View source for Arlington Redevelopment Board - Jan 27th, 2020

'''Docket 3602, 1207--1211 Mass Ave'''.   The applicant is James
Doherty.  He's represented by attorney Mary Winstanley-O'Connor.  Greg
Macintosh is the architect.

Mr. Macintosh presents the updated proposal.  The current plan
involves a change to the curb cuts.  The existing site has two curb
cuts, which will be moved to create a drop-off area.  They've
also relocated the dumpster.

The building exterior was changed to brick and stone cladding, to look
more like the surrounding buildings.  The lower level will use
limestone.  Other sections will use red brick and a light mortar.

Short term bicycle parking will be in front of the building, on the
eastern side of the lot.  Indoor bicycle storage will be located close
to the elevator.  The number of indoor bicycle parking spaces is
larger than the previous iteration.

All front paving will be pervious, to prevent runoff.

The planting plan includes a tree perimeter along the rear edge of the
property.  There will be a rain garden in the back of the building.

There will be 22 hotel rooms on the first two floors.  These are
intended for longer stays.

The parking garage ramp will have a 1:20 slope.

The applicants provided shadow studies for existing and proposed
conditions.  The existing trees cast nearly as much shadow as the
proposed building.  Two abutters have solar arrays, but neither of
them will be affected by the shadows.

Erin Zwirko responds to several points raised in a correspondence from
Don Seltzer.  She says the project is being treated as
non-residential, not residential.  Ms. Zwirko would like to receive a
plot plan with contours.  She notes that driveway slope requirements
apply to the R0--R3 districts; there are no slope requirements here.
Usable Open Space requirements are computed from the residential
portion of a mixed use project, and there is no residential component
here.  Ms. Zwirko states that the use is mixed use, which is allowed
in B2 and B4.

Ms. Zwirko states that the submitter should provide a certified plot
plan with contour lines, and a full accounting of FAR and GFA
calculations.

Kin Lau agrees that the board needs to see a plan with topographical
markings.  He's fine with the Clark Street setback, but wants to see
setback measurements for the adjacent buildings.  Mr. Lau thinks the
plan meets upper story setback requirements because the first floor is
already set back.  He appreciates the two street-level renderings, and
likes the view coming from Lexington.  He likes the relocation of the
trash area.  He'd like a topological drawing that shows garage height
and grading.

Mr. Macintosh states that all surface water and drainage will be
handled on site.  Mr. Lau would like to see this on a drawing.

David Watson liked the way the drop off area was moved out of the
street and onto the property, as well as the changes to bicycle
parking.  He understands that on-site parking will be handled by
valets, and thinks that makes sense for a constrained area.
Mr. Watson is concerned that guests won't use the valet service, and
he asks the applicant to encourage guests to use the valet.

Mr. Watson is disappointed at the lack of detailed traffic analysis.
This is a complex intersection, especially during peak hours.  He has
some concerns about the upper story step back.  He understands the
proponents argument, but isn't sure the bylaw allows them to interpret
the requirements in that way.

Mr. Dohery states that 117 Broadway (a project previously approved by
the board) has identical upper story step backs.

Mr. Watson is concerned about having a project that straddles two
districts.  He doesn't know if the B4 regulations would cover the
joined lot, or if the use would be considered "mixed use" (which is
allowed in both B2 and B4).  Ms. Zwirko will ask town counsel to write
a formal opinion on the use question.

Eugene Benson agrees with the critiques that Ms. Raitt stated in her
memo of Jan 21st.  He asks where restaurant patrons will park.
Ms. Winstanley-O'Connor replies "probably not in the parking lot".
Mr. Benson would like to see this documented.

Mr. Doherty states that 40% of the Porter Square Hotel's guests
arrive via ride share.  He doesn't expect every hotel guest to have a
car.  The hotel will have tandem spaces, available only through a
valet service.

Mr. Benson asks where the staff will park.  Mr. Doherty says he's
working on a parking agreement with Sunrise living.  He's also looking
at other parking sources nearby, and working on a transportation
demand management plan.

Mr. Benson asks about the maximum number of hotel staff.  Mr. Doherty
says there will be at least two employees working 24x7.  The
restaurant will have 6--10 staff, depending on the day of the week.
There will be an additional 3--4 staff for house cleaning.  This
facility won't have a lot of employees, like an office building would.

Mr. Benson thinks the sidewalk and drop off area look good.  He asks
how wide the sidewalk is.  The sidewalk is 5' wide, and the drop-off
is compliant with DOT standards.

Mr. Benson understands the shadows will hit one of the abutting
buildings with a solar panel installation.  Mr. Macintosh says that
the shadows will reach that building, but not the side where the solar
panels are mounted.

Mr. Benson can't find anywhere in the bylaw that allows the ARB to
interpret the upper story step-back requirement like the applicant
wishes them to.  He understands their rationale but the board needs to
be consistent with the bylaw.

Rachel Zsembery feels the changes made to the Clark Street side of the
building are all positive.  She thinks the second and third story
projections in the front are out of scale with the rear.  She suggests
variation in the materials, or simply making the front more like the
rear.

Ms. Zsembery asks about the louvers.  Mr. Macintosh says that the
Louvre's in the drawings are preliminary.  They're considering
different materials, and the design may change when the mechanical
units are specified.

Ms. Zsembery suggests a different window arrangement on the rear of
the building.  Mr. Macintosh says the rear windows were chosen to
provide natural light, but he can look at different arrangements.

Ms. Zsembery isn't sure that it makes sense to put signage on the
Clark Street side of the building.  She suggests moving the sign to
the front.

Mr. Watson appreciates the shadow studies, and the applicants efforts
to take topography into account.

Mr. Lau asks about the name of the hotel -- why is called the Hotel
Lexington?  Mr. Doherty says the name was inspired by a hotel in New
York.

Andrew Bunnell thanks the applicants for their work, but acknowledges
that there's still more work to do.  That said, he opens the meeting
to public comment.

(Ann LeRoyer) Ms. LeRoyer would like a clarification about the B2
zoning.  She states that hotels are not allowed in the B2 district,
and that the hotel doesn't fit into the neighborhood.  She asks about
traffic from the liquor store that's proposed for the next block.
She's like to see a rendering of the Pierce Street side of the
building, and thinks it looks like six stories from the rear.  She's
concerned that they'll have to cut down trees during the construction.

(Carol McDonald)  Ms. McDonald says she can't turn left onto Appleton
street because of school traffic.  Glare makes it hard to see cars
coming.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak recalls the meeting that the ARB and
Select Board held two weeks go.  During the public comment period,
numerous people pointed out that Arlington's commercial tax base is
very small -- 5.6%.  If I understood their remarks correctly, several
of them expressed hope that we could expand the commercial tax base in
the future.  There are numerous reasons why our commercial tax base is
so small, mainly because Arlington doesn't exactly have a history of
welcoming commercial development with open arms.  We don't make it
easy to build here.

I think this is a nice project, and the street renderings look really
good.  I hope we can work out the details.  I'm sure that Mr. Doherty
has a plan B, in case the hotel doesn't work out.  These B districts
allow one- and two-family homes by right.  If the hotel isn't
approved, I wouldn't be surprised to see these properties turn into a
pair of single- or two-family homes.  It would not be the first time
such a thing has happened.  The point I'm trying to make: good
commercial projects don't come along very often in Arlington.  If we
turn this one down, there's not likely to be another one waiting in
line behind it.

(?) The speaker lives on Piece street and thinks a six-story building
would be visceral to the neighborhood.  Clark street has lots of cut
through traffic.  How will pickup for laundry and trash work?  I
expect it will be disruptive.  She expects the neighborhood will turn
into a parking lot and become dangerous.

(Don Seltzer) Mr. Seltzer says he's speaking on behalf of Arlington
Residents for Responsible Development, who've reviewed the hotel
plans.  He points out this is a corner lot, and disagrees with the
proposed setbacks.  He disagrees with the applicant's interpretation
of upper story set-backs.  He states that nothing in this proposal
addresses usable open space requirements.  He believes the floor area
ratio is too high, and bonus provisions don't apply to a lot of this
size.  He disagrees with the applicant's calculation of driveway
slope.

(Chris Loretti) Mr. Loretti claims that a key document is missing from
the application: the table of dimensional information.  He believes
the applicants measurements are wrong.  He suggest that a hotel is a
residential use, and must therefore meet residential open space
requirements.  He asserts that a hotel cannot be part of a mixed use
building on this site, because one of the properties is in B2.  He
encourages the board to get an opinion from outside counsel, because
if they approve it, their decision is likely to be appealed.

(Eileen Park) Ms. Park says that parking is a very big issue.  She'd
like to see the rear elevation of the building.  Cars drive really
fast on Clark St, and the loading area will block cars.  She says the
applicant must consider the safety of the neighborhood, and that a
traffic study is required.  She deals with traffic every day, and
middle schoolers who cross the street without looking.  She believes
that construction will back up traffic.

(Jordan Kass) Mr. Kass think that the traffic is a town problem, and
not the developer's problem.  People are allowed to park on the
street.  If you don't want people parking on your street, that's a
town issue, and not the developer's.  As long as there's enough
parking for hotel guests, he's okay.

(Nels Fry) Mr. Fry lives on Academy street.  He'd love to have the
hotel in his neighborhood, if Arlington Heights doesn't want it.  This
hotel looks like many of the boxes going up in the area, but perhaps
that's because our zoning is so restrictive.  He suggests green walls
(that's green, as in plants).  Couldn't we put something like this in
Arlington center?  Or perhaps we could incorporate some amenities for
the neighborhood, like a space for kids or a bicycle repair station.

(Carl Wagner) Mr. Wagner feels that give and take is important for the
neighborhood, and that any changes should be positive.   He says that
commercial development is good, and the proposed parking is
inappropriate for the hotel.  He claims the hotel is not legal to
build, and feels the town should re-evaluate mixed use.  He claims
that the applicant will save $100k in fees.

(Kristen Anderson) Ms. Anderson rides a bicycle to work.  She avoids
Downing square because it's a difficult intersection.  She asks the
board to consider adding a traffic signal, and makes several
suggestions for the sidewalk in front of the hotel.

(JoAnne Preston) Ms. Preston wants to talk about trees.  She believes
the site drawings don't look like the actual site.  She claims that
construction will pave over part of the tree strip, and there won't be
enough room for tree beds.  She states that trees are the best way to
remove atmospheric carbon, and believes that the tree warden should be
consulted.

(?) The speaker asks what time the restaurant will be open and what
kind of restaurant will it be.  She asks how long construction will
take.

Mr. Doherty says it will be an upscale restaurant, but he hasn't
identified a specific tenant.  The hours of operation will be set by
the Select Board.  He says he's not looking to run a night club.  As
for construction, if everything goes well, it could take less than a
year, but it really depends on when the work starts.  The outside will
be done first, then the inside.

(Jack Hoffman) I'm exited to see something we can walk and bike to.
I'm for anything that generates foot traffic.

(Mike Riley) Mr. Riley asks if there will be rodent remediation, and a
traffic study.  He says that there's lots of junk in the auto repair
station's lot, and asks who's responsible for it.

Mr. Bunnell summarizes materials that the applicant needs to provide:
an employee TDM plan, copies of off-street parking agreements, and a
traffic study.  Mr. Bunnell realizes the applicant cannot fix the
traffic problems in this area, but the board would like to understand
the impact.

Mr. Benson asks about handicapped access and curb cuts.  Ms. Zsembery
says the board needs a detailed assessment of how this project meets
zoning requirements.

Hearing continued to March 16th.

Next, the board votes on whether to waive the special permit fee.  The
fee waiver was part of the Select Board's RFP, but it's the ARB's
decision on whether to waive.  The fee amount is $2600 (I believe
this is actually half of the permit fee, but I could be mistaken).
The Select Board offered the waiver to encourage prospective buyers,
and it's part of the purchase and sale agreement.  The applicant has
already paid 50% of the fee.

Mr. Watson has a problem with the lack of process behind the fee
waiver.  In particular, that the select board made this offer without
consulting the ARB first.  He doesn't support the fee reduction.

Mr. Lau wants to clarify that the waiver is for the special permit
filing fee, and nothing else.  Yes, that's the case.

Mr. Benson says that a better process would have been better, but
that's in the past now.  The town's RFP waived part of the special
permit fees for advantageous buyers, and we have the option of
approving that waiver.  Ms. Zsembery agrees.

Board votes 4--1 to waive 50% of the special permit filing fee (David
Watson dissents).

'''Docket 3610, Apothca, 1386 Mass Ave'''.  This permit involves
a marijuana retail establishment, and a medical marijuana treatment
center in a B3 district.  The hearing is continued from an earlier
date.  My notes in this section are a bit sketchy.

The establishment's sign will be a back-lit laser sign, which covers
less than 25% of the window area.  There will be a rideshare space
for customer drop-off and pick-up.

Mr. Watson appreciates the idea of a rideshare drop-off space.  He
asks what will happen if a driver stops in the middle of Mass Ave.
The applicant says their web site will have a map showing the drop-off
location, and they'll encourage patrons to use it.  Mr. Watson asks
the applicant to come back to the planning department if the drop-off
location is a problem, so they can discuss additional directional
signs.

The exterior trim will be a walnut color, similar to what's already
there.

Bicycle storage will be inside the building, along with a
gender-neutral bathroom.

The applicants are planning to reconstruct and regrade the parking
lot, along with adding a raingarden.  This should mitigate stormwater
runoff.

The applicant expects approximately 62 trips on a Saturday.  Most
patrons pre-order, so pick up is usually quick.  They have plans to
handle traffic peaks.  They expect high traffic on certain days, like
April 20th.

The applicant gave a tour of the facility to the Arlington Police
Department on Jan 9th.  The applicant provided a summary of their
memorandum of understanding with the police department.

Mr. Benson isn't clear how traffic figures from a Brookline marijuana
retailer apply to this project.  The applicant provided these as
comparative numbers.  They expect a lot of business the first day and
during the first week.  They'll coordinate with APD regarding traffic
control.

Ms. Raitt reads a list of special conditions, which include: special
rules for marijuana waste removal (to be separate from ordinary waste
removal), having the drainage plan reviewed by the town engineer, the
applicant being responsible for extra police details (if necessary),
applicant ensuring there is no traffic queuing in the public way, and
finally, a more thorough vetting of the TDM plan.

Board approves permit, 5--0.

'''Warrant Articles'''.  The board reviews a set of zoning warrant
article proposals, which originated from DPCD.  They're basically
small corrections.  These are the same articles that the Zoning Bylaw
working group reviewed on January 22nd.  The board moves forward with
the proposed articles.

'''Citizen Petitions'''.  The board asked two citizen
petitioners, Barbara Thornton and Steve Revilak, to appear this
evening, to describe their articles to the board.  Ms. Thornton goes
first.

Ms. Thornton has three zoning articles.  The first would allows ADUs.
It's different than last year's proposal.  100 Massachusetts
communities have ADU bylaws on their books, and she's taken pieces
from several of them.  She's spoken with the building inspector and
fire chief, and is trying to get in touch with people at the state
level.

The second article would allow affordable housing on non-conforming
lots, basically by reducing the minimum lot size if the housing is
affordable.

Don Seltzer says he collaborated with Ms. Thornton on this article,
but the wording has changed, and he no longer supports it.
Ms. Thornton offers to speak with Mr. Seltzer regarding the wording he
objects to.

The third article would sponsor a design competition.  The goal is to
have architects and planners design something, but not restricted to
what our zoning allows.  The goal is to bring new ideas to the table.

Mr. Lau asks if the competition would require funding.  Ms. Thornton
says she might have to make the article a resolution.

Steve Revilak goes next.  His article is based on an earlier
correspondence to the board.  It proposes to rename the terms "Open
Space", "Usable Open Space" and "Landscaped Open Space".
Mr. Revilak believes that people have their own notion of what "Open
Space" means, and those notions are very different from the
definitions in our bylaw.  The goal is to find terms that better fit
the definitions.  His article doesn't specify new names for the terms,
so there's room for further discussion there.

Mr. Watson appreciates Mr. Revilak's efforts to clarify a commonly
misunderstood portion of our zoning bylaw.  However, he's not sure
that a warrant article that proposes to rename terms will be
sufficient.

'''Open Forum'''.  Chris Loretti believes that Ms. Thornton's
non-conforming lot article is unnecessary; Chapter 40B already
provides a way to develop affordable housing on non-conforming lots.

Mr. Loretti thinks Mr. Revilak's article is dangerous.  He believes it
would allow anyone to propose a new definition for open space.

JoAnne Preston has an issue with the wording in Ms. Thornton's ADU
article.  She tries to discuss this with the Board.  Mr. Bunnell
points out that Ms. Thornton's article did not originate with the
ARB.  He advises Ms. Preston to take the matter up with Ms. Thornton.


[[Category:Public Meetings]]