Arlington Redevelopment Board - Mar 28th, 2022

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting held via remote participation. Materials were available from

Warrant Article Hearings

Tonight is the fourth and final night of warrant article hearings.

(Rachel Zsembery, ARB Chair) Ms. Zsembery gives an introductory statement in which she explains that tonight is the last night of hearings and that votes will be taken on Monday. She explains the hearing process, and how public comment will be taken.

Article 32 - ZBA Rules and Regulations

Arlington's zoning bylaw contains a set of rules and regulations for the Zoning Board of Appeals. This article proposes to strike that section of the bylaw, allowing the ZBA to manage their own set of rules and regulations. It was brought by ZBA Chair Christian Klein.

(Jenny Raitt, Planning Director) Ms. Raitt explains that Article 32 is administrative in nature. During the 2018 zoning bylaw recodification, we moved the ARB's administrative procedures from the bylaw into board rules and regulations. This article would allow the ZBA to do the same thing.

(Christian Klein, ZBA chair) Mr. Klein says that the ZBA didn't have rules and regulation at the time of recodification, but the board has subsequently adopted them. He requests this section be struck from the bylaw, as redundant.

There are no questions from the board.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment. There is none.

Article 33 - Half story

This article proposes a clarifying amendment to the zoning bylaw's definition of half story. It was proposed by ZBA chair Christian Klein.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says the half-story definition has been amended a few times, but there's the occasional question about how the half story area is calculated. She says these questions have led to back and fourth between the ZBA, Planning Department, and Inspectional Services.

(Kelly Lynema, Assistant Planning Director) Ms. Lynema says the phrase "underside of the roof framing to the floor below" is the language that creates confusion.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein explains that there are two parts to this article. The first part tries to clarify what the area of the half-story is measured in relation to. The second tries to separate the regulations from the definition, and would move the regulatory part into a separate section of the zoning bylaw.

(Kin Lau, ARB) Mr. Lau asks if the 7' height matches what's in the state building code.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery believes so.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt agrees.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks for clarification of the language "underside of the rafter to the finished floor of the half-story".

(Mike Ciampa, Inspectional Services Director) Mr. Ciampa says the measurement is made from the finished floor of the attic to the underside of the roof rafters.

(Eugene Benson, ARB) Mr. Benson had an email exchange with Mr. Klein. He thinks it would be more intuitive to put everything in the definition, rather than having the regulations in a separate section. He feel that definitions should define things, and other parts of the bylaw should say how those definitions are applied.

(Melisa Tintocalis, ARB) Ms. Tintocalis sees what Mr. Benson is saying. She'd like to hear Mr. Ciampa's feelings on whether this change to the definition would help.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa has no concerns with moving everything into the definition.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein has no concerns.

(Steve Revilak, ARB) Mr. Revilak isn't sure. During the recodification, we made an effort to move rules and regulations out of definitions, and into the body of the bylaw. The definition of gross floor area is an example of this. He likes the idea of keeping them separate.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson elaborates on why he'd like to take the material proposed for Section 5.3 and move it into the definition.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak sees Mr. Benson's point. He's okay with moving everything into the definition.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau is also okay with Mr. Benson's proposal.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment. There is none.

The board agrees on moving the relevant text from Section 5.3 into the definition of half-story.

Article 37 - Unsafe Structure

This article proposes a change to the section of the zoning bylaw that deals with unsafe structures. It would give the Director of Inspectional Services the sole authority to declare when a structure is unsafe. It was proposed by ZBA Chair Christian Klein.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt has nothing to add, beyond what's already in the Planning Department's memo.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein explains that there have been cases where a contractor demolished a building after determining that it was unsafe. He says this article will clarify that the decision is at the discretion of Inspectional Services.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa agrees with the change.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks if "Director of Inspectional Services" is okay.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa thinks it could also be the opinion of one of our local building inspectors, who's on site.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if another building inspector would be able to make that determination.

(Mike Ciampa) Mr. Ciampa thinks that would be okay. He'd be okay with saying "Inspectional Services Department".

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson is fine with that.

(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis is also fine with that.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak suggests "Director of Inspectional Services or their designee".

The chair opens the hearing to public comment. There is none.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau is okay with "or their designee".

The rest of the board is okay with that language.

That's it for warrant articles. There's a motion to close the public hearings for 2022 Town Meeting warrant articles. Motion passes, 5--0.

Waiver of Special Permit Filing Fee

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says this is a request from an applicant, to have the board waive the special permit filing fee in its entirety. Ms. Raitt says that her department does not have the authority to waive fees; only the board can do that. In this case, the applicant is a homeowner that wants to apply for a special permit to run a family daycare.

(Kin Lau) (Missed Mr. Lau's question)

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says it's an individual who wants to run a childcare facility. They weren't aware of the special permit filing fee, and it's causing financial difficulty.

(Eugene Benson) When the board voted to reduce the special permit filing fees by 1/2 for the Hotel Lexington, Mr. Benson felt the ARB was boxed in by the Select Board. Mr. Benson asks about the board's authority to waive fees.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says the application fee is an administrative fee that's set by the board. She believes the economic situation makes the fee unwarranted in this case. The fee usually pays for running legal notices.

(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis is concerned about this setting a precedent. She asks if the Master Plan has stated a concern about childcare facilities.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt doesn't believe this would set a precedent; it's more of a concession. She think the applicant is having economic challenges, and isn't aware of anything in the master plan that's specific to childcare.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak asks if the special permit would just be for a use, or if there would be a construction/building component.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt indicates that the permit would only be for a use.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak indicates he'd be sympathetic to the request.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery would like to make it clear and set expectations that fee waivers will not be the norm. She notes that one of the special town meeting warrant articles deals with this use.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt suggests that the board add something to its rules and regulations to cover cases of economic hardship.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau has no comments.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he'll rely on Ms. Raitt's representation. He'd support adding an economic hardship provision to the rules and regulations.

None of the other board members have additional questions or comments.

There's a motion to waive the filing fee for this applicant. Passes, 5--0.

Meeting Minutes

The board amended and approved minutes from their February 28th meeting.

Open Forum

There were no speakers during tonight's open forum.

Docket 3690 - 34 Dudley St

This is the first special permit hearing for a proposed five-story self storage facility. It would be located at 34 Dudley Street, which lies in one of Arlington's industrial districts.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says this is the first application that's being done under the new Industrial district standards. The site is currently an auto body shop, and is completely paved. The proposal would replace it with a self-storage facility that's five stories tall with 95,700 square feet -- enough space for over 700 storage units. Tenants will be able to access the facility from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, and the facility would be staffed from 8:30am to 6:00 pm. The applicant is requesting a waiver from parking requirements.

The property is adjacent to Mill Brook, and the owners have had hearings with and gotten feedback from the Conservation Commission in areas like stormwater management, trees, and open space. The back of the building probably needs some design work.

The applicants have provided a traffic study, but Ms. Raitt thinks the board may want to look at traffic flows in the general area. There is one other self-storage facility in town, located a short distance down the street.

(Kelly Lynema, Assistant Planning Director) Ms. Lynema notes that this building would be taller than any of the other ones on Dudley Street. She says the applicant has been working with the town's environmental planner, and that the Conservation Commission was impressed with the site and how it was improving the relationship with Mill Brook. She feels they're checking boxes in terms of site design standards.

Ms. Lynema says the two wall signs are larger than allowed, and that the applicant is requesting an illuminated monument sign. She says the building would be eligible for LEED platinum.

(Robert Annese, Attorney for the applicant) Mr. Annese introduces members of the applicant's design team, which include Eric Gerade (civil engineering), Matt Kealey (traffic and transportation). He also introduces Pete Williams, who owns the company. Mr. Annese acknowledges that there are residential homes on Dudley Street, but he stresses that this is an industrial district, and there aren't many industrial district parcels in private hands. He notes the Master Plan indicates that Arlington should maximize building in the industrial zone, and the applicants are trying to do that with this project.

(Eric Gerade, Civil Engineering) Mr. Gerade says he's coordinated with the town's engineering department regarding stormwater management. He says the site is 0.78 acres of primarily paved surface. There's very little open space. It's also within the Mill Brook resource area, and most of the site is within the 200' riverfront boundary. Mr. Gerade says there's an existing encroachment in the rear; they plan to fix that and stabilize the slope leading down to the brook.

Mr. Gerade says the existing buildings don't conform to setbacks. The building will have 95,700 square feet of self-storage. Access will be from Dudley Street, using a single curb cut. The site has two curb cuts now, and they plan to close one of them. They're requesting 11 parking spaces, rather than the 96 required by zoning. They feel that bicycle parking is not needed, but they'll provide some.

In terms of landscape, they plan to reduce impervious surface and add green space within the resource area. There will be four covered loading spaces that service the buildings primary function. There will be two racks in the rear of the building for short term bicycle parking and one dedicated long-term bicycle parking space for employees. The dumpster will be enclosed. Mr. Gerade believes this will be a low waste site. He believes the dumpster will primarily be used for employee generated waste.

(Matt Kealey, traffic) Mr. Kealey says that the proposed use will generate less traffic than the existing one, based on calculations from the ITE trip generation manual. They'd like to provide 11 surface parking spaces plus the four covered loading areas. Mr. Kealey says they surveyed other self-storage buildings in the area. Based on their demand, he thinks that eight spaces would be enough for this site. They've looked at the transportation demand management options in the zoning bylaw, and plan to provide stipends to workers who commute without cars, preferential parking for carpool riders, and covered bicycle parking.

(Jan Bryan, Architect) Mr. Bryan believes the building stands for itself, but he's willing to discuss recommendations for glass at the front, and treatment of the rear and side exteriors. He says the tallest parapet has a height of 58' and that they've met the 50% transparency requirement for the first floor. Once the trees in the rear of the building have grown, Mr. Bryan believes they'll screen much of the rear facade.

(Pete Williams, President) Mr. Williams is the president of Premier Storage Investors, which is headquartered in Memphis, TN. He says the company has been doing this since 1989 and developed over 35 sites. Their mandate and mission is to identify places that have a supply deficiency of self-storage, and he believes Arlington is one of these places. Based on the number of households, Mr. Williams believes there could be a demand for several thousand self-storage units. Mr. Williams says his company is trying to meet a need in the marketplace, and to be good neighbors.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau points out a six foot wooden fence that's planned for one side of the site. He suggests extending that to screen light from automobile headlights, and to prevent light spillover. He notes a large white panel on the west side of the building, and would like to see more articulation in that area. Mr. Lau notes a grass planting strip along one side of the building; he suggests a shrub border, to prevent the grass strip from being driven over.

Mr. Lau suggests two indoor bicycle parking spaces instead of one, and asks how many employees will work at the facility. He doesn't like the monument sign in front of the building. He thinks the wall sign that's high up is fine, but the one closer to the ground is too large. He suggests eliminating the monument sign.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson has a question about rendered view number 5, which shows the rear of the building. He asks where someone would need to stand in order to see that perspective.

(Jan Bryan) Mr. Bryan says one would have to stand in the rear of the building, next to Mill Brook.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if the trees in the rendering are existing ones, or if they'll have to be replanted.

(Jan Bryan) Mr. Bryan says the rendering is trying to express the amount of tree coverage, after the trees have grown.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks it's difficult to tell what the facade will look like, and that the applicants will need to do better. He asks if there's been an assessment of ground contamination, since the site has been used as an auto repair facility.

(Jan Bryan) Mr. Bryan says they've done a phase II assessment, and can provide a copy of that to the board.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says he'd expect the signage to be brought into consistency with the bylaw.

Mr. Benson has a question about hours of operation. He understands the building will be staffed from 8:30 to 6:00, but customers will have access from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. He'd like to know how access will work after staff hours.

(Robert Annese) Mr. Annese says there will be system where each customer has their own entry code, along with a large number of security cameras. Customers will use their access codes to get in.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that every tenant will have a specific access code, so they'll know when each person enters and leaves. There will be cameras inside and outside the facility. Mr. Williams says that not many people need access outside of staff hours.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that bicycle parking is usually put in front of the building, rather than in the rear. He suggests having signage to direct people to the bicycle parking.

Mr. Benson says that the staff memo indicated a potential issue with truck circulation. He asks if the applicants can comment on that.

(Robert Annese) Mr. Annese says they expect most of the vehicles to be small uhauls. He acknowledges that the staff memo mentioned heavier vehicles, but they're not anticipating those. He says the storage units will be relatively small. They have no control over whether there will be a light at Mass Ave. He doesn't think that traffic will be a major problem.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that 90% of self-storage customers are personal users, and that probably 50--75% come to the facility in their own personal vehicles. He says the facility managers routinely work with customers and can say "we won't accept large vehicles of this size".

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks how large is too large.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams thinks that anything larger than a 24' truck would be too large.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson would like to move on to facades. He's concerned about the view from Wellington Park and wants to make sure that light doesn't spill on to Mill Brook.

(Eric Gerade) Mr. Gerade says they've discussed exterior lighting with the Conservation Commission. They're using short light poles in the rear to avoid light spillage.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if the building will be uplit.

(Eric Gerade) Mr. Gerade says there will be no uplighting that's not allowed.

(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis disagrees with some of the staff comments. Regarding bylaw section 3.3.3(B), she's aware that there are other self-storage facilities in the area, although they're not in Arlington. She wonders if that was considered when assessing market need. Regarding 3.3.3(F), she thought that increasing FAR in the industrial district was intended to capture emerging growth, but she's struggling to see how this proposal fits with that vision.

Ms. Tintocalis asks if the applicants can provide comps to show the commercial value of the building. She feels that office and biotech buildings are more valuable, and generate additional tax revenue by having more valuable personal property. She doesn't see a self-storage facility as being as valuable as other potential uses.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak took a bike ride to the site this weekend, and spent time looking at the site from the Dudley street and Wellington Park sides. He recognizes that the applicants have to appear before the conservation commission, and he knows they'll do reviews of stormwater management and the relationship to Mill Brook. He feels the proposal will be a big improvement in those areas, since the current site is almost completely paved over.

Mr. Revilak asks about parking. He agrees that the zoning bylaw requirement of 96 spaces is far too high for what's being proposed. He asks if the proposal for 11 spaces was based on ITE parking generation calculations. He'd like to understand how they came up with that number.

(?) The applicants arrived at 11 parking spaces by observing parking demand at other self-storage sites. They think the actual demand will be closer to eight spaces, but they're proposing 11.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak agrees with Mr. Lau regarding the wall signs. He thinks the one higher up will be fine, but the lower wall sign is probably too large. After visiting this site, Mr. Revilak took a ride down the street, to Arlington Self-Storage. Their wall sign is about 66 square feet, and he feels that's a more appropriate size.

Finally, Mr. Revilak has some suggestions for window and facade treatment. He refers to plan sheets A1.03 through A1.05. On some sides of the building, the storage units are set directly against the exterior walls. The diagonal wall in the rear appears to have hallway space in the interior. He believes there's opportunity to add windows there, on the third, fourth, and fifth floors.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery agrees that the applicants need to comply with the sign regulations. On rendered view number one, she suggests putting the wall sign above the entrance, rather than the drive isle. She doesn't think a parking reduction to 11 spaces is appropriate, and notes that the ARB can only reduce parking requirements to 25% of the required number. She'd like the applicants to provide more interior parking spaces.

Ms. Zsembery thinks it's important to look at the articulation of all of the building facades. She suggests more masonry, or something to break down the visual scale.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau is concerned about Ms. Tintocalis's reservations. He hopes the board isn't going to pick and choose projects.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson notes that the zoning bylaw requires the roof to be solar ready, which the applicants are doing. He asks why they aren't proposing solar panels as part of the project.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that from a business standpoint, it has to do with the solar energy programs that are available from the state and town. His thought was to make the building solar ready, and take advantage of solar programs when they become available.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that Mr. Williams is in luck, because Massachusetts has very good solar programs.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(Wynelle Evans) Ms. Evans says the drain pipes on the building facade are an awful concern. She wants to make sure the applicants have seen her correspondence to the board, which has several photos of facade treatments. (Ms. Raitt displays these photos.) Ms. Evans says that pretty much any kind of graphic can go on the screening systems shown in her photos.

(Christian Klein) Mr. Klein asks if the rain leaders could be run on the inside of the building, and whether the parapet around the roof would interfere with a solar installation. He thinks that 11 parking spaces are too few, especially with the number of people that move on September 1st. He asks if the roof drains on the west side of the building will flow into Mill Brook. Mr. Klein points out that all stormwater has to be handled on site in order to get the height and FAR bonus.

(Thomas Falwell) Mr. Falwell says he filed a memo of opposition on behalf of the abutter at 26 Dudley. He doesn't believe the board can allow less than 25% of the requires parking spaces, and he believes the board should conduct a peer review of the applicant's traffic study. He says the applicant's comp sites were in Malden and Waltham, which have very different traffic patterns. He asks if they've raised the rear elevation, and whether that affected the building height. He think the traffic study cries out for peer analysis, and suggests that staff might be able to research the number of spaces required.

(Don Seltzer) Mr. Seltzer thinks the handicapped accessible space should be located closer to the main entrance. He says the board can only reduce parking to 25% of the required amount. He believes the building could be used for some other purpose in the future, and the new use might require more parking. He says the building is taller than others on Dudley street, and it will cast shadows. He suggests they could interfere with solar installations across the street, if those owners ever wanted to install solar. He thinks the building should be shorter.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore asks how many self storage facilities the owners have purchased, and how many they still own. He's confused about how self-service will work, and doesn't believe the owners will be able to control the size of vehicles their customers use. He asks what will force people to leave at 10:00 pm when the facility closes. He thinks there will be trucks larger than 24', and says trucks can't get down a small street like Dudley. He expects the site to generate a lot of trash and require frequent dumpster pickups. He hopes the phase II assessment covered the entire site.

There are no further comments from the public.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery will try to work through the questions from the public. She asks if the rain leaders can be moved into the interior.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that's not their preference. He says that people who rent storage units expect their belongings to stay dry, and exterior drains have much less chance of allowing water into the building.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery says she'd like the drains to be better integrated with the design of the facade. She asks about rainwater discharge to Mill Brook.

(Eric Gerade) Mr. Gerade says there's an area drain to collect water on the side. The stormwater system has been designed so that a ten year storm will have less impact that a two-year storm currently does. He says they've tried to do gradual release into the resource area, rather than discharging into municipal systems.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks for a description of how the facility will operate.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that all tenants will sign a contract, and the facility will have cameras so that they can see what people are bringing in. He says the leases are month-to-month. If someone breaks the terms of the lease, they'll generally find out quickly and get it corrected.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery asks if the access codes will be restricted to specific hours.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams answers in the affirmative, and notes that each tenant will have their own access code.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery indicates that she's generally supportive of the proposal.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau is supportive. He thinks it's an appropriate use.

(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis is concerned about whether this use is needed. She says that Arlington has precious little industrial space, and thought it wasn't for low-value industrial uses. She doesn't see this fitting in long term.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson is somewhat disappointed that this is the first proposal. He was hoping for something that would be more of a catalyst. He notes that self-storage is a use that's allowed by special permit, and thinks we should get rid of that at some point.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he worked on the industrial district zoning as a member of the zoning bylaw working group, and would like to provide some context for the current regulations. Mr. Revilak says he loves the idea of having someone come into Arlington and build three- to five-hundred thousand square feet of class A office space. The challenge is that a building of that size would probably have 1000--1500 workers which would need to commute back and forth each day. Mr. Revilak notes that Waltham's industrial area is served by Route 128, Lexington's biotech strip has easy access from Route 2, and Cambridge has the green and red MBTA lines. Arlington just has Mass Ave -- our town doesn't have good transit infrastructure. The lack of transit infrastructure led us to look for low-impact uses that could work in the industrial district, and self-storage was one of those.

Regarding Ms. Tintocalis's question about comps. Mr. Revilak says that Arlington has one self-storage facility with 10,800 square feet of space, and it's assessed at $70/square foot. He feels that 95,000 square feet at $70/square foot would be a lot of new commercial growth by Arlington standards.

(Melisa Tintocalis) Ms. Tintocalis says that property taxes are just one portion of the town's revenue. Lab buildings tend to have a lot of personal property, and sometimes that's worth more than the building. She think we may want to reconsider the FAR of 3.0 if we don't want traffic. She'd also like buildings that enhance our natural assets, and she's concerned this won't do anything for the Mill Brook Area.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak would like to explain where the FAR of 3.0 came from. The zoning bylaw working group couldn't agree on changes to the industrial district's dimensional regulations. So we left them where they were, with a maximum FAR of 1.5. During town meeting, one of the town meeting members proposed allowing an additional floor and increasing the FAR to 3.0. He said he wanted bigger, taller buildings that generated more tax revenue, and town meeting agreed.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery thinks there's support for making the project the best that it can be.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau respects Ms. Tintocalis's opinion, but he thinks this is appropriate for what's the the bylaw right now. He doubts the building will ever be converted to a lab. He agrees that we have challenges with transportation, and would hate to see this property turn into a 40B. If we want to change the uses allowed in the bylaw, Mr. Lau thinks we should do it later.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks the board should review the set of allowed industrial uses, and discuss what we might want in the future.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks about the spacing system for the building.

(Jan Bryan) Mr. Bryan says they use a 10x10 grid system, since that allows things to be spaced in multiples of 10'. He says that arrangement provides a lot of flexibility, for example, to reconfigure the size of storage units.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau says he was asking about the spacing of structural columns.

(Jan Bryan) Mr. Bryan says it's a 10' x 10' structural column layout. He says this spreads the load out, since there are so many bearing points.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says the building is specifically designed for self storage. He says that if someone wanted a different use, they'd probably be better of tearing the building down.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau notes they'll need to add several parking spaces.

(Eric Gerade) Mr. Gerade says they'll carve out some space on the ground floor, where there are currently storage units.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks about the width of the driveway.

(?) The driveway will be 24' wide.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if a narrower driveway would make it easier to add the parking spaces.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson thinks that a narrower driveway might not work well with trucks.

(Pete Williams) Mr. Williams says that municipalities around the country have studied parking demand, and they'd typically require 4--6 spaces for a facility like this. He says they wouldn't build with less parking than they thought they'd need. He says that most of the vehicle traffic is from tenants loading and unloading, and he thinks that 11 spaces is too many.

(Rachel Zsembery) Ms. Zsembery runs through the list of things she'd like the applicant to review before the next hearing. These include:

  • Continuing the fencing (to prevent light spill)
  • The large white panel on the western wall
  • Plantings on the west side of the building
  • Additional indoor bicycle parking
  • Bringing the signs into compliance
  • Moving the Dudley St. wall sign over the main entrance.
  • Articulating the facade, possibly with windows or screening fabric.
  • Providing a better rendering of what the rear will look like.
  • Moving the short-term bicycle parking to the front of the building
  • Moving the handicapped parking space closer to the main entrance.
  • Providing a copy of the Phase II site assessment to the board.
  • Measures to limit the size of trucks
  • Information on exterior light poles
  • Talking with the town's energy manager about solar programs
  • Integrating the rain leaders into the facade.

The board and applicant agree to continue the hearing on April 27th, with revised materials to be submitted by April 22nd. The April 27 hearing will start at 6:30 pm.

Motion to continue passes, 5--0.

Meeting adjourned.