Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. I'm going to call the city council urban affairs committee to order. It's June
17th. It's a little past 7:30. Uh we have two items on our agenda. I'm going to take them out of the listing here. We're going to begin with order number 2600 19747, the application for modification
of a special permit from Matthew Donnelly on behalf of Target to amend condition number nine, signage requirements to increase the wall signage from 3 to 4 for the Target located at 423 Donald J. Lynch Boulevard. So, Mr. Donley, if you'd like
to come up to the well. Um the city clerk did put your PowerPoint back on the screen. Um so if you anybody needs to refer to it or if anybody brought their copies that we
were given at the public hearing that we had on the 8th um it might be helpful. I know you were all given a communication also that came from the um city solicitor late today.
I am going to begin quickly going through as required for special permits comments from department heads. So we had really no comment from the engine engineering
department, the fire department, the police department, conservation or the board of health, the building department. Uh Commissioner Payton indicated that the four new signs will have a total new aggregate area of
plus or minus 422 square ft. Will Target need to reduce the sign size of the signs to meet the 300 square foot maximum or will the city council allow the increase of the aggregate area? Um, so based on the comments from the
solicitor's office that I think everybody received because the project proposes flat wall signs with an aggregate of 421.46 46 ft a variance from section 52 board
which unfortunately was not related to um the applicant until this evening. So I apologize for the confusion in all of this but I don't know if you have any comments before we begin. We do have the
decision on the amendment to a special permit. the uh decision on the amendment to a special permit order number 26109747. We have the procedural findings of facts which really lists the business of the
company and 1,000 Nichollet Mall in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The applicants attended at 423 Donald J. Lynch Boulevard. On May 6, 2002, the council voted to grant the special permit authorizing New England Development
to have to conduct and operate a retail, store, shop, service establishment, and restaurant pursuant to section 217 C1 and section 217E. On April 30th, 2026, the applicant filed
with the city clerk an application to modify condition number nine to increase the wall signage from three to four signs. In connection with the application, the applicant submitted a certified list of abutters, the filing fees, and the site plans. The applicant
was certified by the building commissioner acting on behalf of the city planner as having compi complied with rule four and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the city council. The city council established a date for a public hearing on the application and
the city clerk advertised the public hearing. That public hearing was held on Monday, June 8th and the hearing was closed. The applicant through its representatives presented testimony detailing the change in hours describing
its impact upon municipal services, the neighborhood, and traffic. I think detailing the change in signs, not hours. >> At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke about the use or submitted written comments, and the procedural
findings specified above supplement those made at the original special permit. So based on all of that, the city council takes the following action. The applicant has complied with the rules and regulations promulgated by the city council for the issuance of the
special permit. The city council finds that the increase in wall signage is in appropriate use and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. City council incorporates by reference finding E in the original special permit and amended special
permit. The city council pursuant to its authority under master laws chapter 4A and the zoning ordinance grants the applicant an amendment to modify condition number nine as follows. By deleting condition number 9A in its
entirety and inserting in its place the following 9A wall signage for signs not to exceed 300. So, I know um in the detail that was also sent with
the solicitor's letter was a file that was given to the building department that had some signs that were really window signs that we don't need to deal with at all. I think what we need has
the language of where is it? uh drive up and you probably have a copy of this. I know it's confusing to me because the front page has where it looks like this
drive up sign is going on the front of the target building, but then further in it looks like it's going on the side of the building. Um, >> I'm looking at page or none of the pages
are marked, but it has the big picture of the drive up. Um, and it says generic partial elevation. Note placement can vary. So, it's this page. >> Yes. >> Oh, sorry. Can you make sure that that
button is lit? So, it's >> Sorry. >> Thank you. So, this picture really isn't a definitive picture of where it's going. Correct. It really will go >> where you have it on the wall. >> Yes, that is just a generic detail
>> because we usually reference um documents and I don't know if we need to specify four signs as designated on the design package of May 10th, 2025.
I'm looking at our council president, president Hosing. >> So, so Madam Chair, so that the solicitor will make sure that the correct drawings are references part of the package if that's where they are. I if those are the right sign because we need the dimensions and locations for
the signs and because that's what will become part of the uh special permit. >> All right. because the original language was actually a little more 100 square ft in the aggregate. So, this now just says four signs. It doesn't say
where they are. So, I don't know if we need to keep it with what's currently there. Two signs located over the store entrances, one pharmacy sign and one sign reading, what did I just say it was called? um
rather than just simply four signs. Does that make sense? I don't know if anybody else looked up the original special or I think there was a copy floating around of the special permit in 2002. Get rid of the and do a comma.
One pharmacy sign and one sign sign reading drive up or signifying I we'll let him. >> Madam Chair, >> councelor Fillo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick
question on that note. I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with that addition, right? Making sure that we clarify what what signs in particular, but I guess um you know, the special permit before us is the deletion of condition 9A, the wall signage. So, that would completely eliminate four signs not to exceed 300
square ft. I guess my my question is, are we losing control of the square footage if the language just includes what kind of signs or >> No, because it still is in there. The current language says the two signs, one pharmacy sign not to exceed 300 square feet in the aggregate. So we're already
over the 300 ft which is why they need to go for the variance. >> Okay? >> Because they didn't ask us and I don't know if we can put in here the the current aggregate. >> Okay. >> All we're doing is changing the number
of signs. this total square feet I think is in the zoning. Okay, >> which is why the solicitor said they needed to get the variance because they're over that. >> And just one one final question, Madam Chair, if I may. So, as it exists now
though, they are able to have four signs. >> They are able to have three signs. Two signs located over the store entrance and one pharmacy sign. That's three. >> Okay, >> they want four. So the fourth one would be that drive up sign
because they also have the freestanding pylon which is a different language >> not included in this >> not included in this change but it's currently in the code or in the special permit and as long as they don't change
the height or the square feet per side of that sign they're good to go because I know there's a picture of the pylon sign in one of these drawings. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Madam Chair, >> Councelor Nean.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm in agreement way still a little confused just on the the purpose of the drive up sign. Is this to is Target is this particular Target West? Are they changing the way that um drive up orders
are done? So right now if I order on the app, I go to the parking space with the assigned number on it. I >> um approved to be um I'm not sure exactly where in the parking lot it is at the moment, but it is going to be moved kind of right in front of where
the sign is going to be. >> Right. Yeah. Right now it's on the other side. It's like >> it's going to be moved to where that sign is going to be. So, >> and that'll just and the spots now will just be returned to regular parking spots for customers. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. sort of to follow up on that because I had the same concern.
Currently, the whole front of the drive of in front of Target is marked no parking, fire. Yep. >> Um use whatever. So, cars can't pull up and park there. So, how will you be able to load? Um so restricted
>> in the parking lot itself um we're going to convert some of the stalls that are in front of the building to be the new drive up stalls and then the existing drive stalls we're going to convert back to um regular stalls. >> So they're just going to be closer to
the building but nobody's going to be pulling up below that sign expecting somebody to walk out and load their car. >> Correct. No, we're going to have um multiple other kind of indicators that will have um and then we're also going
to have stalls that have the number at the top of the um stall that will be correspondent to the order number that they have on their phone and then they'll be able to come in and then pull into that stall and get their order delivered to them.
>> Okay. And I'm sure that if it becomes an issue, it'll be >> Thank you so much. Um so I in my view I I think the signage is a bit excessive. Um
and um you know moving forward if we do approve this it will set a precedence for Target and for other businesses. Um to me that drive up is very self-explanatory right now. Um if it's moved to the side that drive up
sign is not visible from the street. Right. I don't know if you're if you're familiar with the locations, but there the target is set back in a parking lot off of a pretty fast main road. Um there's one entrance. So, I I'm not sure who it's going to benefit having that
extra sign there. Um if you do have pylons in the parking lot, I think that would be more effective than having an extra sign thrown on the building. Um just kind of curious as to if if you guys had considered the actual views and and sight lines off the road
>> closer to it, but when they're trying to navigate the parking lot itself, this will kind of give them guidance and not kind of create, you know, traffic jams within the um within the parking lot trying to have them trying to find those stalls where they are. It's kind of be
like a a long elongated signage where you can see where the stalls are generally and then as you get closer you'll be able to see the stalls themselves. >> Yeah. Cuz um if if I'm familiar with this as you're driving up to that target
from this the entrance at the light you are actually facing that door where you want to put the new drive up sign already. So people that that area is already visible to anyone driving up >> the existing or the proposed. >> Yes, the existing areas. So um again
like I I don't know who it's going to benefit entirely if if there's already designated parking spots, there's pylons, there's lots of markings where cars go. Um I don't think this really necessitates another sign on the building itself. Yeah, I think it's just
for mostly that um when the customers pull into the lot itself, they'll be able to find the um stalls a lot easier than trying to find these beacons that aren't going to be as visible as a sign would. And then um it would create less
traffic jams and things like that within the parking lot. >> Any further questions? Councelor Fillo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one follow-up question. Um I know uh just across town at Boston Post Road East, right, is our other target location in
the city. Um just looking at like GIS and looking at the mapping, I can't see if there's this drive up sign there, but is there a similar sign at the other target location in the city or >> um there's not yet. Um >> but seems like this is something that's >> it has been approved and it will not
violate a special permit. So, um, we just haven't kind of gone through the process of that just yet. Um, so, >> but that location does currently service the drive up beacon. Right. >> They do have a drive up. They, um, they don't have a they have one beacon at the
moment. Um, we are also going to do a remodel on that one as well. The drive up stalls. >> I was just curious just for consistency across the board. Just Thank you. I appreciate that. it as the as of right now um we haven't started the process of
getting one there um but there is a drive up and yeah >> thank you thank you madam chair >> decal which we don't have to approve because they aren't considered something
that is corre so so long as you don't cover too much of the window. There's there's a an amount that >> where that goes. Um Fillo, >> thank you, Madam Chair, and bear with me
here. So, we would be approving um the four signs with the l the specific four signs with the language that you had referenced earlier. >> You want me to read it again? >> If you don't mind. >> Wall signage, two signs located over store entrances, comma, one pharmacy
sign, comma, one signifying drive up. uh period. All signs will be located on the front elevation as shown on the plan stated May 10th, 2025. >> So moved. >> All right. It's been moved and seconded
to amend the and also then to change that one word of whatever was that I had uh number nine, the hours to signs um which is really just a typo I think. um
to amend the amendment. All those in favor? All those opposed. And then all those in favor of the um signed permit as amended three and those opposed. All right. So,
councilor Presiato. So, as I had said to you, I will report this out at Monday's meeting and then we don't meet again until July. So, this has got to be referred to the solicitor so he can make sure that these changes are all in this
draft uh in proper form and then we will be voting on this at our July meeting. And the hope is that the planning board will have this on their agenda and then and the planning board meets before we do. So if they approve the variance but
we don't approve the amended special permit then the variance is really null and void I guess. So unfortunately um okay so that's the next steps and you need to reach out to the planning board
to make sure that you fill out the paperwork and pay any fee that is required so you're on the agenda. All right. Thank you very much for your >> patience work. Next on our agenda is
order number 19705, a communication from attorney Robert C. Buckley on behalf of Redgate Real Estate Advisors LLC regarding a proposed zoning amendment to chapter 650 zoning to add a
new section to Elizabeth Bellow from Redgate and Christine Hung from >> Reamer and Broncene. >> That's the attorney's office. All right. So,
we have the draft. Uh, we have the letter from the planning board. Attorney Buckley, I don't know if there's anything you want to bring up before we start. Again, I believe your information is also on the
screen if anybody needs it. So >> um first uh thank you madam chair members of the council for for the record Robert Buckley Christine hung my partner and Elizabeth Bell from Redgate. We have our presentation that you saw at the council meeting. I don't know if you want us to go through it again but we
can refer to it. Um but I can I can also summarize why we're here and what what we think that uh we're trying to accomplish and uh that might be the most efficient way of doing it. Um if it if it pleases the chair. >> Sure. That sounds good. I know it's up there and I think everybody's got their
copy if >> we do have we passed a big copy and a small copy so I can share. >> I I probably don't have to remind the council that and if you read the press and I'm sure you have applicants coming before you constantly what a difficult time it is out there in the commercial
sector right now. Um particularly with uh office and um be it lab or any other components. But what has what has seemed to resonate to the extent anything resonates in the marketplace right now is the mixeduse concept um which we're
trying to accomplish here and uh create a little vibrant pocket that would be self-contained and activated and hopefully uh uh result in a stabilization of of that area in the market and enhance uh the product and
also the tax revenue for the city. So, we patted. We patterned. Again, I apologize. I know I told you I lost my tooth from 3 weeks. I was told today I'll have it. So, I won't be slurring my words. Um, but I am going to look up
that tackle from Yale because I think he's still alive. Um, but um the um you have the executive residential overlay. So, we use that as a template. So we went starting from scratch to reinvent something and introduce something that
would require a a tremendous amount of analysis. We have gone to the planning board. Uh I thought the conversation was robust and very good and uh by and large we agree with uh the comments that the planning board has forwarded to the council with a couple caveats. houses.
Town houses would eat up a lot of the land mass um that we're trying to preserve as a natural buffer and create a natural amenity. But when you do separate standalone town houses or string them together, it it does eat up a lot of the land. But what we're
proposed to do and what we would be willing to explore as weate lack of a better term a brown house in the uh you know in the front that instead of going into a hallway and down the hallway if you're on the first floor you may have direct entrance into your your unit on
the first floor. So to the outside it would look like a townhouse but it condenses it and preserves the open space which was what we're trying to do. Um we we we feel strongly that the 450 is the appropriate number for purposes of financing and making it a reality. Um
so we'd like to hold that number, but we would work at trying to pro provide a diverse living experience and Liz Beth can talk to that if if if the council would like. And the second is on the height. We're fine with the height. Um but under the
new building code where Massachusetts has gone essentially all electric um most of the units now have separate uh heat pumps or heat units and you don't want those on the ground. You want them
on the roof. Um, when the war 3 or 4 ft off the ground, but maybe screened. So, you can have the 60ft height with a um an additional mechanical area on the roof that's screened. So you really don't see it, but it would hold all the utilities that
you'd have to have because otherwise you're putting them on the ground and it looks horrible. It really does. And I and with the weather and the snow and everything that it causes more problems than they're worth. So the height we could live with with the se with subject
to exclusion exclusion of the mechanicals on the roof that is appropriately screened and I know what the height would be probably 10 ft >> actually. 5T 5 to 10. So those are the two major issues, right?
>> Oh, the real Yeah. >> There you go. You want to bring it? >> Um it's commit to that control the market. Um but you know, I think this is one of those things that more than happy to work with the council and continue to provide updates regarding our outreach
efforts um marketing efforts and how it's going and hopefully it does align. >> All right. So, what let me read the planning board's comments as appropriate. Um so, honorable president OAN counselors at its regularly
scheduled meeting on May 18th, 2026, the planning board took the following action. On a motion by Dr. Finbeby, seconded by Mr. Russ, the board voted to forward specific recommendations regarding the proposed zoning amendment to the city council. The consensus of
the board was to provide a generally favorable recommendation subject to the inclusion of the board's recommended modifications. The board provided the following responses relating to the board's fourprong zoning standards. The board agreed that the proposal as
currently presented has the potential to negatively impact neighboring properties. However, the board concluded that with appropriate modifications, the proposal could be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, particularly considering the newer development along Lazot Drive. The board
further agreed that the proposed zoning amendment is in in its current draft form could negatively impact the neighbors. The board noted that with the modifications outlined below, the amendment could potentially mitigate those impacts. The board reached a
consensus that the inclusion of town homes and mixeduse components such as retail would provide a greater benefit to the city than a low occupancy office building. The board also agreed that if properly modified, the zoning amendment
would align with the intent and purposes of the city's zoning ordinance. The board provided the following recommendations. Limit the number of gardenstyle apartment units to 400 with the option to include up to an additional 50 town homestyle units.
Increase the required perimeter property line setback from 20 ft to 50 ft while exempting existing structures from the revised setback requirement. Restrict building heights to the height of the existing structure or a maximum of 60 ft
inclusive of spires and towers. Remove the term public from section G2 as there will be no public ways created as a result of the new zoning. Require the incorporation of retail and mixeduse components as part of the
construction of the first building phase. Encourage the inclusion of underground parking to reduce the extent of imperous surface. Encourage the development of publicly accessible walking trails and or bicycle paths. Recommend that the the developer conduct
a balloon test to evaluate the potential visual impact of the surrounding area and recommend that no demolition permit be issued until the special permit application. Signed Sean Fay chairperson.
So, the zoning ordinance requires us to get an opinion from the planning board. What we do with it is up to the body. We have um followed it sometimes, we have ignored it other times, but we'll see. Um councelor Nan.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Bob, just to clarify, so the you the proponent is ex finds it, excuse me, finds the comments from the planning board acceptable except for the 50 town homes andorating retail.
>> Yeah, we'd like to have the number 450 and and the town houses will try to incorporate. We'll work. We can draft language to the effect that we'll work with the council, >> but 450 is a number from a financial standpoint that makes it real. And and
we think that we can achieve that separate diverse housing feel by putting these things on first floor entry. But if you were to do 50 town houses that are on a perimeter, it would eat up a lot of the open space that we're trying
to preserve, which again provides a nice natural buffer to the roadways around. So that >> No, understand. I just I want to make sure as mentally as we're preparing to go through these I'm checking these off from the planning board saying, "Okay, these are good. These are good." >> We agree with the concept. We just want
to tweak it so that it works and it's no one benefits if we do something that no one can execute, you know. So that's correct. Yeah. And and we think this would would enhance the execution of this so that it would be attractive. >> And if you've been out there, the terrain >> the topography
>> the topography level drops off. So it creates some nice ambiance that we we intend to incorporate into the >> overall plan. So >> very good. Thank you. >> Okay. So I went through this looking at results mixeduse overlay district rather
than the residential overlay which is ex the language is almost similar except where they talk about their muds where you have your terminology a project in a phase so it's similar but there are some
differences so I uh I I've noted them where appropriate. Um, so let's see. We begin with your draft pursuant to chapter 48 of the general laws. The city of Malbor having received for its
consideration changes in the zoning ordinance to further amend chapter 650 now ordains for street residential overlay district allows the application of supplemental land use controls within the boundaries of a certain overlay district subject to city council
approval as an alternative to land use controls that exist in the underlying district. The establishment goals of the SFR OD are to enhance land use development and development to allow for the development of housing, retail and
workplaces within close proximity of each other consistent with the stated economic development and smart growth objectives of the city. I will say I've got my head down as I'm reading. So if anybody else has issues, please uh yell
out and I will stop. be the location of the FSRD development phasing for the purpose of of this section 650 number to be figured out. The FS OD is comprised of parcels identified on the city's
assessor's maps as parcels 98, 91,1124, and 102-1 containing approximately 30.96 acres as indicated on the city zoning map and more particularly described and shown on exhibit A annexed here 2 and
incorporated by reference therein. Um, number two, within the FSRD, there may be one or more phases of development. An applicant may submit a site plan and or special permit application for the entire project, the
FSRO project or for one or more phases of the project, each a FSRO phase. The FSRO project or phase may consist of one or more parcels of land and may include
any eligible use set forth in subsection D below which may be co-mingled within a single structure or located in separate structures on one or more parcels. Parcels within the FSROD may be combined or subdivided and held under separate
ownership or lease holds. the FSRO project or the FSRO phase shall be subject to site plan approval. Number three, upon the issuance of site plan and or special permit approval for the FSRO project or phase on a parcel or
parcels in the FSROD, this section shall govern said parcel as developed in accordance with the site plan approval. Four, except as specifically provided herein, the provisions of the zoning ordinance
relating to the underlying zoning districts not otherwise impacted by this section shall continue to remain in full force and effect in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provisions of the
zoning ordinance. The provisions of this section shall govern and control C. The authority of the permit granting authority. The city council shall be the permit granting authority. A simple majority vote is required pursuant to master law
chapter 48 section 9. Site plan approval shall require a simple majority vote. So this is my first question. Does the city council want site plan approval or do we want to just be special permit approval
and let site plan favor of maintaining authority with our council? So, I'm I would be fine with keeping it as it is to um continue to keep us as the site plan um I guess not granting authority but the site plan approval authority. Um but happy to have further discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Any other opinions? Madam Chair, >> I'm not a fan after having gone through this personally. I would just rather have site plan do it. But council, >> so as we as we know, we don't do any site plan votes on this council until
the site plan actually tells us what we're supposed to do. So it really is in line with council villain. It maintains our overall authority, but we we don't we don't do the plumbing and other the details that site plan does. We rely on them. So I again I'm following and I
guess I want to correction M. Attorney Buckley I'm following the executive overlay district wording. Is that how you modeled the plan or the the zoning change? >> Yeah. >> The difference between this and and Albero Hills on the the other is that was that was really master planning of
an entire >> right >> and and this you already have this template in place >> right and results way also has the council being site plan approval and special permit. Let's just add that's the one that and and >> but it was so it was so comprehensive
that at the time some of the councils could remember it was it was really you wanted to maintain control because it was an entire section of the city. So when I drafted that I wanted to make sure that everything one way or another came through the council. Now, Madam
Chair, to your point earlier about um when I made the comments about how we would work to on retail to keep the council advised or how we're doing and whatever, I do think it's important to have the council informed um because we will make
commitments on the housing, the diversity, and I think that as councilors, you you should have that. So, we could bifrocate it. the technical could go to the site plan review, but there could be an obligation in a permit to periodically advise the council as to how we're doing on terms of those other
issues. >> Okay. So, my sense of this committee is that we want to keep site subsection H. The city council may elect by simple majority vote to vary the dimensional location and number of parking spaces, design and landscaping requirements upon
finding that se such change shall result in an improved design and will not nullify or substantially deraggate from the intent. We're talking about a site plan is simple majority, but a special permit is a twothirds vote. So the
special permit would could have the dimensional location number of parking spaces and landscaping varied but it's not a simple majority. So, >> well, if I if I may, um, yes, when when
you're going through the site plan process and you're you're presenting a site plan or special, I'm sorry, special permit application to the council for consideration, you'll see that there are dimensional requirements in terms of parking design, etc. You may look at
that and say, you know what, if we were to move the parking over here, it makes for a much better site. So, it's not after you've granted the permit, it's during the process. So are you okay with removing may elect by simple majority vote and just have the city council may
>> vary that's fine if you want to >> and then figure out whether it's site plan which is 2/3 or special permit which is we still have to approve the special permit and I know we varied >> the flexibility because a lot of communities have filed and there are a lot of communities now adopting this
type of an approach that when you're going through the project you you locating a parking or you know landscaping island here makes more sense than over there that rather than having to go back to square one and start that
during the process they can say we think this makes a better project by putting it over here and that's your call but yeah very fine and you can you can determine how you want to do it >> okay then my other question is on page six of this >> before I'm sorry that's okay before you
leave that madam chair >> but if you eliminate the words I simple majority vote. It aligns with what's in the executive overlay district. >> It does align. Okay. So, we're all okay with eliminating. It would just read the city council may vary the dimensional
that work. All right. Um under what page are we on? Under um F the parking. You know under G design standards three is landscaping. Landscaping shall conform to the
provisions of 65047 landscaping. So if it has to conform, can we vary it or do those two things conflict? >> If it conflicts and this controls, >> but they're both in the same zoning language. One says we can vary. One says
you have to conform. that we will conform initially to it but during the process applicant upfront that you should conform to this design criteria as you're going through the process the applicant may say if we were
to do something different then it would enhance the project and then it's the call of the council so you have the authority to alter that during the process >> okay so I I if you look at the parkisions couldn't that same language be in
G3 except for >> Yeah, I think that that's fine. >> I mean, I >> Yep. >> I I guess I would leave it up to legal to decide if they conflict or if in fact just because it says it in one place doesn't mean we can't do it in the
other. The only the only comment there madam chair if I could that on the parking I don't have the ordinance in front of me but for instance 1.5 for dwelling unit three for commercial >> right yeah you already have your um except the provisions conf that you're
looking to vary or are specified here and you might not for the landscaping. All right. And then the final question is as part of a modification pursuant to subsection H, which is really your modifications after approval. So why
would you ever come after something's been approved and ask to vary the dimensional, location, number of parking and landscaping? We've approved it already. >> Yeah. There there may be a major change either in the marketplace. I mean, for instance, while this is retail and and
housing, you know, 7 years ago, office space was, if I told you office would be upside down, you'd tell me I was crazy. Um, and now office buildings are being modified and altered to try to attract tenants and make major changes to the
plan. So, you make the determination whether it's a major or minor. If it's major, you have to go through the whole process again. But what we're saying is that you don't want to forstall or eliminate the ability to adapt to changing economic conditions or changing
market conditions, but you don't want to lose control at the same. >> So would if you're varying the dimensional location number of parking spaces and landscape, >> you know, I'm trying to think, you know, moving the handicap from one location to another to be more convenient. That's
technically a change in the in the plan, but generally that's a minor modification. >> All right, madam chair, >> councelor Austin. >> So So again, that section H again is word for word what's in the executive overlay district. And if you rec the wording is the same.
>> We're just and and I compliment you for having that because we're just trying to avoid a situation where the market changes dramatically and everyone's paralyzed and you can't respond. >> Okay, I will leave it there. I know the solicitor has it. I had a con a question on it. So, we'll see if he's okay with
the language when it type development of the Marorrow City Code. An application for a special permit for a use in the FSROD shall comply with the requirements of 65059 of the zoning ordinance. D. The eligible uses number one, the
following uses are permitted by right in the FSR. A uses allowed by right in the underlying which is limited industrial district as set forth in the table of use regulations including but not limited to offices, banks, insurance and
financial institutions and brew pubs. B. Accessory uses as defined in 655B of the zoning ordinance, including not not limited to above ground and underground parking garages on the same lot as the principal use, community amenities
parenthesis business center, indoor outdoor recreational uses, fitness studio, or the like in parenthesis. And two, the following additional uses are permitted by special permit in the FSR.
A multif family dwellings. So here's where we would put a limit. >> Do we want? >> Yeah, >> councelor Asing. >> So So you're you're spot on, councelor Roby. So in the executive overlay district it says multifamily dwellings provided that the total number of units
within the entire in this case it would be the fso shall not exceed enter your number. So so that that though that wording does need to be here to put some context as to how big the complex or how many units the council if
they approve it wants to authorize. And in what we were shown at the public hearing, again, those are always just proposals, but they did have building A having 210 and building B having 240. Um, if we go with 250 as our max, how
they design it later is really up to us when we get to the special permit. >> 250 or 450. >> I'm sorry, 450. I can't add. Um, and we can decide if we want to deal with the planning board's recommendation
that it's 400 with the option to include an additional 50 if they're town home style units or if we want to deal with that issue at the special permit phase. >> Again, you are correct cuz I don't think you want to get into the details now.
You you might want what nine buildings with 50 units each. I mean, who knows what the council's purview or what the developer thinks is going to be suitable at the time that they come before us uh with a project. Buildings are going to put it in, how many units are going to
be in the building. Um, and then we get to decide whether we like it or not. >> Madam Chair, if I could comment, it would be by special permit. So, you would have the discretion to comment on the design. But if we have the 450, we're going to try to have a diversity
of product, but we just don't know at this point what that would be. And so the council would have by special permit the discretion to say yay and a at that point, >> right? So I will make sure I have the language. It's um Lazat Drive has by
special permit multif family dwellings including multiple dwellings on a single lot provided the total number of multif family dwellings shall not exceed 250. So that was a little bit different but >> if you want to read it one more time and we'll make sure everybody agrees.
>> Sure. So as it states now it says multif family dwellings and then be comma provided that the total number of units within the entire FSD shall not exceed 450.
>> Okay. That's too many. >> So was that okay for councelor Prosiato? Says no. That's too many for you. >> Too many for me counselor. I would like to take the re recommendation from the from the board and do 400 units. Limit
it to 400 units and 50 now in homes. >> So how do we get 400 and then the additional 50 there? It's all by this is by special permit. They're not going to per special permit 400 and then special permit an additional 50 that are only townhouse.
They're going to want townhouse. They might want more than 50 town houses. They might. So, as councelor Oing said, and I think I would agree for the zoning piece, we just want the maximum number. We'll deal
with the weeds when the special permit comes in. >> Understood. I would still like to limit at 400 units then >> 400 >> not specify town homes 400 400 total. >> All right. Um I mean we can have the
discussion. How does anybody else feel? I mean we were shown a proposal that had 450. That doesn't mean that's what we approve. >> Councelor Fill. >> Thank you Madam Chair. You taking the words out of my mouth there. I think right we've seen a proposal that again we're in the zoning phase. So take it
with what you will. Um but that proposal does anticipate 450 units right in good faith I I am comfortable with that number um I think the way that um President Austin had provided right um that that is our max and we'll get into
the details when the special permit is before us. So I'm I'm comfortable with 450 um and I'm more than happy to have that conversation down the road when a special permit is before us. Thank you Madam Chair. I think a majority of the folks here um one of the things that I find compelling about taking up this
zoning um conversation we've had before um is a similar conversation that we had with Lazad is what this actually can achieve um by incentivizing developers to come in and help a problem that we have with some of our um lowerass office buildings and help convert um I think
what you guys are seeing out there in the market it is a tough market um we do want to be able to find out we don't want to overbuild something but we want to know what it is going to take to actually build it. Um, you know, everybody understands the cost of money these days is not cheap. Um, and it
certainly doesn't seem to be getting any cheaper out there. So, um, I think that in this phase when we are talking about the zoning, I think putting the putting the 450 cap that's been identified is and we can certainly negotiate a little bit further when we do get to the special permit. Excuse me. So, I would
support the 450 in the zoning piece. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. So it looks like not I don't know do we need a vote because this is going to go forward I think as a total package. Councelor Fchillo >> Madam Chair I would move to amend
section 2A to say multif family dwellings comma provided that the entire number of units within the FSR shall not exceed 450 units. >> Right. It's been moved to amend 2A as just read through.
Is there discussion? All those in favor? One, two, three. So, it's and those opposed. So, it still does carry. So, that will be changed. Uh the next two B is restaurant cafe with or without table service including outside seating and
service without drive-thru. C. a restaurant cafe with or without table service including outside seating and service with drive-thru provided that said facilities have no dedicated driveway with a curb cut on a public way. So with this one I question because
in limited industrial this is not allowed >> correct >> a drive-thru. So you were asking us to allow it by special permit even though the code doesn't allow it in the underlying district
>> because madam chair the the introductory paragraph the following additions you are per permitted by special permit and the reason for that is that in the perfect world if we do this correctly you're going to have office some retail some mixed use you want to activate it
and but we're not taking it off a public way. We're not taking it off the it's going to be internal to the site. So trying to control and create a sense of identity. >> Sports and fitness clubs indoor or
outdoor and related facilities. E is retail sales and services which is both under 75 square ft and over 75 square ft are all special permit currently in the LI. Distilleries with attached
restaurants. G is accessory solar in I'm questioning uses allowed by special permit in the underlying zoning district. So, I don't know what that has, but I went through the underlying zoning district has a whole lot of
allowed by special permit that I'm not sure I want allowed. I mean, I suppose we can deny the special permit, but hotels are one of them. And I'm not sure that I want a hotel in this little subdivision. I don't know that I want
outdoor storage, a shopping mall. These are all allowed by special permit. And I again I looked at results way. Results way has a whole list of uses set forth as follows are expressly prohibited.
And I don't know if we want to you don't really have a anything that's prohibited uh list. Do we want one or do we want to leave this H there and then we can deny stuff we don't want when it comes to a
special permit which then we have to deal with them filing a lawsuit. So I'm going to go to council press first. >> Thank you madam chair. I would make a motion to remove uh h uses allowed by special permit in the underlying zoning district. Um I believe by allowing
things like this including uh C um it sets a precedence for the applicants to come in and this council more than likely is usually in in favor of things that applicants propose.
Um when it comes to council I feel like the council does feel like they are forced to make these decisions and say yes to the uh applicants. So I would just make a motion to remove that. And I guess I would agree except that I'm not sure because it's the underlying district. So I don't know how we can do
this. Councelor Oing >> um again sound like a broken record but the exact same language you know is in the executive overlay district which was >> do they have any exclusions where you can't have these any these specific things?
>> Nope. because it's I mean >> so the the only one that's not in and I guess I >> and item one >> by right >> Oh, it's by right. Okay. All right. Yep. No, you are correct. Okay. Yep. That's correct. Never mind. >> But >> I I'm sorry. I didn't >> a brew pub. >> Oh, the brew hub.
>> That's that's by right is as an accessory use. >> Yeah. >> Um not correct. Sorry about that. But >> yeah, which would then be a use allowed by special permit because >> the special permit us is in again you have broad discretion as a special permit. One of the findings I believe is
it has to be compatible with the neighborhood. If it's not compatible, I don't care what you think about an appeal, but courts have got to defer to the the council or the permit granting authority is making that determination.
Again, zoning should be predictable but flexible. And we're trying to be predictable but also flexible because things could change dramatically. >> Okay. Do you would you object to having the similar language to expressly
prohibited and I can read through but first we got to deal with there was a motion from councelor Presiato. Is there a second? >> No. Okay. So, I guess we're leaving uses allowed by special program. >> But if there are certain uses you want prohibited, you can run them off. And we
>> um what the um results we had are adult entertainment, including an adult bookstore, video store, paraphernalia, tattoo, body piercing, parlors, and shops, die works, biosafety level four laboratories as defined by the
US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. And I think that was >> none of those bother us. We'd agree to that. So they had more establishments for construction uh in such services but not limited to building building
maintenance, plumbing, landscaping, electrical masonry, carpentry, well drilling, electroplating, hazardous and toxic chemical dis manufacturer, trucking terminal, automotive sales and service, retail gasoline stations, commercial bakeries, on-site sales and
rental of heavy machinery, laundry and dry cleaning establishments. ments except drop off which I think you specify as uh or did you specify? No. Um any activity or use directly or indirectly
involving the dispensing, use, sale, growing, storage or transportation of medical marijuana, including medical marijuana treatment center and any on-site facility or clinic devoted to the treatment of substance addiction, including narcotic detox and or
maintenance facility. I'll defer to the client, but from a legal standpoint, those seem to be incompatible with what we're trying to achieve. >> They do or don't. >> They do. Incompatible. >> Madam Chair, >> Council Austin. >> So So again, go back up to the top.
Number two, the following additional uses are permitted by a special permit. Then when you go to H, uses allowed by a special permit in the underlying zoning district. So the underlying zoning, again, that nothing's changed. I mean, that's all they're saying is you need a
special permit to do things above which aren't allowed in an LI district, but just reinforcing the fact that if you're going to do something in an LI that needs a special permit, you have to get a special permit. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Yes.
>> All right. Is everybody okay with the language as is? Just leaving it usees allowed by special permit and we'll deal with them as they come to us. Okay. Thank you for your indulgence in my uh I is mixeduse development consisting
of a combination of by right or special permit residential business uses as listed in this section. Number three, all uses not specified in subsection D1 and two above shall be deemed prohibited in the FSROD.
Number four, once an FSROD project or phase receives site plan or special permit approval, A, an individual as of right use within the FSRO project or phase may be changed without further
site plan approval unless such change would otherwise require site plan approval under section 270-2 of the Marble City Code or modification to a site plan approval under subsection H3.
So, can you explain or kind of give me a what would you want to change? >> Well, if you change without further >> if you change the configuration of the building, that's that's a site plan modification. The use may be permitted, but you still have to go through site
plan because you're changing site circulation, you're changing parking, whatever you would require today under your site plan review, we're saying we're subject to that. If it's just doing a a grocery store for a dry goods
store, it's retail for retail. That's as of right as of right. So, not changing the building, not changing the skin. It it probably doesn't require site plan site plan approval. >> So why but you still have to come back to either the building commissioner or
the >> make a determination if it's made. >> This to me says you can just do it without any approval. >> If if the building commissioner says that this is merely a change of as of right useful one as of right use making
no changes that require building or sight circulation around the parking lot. This may have to go to the council to be determined or the the site plan review to see is this major or minor. So, it's a two-step process, but we're not changing anything that doesn't exist
today. You'd have to do that today. >> Okay. And and again, this is a question I have for legal >> it's going to look like and they have to follow the plans and if they deviate from the plans, they need building commission to weigh in. If it's minor, the building will be site plan. and we'll end up getting a thumbs up at some
point. But if it's major, then it comes back for a special permit for eight votes. And again, you hate hearing this. It's the exact same wording in the executive overlay district. >> This is there the exact same wording. All right. >> As you're reading, I'm following along executive overlay district. You I could
be reading this from the executive. >> It's not in results way. And it's >> Yeah, I don't think results way is a fair comparison because it's a two different concepts. it that that was really master planning for >> but it's still almost everything else except for this is not in there. Um and
then B of that is an individual use already granted a special permit within the FSRO project or phase may be changed upon the grant of a new or modified special permit as appropriate for that changed use and will be subject to site
plan approval provided however if the change is to an as of right use in the FSROD no further site plan approval is required unless such change would otherwise wise require site plan site
plan approval under section 270-2 of the Marboral City Code or modification to a site plan approval under subsection H3. So I mean the these to me seem like they're really duplicating modifications
which say if you want to modify something you've been approved you either need building commissioner to approve a minor or you need the council to approve a major. Well, what madam chair what what we're trying to do is articulate the procedures so there's no
confusion on the part of the in the city I I I would submit these are what the city does today um what we're trying to say be it this developer or someone else if you have a special permit use the
council grants us a special permit used to occupy a building a building and 5 years from now you say we're going to change the use to a use that's permitted as of right. Well, you don't have to get another special permit because you're going from a special permit to an as of
right use. You're not changing anything. So, under your procedures, you go you go through the process of the building commissioner or whatever. It's just articulating what probably occurs. We're not trying to change anything. >> Okay. All right. Your your the point
that you just brought up. I guess the to me that doesn't even seem like it's possible. If we've given you a special permit, that special permit goes the but >> no, if you change the use then that special permit is being >> I don't think you can change the use but
I'm not the legal. So again, this is a question for legal department. We'll see. And if it's already in one, we'll see >> verbatim word for word. >> All right. Um C. The special permit and or site plan approval shall be deemed to have been vested upon the issuance of a
building permit other than a demolition permit for all or any portion of the FSRO project or phase and I guess I had forgotten I threw in >> so madam chair this is not in the exe
this is not in the executive overlay district so it' be interesting to have what the applicant >> said I had put in somewhere else to add in a demo permit. Um, oh, I was
back in location development phasing. Um, within the FSRO, an applicant shall submit a site plan and I said, do we want to add in language read no demo permit allowed until site plan or special permit has been approved? And
that was really just going with the recommendation. if it would be allowed until site or what? >> Until >> what? What? What? >> Demolition permit. >> Demolition permit. >> You can't because currently there's nothing in the code about a demolition permit that says you can't apply for one. You can apply for one anytime,
>> right? >> Planning board is suggesting that you we not allow you to demo something without a site plan or a special permit. >> Want to preserve the value of the taxes. Yep. >> So, I wasn't sure where to put it. I figured it could go in location
development phasing number two where you talk about you have to submit a site plan or special permit application for the entire site plan has been approved. >> Does that work for everybody? >> I mean I I'd have Madam Chair I I would
have legal review it. I just want I've seen it for the first time well as part of this news. So I don't legal says it's okay. I'm I'm guess I'm okay. My my sense is that because there's been talk in the marketplace on buildings that are not responsive, just scrape them, take
them down. And communities don't want to do that because it does have a negative impact on >> we're seeing it across the street. But the purpose I think there was a commonist to see the a lot of community
the case law has said that what is execution the case law says execution is detrimental reliance when I've started to change my position based upon the grant of a permit. So, I go and I spend $10,000 for plans or I do site grading,
whatever. I'm starting to rely on that permit pieces of this simultaneously. You know, maybe we're doing the housing and we're doing that spurs some retail and that spurs some u office use. It's
all going on at once. The likelihood of being able to do that in two years is pretty remote. I mean, it's probably going to take three or four years to do all the components. So four years and we want the lenders who are financing this to say the permit's going to stay in
place once once you start and you get your building permit it's vested you know so you can it may take three or four years but it's all going on and you don't have the fear of losing the permit >> and I think this is language that legals
should look at because I'm sure >> the next page has even more concerning where you get into the six years kind of thing Um to me the special permit is once it's approved and there's no appeal that starts the clock. You've got three
years. >> I I I I would like to agree with that but there is there is some argument that what what does theoretically you have to record the permit to trigger the act activation of it. But what you want to
you let's take a situation now. Let's assume we're going to do an office building for sake of discussion. We get a special permit to do the office building. >> But you don't need a special permit. You only need site plan. So >> pick pick a building you need a special permit for. Um
multif family right in front of us. Okay. So we say okay we're coming in for a multif family special permit. No one is going to spend the developer is going to spend all of the money to do
the final construction drawings to support that permit until the permit's granted, right? Because you're you're putting money out when we don't have a permit. You could be spending a million dollars to do construction drawings and not have a permit because the council hasn't
voted, >> right? But you would need the final drawings for site plan approval. uh not construction drawings. There's a difference between site plan and construction. So now the council approves the whoever the council
approves a special permit. We get site plan. We're ready to go. We go to the architects and say we're ready to go. Let's do the construction drawings and get get moving. The architect is likely to say well it's probably going to take 10 to 12 months to do the construction
drawings. So already you've eaten into a year of of the three years we say okay once we get the construction drawings we get the building permit it may take three four years to execute the
development of the project to build it all to do the infrastructure the roads the buildings because again this is one area it's not just one building in an area with master planning the whole area we could be building simultaneously and doing infrastructure structure. It could
be a three or four year project. >> And again, I guess I'd be more than happy to talk to the solicitor. I'm sure when I talk to them today, >> we're doing nothing other than make sure that it's a reality and no one gets hurt in the park. >> Yeah. Cuz cuz they he looked it up. The code says two years for site plan, three
years right >> for special permit. >> The question because when does it vest? >> I would think it's vested as soon as the appeal period is over. But we other than one special permit that we have, we've
never had an issue where they haven't been built and they've actually >> completed it in the time period allowed. >> Well, it's doesn't have to be completed. You have to start. That's what we're trying to protect. You know, it doesn't say that in the statute. It says 3 years. Permit's good for three years,
>> right? You need to have shovels in the ground at the end of >> the statute doesn't say that. That's why and that's why we're trying to be clear. >> That's what legal is saying. That was their >> well no I agree with them that's the detrimental reliance once we you've relied but and the courts have held that
but what we're trying to be cautious here and say okay there could be two or three projects going on simultaneously we're just trying to protect everyone >> right and I think we're getting ahead of ourselves to the next section it's now does the the demolition permit that the
planning board is suggesting that you shouldn't have until building >> special permit application has been approved. >> Um, does it belong in C? Does it belong where I suggested we maybe we can just
ask legal to put it in there somewhere >> and you're okay with having that in there and everybody's okay with having it somewhere in there? >> All right. So D, the applicant shall apply for the first building permit for vertical
construction within 3 years of the date of issuance of the special permit and or site plan approval for the FSRO project or phase. This is the questionable part. If within 6 years from the date of
the issuance of a special permit and or site plan approval not applied for all building permits necessary for the construction of the project or phase approved by the special permit or site plan approval granting authority, then further construction under the special
permit or site plan approval is not authorized unless the applicant seeks and received an amendment to the special permit or site plan approval. I'll speak to the solicitor, but the intent here is really to protect the city because what you want to avoid here is if you're
trying to do fiscal planning and you know that you have an approved project at results way um that and you start baking those numbers into your your fiscal analysis what you're going to have. If someone sits on the permit for five, six, seven
years and it never happens and then they say, you know what, we're not going to do it now. we we can't, you know, office is no longer viable, so we're not going to do it. So, you've you've been banking on that anticipated revenue. What we're saying here is you can't sit on a permit
for a long period of time. It's going to if you don't use it, you're going to lose it. So, but I'll I'll speak to the solution. >> I would argue and this the legal department would argue you lose it after three years >> again. But the question becomes when does it best?
>> I I'll speak to this. Okay. Uh, anybody else have questions on there? All right. Number five, multifamily dwellings in the FSROD shall be subject to 65026 affordable housing of the zoning ordinance notwithstanding anything set forth in 65026. To the contrary,
including without limitation the provisions set forth in 650261B, which is actually there's two parts of this. There's 1 A that's at least 12% of the dwelling units be affordable to households earning not more than B is 80% of the area media income but the
solicitor will fix that. The city council shall have the discretion to vary such affordability upon a finding that such action advances the city's housing objectives to modify the required affordability mix applicable to the particular development. And the
solicitor's initial comment was, "No, you cannot vary. It is 12% and it's 80% AMI." So, we weren't sure whether you wanted to increase the 12%, decrease the 12%, increase the 80, decrease the 80.
>> Well, if I could comment on that, Madam Chair, there's a lot of debate going on, primarily arising out of the city of Boston and the city of Cambridge where they went up to, I believe it's now almost 20%. 20% >> 20%. >> And if you drive through downtown
Boston, there are no cranes in the sky anymore. >> It's it's it's it's killed the market in terms of housing. >> Yep. >> So, what we were trying to do here is say, look, >> these are Marro doesn't have a I believe your shi
your subsidized housing inventory, you're above 10%. So, >> we are. Yes. >> So, this is just qualifying units to be on the inventory. you that you know for instance on the MBTA communities you can't go beyond 10% because they were finding that beyond 10% people weren't
doing the deals and you weren't achieving housing what we're trying to do here is say it's 12% as your ordinance says today but going forward the city may say 12% doesn't work we have to make it >> we used to have 15% we went down to 12
and it's basically to maintain that any new construction that comes into the city we always stay above our 10% because we have some right >> of our affordable units that aren't, you know, 99 years or whatever. They're going to fall off in 5 or 10 years from now. So that that's why that number was
was selected. I would I would argue, Madam Chair, we can let the solicitor look at it, but if you go back again to the executive overlay district, it's just that first sentence. We follow what's in our zoning ordinance. Because once I start saying you get 15 or you
get 10 and the next guy gets 20, I'm I've now messed it up and I don't have a policy cuz why did this one get more or this one got less? We have a policy that says 12 and that's what the council >> extremely valid point. I have I can't argue against that. So I mean
>> yeah. So my guess is that the solicitor is going to remove the city council shall >> have discretion um because he doesn't they don't feel that we do. It's 12%. Uh E dimensional requirements notwithstanding any provisions of the
zoning ordinance to the contrary, development in the FSROD shall be subject to the following dimensional standards. Minimum lot area none. Um and I don't think the planning board had anything on that one. U minimum
front minimum lot frontage 50 ft. Minimum front yard setback 20 ft from a public way only. And this was what I wasn't sure the planning board suggesting increase the required
perimeter property line setbacks >> to from 20 to 50. The only one that's listed as 20 is this one. >> And it's only a front yard setback. It's not Yeah. which would be minimum lot frontage, minimum yard setback, and a
side and rear yard setbacks which you have at 25 ft cuz they're saying from 20 to 50. The only 20 is the minimum front yard setback >> because all the internal it's all internal. >> It's the public ways. I don't think we
have any problems with 50 ft along the perimeter. If you want to add along the property the perimeter of this district shall be 50 feet that's fine. >> It's internally that >> I don't think in the dimensional requirements it doesn't
talk about perime perimeter frontage or no perimeter >> you can add it. You can say >> but what's the difference between perimeter and front yard >> because side and rear yard >> you're going to have internal private ways. Madam Chair, it's taking into
consideration the public ways, I believe. So when there are public ways, that is not accounting for the perimeter. It's accounting for the public way where it is. 25 ft from a public way only. Yeah. I mean, that's that that one that
preference from planning board was confusing to me. I don't know what they want. is the um so you're saying that that 50 ft setback would not hinder your construction whatsoever.
So why don't we just add remove these minimum front um and the side and rear and just change it all to 50 ft from the perimeter and clean it up. Satisfy the planning
board and the applicant seems to have no problem with it. I mean C and D say public way only. So if you had if they had 50 people from public way only >> essentially the same thing
>> to public way >> or do we care whether it's only 20 ft because we're we had already said we could vary the dimensions and this is one of the variant variations >> when it's specified here. >> I think they're in the planning board's
intention is to preserve the view from any public way in similar fashion they did with forest names. They had the same similar suggestion. >> They're not talking public way. They're just talking perimeter property line setbacks. And there is no such thing as a perimeter property line setback.
It's front, rear, and side. I mean, that taken together that's the perimeter, but they're all different. But the perimeter abuts the public ways. Yeah. The internal are not public ways. The is it Washington? What? Forest
street and what's >> Williams. >> The perimeter runs along Forest Street and Williams. So that's why we put the public way. You know, we want to make that. >> So are we okay with adding in twoers? So
I don't even know what why would you exempt Well, I guess because they're already there. Um, and I have no idea what they are. And I'm okay with doing nothing with that recommendation of the planning board. Does anybody else feel like they really want to
deal with it? >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to change yard set back 25 ft from a public way to 50 ft from a public way only. The applicant has no issue with that. >> All right. And I'm sorry because I can't hear you. So, I don't know if it's that you need to get closer or if I need my I
don't like wearing that when I'm doing most of the talking. So, take it B. You want to in minimum lot frontage currently says 50. You're okay with that? >> Yeah. >> Minimum front yard is 20. You want to change that to >> 50. >> 50. Keeping the from a public way, >> correct?
>> And then side and rear is 25. Keep that. >> Change it to 50 from a public way. >> From a public way. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to change E1 C and D 20 will become 50. 25
will become 50. So discussion those in favor two three. Okay. All right. Thank you all for that one. Um minimum building height is 80 ft. No limitations on stories. results way has
a limit of 70 and you had said >> no m you want maximum not the minimum is they're going to build skyscrapers it's the max you want the maximum building height >> yeah well results way has a limit on residential of 70 ft you said
that one had 60 >> no it's a executive overlay has 80 ft maximum building height 80 ft no limitation on stories same exact wording >> okay so The planning board is suggesting 60 ft.
The height of the existing structure, which if you're going to knock it down, then I mean, if you're only going to renovate, you wouldn't increase the height anyway. But if you're going to knock it down, the max would be 60 ft inclusive of spires and towers. To me,
those are different than mechanicals. I believe there's specific language in the code that says mechanicals don't count in the height, >> right? We'd like to say exclusive of mechanicals and screened mechanicals.
>> Um, so exclusive of mechanicals, but we don't want we don't need to include the inclusive of spires and towers. >> No, we don't know what that means. >> Yeah. Well, I I guess they're talking of fancy stuff on a top of a roof, which
I'm not even sure that counts with the building height. So, um, are we okay with changing the maximum building height to >> top mechanicals? Okay. >> Second, >> councelor Presto. >> Second that.
>> What you you can move. I can't move to anything. So, you're you're I'm not really keeping track. I just is do we need to take a vote? You're well he moved it. I'll second it. All those in favor 60 ft exclusive of wrong.
>> We're on opposite ends over here. Um just one question there. We are maintaining that the the no limitation on stories. Correct. Even with that amendment that language will still be included. >> I I yeah I don't think stories has any I think typically a story is a certain height. So then you figure out the
stories based on the total height of >> that we do. I just want to confirm that that language still is is maintained >> and we're going to keep All right. So is everybody's okay with keeping the no limitation on stories which I I think they're two different issues. I'd rather have a height and not stories. >> I agree. >> Y >> okay
>> thank you madam chair. >> Maximum lot coverage 60% over the entire FSR on an aggregate basis and not based upon individual lots which I think still matches the code 60% is the maximum coverage. All right. Number two is
exception. There shall be no front side or rear yard setback requirements or planting strips required as to internal lot lines within the FSR OD. So that one is
confusing to me because I don't know if we just set minimum. >> Well, this is internal now. So we're we're doing a setbacks from the public way. So now we're we may check let's think of it checkerboarding the internal
we may have a building here that abuts another building. It's internal driveways so that one building may be closed and set back but they're not public ways. >> All right. And to me none of this is going to be public way. I think that's another change in the language that if
hopefully we haven't missed. But I guess I the planting strip concerns me because I don't want to make Priscilla mad. I know she's very adamant that parking lots have planting strips between them. Um if we're saying that they or shall be
no planting strips will not make her happy. So I may be okay with the no front side or rear yard set your parking lots which are going to be internal anyway. >> But those are going to be subject to your review anyhow. Councelor Proiato
>> make a motion to remove um planting strips required there. >> So we're >> there shall be no planting strips required remove planting strips moved second all those in favor of that.
Okay. Um three exception. The limitation on height of building shall not apply to building mechanicals, chimneys, ventilators, towers, silos, spires, or other ornamental or screening features of buildings. Which features are in no
way used for living purposes? This is probably where their silos and spires comes from. >> Take those out. >> So, uh only the first part, the limitation on height of building should not apply to building mechanicals. Period. and chimneys, ventilators. Ventilators are the air exchanges.
>> Okay. >> And so I would I would say take out tire towers, silos, spires >> or ornamental or we can keep that in cuz you're going to you want them screened, >> but it has to be screened anyway. So,
>> okay, >> which I think pretty much is covered under the exclusive of rooftop mechanicals, but we'll keep that in there. Um, number four, internal lot lines may be established pursuant to a subdivision
plan filed in accordance with general laws chapter 41 section 81K. Lot lines may be altered from time to time in accordance with the procedures of section 81P of chapter 41 of MGL for so-called approval not required plans
and are applicable provisions of section 81K through 81G of chapter 41 of mass general laws for any subdivision within the FSR. Any single lot line within the FSROD may
be deficient with one or more of the dimensional requirements contained therein so long as all the lots within the FSROD taken in the aggregate comply with the standards contained therein herein. Um this one was confusing to me
because this is not a subdivision. No, but you will have to you may have to create legal lots for different different parties may own various parcels, >> right? Which I get the ANR part. I just didn't get the subdivision. >> We don't know how they're going to break
up. You may have to do a a subdivision. You may not build out the roadway. You may do a paper subdivision. You're all going to own them. So, we have to create a way to convey title to you. But you can have a paper subdivision, not build it out to create the legal lot.
>> Okay. So again, this is one solicitor legal needs to look at because I don't know that they were sure what you wanted out of this one. And then five is for purpose law as more particularly set forth in 65041F1 of the zoning ordinance or along an
access easement which shall consist of a paved way that allows vehicular access connecting to a public ride ofway or subdivision. And I didn't mark it, but the solicitor wanted the language that was in
um the of course the one that I cuz he none of this is going to be public. So it would just be >> you could have a public you can have a private way an approved subdivision way that's private for public purposes.
Well, yeah, because he said access has nothing to do whether it's public or private. You have to maintain them. >> None of this, at least as far as I'm concerned, would ever be >> accepted by the city as a public road by the city. So, there was language in
the results way that he preferred. >> Okay, we'll take a look at that. The intention is that you can have a private subdivision way for public purposes for access. >> Yeah. So again, I think that will be one of the things that he will look at that
one to make sure that it's it makes it clear that this is all private. Um okay. Uh we are at F parking requirements except as otherwise provided in this section. Parking and
circulation requirements in the FSRD shall conform to the provisions of 65048 65049 of the zoning ordinance. Number one in the FSROD, adequate off- streetet parking shall be provided. the city council and the applicant shall have as
a goal for the purpose of defining adequate off- streetet parking making the most efficient use of the parking facilities to be provided and maximizing or minimizing the area of land to be paid for this purpose. In implementing this goal, the city council shall
consider complimentary or shared use of parking areas serving activities that have different peak demand times. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that shared spaces will meet parking demands by using accepted methodologies. Number two, parking
locations. Parking may be provided at ground level, underground, or in parking garages. Parking garages may be freestanding or part of buildings dedicated to other permitted uses. Parking garages may contain accessory solar energy installations. And I know
the planning board wanted >> to encourage us to look at >> encourage the inclusion of the underground parking make you say that it can only be underground. >> Number three is the minimum required
parking spaces. A residential 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Commercial three parking spaces per 1,000 square ft of space. and see restaurants, cafes and other um parking dimensions. Is everybody okay
with three A, B, and C? Okay. Page six is the parking space dimensions. Each parking space shall be no less than 9 ft by 18 feet except that the use of compact spaces no smaller than 8t by 16
ft may be utilized throughout provided that no more than 31 33% of the total parking spaces within the FSR project or phase shall be compact spaces. The code says that compact
spaces can't be intermingled. So I think this will be a legal opinion whether you can put them all over the place or whether in fact you need to keep them where a building is. So >> Madam Chair,
>> councelor Austin. >> So that's word for word what's in the executive overlay district. >> Okay, good to know. G design standards design criteria an application for the site plan approval under the section 650 whatever shall
adhere to the criteria specified in section 270-2 site plan review and approval of the city code two roadways to the extent feasible internal roadways public and private shall be constructed
using the methods and materials prescribed in the rules and regulations of the subdivision of land in the city, but shall not be required to conform to the subdivision standards or dimensional requirements thereof, provided that those roadways shall be adjacent to the
intended vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The design of ways and parking circulation should be as efficient as possible to reduce the overall development impact and areas of imperous services. So council oing is that match >> that
>> the whole section is what? Even the next one and the next one and the next one they're all for >> because results way has E F I hate when all my papers get out of order. Um three
4 E 56 26. That's 26. Well, they had a they again it was the issue of that public and private
>> ways are going to be privately maintained. So when >> Right. But I think it it said public. So that was the concern. Um, >> you can remove that. >> Yeah, if they're internal and you want
to remove the word public, we'll take the word public out that that we just want to make sure that people understand that they have access. Right. So, >> right. Because my my concern was it's going to be a private road, but you're going to let the public on it because
you have public things that the public can use. It's kind of the same as results way. They'll want people to go up to use the restaurant to do the brew pub if that ever happens. So, it was the public private um that it's just that
the roadway shall be constructed using the methods was all that they cared about. They didn't care whether they were public or private. Um D or no sorry G3 is landscaping in the FSRO shall conform to the provisions of 65047 landscaping and we
already kind of had that conversation. Number four is storm water management. The project or phase shall have a storm water management system designed in accordance with the rules and regulations for the subdivision of land in the city. the Department of Environmental Protection stormwater management
guidelines and the city stormwater ordinance chapter 271 stormwater management of the Marble City Code. And number five is signage accept as otherwise provided. Signage shall conform to the provisions of chapter 526
signs. H is modifications. After approval, applicants may seek modifications to any approved special permit or site plan approvals. Where's my page seven? Oh my goodness. I said I hate doing this
because I mess There it is. Um, two special permits. Major modifications to a special permit may be granted by a 23 vote of the city council and minor modifications to a special permit may be granted by the building commissioner.
Uh, I don't know if I really need to read the rest of this. The building commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine whether it's a major or minor. And then it just talks about all the same the typical language for approval
may be granted by a simple majority vote of the city council and minor modifications to a site plan approval may be granted by the building commissioner. And again, the building commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine whether a requested modification is major or minor. And
again the discussion on minor modif is I think there's is there no in the special permit is where that language of it has to be filed but that's not in the zoning.
We made it through. My goodness. Well, it is a little late. Um I wasn't sure we'd even get this far. >> I'd like to compliment you. That was very thorough. Um, does anybody else have any changes that I missed that they want to
go back on? We do have a deadline. This has to be approved by July 27th doing the 90 days from the public hearing. Our council meeting is July
20th. So there was concern that if it had the eight votes but there was somebody objecting to passage in one evening if this isn't voted on until that July meeting
that we would be stuck. So councelor Oing had suggested if we got to that point we could have a special meeting to then take that follow-up vote. We'll do whatever the council. >> So, I have no idea. There are only five
of us here tonight. I don't know where this is going to stand for a final vote coming out of committee. On Monday, I can move to suspend the rules to refer all of this to the solicitor. So, it would be on that July meeting for
approval. But then it first it needs eight votes. If it gets the eight votes but somebody objects then we need to deal with that aspect. If it doesn't get the eight votes then it doesn't pass as
the as the zoning is my the solicitor said he would have to look at the language but my reading of Mass General law is it's still eight votes. The residential piece doesn't qualify. Um but we'll wait for him to add his he'll
add a quantum vote when >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um you know, with that, appreciate the conversation tonight. Fantastic job working through this. And I move to approve uh the zoning change with the amendments tonight pursuant that it's
then referred to the solicitor. >> Right. Councelor Fillo has moved. I will second uh to approve this session on the motion. All those in favor? One, two, three. Those opposed. I'm
sorry. Was that of in favor or opposed? >> In favor. Okay. So, the votes four zero. So, as I said, I will report this out. >> 4 in favor. >> Councilor Austin is not a member of the committee. He will have a vote when it
comes to um the actual uh final vote. >> Yeah, we our fifth member is not here. Councelor Ducet is the fifth member of the committee. >> So, procedurally, you have a council meeting on Monday night. >> We have a meeting on Monday
>> and then we don't meet again until July, which is the week before the deadline for this, which is sort of fortunate. So, we just need to play it by ear. If you get your eight votes that you need, but somebody objects, which could
happen. Um, councelor Oing. >> Yeah. So, just based on we've got a bond that we've got to approve and the timelines have been suggested to do it by the 20th. We may have to move the vote up depending on what the timelines are. So, we could have a meeting before,
but right now we're going to hold to the 20th to vote on the bond. may have to move up if we do that would facilitate this. But I'm more concerned about the bond for the school to make sure that we get that voted on properly and meet the
timelines that the MSBA wants. >> All right. Yeah, cuz my understanding was the vote was supposed to happen on the July meeting. >> Yeah. June 24th. the MSBA will approve it and we should be able to >> to vote on the July July >> 20 20th meeting.
>> But unless something I'm just nervous that they're going to say they want it sooner rather than later. That's what I'm nervous about. >> Okay. Well, that So, if you have a meeting earlier, then this potentially could be on the agenda for that, too. So, all right. With that, um >> what should we should I contact the
solicitor to discuss anything? >> Uh he may be reaching out to you. He probably won't. I mean, this isn't going to go well, he'll be putting it in proper form once it's once it's moved on Monday to do that. So, he may reach out to you anyway. Um,
>> I've had discussions with him in the past. >> Okay. So, is there a motion to >> Thank you very much for your time and consideration.