's based on assumptions that are changing okay because it gives the wrong impression um so I just checked before I came here and I couldn't see whether we had made the changes that would be necessary to um excuse me we changed it um to change the title of it but we are working on some draft language and it will eventually the link will go to a p page um a clean page that we have set up on it talking about that and then we'll add on another page we'll add the visualization um items from tonight and we'll give a like a paragraph with that one as well so we are working on it but right but right now it says planning board research October 28 buildout analysis find that is correct that's just a that's a placeholder right now because we because we had put it out there why couldn't we simply add this is based on assumptions that are being updated or something like that well I think after T tonight's meeting you'll find that uh yeah it's something that we're it's something that we're working on right now and it's in the very near future okay I have been given the direction to go ahead and and address it all right so with uh with the board's uh uh permission I'd like to move the site plan approval and uh before the long range planning this this should be a relatively short site plan review and the Epic in is here so we we have a site plan approval amended change of use by 166 Depot Road mono Community Services uh if uh daveid if you could introduce yourself David Clark Clark engineering and Bill Lichfield here on behalf of mon community services and our director Theresa Malone is here we will be very brief and we appreciate you're taking this out of order so that you'll have appropriate time for the West chatam neighborhood matter change to the plan uh one which we think is more conforming we know is more conforming with zoning more aesthetically appropriate but beyond that fairly straightforward we're simply seeking your approval for it David can expand on that um if you could walk through the the changes from what was I think approved in October to what it what it is now just so the board members can can walk through step byep an expansion of the deck out on the front that was approved the first time uh at the rear of the building um there is a ground well lower story uh um portion of the building that they were going to add two stories to off the back and and uh when Bill stated this is more conforming uh that back corner of the structure is 8.4 ft from the property line and we were going to go up uh and add additional uh stories on the building there so uh it's a pretty much a completely different structure now uh in instead of adding on the back uh we're adding to the west to the west and uh and that addition conforms to those uh to the rear property setback as as well as to the Westerly setback because we're increasing the site coverage a little bit added it uh additional uh roof drains uh to uh to dry Wells uh the other advantage of this is the front walkway uh because it's a little bit longer now it it it's a little easier to conform to ADA requirements as far as the slope of that that walkway um that's pretty much it uh the just one thing on the deck is is the deck elevated or is it at grade it's it's going to be replaced at grade at grade that's what I thought similar to it is now on at least on the street side okay so um just to do a quick summary of the uh comments um on the criteria uh most of these are not applicable because of uh the applicant and we're still viewing this as is falling underneath the do Amendment so um but I'll just highlight which things apply the ad adequacy and arrangement of the vehicle traffic this is not applicable adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic was satisfied location Arrangement appearance of the off street parking this was not applicable uh location Arrangement size design uh General site compatibility with buildings lighting and signs was SA satisfied adequacy of storm water and drainage facility was satisfied adequacy of water supply and seage Disposal was satisfied adequate type of arrangement of trees shrubs and Landscaping was not applicable in case of the apartment complex or other multiple dwellings in this case that's not not applicable um protection of adjacent or neighboring properties um um uh not applicable adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones was not applicable and special attention to eacy of structures roadways Landscaping was not applicable and again that's very because of the limited site plan review uh generally the na was applying on this uh so I'd like to see if there any of the board members have any comments or questions that I'd like to bring with the with the advocate uh Frank you yeah just a clarification U Christine um I had asked several meetings ago to have a kind of indication of what we can review under Dober and you said you would do that and is that what's happened here where we have the na we've decided that that column excuse me I think in in this particular case because they weren't really doing any site improvements yeah um initially so that's how I kind of that's how I made the determination with the CR criteria I think realistically the criteria really don't apply because of the do Amendment and they're pretty much just coming before you as a courtesy oh I understand uh but that column if we had na you made it na because of Dover or because you thought it was otherwise not applicable I put in most cases it was na because they weren't making any changes on the site they weren't proposing any changes and I had put it was existing facility so not only is so we're still we still don't know what we're allowed review under do and not review under do is my understanding no I think it's it's more to do with the fact that in this particular case the things that came before you were not things that were clear but at least I personally would still like to know what the criteria are for reviewing projects that are subject to the Dober Amendment yeah so I guess probably going forward I probably should give you exactly what there are some good cheat sheets out yeah I I I think I can give you something like that going forward right I think we have some on file that have been provided that's that's what I've just got to little a guide to applying the do Amendment yeah and they're pretty to the degree that it may be briefly helpful the the uh Town's review as I understand it is limited to quote reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and the determining yard sign lot area setbacks open space coverage requirements and we're were better than we were in October so I think the combination of the unique circumstance is the fact that there are minimal changes but they are positive from what was approved in October suggests that if the board would be inclined to uh I don't know if rewave is a word but to incorporate the prior waiver of the parking requirement will leave you in peace yeah um I don't know we we need to do that I'm not sure if you already approve the waiver I think we just need to approve the amended site plan s is suggested in the notes from staff uh the previous statement of conditions can be used as a template for the amended site plan as long as chair concurs yes um I think um there was just three uh previous L that was um just a reference on the site plan date um the certification by a licensed professional all site is complete in compliance with the approv plan and then exterior lighting is to be downcasting those are the three way have before those would be I would say the three that we should be using again with the new revised date and those are our standards yes yeah okay great any other questions or comments from the board uh Warren I'm just one minor clarification the the lights that are in here um are terrific but um I didn't go by at night and it's pretty dark around there I assume there may be some lights on the building itself if any other doors are used in the evening and if not that they don't need to be on the site plan I was just curious as to whether that had been thought about and if in fact additional light poles were needed then perhaps we ought to ought to put them on the S plan but we show two lights on the building on the site plan one's on the deck uh and the others at the back door um there's also light poles along the U along the walkway to the building along the walkway I I remember seeing that one I mentioned at last last meeting that might be interfering with it no other comments it's a great plan okay with with that can I uh hear a motion for this approval Mr chairman I would move that we approve the amended site plan with the conditions um as previously stated in the original statement of conditions uh for this proposed addition to an educational use building uh with the reference to the new date on the site plan good uh do I have a second Warren chain I second okay roll call vote um Katherine Huer I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve Charlene Greenhall approve Frank Shear approve Bob dubis Bob DUIs approve and art spru I approve thank you very much thank you all right so this was the one we've been waiting for the next my item on our agenda it's the union Studio's V visualization presentation on the west chadam Neighborhood Center um let see who we have oh good can you uh introduce yourself and just give us some background about what was the basis of your visualizations that you're showing us tonight Absolutely I'll I'll start I'm Jeremy Lake I'm a principal inion Studio architecture oh not at my end now you are we can hear you you can hear me yep perfect all right good evening everyone I'm Jeremy lake with Union Studio architecture and Community design um I'm a principal here I was before you guys about a month and a half ago um giving you guys a quick synopsis of the missing middle effort we went through with the Cape Cod Commission a couple years ago uh and was forecasting this effort which um looks at three Parcels as a test fit test case study for the form based code guidelines as you have them and I'm joined tonight by Erica thoron Erica do you want to introduce yourself hi yes I'm Erica thoron I'm an associate at Union studio um and I help Jeremy work on this uh presenting you guys with the visualizations for the um the zoning District yeah so we we have a package we'd like to walk you guys um through introducing the sites you know talking through some of the things we were thinking about there's a we have a page I will forecast at the end of a couple of things that we sort of bumped up against as we were looking at the form based code that we just wanted to sort of point out for your consideration you know something like things like Building height you know there's a few things that as we got into it we saw some potential challenges and just wanted to highlight those in case you guys wanted to give those things some some additional thought or not um but I think I'm going to mostly let Erica kind of run you through the package I'll add some color commentary we'll obviously both be available for questions as they come up as well okay so this was the three sites that you had previously um noted to us that you were going to do the visualizations on is that correct that's correct ER I go ahead to the next page it'll Ohio right so these are the three sites that we were asked to look at um you have 1652 Main Street 1671 Main Street and 1589 main um you know in the town these were chosen for a variety of reasons they're all roughly around the same size but they're some of the larger sites um that have variety of different conditions within the district um and also you know a good potential for being red developed in the future so we were asked to look at these um again just illustrative uh you know kind of quick case studies to look at what might be feasible on the site um you know obviously there's a number of options that could could play out here so for the first site we looked at was 1652 Main Street and it's roughly 3 acres um there's a little about a th000 square feet commercial up on um right on Main Street there um and in the back you'll see we've noted sort of this rough outline of where there's about 100 foot Wetland setback so we've adhered to that and also you can see that there is a quite a bit of terrain in the back of the site so we did try to be pretty realistic in this and looked at how that getting back into there along with the Wetland setback you'll see we we kind of tried to stay out of that area um is it's a largy much more difficult to develop also notice here the 150 foot step back from the street um so you have Zone a in the front and then Zone A2 in the back of the site oops there we go so for this um scenario we looked at it with the density bonus in mind so the 10 units to 40,000 square foot um and so that comes out to roughly 33 units for the calculations and we looked at then using putting maximizing the Frontage that there is a pretty narrow Frontage so we put 3,000 square feet um building which is that maximum footprint you can have in the um in the zone A1 district and so you have 30 residential units in the back within three multif family buildings 10 units per building and then three units out over the commercial in the front um and so in the commercial we're showing that as two stories and in the back uh we're showing those is two and a half and you can imagine in that building number four there that one's really set into the hillside so even though two and three it's two and a half up building four it actually looks like two stories from the front and would be a walk out unit on the back um it's pretty significant grade there there could be a lot of Windows and still very nice units um for all of these we've assumed about a, square foot a unit just you know it could be less it could be more but we've taken that as a good um um average between the types of units you might see um and for the commercial we're noting here that plus 2,000 square feet that's just to represent that's how much over the existing square feet we're showing so the existing was around a thousand so we've in this scenario been able to increase the commercial square footage by 2,000 square feet um we're showing the parking assumption at around 2 and a half um that's a good average between we noticed that in the zoning language there's a variety of different um requirements for commercial but this we felt was like a good average to go with so we could end up with more could end up with slightly less at the two minimum um but that's what we have for this site and two per unit for the residential units and again just to reinforce Erica the building in the front was the 3,000 foot maximum footprint and we know recently you guys were considering the stuff back in the A2 Zone 4,000 ft was the maximum footprint and that's what these represent as well yes and this is just a a 3D visualization to show what these might look like um and elevated with a little Community Gathering space in the front and you know could lead back to the trail that leads up to the forgot to point that out to the bike path in the rear of the lot um with a little you know mixed juuse building in the front potentially some you know offices or a little retail uh with units above and would it be helpful for you guys do you want us to sort of pause between sites or get through all three sites and then have have a conversation up to the board members I'm okay with seeing all three and then we might have to go back and revisit some of the images why don't we go through all three okay okay sounds good so the second site we looked at was 1671 Main Street so this one's also just under about uh the just around 3 acres um we have about 9200 square feet existing residential and again also commercial sorry thank you um so also a wetland uh setback in the back of the site that um constructs just a little bit in the back so this sites also sits in zone a and Zone A2 um so we noted the 150 foot set and so you'll see in this scenario we noted that in the existing there is um a post office so you know just imagined here that if this were to get redeveloped potentially there's a new 3,000 ft commercial building in the front that holds the post office um so that's not lost to the community with multif family um in the back as well as town houses just have a mix of residential um units so that comes out to about 32 units again looking at this being the density bonus of 10 units per 40,000 square ft um same parking scenario 2 and a half and two space bases per unit for the residential um and in this site you know that's a little bit more flexible we able to show this with the residents around a common green and a little community space there as well and then we wanted to just show with this site because we know that this is as you can see 6,000 square feet less than the existing zoning um we want to just showcase just the different scenarios a developer might go through so here this is maximizing the residential units and the density bonus but at a loss of the distance commercial um but then if you could look at it a different way and assume that the front three buildings are you know a standalone commercial and then potentially two mixed juice buildings with commercials on the ground floor of about 4,000 square fet so that would you know you'd get your commercial up to 7,000 you'd still be under the existing but it gets you up higher to where we were before but you're now down to 28 units so you're less and you're not at your full um density bonus uh it's you know comes out to about eight units I guess per 40,000 so it's not even at the it's a little bit over the the Buy rate of five so so just to highlight highlight that again too again on the previous site we showed you could do a similar thing where you could trade off some of the residential for some commercial on the ground floor if there was a desire to build more commercial you know we were really prioritizing getting the commercial in the front portion of the site um you know because it's required but also it's where it makes sense um but again we also wanted to illustrate with this one how even in some of these scenarios as we've drawn them you could play with the numbers a little bit more residential less commercial back and forth again it's a little bit just making sure you're paying attention to how much open space coverage you've got going on and that you've got enough parking to facilitate the uses per your requirements as well yeah and I do want to note too at this scenario we we took the approach of keeping the existing um curb cut to kind of stay away from that roundabout and also allow access to the neighboring lot for their parking uses too you can see that here in the 3D so showing again just one story commercial um in the front and the residential in the back you know creating a you know little neighborhood in the back around a common green yeah so again this this another alternative showing the mix the building in the front is just commercial with residential behind so the idea is that the site in in Combined is a mixed you site you may not necessarily have buildings that themselves or mixed use we think that's a likely scenario you guys will see just for a host of reasons it's to entirely possible you'll have buildings that are purely commercial and buildings that are purely residential but the good news is you still ultimately get the mix you're looking for it you still get the commercial out at Main Street or you would expect it um and still get you know the added housing that that I think we're kind of looking for here so all right we'll move on to the last site so this is 1589 Main Street about 1.8 acres and the highest uh commercial existing right now is about 12,000 Square ft um the majority of this site sits in the zone A1 so and because it's on the corner there's a you know higher demand for that um higher requirement for the amount of commercial that uh aligns the street um and then there is some steep set back uh like uh Terrain in the back of the site it actually works out pretty well um that's about exactly where your 60% lock coverage requirement hits so it it keeps that as a ni buffer on the on the site so here we're just showing mixed use buildings Al linning um Main Street with commercial on the ground floor and residential above um these are just twostory buildings and we've shown these at um your bu rights of five units per 40,000 square feet um and in this case we also wanted to show a scenario especially this site seems like it could be likely for that um where you actually bumped up the commercial a little bit to allow for different uses like potentially a restaurant um or a cafe which requires more parking than that two and a half um per 1K and you know we know there's Larry's Diner on the site right now you could imagine potentially they move into the new buildings and that would require much more parking um than just the two and a half for one so and each of these has so it's like a you imagine like a commercial unit on the the ground for a residential unit above again averaging around 2,000 ft per unit and so here is a 3D of what that might look like um fronting the you know creating a nice Plaza along the roundabout with your commercial buildings um pedestrian passageways back into the the parking area Erica this also shows there was a requirement if you had enough Frontage you needed to step a portion of the building back right so this is highlighting that idea of stepping back a portion of the building at least 10 ft from the main facade and and sort of what that ends up potentially looking like yeah and we've done that with all of them um yeah your requirement right now is 50 feet and we can go back through and and look through that the and the um previous renderings as well so uh it gets 75 ft Max for the length of the building so this shows that as a scenario for you just see what the max length looks like um each of these are 75 ft in length and then the 50 ft is that Max that sits out on the setback and then it bumps back 10 feet um so this yeah demonstrates that pretty well as to what that requirement is and so for last um as Jeremy mentioned we just came across some things in the code that we thought might be worth considering um as you're reviewing this so one would be the building height maximum so right now I won't I won't read through all of the code as I'm sure you're pretty aware of it by this point but um the two stories with the two and a half stories uh if you're including affordable housing that can't exceed 30 ft from the grade plane um that's average grade plane so um that's something to consider and you'll see we have this diagram here to demonstrate that when you have a two-story building that's 40 feet in depth for example your ceiling Heights are at 8 fet you have your structure and you have the minimum roof pitch of 612 as per the code um you're at 30 ft Max which is um so it doesn't really allow for a lot of flexibility with when the the height of the roof pitches from building to building um and you're at sort of the minimum ceiling height that you would want as well so that becomes pretty difficult um for a commercial floor plate um even a residential unit they like to see sometimes 9 fet um which can be more comfortable um and you can see too though if you have an alternate here we've written in here if it was 28 ft for example um still at your minimum roof pitch you could get 11 ft uh potentially on the ground floor um the other thing to think about though for commercial uses especially restaurants is they need they require a lot of ventilation so that structure between the first floor and the second floor is going to be a greater distance because of the need for the the ventilation mechanical in there um so we were just saying you know consider 35 ft you I think you'd get more flexibility in ceiling Heights you get a wider range of roof pitches throughout the district um and also it helps with the grade because this is all assuming that the site's flat and often it's not so the minute that bumps down um that affects what you can fit into your building height and again I think that kind of goes go ahead yeah I was just I was just going to reiterate again if this was a residential structure all those dimensions are reasonable but it gets a little bit tricky when you start considering mixed use structures where they typically want more of ceiling height in the ground floor you want more ceiling height in the ground floor for the commercial uses that's where we think it's going to maybe start pushing up against some of the pressure of maybe doing single story commercial so that you can get that little bit more height that little bit more flexibility in terms of what the footprint is um we know 30 ft is a a pretty sensitive issue in town we know that's I think what's been on the books for a really long time um but it's just something we wanted to throw out here if you wanted to really try to help facilitate um getting some more mixed use getting I think the the building types that you're looking for you might want to give a little bit more flexibility and again with grade conditions and a number of other scenarios that the um you know projects that are proposed are going to have to contend with 30 is going to be tough it really is so I think it's just something we wanted to make sure you aware of if it can't shift so be it but um even a couple more feet would be really meaningful we think yeah and along with that the roof pitch um being at 612 with no flat roofs um if you do have to hold to that 30t for example potentially in a mixed use building um a flat roof would be uh ideal to be able to get you those floor Heights um so that's another element to consider and I think you know there's examples within historic downtowns that could be used for reference to make sure you get the sort of design that you're looking for um for the Dormers we just noted that this says it's 5 feet from the um front of the roof plane and no more than 50% of the roof plane so and you'll see in the scenarios that we showed we pretty much always assumed there would only be like one or two units on the second on the third floor and that half story um based on those requirements um but it does get pretty difficult to fit a window that's required for emergency egress the size of the window because it being pushed so far back into the roof with these size buildings um starts to contrain constrain the height of the window um which might make it difficult for some of those building code requirements so that's just one thing we wanted to note um so reducing that setback would help with that so that you could get um a higher height window the building footprint definition another thing we noticed was that it seems it shows that the porches think like porches and awnings would be included in the footprint calculation and um just in our experience I think what'll happen is is an adverse outcome is that developers they'll just cut the porches um so because they're going to want to maximize their their square footage where they can or the awnings and things like that that you really want to have um as that transistent space between the buildings and the and the street and then lastly the residential parking requirement um being at two spaces per unit um we think like if you have a minimum of one and a half spaces per unit that at least for the one in the two-bedroom units that would encourage more one-bedroom units in the um in the district I think if you have that High um residential count it'd be less likely to have the variety residential unit mix yeah again that the blanket the blanket policy of two per unit regardless of the unit size effectively promotes doing the biggest units you can because we do think parking will be one of the big constraints here in terms of what folks are able to kind of consider and fit on the site and so often we see in these kinds of projects there's also a wish that there would be more one and two bedroom units made available and one way to encourage that we think is to decrease the parking requirement which makes sense too right a one-bedroom unit may not have a second car and so maybe something like one and a half spaces per unit for the ones maybe even the two-bedroom units just would help encourage more of those being included we think ultimately my last slide just showing all three sites together and and if we need to we can also um page back through but um yeah we like to open it up for discussion and any questions you might have okay we haven't uh uh received any of this this is going to be uh delivered to us after this meeting and so we'll distribute it to the board members so that they can look at this the details of what the presentation is showing today but we like to see if there's any board members I have any comments or questions of uh Union Studios at this point um Katherine why we begin with you um first I'd just like to say I think these look great I think they're going to be very helpful to allow our community to see what the potential is for developing you know the sites in West chadam using the new um proposed form-based code so I think they look terrific um as visuals I if I could suggest on our website that we put these out front because I think those will these will give the community a better idea of what can be done um we need to make it clear to the community that these are ideas these are possibilities doesn't mean that it will get developed um this way but I think you've done a beautiful job giving us visuals to show what can be done and how nice it can look um I'll make a couple of comments I I'm hearing your suggestions about you know the height and the parking spaces and all of those things um this may not be may not be everybody agrees with this but I there's only two sacred cows in the town of chadam um one of them is our 30 foot height limit and the other is no flat roofs so you're right in understanding that those are um um especially the 30 foot height limit has been in place for many years and it's a pretty strong I believe it's a pretty strong um feeling in the town to keep that I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure that that's something that would be useful to change um anyway I and excluding the porches from the footprint I would be in favor of that if you think that'll be helpful for developers I I don't think that that's I think that would be a good thing but I think you've done a beautiful job giving us good visuals thank you uh thank you um I think the overall impression is really quite good but a couple of comments first I would agree that um I don't think the board has ever entertained flexibility on the building height and um certainly the drawings that are in the draft schematic as they might be certainly don't suggest three story structures which is uh what I see in the pictures here uh there's living space on the third floor which was um this is the first time I've ever um been exposed to that concept um and also wanted to ask whether or not there was any consideration to uh living space that would be below grade uh which is permitted in our draft and uh might um both increase the available housing units as well as deal with the ceiling height uh maximum roof height um I also um just making notes as you went along it sounded as if at least on the first two units or first two lots you were looking at a density of something like eight units per acre um and was that right 10 yes and um and then roughly we ended up with about 65 housing units um the last is 08 Acres had something like five units um so that's you know a little over 70 units on on this um Seven Acres of um West chadam neighborhood lot area um I was wondering how that number of units on these Lots squared with the um the units that were in the buildout analysis uh which seemed to shock all of us when we first saw how many units there were um at least from this each site this comparison they have three sites in here we can just compare the two for these three individual sites and we can sort of extrapolate from that it just uh the number of sites here especially when it's considered that it's essentially three story buildings which are being proposed uh if it's um limited to two stories uh or 30 fet in height the number of units uh would theoretically be reduced unless there was a significant use of below grade units um and uh it does seem to me that the number of units if you extrapolated over the entire West jadam Neighborhood Center would likely come up to dramatically less than what was shown in the buildout analysis earlier um and just curious it these look you know lovely in terms of coverage in terms of structure in terms of size other than uh other than the height restriction which um I do think is a sacred cow I don't think this would ever go anywhere if we showed a bunch of three-story buildings being put out there um and I don't think it's certainly first time I've ever ever ever seen any suggestion of that um but anyway those would be my comments um and um again I do like the overall appearance I think what's there can be sold uh as a very good idea um and a good objective to uh to point forward for the next 50 years so I don't have any other comments at the moment yeah yeah and can I address some of those or com please go right ahead we'll do it one at a time so great ahead perfect so the first question you asked was about below grade units um I do think that's something to consider I will say with egress and other requirements it's it's kind of difficult to do Bel units they're very sort of they're expensive to build and obviously get pretty low rents and so we don't typically see them with the exception being when you do have something like a walkout condition that we suggested could be the case in the first site where at the back of the site the grades are dropping off enough that you could have you know essentially units that are in the back down below that would have full exposure so they're not really below grade it's really taking advantage of the grade um to sneak in a few units without um necessarily going higher that still does impact your building height because it is a you know it's measured from the average grade so you have to factor that in um but hopefully that kind of addresses that we don't often see a lot of below grade units for for those reasons they're kind of tough to build expensive to build and not particularly desirable um as it relates to the density just to clarify on the the first two sites on the left we drew both of those assuming the 10 units per 40,000 square feet um and the one on the right we drew at the five units per 40,000 square feet um the one in the middle we suggested there was a scenario where we added some additional commercial removed a little bit of residential so we netted out more like eight units per 40,000 square fet but again these represent effectively the range that you guys are considering you know anywhere from 5 to 10 depending on you know the density bonuses Etc um so I still think they're you know useful in in showing how that is is playing out um and then the last thing I just wanted to mention is um totally get the 30 foot sacred cow height totally get the concern about suddenly allowing for three-story buildings the only thing I will say is that you could still regulate that these are a maximum of two stories or two and a half using the half story allowances with a higher height right just just by giving additional height doesn't necessarily suggest that you're now also allowing a third story really what we're trying to promote is allowing for more dimension in the two stories that you are allowing because we think ultimately that would be a useful thing again if that's a non-starter so be it but I did also want to make clear you could still say it can only be two stories even if you gave 35 ft say to to the to the rich so just just wanted to make sure that was was clear okay uh thank you uh Jeremy uh Charlene uh Jeremy thank you for bringing up the the that even if you went up in height it wouldn't necessarily mean another story of of um units um I actually would have no problem through a special permit process of allowing for an increase in the height if it provided for and I think the example that was given was when you have commercial space downstairs and you need that separation or that additional height for say a restaurant uh you need that space you need that there um in in some cases as a buffer between the commercial space and the residential above so I actually have I don't have a problem with allowing a higher height of 35 ft and also limiting it to no more than 2 half stories we don't need to go up to three stories um you also get into elevator issues when you start getting higher in that um and then the the parking and I do like the whole the scenarios you gave I I thought those were very well done um you know in the first scenario the the walkout um units in there uh using the topography for that I think was a great idea um with regard to parking I we have the ability I I understand them talking about the one and a half and we went back and forth and back and forth on that um certainly I think that through the the site plan review and the waiver process that we have in place for parking we can get to the best setup for the parking for each site individually um I don't think it's going to be a blanket yeah you have to have two spaces is for every unit because I I think Jeremy's right I think with you know a one unit um or a Studio unit you're probably looking at the need for only one and a half parking spaces because keep in mind people do have visitors so you do want a little overflow parking in in there but um you know that that sacred cow I I'm I've never been a big fan of that height limit because I think it really restricts design um potential um particularly in these uh you know commercial areas that we're trying to establish um I think there's some wonderful examples out there of of how that can work and still only be two stories or two and a half stories and I think that's all I've got okay uh thank you uh Frank comments questions um I don't understand why 30 feet is a sacred count I mean I I understand we've had 30 feet sorry 30 feet for a long time but there's nothing magical about 30 I mean it could be 32 or something and we were told that even two feet would help um and I I'm convinced based on what I'm hearing here that we really ought to seriously consider doing something and maybe maybe it is through the mechanism of of of a special permit um and uh because it it the recommendation is very strong and it's it's very clear that if we want mixed use uh we should really consider liberalizing in this neighborhood not the entire town in this neighborhood uh allowing a a higher height um that's that's just my reaction um I'd like to Second what's been said earli here the the buildout uh well the the visualization is wonderful um and I'm I'm very excited and pleased to see that it's so attractive U so that's it um can I can I add one quick comment about go ahead one of the things you guys have going here for you is because you've defined there being a Zone a and then a Zone A2 even this building height issue maybe you only allow the 35 foot height in zone a and then it goes back to 30 ft in the zone A2 where you would effectively be transitioning back to the broader Community Beyond that's at that 30 ft so it because you already have that built in and because we are talking about in the context of mixed use what's nice is you've already defined a zone for other reasons but the building height could also be one of those things that could change between those two zones and I think that would also be an effective way of transitioning down and helping ease a little bit of that concern it's really the the main mixed two structures out on the Main Street that get that a little bit more Dimension which again we think would really be helpful for the for the next use consideration that's good suggestion um Bob dubis any comments questions there's not much more that I can add to it but okay I'm uh in this in this like the gentleman was saying that we've already defined it and we could you could sneak in a few extra feet uh here and there on on the on the Ed on the buildout here um and then cut it back as it goes further in I'm I'm not advised to not doing that I think it's a good idea myself all right U thank you and um my uh my comments was I was um very appreciative of the um the work you've done I think it does provide a good images and illustrations of What U I believe the board has been trying to do with this bylaw um I I note after I listened to this that uh especially when you were Sugg uh noting that there's some Alternatives or some adjustments that could be done um one of the things that we did propose uh I think uh one of our previous meetings is having when you have a complex uh site with mixed uses that we first do a review of this nature the way you've structured it so that we could make those um adjustments as part of that uh that first um review before we get into a detailed site plan um I I think that's even more important now after seeing these visualizations and possibilities they could have here especially um on the uh the second site which was the post office uh how you could put the the an additional two commercial buildings cuz you maybe we don't want to lose a square footage on that particular site from uh from the commercial space so I I thought those were excellent suggestions and a lot of that I think could be worked out on that first um overall highlevel review of it so that that was the first thing that came on and I think we were going to add that and it's I I think the language is being worked on by stamp on that um the other things um I think these are items that we may want to consider I would suggest that um those are the tweaks that we might do after the first passing um we may have others too that we'd like to add in here um I'm concerned if we start making adjustments not one we might not get them all done in time um we have a draft that I've talked with staff about having available for February February 3rd meeting and at that point uh we're only doing very minor revisions after that point and then getting it finalized for February 10th so I think some of these need to be flushed out a little bit more perhaps get some input but uh I would say let's let's put this on a list of things that we're starting ready for um some perhaps future amendments that we would have to this uh this bylaw I think if we start making some of these adjustments now without thoroughly uh uh looking into them we might get caught with something especially maybe we didn't get everything all done in time and we are we are down to that level so that just some things to consider as part part of this uh Frank did you have a a comment to I just wanted to say that I I agree it's really too late in the day to start yeah working on that kind of issue right and um you know we can come back next year or the year after that they they these are very good insights in here and I think um even after the first one that comes through i' say this passes and the first one comes through we'll learn from that we'll be making lists every time when we get a site that comes before us I mean I think that's a good way of going about doing our business uh and then working with uh uh the planners and the staff here at the in the community development to actually keep generating that list so that we can revisit it at a certain time during the year um with that I'd like to thank Jeremy and and Union Studios and your your your group there um this has been very helpful for us um could launch us uh uh into getting some more uh support for this which is what we're looking for and a reason why we asked you to actually do this this is very enlightening to us um any other comments at this point um perhaps we can we open yeah um why don't we see if there's any public comments or questions associated with this since we have um these uh Consultants here on us if anybody raises their hand we can perhaps check I see someone you know who that is car Carolyn m m um uh Caroline yes Caroline um please state your name and yes this is Carolyn mcleland um from South chadam I just want to commend you all on the work that you're doing um I know it's a it's a big ask and it's a big uh pivot for the town to finally come to this point the folks at Union Studios I love your drawings I think they'll be very very helpful I'm very supportive of the two and a half stories or you know just going a not doing a full three stories I think I think we can get some ground make make some Headway in the public accepting that I also want to let you know that the Community Housing Partnership had a meeting today and we're we're committed to helping you get out in the community advocate for these decisions that were making um the only thing I I I missed some of your other meetings and I do want to make a a suggestion in regards to the um occupancy the yearound occupancy and uh um and I'm looking at the the report that was in your pack packet that your the packet that was released today and there's some notations from obviously from the attorney to the side and I just have a question on it says like it's the density residents excuse me I'm reading it um 25% can be deed restriction for affordable and another 25% for attainable that can be year round so the way I'm reading that is 50% could not be year round possibly um that that I that I think will be an issue and I just want to hope that you can put I mean I believe you can put just a just ban the short-term rentals on this whole zoning area and I think that would be easier to sell to the public I think I don't ever want to see we that's what most of the public don't want to they don't want to see having those units being available for that that's certainly not Our intention we don't want that to happen but I think having some assurances that we could give to the public would be would be helpful uh thank you just just for clarification at our I think our meeting on January 13th we did um decide to make a an adjustment and change with that section of the bylaw on February 3rd if you take a look at the posting on that before as part of our agenda you'll see the changes that are being uh suggested as adjusting for that and I think we're talked about also calling for as we reflected in the minutes that two months could be considered short-term rentals and the other 10 had to be residency occupied so it it it's it's uh it's not the 50% that was uh that that was in the previous uh setup and and also we looked at um the bonus being uh set at 20% of the residential housing Ed and it's we're we're concerned that uh uh we'd like to keep that underneath whatever a 40b CR would be uh so that we in uh encourage the incentives that we have associated with the bylaw uh and because that's what what the overall approach is is to have development look like what union Studios is creating here for us as part of these images but thank you for your comments um take a look at the updates uh in the February 3rd agenda packet and that and we'll be reviewing those then and and certainly you can comment on that at that date okay great thank you very much I appreciate that uh any other comments from uh the public Oh Yes Rick yeah Rick thank you thank you this has been an excellent uh presentation uh please for the record just introduce yourself I'm Rick levit from West Adam thank you uh one thought on the height this is my personal opinion but two two of the most attractive buildings in the West chadam Center today are two and a half Stories the uh hook fisherman Fisherman's Alliance building and the former Southwestern now Dunkin Donut building they were all built in the late 19 Century early 20th century so the height restriction while I would agree 30 ft the sense in the town is that we don't want to see large buildings but certainly uh to accommodate the need for housing in this community I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to present to the community a a town meeting a uh a bu law draft that would include 32 33 34 maybe even 35 ft and just show them what H the fisherman Alliance Building looks like what the current Dunkin Donut Building looks like you might want to actually if the planning department could do this get out there with a laser and measure those those buildings and just get what the height is thank you all right thank you uh any other other comments I don't see any so I think that's all we have for tonight I'll be care prepare for some action a week from now it's before Super Bowl so yeah I can make me make you work one Frank go ahead I I I know we're going to see uh a new draft with language uh but uh I presume that Council and staff are going to Pro provide language to address each of those issues um and to the extent that we need to change what we've been thinking language that gets us as close as possible to our objectives uh we need help y so right uh we've had one one review by uh Town Council but we'll the the changes that we're doing now will will have to go through uh another review um that's probably going to be done in parallel with our review on the third but those would be mostly from the adj the the final uh the items that we finalized over the last three weeks yeah I'm I'm just hopeful that we'll actually see proposed language yeah so um Warren um as the comment was made that uh perhaps the um the A1 Zone where commerci would be ex exclusive might have a different um height restriction I saw a bunch of nodding heads over here and I would concur that I think that's a very constructive idea I don't know what it would mean it would be higher I suppose than for the residential units um but I think that's an extraordinarily constructive the commercial buildings could be slightly higher uh to accommodate what a commercial business needs with a residents above it um so I would like the meeting notes to reflect the consensus on that issue y um also it did I I am still um surprised by the graphics that were presented as to what the buildings would look like uh to me it was a great surprise they look like three-story buildings um and um I I suggest that that will be much more difficult to sell M uh than if we can make them those Graphics look like twostory buildings I hear what you're saying but with the pitch and that story buildings take a look at when we get the the images we'll get them out to use um uh digitally first but we'll include them in the packet for the third but take a look at them it was sort of hard for me to see here at this distance I like to take a look at images on my screen blow them up and and just see if that's that's still what you're what you're visualizing because I wasn't quite sure I was in the same league as you were that that these appear to be three-story buildings now when you put a a roof on there yeah it looks like it's three stories but it's not no I was seeing three stories or two and a half stories okay you know with a living on the third floor put it that way um my only point is not whether I agree or disagree that that's a a useful structure build but only because as a town resident with everything I hear around the edges three stories starts to look like an apartment house yeah and uh and that means it's dead in the water in terms of uh town meeting so I think we need to have the graphics present what is for me much more agreeable to the voters um and that is not to have developments that are all appear to be three-story buildings uh so it's the graphics I'm talking about much more than the substance but I do think the the con the idea of having the commercial buildings have a relaxed height restriction is very constructive thank you um Charlene did you have something for yeah I think it it's definitely a visual thing I was not looking at those at all as three story buildings I was looking at those as 2 and 1 half story buildings in some cases you know some ornamental wind windows that may be there just for ventilation or or gable end um you know that kind of thing but I did not see them at all as as three story again this may just be my visualization it's definitely you know the visuals here were reasonably small so it was difficult to see take a look at a package General and and because of our picture requirement that's also making them look taller taller yeah um you know it's just it's it's it it's strictly a visual thing not a a actual right building thing uh Katherine just a brief and then Frank yeah just a brief comment um just a reminder um regarding the height issue that we should also just review as art you and I discussed earlier today the survey results from from the residents of West chadam and residents of chadam because all these points you know the length of the facade the Dormers the the height all of those we did survey the town and got responses from the town and we just um need to be sensitive to what the survey results gave us also in that consideration um of the town and also um to consider the community response it it is I'm not disagreeing that it could be a good thing especially in the commercial the mixed use buildings but we just want to consider what we're proposing for the town is going to be somewhat controversial anyway and we just need to you know consider whether including a change in height from our standard 30 foot which is a townwide limit that whether or not we should change that in this pass I think Frank you might have been suggesting that we do it in the the next round um that's correct yeah and I I would agree that that might be a better approach um I I do recall the survey questions and all that they were done that was uh an online um approach um I'll have um uh the Community Development staff uh dig those up and issue those there was I think 11 plus sign and it was like in two parts almost 20 that they actually reviewed so I'll um I did re see the results at one time but I'll I'll make sure that's made available for your next packet so that might help a little bit deal with some of these issues because when we first hired the Cape Cod Commission on this they suggested this is probably an important thing to do to revisit some of these things they got input before they started one item on the draft that you see in front of us now so the formulation of this came from that feedback and that was about three or four years ago so it's it's the more recent information from the public on this if there's no other comments or questions uh can I hear a motion for adjournment Mr chair I move we adjourn this meeting I always second motions to adjourn and I'll do a roll call vote uh Katherine I approve uh Warren Warren chain approve charl approve Frank approve uh Bob dubis Bob dubis approve art sprw I approve the time and the time is 6:50 p.m. thank you e