[SPEAKER_08]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, August 14, 2024. This meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in the city council chamber, second floor, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[SPEAKER_09]: Present. Present.
[SPEAKER_08]: Present.
[SPEAKER_09]: Present.
[SPEAKER_08]: present, and I see that Councilor Callahan just joined.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sure.
[SPEAKER_07]: Good to go.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great, thank you. Thanks everybody for your patience. The action discussion items for this committee meeting is again 24-033 zoning ordinance updates with the Innis Associates team. At our last committee meeting, which was either two or three weeks ago, I forget, we had a really great mapping workshop that Innis Associates prepared. We looked at many different zoning maps displaying different zoning characteristics of Medford together. We split them out along tables in the city council chambers. We could all take a look. Many people made notes, asked questions. This is a forum for kind of more informal dialogue and lodging notes and asking questions of NS associates. So I understand that tonight we'll kind of have a short debrief. of some of the key takeaways from that forum. Of course, there were so many, so I'm hoping that we can just quickly touch on the highlights that will most directly inform the more short-term work ahead of this committee now, which is dealing with discussing and reviewing proposed updates to Mystic Avenue Corridor and the Salem Street Corridor. I believe we're also going to hear an update on the ADUs law that was recently updated at the state level, and perhaps here's some updates on the condo conversion ordinance as well on these topics are all linked because of their relevance to both district and global housing strategies throughout the city. I recognize we are starting a little bit behind schedule which is entirely my fault I apologize. Still since this meeting has a seven o'clock start I'm going to ask that we all make best efforts to wrap this up by 830 because City Hall staff has had a long day, and non City Hall staff has had a long day too. Thank you so much. I'll pass it off to Director Hunt and Planner Evans if you'd like to say anything and then we can just let NS Associates take it away.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Alicia Hunt from the Planning Department. I'm here with Danielle Evans. I don't think we really have any opening remarks. Staff from Innis Associates are on the call on the Zoom, and I think they're expecting to present.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thank you so much. Paola and Jimmy, thank you for being here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good afternoon. Yes, thank you for inviting us. It's almost every week. I'm here. I'm Paula Ramos-Martinez. I'm from Enos Associates, senior urban planner. And I'm here with Jimmy Rocha. He's our GIS specialist. And he's the one that has prepared for the last workshop all the amazing maps. So I will share the presentation over here. Do you see my screen? Yes. Sorry for this. So in the agenda what I have planned for today is I will, because there is a lot of things, so what we're going to do is a very fast report from the last planning committee meeting. We had the workshop so I'm going to go through the report but quite fast. We send it today to the councillors so if there is anything that they want to suggest or add to the conversation please it's more than welcome to do so. Then we're going to go through the zoning recommendations for the corridors. We are examining Mystic Avenue and Salem Street and then a bit of the next steps that we have and we will talk about the future land use for the corridors, squares and neighbourhood centres, how we are planning in doing so. I have the timeline next, so you will see a bit of that just in a few seconds. And then we are still working on some of the studies we have, the condo conversion, housing definitions, and that will be like co-live and co-housing, the way that people are living together and obviously that matters to zoning. And then we will go into incentive zoning and green and cool score. All these studies are going to be for the next meeting because otherwise it's really impossible to go through everything at this moment. So we will show some precedents and go through it quite deeply. But at the moment, we are going to do the report and the zoning recommendations. For the timeline, what I would like to do is to have certain days for an for the more study areas focus and then having between the more wide strategies. So, for example, last time we did the workshop, it was July 24th. Today, we're doing the Corridors Mystic Avenue and Salem Street. For the next one, we want to do the condo conversion, housing definitions and incentive zoning. September 25th, we want to, what we are going to do today for the corridors, we want to do it for the squares. October 9, we will give the ADUs brief and affordable housing. October 23, the neighbourhood centres. And then again, some citywide strategies. and in November 27th, the corridors that are left or bigger areas that we will also study that are in the comp plan. So it's a bit of having one meeting for more focused areas and one meeting for the bigger citywide so we don't lose the bigger picture and we can go in and out, swimming in and swimming out. Um. So for the report from the last meeting in 24th of July, we had this type of very big maps. We had for Medford, we had for Salem Street and Mystic Avenue, and we had all the councillors and also city staff to go through them and give their opinions, their concerns, what was worrying them. And so we had the most that were commented were mainly on the residential clusters. and then on the zoning, asking for a mix of use to app zone to make ADUs by right, multi-tenant and how the transit as well will be affecting. So mainly focusing on the densification but keeping the character, also a lot of concerns of the permeability of the surface, climate resiliency strategies, and so on and so forth. I'm going to, if I can show one second the report So in here, you see that we have all of the plans that we showed and with all of the comments. So all the different typologies and all the comments in one document. What we do is to send it to the Councilors. We send it today and we want you to review it. If you see something that should be there that you are not seeing, please let us know. We would love to hear back from you and add any other concern that you might not know about. And so this is for the report. I would like to start with the corridors because it is quite a lot of things to talk about. And so if there are not any questions about the report or if there are not any comments, I would love to continue. So let me know. Okay. So So the corridors, we have been studying Mystic Avenue and Salem Street. We will start with the Mystic Avenue. We are going to talk a bit about the boundaries, then the connections with the immediate areas. and the opportunities that we might have, the land use, and with the land use we're going to see some sections to help us see a bit the height and how that is being addressed or how that relates to the street. So what do you see in here is Mystic Avenue, we have the yellowish background is the boundary that we have confirmed at the moment, and the black areas that you see the ones in Main Street. that is all black were proposed in the workshop. We thought it is a very great idea to add these ones, these two blocks. And so we suggest to also have it in. And then we have these two areas that we suggest that are included, but that we need more information We need also to contact the residents, we need to have a bit more of reach out to see if this is possible or not. To us it's interesting because we have Willis Avenue that is the parallel to Main Street, connects also Main Street with Mystic Avenue, and it is interesting to to be able to have at the end of the street that corner already telling you that there is some commercial and that we can have this more inner street that is already having the commercial atmosphere that will take you to Mystic Avenue. So we thought these two blocks will be interesting to add and as well as here a bit more in the south because of how it is surrounded. So you have all around these big lots and big buildings. And so these residential are a bit in the middle. And so how we do to make a better transition, we are studying also to make them be part of the Mystic Avenue boundary. What I'm presenting here is just as an idea some connections that can give us a lot of opportunities in these areas. So we have two main connections and that is the one on the north at the other side of Mystic Avenue we have the downtown and so we can have this kind of continuation of the downtown into Main Street. And so when you see these kind of stars is only to referring that there we could have a landmark, we could have a use that has a lot of active ground floor, so that we see that connection and that we give continuation to the downtown. And then further on the south, we have the connection that will be like a green bigger connection with the park. On the other side of Mystic, there's also a connection with Wellington, there is a bike path. So we see a lot of potential to bring this into Mystic Avenue. We have already a green area that can be more urbanized, at the moment it's very green, more like infrastructure green, but that it can be used and so these two areas could be interesting to having a lot of active ground floor. This doesn't mean that it has to be now, this is something that we are studying towards the future and where we see good possibilities and opportunities. And after this, if you want to, I think that I will talk about all Domestic Avenue, and then we can talk about it City Councilor and City staff. But if you want to, there is something that you really need to talk to, to speak out, that's also fine by me. So if you need to interrupt, feel free to interrupt. And then we are going into the land use. This needs to be a bit more detailed, but at the moment we are dividing these into four areas. It's really three, we have the blue areas, the center area, the east of Mystic Avenue and the west of Mystic Avenue are very different. The urban fabric, it's very fragmented on the west. And so we see also the depth of these lots are very different from the east of Mystic. So we have this subtle different of colours because it will reflect in the zoning. So this part of the blue area, how we see it, is that extension of the downtown. It still has all the historical divisions, all the historical street divisions. And so we think it can be very interesting, also very smaller lots that we can have here, a high density, but very kind of small to meet a scale. here we don't want any gas station or auto-oriented, this should be very much, very walkable, very accessible and just as a continuation of downtown. So we do have some, the police building and we have the fire trucks, those are, the fire station, those are civic buildings, so they are not going to have to answer to the zoning. But in any case, it's also interesting to have them in this area. The inner streets should have a totally different ambience than the Mystic Avenue and those we will study further. At the moment we have studied more the Mystic Avenue portion. So we will see how these transitions are made and if this could be more, not totally pedestrian, but more of a shared space. and more intimate kind of feeling. Once we go into the violet, so we see very different environments from the east to the west. So the mixed use, the second, that will be a bit of the continuation of the bluish, we will have it on the west of Mystic Avenue. So it's more fragmented, it's a smaller scale of steel, And the uses are very similar. We have commercial, mixed-use building, and multi-family or multi-unit building. And we will see the stories, we will see it better, the heights in the next slides with the sections. But mostly we're thinking six stories for the blue, six stories for the Mystic Avenue. And then on the other side of Mystic Avenue, because we do have all the infrastructure, we can really go higher. We also have very deep lots. the scale here changes. We are not talking anymore about a smaller scale, but we're going to emit a bigger commercial scale. We are thinking on having a plinth with four stories and then a higher area, not a tower, because it doesn't go into a tower, but a higher element that goes into eight stories, so in total around 12. we can see if that is something feasible. We're just laying the base so we can discuss on top. What we have in all these, the blue and all the violets, we have a very active brown floor. So we are asking from 75 to 100% of the ground floor in Mystic Avenue that is a very active ground floor. And so when we go into the lower area, the pink one, We are thinking on having less active ground floor, so it can be from 25 to 50. This is something that we need to study still. We are thinking about bigger scale. We think about around eight stories high. And then the uses to be, here we can have some auto-oriented, we can have the gas station, we can have life science, and we can have some light industry. So I'm going to start with the sections so that we can see them a bit better. So this is what we have at the moment. We have a lot of commercial that is or one to two stories high, very kind of pod, a lot of auto-oriented areas, very difficult to walk. If you see the walkway, this is the orange strip. We have even the electric poles in it. There is almost no space. And so what we need to do the lines that you see in red dash, those are the boundaries, the lot boundaries. And so, what we need to do, if I start saying that I'm not going to have any setback, any front setback, and I start to put all the stories on top, it's going to feel very cramped. The first thing that I need is to have a space to walk. Otherwise, we will never have an active area in this place, in the street. So, what we do is to give a curb setback. And that means that from the line of the curb, we establish a minimum of setback, in this case is 18 feet. And we go So we established, let's say, a new building line. And that's what you see in this black arrows, what that means. We do it in both sides so that we can really have a better space for walking. At least we have 10 foot for walking. And then the other eight are for green strip where we can have also the pole, electric poles, lighting, where we can have some seating, so a bit of a multifunctional strip area. It also helps if we have a continuous green with the stormwater collection. What we see here is buildings on the front and then we can have some parking, obviously we need parking, but that will be always on the back. And it can be closed, it can be open, that is not so important, but what we really want is that all the active ground floor is in the front. So about the heights in here, we are in the blue area, by the way. Here's only about the bluish area. So we are here. Here we have six stories high. We have some setbacks, some stepbacks, and we could have it from the fourth floor or from the fifth. It can even be a bit playful, so it's not always the same. We have a bit of a skyline, a bit of movement, so that we don't have a canyon kind of feeling. And so we have some step backs that can go from the fourth floor in the west of the Mystic Avenue and only one step back from the east so that we have a difference from one side to the other and we break a bit the symmetry. And the uses that we will have in this area is mixed use, is commercial, is multi-unit, multi-dwelling. And so if it's multi-dwelling and it's only residential use, then the amenity is to be in the ground floor to make it a bit more active. If we go to the next one, this is the center part. We have here is the east side and this is the west side. So the lower part will go on the west. We need to also explore a bit the more fragmented areas that are really in the middle where they have adjacent lots which are residential two and a half or three and so that has to be really that it has to transition well, of course. And then on the east We have a bit of a plinth so that we break and we don't have so high buildings flush into the street. We can even have a bigger curb setback. I'm having the same curb setback in all the street, all the 18. And we can have a bigger in this area because they are taller. And what we want is a plinth of at least four and then to have a roof deck and these roof decks should be or public or if it's for residential where they can to be semi-public. So it's the amenities and they can hang out in here. It's a big step back, so at least is 25-30 step back. And then to have as well in the back, this is more of infrastructural green, so it can help us with the stormwater, but it can also help if we have a bigger kind of more lush green, more intensive. It can also help to clean the view from the highway that is passing next to it. So this is the higher one, this is the bigger and the denser areas, commercial mixed-use, residential, multifamily as well. And then when we go into the last part, these are the lower where we still have some auto-oriented uses. We will try to have the auto-oriented uses on the back of the lots, so more where the where the 93 is running. So we can have more inside the lot, the auto-oriented and more the buildings that are or big commercial or office or life science that are on the front. In here, the street profile changes. This belongs to mass DOT. And so the profile is a bit different. So we don't need the curb setback because it's already wide enough. And what we give is from the boundary lot, we give some setbacks. And it can be a range from 10 to 20. because this is not active, this is not commercial, that I need to be next to it so that it will be interesting to have some more green in front and the building not so far away, so no parking at all, but not so far away that we are losing the contact and we lose the facades, but not so close that interrupts a bit the walkability. So, until here, I have all the Mystic Avenue, and after will come Salem, but I think it's better if we can maybe, I can hear your suggestions, or what do you think about it?
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you very much, Paola, I really appreciate that thorough overview of what you've been preparing. I know that you've incorporated some of the comments that were most recently raised at our mapping workshop just a few weeks ago. I have a couple comments myself, but I'll go to President Bears first.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Chair Collins. I think this is great. I really like the north end of the corridor. I think that's restoring the traditional pre-highway kind of arrangement of a walkable neighborhood that used to be a mostly residential commercial extension of Medford Square on the other side of the river, when it's kind of, you know, in the auto age was taken up by repair shops and various things that, you know, aren't necessarily what we want to prioritize. So I'm really interested to see that. My only really question, I guess I have two questions. One with the curb setbacks is the idea that the private owners would be accepting of the curb setbacks because they would be able to build higher. Is that essentially the idea there? Because I think it is, Sounded like you're talking about maybe 10 feet of going back 10 feet into the private lots and that sounds you know, I mean, I can just think. maybe a private owner would say, I don't want to do that. And I do, I guess I just wonder what like the application of that looks like. If we have some lots that want to move to redevelop and they do the curb setback and then you have another lot with a non-conforming structure that's right up on the lot line, like how is that going to work? That's my first question. And then I have a second comment.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure. So answering your first question, yes, basically, the space that we have right now, if we want to make this really commercial area, there is not a space at all. And so there are two options, because we cannot invent a space, right? So or we take lanes out, or we have to make a setback. and yes, to have the new setback into the lots. So, this is the boundary lot and we are taking around 10 feet of their property. In that case, instead of building one or two, you can build six. So I think that the revenue that they get, it's quite good. We have in zoning, we have all the time setbacks from setback that they also cannot build. It's just to make it more walkable, to be able to make it more active, to bring a lot more people in, to make it more economically feasible. We need to go in so we can really go higher. We cannot make it with a... There is some shadow in here, 45 degrees. This is what it's supposed to represent, the shadow that these buildings are going to project. And if we go into the line, we can barely go really high.
[SPEAKER_04]: And I totally get the use case of it. I think it's great. I guess I'm saying in practice, have we seen where this has been implemented in other places that when development happens, the property owners seem to say this makes a lot of sense and we want to go back from the curb that much. And then, you know, do we see where, you know, different lots get developed at different times that there's kind of a, disjointedness at least for some amount of time until the buildings reflect the updated zoning where you have some of the corridor doesn't have that curb setback. I'm just wondering in your studies what you've seen with that.
[SPEAKER_01]: So at the moment, we also don't have any continuity in Mystic Avenue. So it's really each one of them build whatever they like. And we have a lot of parking placed in the front. That's mainly what you will find. So we don't have the buildings right in the line. We have very little, very few that will have this. This is taking time. This is a vision that will take many years to be implemented. So this is really little by little and trying to all the new developments that occur are going to be following the new curve line. This happens in, I've seen it in many areas, many cities. I don't know specific to Massachusetts. I can do that study and bring it to you later on in the whenever we present the draft, we can give more thought to that. But mainly the options that we have to, we need What happens is that we don't have a continuous facade line. And so every building is in a different position. Every building is totally or very setback, a lot of parking in the front. And so we don't have nothing that defines the space. And if we want to make, to start making that definition in here happening, we need to mark some kind of lines, some kind of, they're called sometimes red lines, where the buildings are going to take place. And so, as I said, or we take lanes, or we have to, we need a curve setback.
[SPEAKER_04]: Got it. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think I don't think you need to go deep diving into it. I was just kind of wondering what you'd seen in practice and it sounds like. You kind of set these standards, and over time, the development pattern happens along those lines. And that makes sense to me. I do think that southeast of Hancock Street, it's worth looking at, potentially. I mean, the street's just too wide. Mystic Ave, it shouldn't be as wide as it is. 95% of the time it's empty and it's just dangerous to cross. So that was kind of one thing I was thinking is And I don't know where MassDOT would land on this either I think that's a really tough piece of the puzzle since they control the street southeast of Hancock, but You know, you could go in a little bit. I think there my other comment is that I do think the commercial zone, the red zone on the northeast side, the east side of Mystic Ave. I don't know if it makes sense to treat that. This is the red kind of south of Mystic Valley Parkway. I think in a lot of senses the Hicks Avenue element of this is kind of baked in and that's going to end up being commercial and have auto-dedicated uses, etc. I think the east side could be treated more like we're treating the east side north of the Harvard and Route 16 Mystic Valley Parkway intersection. I think, obviously, there was the life science proposal that was withdrawn by combined properties, and then the 40B that was withdrawn by combined properties. And they've been having a lot of ideas and withdrawing a lot of ideas. But I wonder if we could at least, I wonder if there's a way to say you could do either or and that mix and match wouldn't necessarily make that part of it not cohesive. I just think limiting all of those lots to the commercial only versus at least giving the opportunity for something like having the mixed use extend all the way down on the east side between Mystic Ave and the highway. That's just a thought that I have, but I'm, you know, I'd be interested to hear what other people think about that and what the planning department thinks about that as well.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so in this area, what we have just to answer that one. We have a lot of highway nodes entrance and from the parkway coming in the north of the pink red area. And we have also the connection to the 93 at the end. This is a lot of traffic. And so some of these auto-oriented users would like to move. And so maybe in this kind of spacing, they will have the opportunity to move further south of Mystic Avenue. That is the first idea that we had, because the connection to the highway and to other main streets are really there. This part of the street, it is super bright, but this is more, as you said, this is mass DOT. So, and I see that there is a lot of influence of coming from the highway and going out. So I don't know how much we can reduce the traffic here. So there are very different street profiles from this one, which is not very wide. And so here to take spots from these areas, it is a bit difficult because it's already tight. This is already wider. And then at this last area, it really, really widens. This is like 100 feet. So I agree that we could maybe look at something different. We will love to hear your feedback from that, of course. And I'm just saying that here it is very white, the street profile. It has a different character. The lots are very, very different. very big. So, they are not so fragmented that is connected to the neighborhood. It is actually completely disconnected. There is some land and some topography and some green around it so that it doesn't even let the connection happening. And so, that was the reason why we thought if there is some people moving some auto-oriented moving from the other areas we can have here. It made the most sense to keep that kind of use in the southern part. We will try to push it more into the interior areas, but we can have some mixed use in these typologies, right, in the more connected to the street, that we could have some mixing. So we will study that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, that's helpful. And I think, I guess mostly I'm thinking of the area bounded by the highway, and then northwest of Fulbright Street, northeast of Mystic, kind of, if I could, I mean, if maybe if you go to the map, it's that area. kind of right, yeah, exactly. And maybe there's a way, given the purple that we have on the west side, to kind of try to make that a more cohesive link. I definitely see most of what you're saying on the west side of the street, on the Hicks Avenue side, I completely agree. That's kind of is what it is at this point.
[SPEAKER_01]: I mean, we can have a later on phase, but at the moment I would say, It's whenever we have so many traffic going on in the area, it gets more tough to make it walkable and more vibrant. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Thank you. That's it.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you President Barris and just to follow up on that point, I definitely would be interested to see. I think this is, as I mentioned, I'm really excited by this map I think this is a really important step forward in our, you know, kind of months of talks gearing up to this so thank you so much for this I think this is an excellent draft. As we do consider to continue to iterate on this, you know, since I know, kind of a part of this. project that looms large for all of these sections is the transition between mixed-use 1, mixed-use 2, mixed-use 3, etc. I would be curious to see if we can play around with a bit of a more transitional you know, perhaps mixed use three or two in that section that President Bears was just bringing up. And part of the reason for saying that is just to not want it to feel like a acute difference from one edge of that, you know, highway off-ramp to the other. I really appreciate the focus on walkability on Mystic Ave. And I think that transit is another big piece of that. I know from experience, you know, I think all of us do it is difficult to be a pedestrian. It is difficult to be a pedestrian on Mystic Ave, it's especially difficult to cross, but there are a lot of people who do utilize it because they need to take the bus up and down and they live in the dense housing area. That's just south of there. So kind of thinking about that and thinking about the pedestrians that will be on the street, kind of if there's a way to implement some of that flexibility and mixed use into the commercial zone. I think it would look better, and I think I could see some developers taking us up on that. One last question for me while we're on the topic of the setbacks, just to make sure I'm very clear on what we're talking about in mixed use 1, 2, and 3 with the setbacks. Is it that those are a condition or an incentive for increased height, or are the setbacks that you've prescribed a matter of course, and then the bonus heights come from meeting other criteria? Like, are these setbacks just baked in no matter how high the building is, or does it come in at certain levels of flooring?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, that's a good question. I think that At this point, the curb setback, it is what it is. I don't want it to be just a bonus. this is going to be just a baseline. You cannot have bonus because of this curb setback. We do could have more bonus and that's something that I would love to talk about in the next meeting because If we want to go higher, to be honest, I don't see why you couldn't in the, for example, in this area, or maybe if we transition with some more mixed use as well in the in the southern of the north part of the red pink one. So, if we go higher, or if they want to go higher, there are lots that are 400 feet deep, especially in these parts. So, you could even have a higher one facing more the highway, and then having lower in here. I think that that could come with the bonus. And then over there, we could have some, and that is where the amenities, the public space, terrace, and other things that we will outline for the next meeting could come into place. I would say that this is the maximum height that they can go. as of right, let's say. And then if they want to go higher, then we could have to, we would have to look into those bonus and there should be a bigger setback so they can have a plaza in front. and other things that they could do. But I think that the incentive zone would be great, for example, in this area, something like this corridor. Also in Salem, we will see it. But this curb setback, to me, is the minimum that it should be there. And then if we go higher, then we could have bigger setbacks.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. I think that makes sense, too. I just wanted to be clear on that. what the mechanism was for that, but I think that makes a lot of sense. And it is, you know, from one perspective, it is exciting to think about, you know, if this were to be implemented, how the experience of walking or biking or even driving down Mystic Ave might be different in 20 years with more actual space to enjoy. Great. I see a hand up. It is our custom to take public participation at the end of committee meetings, but I know that we're going to be shifting gears pretty soon to the Salem Street Corridor. Do you have a comment? I'm happy to. Is there any further comments from councilors, from city staff, before we move on to the next item in Ines's presentation? President Bears.
[SPEAKER_04]: Just one question, and it might be for PDS and for NS Associates, but given this, when do we expect that we could see the maps and the written ordinance language for adoption for, I guess, for both of these? I guess I could ask that at the end.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, we will start preparing the journal. because we do have some other things. I am not sure. I cannot give you that answer at the moment, but I will give you that answer maybe in the next meeting. The thing is that it's not only about the users and the table of users and the store and the heights. We also should do development standards, design guidelines, so that when it comes to the draft, it's really all tied in. And if anyone wants to start developing, that will follow all these rules. So there is still some work to do. Yeah, I don't know if it's if Alicia Hunt has anything to add to it, if they need it as soon as possible.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, Pamela. Go ahead, Director.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you. I was actually going to mention that I thought that the way this is set, some of this language would be different from this type of zoning that we have. We are aware, Planner Evans used to work in Watertown where they had zoning that had this idea of this is the line where buildings will come to, and that it allowed, you couldn't build further back or further forward, which is different from a setback, right? A setback is this is, you can't build any closer to the, the boundary line than this. And this would also come with standards talking about green space and public sidewalk that would be the front of, and where could parking could be and couldn't be, where would loading zones be able to be? Because a large commercial building is going to need access for parking. It's going to need loading stuff. like that, so there'll need to be design standards that go with it. I actually think that it would be helpful if we could see draft language and sort of framework language for that sooner rather than later, because I think we'll need to get in the weeds on that as well. What I'm saying is that this is not just height X, setback Y. This is more complicated than that. So if I could relate it in this associates, that if they have starts at suggested language or even a bulleted list of the type of things they would want to see in that, I think that would be helpful for all of us to be looking at and understanding as they develop the details of it. We also have some of this kind of language in the new MBTA zoning. and we should take a look at that language, because some of that, what I was just talking about, where can your loading zone and your driveway access be, is actually in that MBTA zoning. And so I think we will want to look at drafts, which is different from saying, when will we have language we can vote on? I think we're going to need to see at least one or two iterations before it's votable language.
[SPEAKER_08]: Absolutely. No, I think that stands to reason, and I would agree. I would love to get the ball rolling on that sooner, you know, inclusive of if it's, it sounds like even rough drafts would be very useful to see in the rough stage that we can get a start on all of the accessories that have to be considered at the same time. So I would endorse that request from the planning department. President Bairst, do you have a follow up?
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm good.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Paula, is there more on this section of the presentation or should we proceed to the Salem Street Corridor?
[SPEAKER_01]: We can proceed. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great. And actually, I'm going to interrupt you and myself really quickly in the event that this is a public comment on Mystic Gap Corridor specifically. I will recognize you Gaston. Name and address for the record. You have 3 minutes.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much, I really appreciate the opportunity. I don't see any drawings related to biking infrastructure in these sketches. I was wondering whether there has been any thought given to biking infrastructure at this stage, and if not, whether there will be considered in the future. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: So at the moment there is a bike lane shared with a bus lane. We haven't looked into the layout of the street, so not at the moment. Let's say that also for the zoning it's not in our scope. If I'm not correct please director Alicia you can correct me but this is more of the transit and at the moment what we have we actually ask to the engineer department, the plans for Mystic Avenue, and we haven't got them yet. We got the Salem Street, but not this one. To be honest, I know that there is also some kind of design. I don't know if it's going to be new, if it's going to be adopted soon or not. I don't have it, so I don't know if the layout that is there now is going to change or not. At the moment, what we have is a shared lane with the bus. I haven't had any comment on anything about the biking lanes. Sorry for that. That's all I can answer.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Paola, and I think it's, um, I definitely appreciate the question. I'm hoping that, um, I'm not sure if the appropriate mechanism would be in some design standards phase or potentially as we're getting into other criteria for height, et cetera, bonuses, if we can look to some of the So I'm trying to think of what the right terms for this is ways we can write into our zoning and perhaps this is a site plan review issue ways to kind of incentivize large developments including bike infrastructure or at least kind of like a bike accessory infrastructure on those developments as condition for greater height or just as a from a piece of what we try to incentivize in our development. I think the complicating factor is that Mystic Gap itself is, as we discussed largely, DOT operated, so there's not a lot that we can do in terms of the actual streetscape, but whatever we can do to incentivize making those privately held lots more hospitable for cyclists, I would like for us to look at.
[SPEAKER_01]: So yes, absolutely that for sure. It's one of the parts of the amenities for the bonus for the incentive zoning, some kind of parking for bikes. But with the zoning, I cannot intervene in the layout of the street. That's what I was trying to say.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you, pal. I appreciate that. With that, let's move along to Salem Street Corridor.
[SPEAKER_01]: So with Salem, we have done the proposed boundaries. This wasn't as defined as in Mystic Avenue. So these are really new proposals. We have, and this is, it depends a bit on the land use that it had, that is currently in those lots. We have some proposed boundary, and this is the immediate boundary of the Salem Street. Sometimes it takes two lots, sometimes it takes three in depth. It really depends on what it was there, the sizes of the lots, and how its impact with the surroundings. And then we have what we call the transitional boundary, and this is to make a better connection between the existent and the the boundary of Salem Street. So, again, we did some connections and opportunities. Mainly, we wanted to make very clear the bigger connections with the main active areas of the neighborhood. And so we have these two parks that we want to connect to Salem. We have this corridor, the Spring Street, that connects Salem with Washington. It's also quite one of the widest in this area. We have the parks, connections for people. These mainly are not driving connections, these are pedestrians and it can be even bike connection, but not for driving. caring so much for driving, but as how can we attract people from the area to walk into Salem Street, to bring them into this place. And so, this has nothing to do with the reality of what would come here. I'm just pointing as before, Some areas could be very interesting as points of attention. One, because we have the connection with the parks, but also because of the lots and the things that are happening in the surrounding areas. In this corner, we have the school, the park connection, Washington and Felsway West. And in this corner, we have the Spring Street, the Morrison Park, and the connection towards the big lot area. So we take it as some kind of placemaking on these spots so that we can create commercial nodes, so we can create some public space, so we can create some community making. And so, you see now the connection, the school, and these are the commercial nodes, let's say. These are the most intensive areas that we are going to have along Salem Street. So, we have where the Target is now and all around it. We have where Park Street connects with Salem and the school. We think that these are the ones that could really attract more people and so we give it as more public and more intensive. And then we have a mixed Salem. It's not like Mystic Avenue because of the scale and because of many things, but also because of the really different mix that we have. So sometimes we have commercial that is unified and is continuous, like in this corner. Then we have some commercial and then residential and then commercial again. And then we have lots that are entirely residential. So we did want to maintain that mix because we think that it gives the identity to the street. So the lots that were entirely residential, we keep as they are. They are multi-dwelling, but we keep it as only residential. When we see the bluish, those are all the all the yellow. And when we see the bluish, it's more mixed. So we have mixed buildings, we have residential, we have commercial, we have a mix of all of them. And then on the red, we have the big intensity. So we have more commercial, we have mixed use. And obviously, in here, we're going to have the highest buildings, then we go a bit down, we go a bit down and we go back again to the highest. This will be a nice connection because on the west we have the roundabout and then we have the connection towards Medford Square, so there we can also densify. So it will be kind of nodes of densification and then a bit lower going to residential and coming back again. And so what we have now is very similar to before. We don't have a very wide area. Also, it's divided sometimes with trees. Trees barely have space. And so the area is very narrow. So we come back with the same story again. We need a space. And so we mark this kind of curve setback to have a new building line. This area is when we have the mix of, in one area, the mixed use, and in the other one, we have residential. And so, when we have residential, we want them to have also a frontage, a front garden, and a bit of a setback to give more intimacy. And that happens when all the use of the building is residential. And so, as you can see on the left, these are multi-dwelling units, and so we allowed, when we are in Salem Street and facing Salem Street, they can be four stories high. When start to face in the secondary streets, then they go to three stories high. And then when we have the mixed use, the blue one, we go to six. But again, we have to, in the fourth, we need this step back so it doesn't feel too high on the street. Parking, again, it's going to be on the back, and those things, as Alicia said, needs to be studied. Whenever they can access the parking from a secondary street, we will encourage that to happen, but if it's not possible, then we will encourage to only have one curb cut, and so that we don't have continuous entrance to parkings. One of the incentive bonus can be to share the parking, several lots, So we don't have many entrances, but we only have one or two in one block. So those are things that we will look into later. But what is important now is that we want the front of the buildings towards the street and the parking on the back. And then we have mix use, mix use, one in front, when they front each other. And then we have the commercial, well, it's mixed use too, it's just more intensive. And so in here, what we have is a bigger setback than before. In here, we have 15. In here, we go back to the 18. And then we have six stories, and I left these two in order to have that incentive bonus that you could have plus two, but with a setback, and you need to give something back to the community, in this case, mainly Salem Street, or something very near in the area that affects immediately to the area. And then when we talk about, this is something that we created for Pittsfield, there was a mixed use streets. And we also, whenever there was commercial or mixed use, so an active ground floor, If they wanted to be a bit more setbacked than the line that they were given, they could have a setback, but they had to make that frontage public. We had this different from 13 to 20 feet back, but they had to give it as a terrace or as a picnic, as bike parking, as climate resilience or rain gardens, public seating on the shade, public seating like terrace kind. So this is something that we created for Pittsfield and so we wanted that if the commercial or the active ground force, so in this case it's for mixed use and for the commercial one and the intensive one, whenever they want, if they wanted to set back, that that frontage had to be an active frontage. So obviously no parking in the front and it had to be some element or climate resilience or to create some more active street ground floor. And we also did the same for the setback. So if you had a setback from 10 to 30, we wanted to also have a more active rooftop. So I'm showing it as things that we could also add to the Salem Street as well. Or that could form, be part of the zoning incentives. So if you want to do more heights, then you have to give this elements kind of idea. And this is it for Salem Street.
[SPEAKER_08]: Oh, I'm sorry. Was there more you're going to add just there? Shall I open up to comment from councilors? Good to go. Thank you so much for that overview. Very interesting to consider these two corridors in parallel. I'll go first to President Bears.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. My only thought, I really think that the big lots on the northeast side of the corridor don't have to be that big scale commercial. I could really see reintegrating and reconnecting that neighborhood and making it more walkable. I think you could have a lot of the uses, you know, you could have a Target and a gym and a liquor store under an apartment building. And just have a more, you know, right now it's just a giant parking lot, so I could really see that being And you can maintain the parking with podium parking if you really wanted to as well, or maintain some portion of it. Most of the time, most of it is empty. So that's just my one thought here. Other than that, I really think this is a thoughtful approach. And I think the kind of step backs into the neighborhoods make sense with small multi-dwelling, you know, it's a three-story height with the increased height really just fronting Salem Street. But I think that that's just my one thought. Could we try to encourage something kind of wholesale, really changing the dynamic of that section of the area, because right now it's basically just an asphalt desert most of the time.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, sorry. Thank you for bringing that up, because I totally forgot to mention. Yes, so we would love that the MBTA garage will move out of here for obvious reasons. And of course, this area, we wanted more bigger scale. So we want the target and we want this, but we want to have the buildings into the front, parking on the interior, and to make it a lot more livable and connected. So I totally spaced out this area. I want to make more in-depth what this could look like, and we could We will see it later on the on the drafts. But totally agree with you. Absolutely.
[SPEAKER_04]: Great. Yeah. And I know this is less a zoning thing and more of a just getting all parties on the same page thing. But I wonder if I know that he wants to move out of there if we could. There could really be, I think, benefits of being a transit hub in that area too, especially with the high-speed or high-frequency bus route from Malden Centre. So just a thought.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, also the other side to the neighbourhood is really, really sad at the moment. So to activate also all these corners will be great for this part of the neighbourhood.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Pamela. Yeah, I think, I think in general and I, this is comes from personal preference and also I think from what we're heard from the community and various forums over the years. I think that broadly our instinct to try and consolidate commercial especially light industrial uses is super intuitive, makes a lot of sense. I also think that where I see the most enthusiasm is for that mixed use. And so even in, you know, kind of what we're considering our commercial nodes, you know, like we mentioned along the stick, the stick out for order, I'd be really excited to see, you know, that flexibility for mixed use. So that existing commercial uses can continue to have on there, continue to cluster with other uses, that makes sense. But that we are kind of leaving a, having our zoning leave a very warm welcome open, a very open door towards that mixed use. And for these nodes being functional commercial hubs without being so obviously commercial that other uses can't picture themselves there. And it's my hope that some of those kind of Unappealingly resolutely industrial areas I'm in care thinking about the bus depot which I think nobody is really happy about. It's just something that we don't have control over right now. I'm hopeful that through zoning the adjacent areas we can hopefully entice the partners that we don't have jurisdiction over to kind of conform with how the neighborhood is changing around that depot and other another outdated uses like it that we'd like to see go somewhere else or be converted into something more useful and more modern.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you for putting this presentation together. I think this is a very hopeful step forward for our city. I would agree with Councilor Bears and Councilor Collins that, you know, mixed use development is what I hear from residents. that they want to see in our city. That lot in particular that we've been talking about on the corner of Bellsway West and Salem, I think that has a lot of potential for mixed use. I think the vision that Councilor Bears has laid out is something that is very enticing to me, at least individually, and I know the voters, the residents I've talked to would be interested in something like that, particularly since if we can bring in more residential units on main streets, I think a lot of residents will be much more swaged about densification, which we really need, and the need to build more housing. but balancing that with their concerns of traffic, I think, with the high-frequency bus route right there, stopping right at that corner, and with the links to Route 28, I-93 right there, I think that is quite a prime location to bring in housing. Um, I think my other note is just that, um, when it comes setbacks and setbacks, um, I just, you know, I think the flip side of the equation, I, I think I would concur with what's being what's been said by the flip side of the equation is just that might, um, reduce the space that we have for housing units, um, which we desperately need more of. I think there's a balance there, and I think you know, when we're planning it out, we just want to be, I would suggest that we be very careful with, you know, asking ourselves to be more intentional with putting in setbacks and setbacks. I think that Pittsfield's plans look very interesting to me. But I think we should make sure that we're not just putting it in there just because it's common practice. I think we want to make sure that we have to ask ourselves, does this actually make our neighborhood more walkable? Or does it actually increase the feeling of vastness? And I think that's something for us to consider going forward. But I do, in general, find these plans very interesting.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you for that, Councilor Tseng. Director Hunt?
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you. So there are a couple of things we want to add. This is the first time that we're seeing most of this for Salem Street. One thing I'll just note as sort of food for thought is that there really isn't room on Salem Street for things like bike lanes and all. So if one was to think about capturing more horizontal space for the public through requirements or incentives, you'd have to do it through requirements, because you either have to do it the whole way or not. could you actually get a cycle track on one side, because there are setbacks. But that said, I think I would ask Innis Associates if they could actually take a closer look at these. My concern here is that these parcels are too small. and that they're too small to have the setbacks and still have viable buildings. I'm not certain about that, but they're much smaller than on Mystic Ave. And so I think we need to look at that and say, is this wish zoning that could never happen because you're not going to have a buildable project, or is it brilliant? I'm not certain, but I think we need to look a little closer. and in particular in the commercial node area, the light red, I think we should think about whether six stories is too tall. I was just looking on Google Maps with it 3D, and really the tallest that we have anywhere up and down really is three stories. And how that looks and works, and even at the end near Target where there are apartment buildings, they appear to be three, three and a half stories, except for one that's kind of further down. that's taller than that. And they feel like a solid size. So I think that we should be considering that. I'm not actually sure what the zoning allows here. It is an apartment district. One of the big things, it's three stories. So three stories is actually the maximum. So I'm wondering if we should be thinking about four at this location and not six. But I'm not saying like, oh, I'm not coming in firm, saying like, this is definitely what we should do. I just, I think we should think about this one a little bit more in some of those big picture details. And I don't know if Danielle had something to add to that, or if I just spoke for both of us.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, Danielle Evans, senior planner. As Director Hunt was saying, a three stories is allowed by right in the AP one, the apartment one zone. I think it goes up to six. Um. I think it could support more than three stories. Um I think for two ups on it slightly to allow for parking underneath. Um so you can still get those housing units above. Um. And I just wanted to add a point to what comes of have zoning that would allow or incentivize wrapping those parking lots, putting some uses towards the front. And then some of these uses are long established. They might not be going anywhere. Maybe they'll be building up a little bit. But if we had some buildings towards the front, done in a way that doesn't hide those uses in the back, so they don't get upset with their visibility. This has been something we've been working on with some of our existing plazas over in the Wellington area. I'm thinking like Felsway and the Wegmans. Plazas where when the new buildings want to come in, they're coming closer towards the street to have more of a presence on the street and having the parking behind that's already existing. So that's a way to kind of move past this kind of suburban development pattern of plazas, strip malls set far back with the parking in front?
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you very much, Danielle. Yeah, I think this is an important discussion to have. But I think in general, on the issue of how much height can a particular corridor or block support, typically the way I enter into that kind of question is like, I think we all agree on the basic premise of, we need more housing units. We want to do that in a way that's appropriate and sensitive and thoughtful. And when it comes to considering cases that are right now notably higher than average, the question is, what are we getting out of it? What's the value to the community beyond just the units themselves? And that makes me curious to contemplate, what feels like a new, what feels like an appropriate new normal that we can say we feel like this is a slam dunk, we're always comfortable with this, and then for those cases above that, whether that normal is four or five, if not six, maybe it's six, what do we want to get in return if we are going to contemplate letting a developer build above that? And I think that there's a lot that Probably a lot that we have in common that we find intriguing, whether it's parking underneath or some of those public space uses towards the front. President Bears?
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. I think it is important to note, A, there's kind of two things that are at play here for me. One, once you're over two and a half, there's significantly less visual benefit of the difference between four and six. And I think we just need to factor that in. I think that's anecdotal. I think that's like a gut feeling that people are gonna feel. But if you actually look at the statistical analyses of like how people experience the world, it's not that different. I think the, and there's plenty of examples across this region of that, where you have fours and fives and sixes intermingled and it doesn't feel like when you're standing next to the six, it's so much bigger than when you're standing next to the four. I think the step backs are, less worrying than the setbacks. I think the setbacks are just really tough. I think all the setbacks and everything we've seen from all the studies that we've done are that the setbacks and the dimensional requirements in this community don't make sense with all the lot sizes in this community, and they really, really, really, really restrict what people can build. I think the step backs could make sense. I think we also have to factor in density bonuses here, where maybe it's 3 over 1, and then there's density bonuses for specific community benefits. Maybe those additional floors aren't full floors, but they're stepped back. I think those would be the ways I'd want to approach it, rather than just saying, this is a four-story corridor, and there's no opportunities here to do something else other than that. The other thing is again the building code at least from my understanding having had some conversations with. both people on the municipal side of these conversations and the developer sides of these conversations is when you have to move from wood-based construction to steel-based construction, it significantly increases your costs. And that has to generally happen after three stories, although we had some conversations about you can do podium bases and then build with three stories of wood on top of it, although I'm not sure what the new building code says about that. And I don't know if Scott, I'm talking out of turn, no change. Yeah. So I just think that to the point made about the setbacks, making this zoning in theory rather than zoning in practice, I also think that the height limits. If we limit it at four and they say, well, we're never going to build four, we're just going to build three anyway because we're going to build wood, then there's no point in zoning for four and we're not going to get what we want. So I think those are the kinds of conversations that we should think about. as we move through this. But yeah, I think the setbacks from the street are just really tough with the lot sizes.
[SPEAKER_06]: Can I clarify something? Because I think that what we are recommending is not like, oh, here's your sidewalk. Now your building starts 15 feet back from that. But what we were talking about, particularly through the Mystic Ave, and I think the idea is to apply it here, is that we would actually say your building is gonna start 15 feet back from the curb line, but you're gonna have a green strip, and then the sidewalk is actually gonna be on your private property, and then it's gonna be three feet to your building, right? the sidewalk would actually go quite close to the building. We're trying to find more space so that you could have an eight foot wide sidewalk instead of a three foot wide sidewalk. And that there are ways to put that into the zoning so that it's not like, oh, you get to do whatever you want, but how do we do that? And it may end up that one has to look into the details of liability and easements so that if it's public sidewalk that you don't have, like who then maintains that, right? Is it still city sidewalk? Do you then transfer it over? But basically, it's how can we use this to capture more public space for the public and not like, oh, six or 10 feet of green pine bushes. We don't need more of those. We need more space for us to walk and bicycle and park our bikes and maybe have some sidewalk dining. So, and I think we can do that with zoning code, but we have to do that carefully and intentionally, because just a setback says you can do whatever you want with that space. I wouldn't be in favor of that, of just push your building back, that's different.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right, and I just wonder, at Mystic Ave it makes a little more sense to me. Here, I just think you're gonna have you know, even if we're talking a 30 year time horizon, you're going to have properties that just don't want that. And then you're like, Oh, we have this great public space. And then it's a three foot sidewalk and then a great public space on the three foot sidewalk. And like, especially with these lot sizes, the number of lots and the varying uses, like, I don't know. It doesn't feel in my mind, I can't see the cohesion in the same way. And It's clear to me that on Mystic Ave, like once Paula mentioned, oh, everything has 20 feet of parking in front of it anyway on Mystic Ave, it's like, okay, so it's already open, private, you know, we could better utilize that space. Here there's stuff that's up to the, you know, there's a lot of structures that are built up to the lot line in front of a three or four foot sidewalk. And if those aren't gonna move, then you're not gonna, so that's just where my brain is on it around the, I guess my point is that even if we set the curve line in principle back because we want this cohesive vision, it might end up functioning like a setback anyway because you're not going to have the coherence all the way down the corridor. That's my fear.
[SPEAKER_06]: Right. And I think I actually that's part of why I want them to do a little bit deeper dive into this because I also think if you set it back an extra five or six feet, do you have enough depth to have a viable building there on Mystic Ave? It is really quite. The potential for whole blocks to turn over at once, even though those are smaller parcels, there are developers who are interested in assembling a block of parcels on Mystic Ave to do a larger project, and I can say that quite definitively. And in the interest of arguing with myself, I really do feel like this is something worthy of mulling over. I was sort of poking around at taller buildings and 2800 Maple Park Ave, I believe is five stories over one of parking. And you're right, I actually, I bike by that almost every day back and forth to work and it doesn't feel too tall at all. So there you go, I'm arguing with myself.
[SPEAKER_04]: And the setbacks aren't that big either.
[SPEAKER_06]: Right, but they do have, it's all bushes. It's not like, that's not public realm space in front of that building.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right. And not to, sorry, we're just going back and forth now. I just worry that, I agree in my mind, I'd like Salem Street's too narrow, like there's not enough public space to do everything we wanna do in the public way. I just think maybe people 100 years ago made that decision and we're stuck with it. So, That's just my concern there. But yeah, I think the step backs are great. I just wonder if this strategy can work here with trying to essentially expand the public way in some way.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I appreciate this discussion. I think that more so than Mystic Ave, Salem Street Corridor is a scenario where we kind of have to have a bit more of a confronting conversation around what we'd really like to see here, what is the zoning we could write that could bring that about, what is likely to happen. and make our best studies and guesses at what developers are going to take us up on and what's likely to result from the zoning that we do propose and pass. And so I'm happy that we're having this conversation because I would like us to take a really serious look at what could setbacks do for us? What is our best guess of what could arise in 5, 10, 20 years from that? Is there a meaningful community value that we can expect to get from that in the long term? If it seems like the geography of the corridor that we just can't change unless there's a mass eminent domain campaign, which obviously it's just a joke, I don't mean that, then what is the next best um, strategy for maximizing community value on this corridor. I would love to see more usable public space on this corridor. And everyone, um, I'm glad that we have Innis to help us take a, you know, a really sober look at what's our best chance of achieving that. Um, if it's really hard to do that through the geography, then, you know, we'll continue along our other goals for maximizing, um, residential usage of this corridor. And I think that, um, I'm really excited about the step backs being a component of making the height feel friendly and welcoming and hospitable along this corridor, because we know this is such a dense area of the city already and, and yet it's not enough for all the people that want to live there. And I think that could be a really great tool in our toolbox. So just a quick time check. It is almost 8.40. Paola, I want to pass the mic back to you before we go to public participation and just ask what else you'd like for us to hear to round out the presentation before we close out the meeting.
[SPEAKER_01]: So just very quickly, I appreciate everything that has been said. I totally understand the worries behind it. I do like to have a bit of the difference also in height to be seen from the lower to a bit higher and then because it makes it very instinctive when you have different heights and different typologies of buildings. It makes it very easy to orient yourself in the city and so where the connections are and so in this way of having a bit of this high different that could help and that's why these notes were pushed a bit higher than the mix use. We definitely will study the depth of the, if it's feasible. So the boundary, the lot boundary is the red line. What we are asking them to set back is from the red boundary to the building. So it's not really a lot, because this is even, believe it or not, the walkway here are bigger than Mystic Avenue, but it is a small still. what we can do is to the ground floor of the corridor, how many of those buildings right up to the boundary, and so how many weird corners we would have, and do these setbacks on the ground floor so we can have a better idea of how that public ground floor will look like. I think that's an interesting exercise to do. as well to see if these are feasible or not. To be honest, I don't think that this amount of setback is going to affect. I think it's more about how are we going to make it into zoning. We are using the curb setback in Brockton, so I could explore a bit more how is that working in there. So to see a bit of precedence, if in any other cities this is happening and how it's happening. That's it, but thank you very much for all the comments.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you so much, Paola. appreciate that. And so just to quickly recap, unless there's any further comments by councillors, what we can expect for our next committee meeting on September the 11th. I would love it if we can, you know, return to these topics just briefly to touch on kind of an update to the timeline when we can expect to see just even a beginning or very rough draft, something that planning department can start to chew on. If we can get a timing update at that time, that'd be great. I mean, if we can get drafts before then, even if they're again, even if they're super scrappy, it sounds like even that would be useful. So please do feel free to send those over to myself and planning department. If any initial bullet points become available before that date. We'll also be going over and please correct me if I'm missing anything the condo conversion ordinance housing definitions incentive zoning. Are there any other updates to the corridors plan that we can expect at September 11.
[SPEAKER_01]: Um, so I really wanted to focus on these three topics, um, because it's already, uh, a lot of things to, to discuss. Um, let's see if there is any update that we have that we can give it, uh, in September 11. That is possible.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thank you. And that sounds like, uh, more than enough for one meeting. Thank you. I'll go to public participation. Just name and address for the record again. You have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_02]: Gaston Fierro, 61 Stingley Road. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So I just wanted to, it's really interesting, the discussion about trade-offs. And regarding setbacks, I agree with Councilor Chen, but at the same time, if we're going to have an active neighbourhood, which I support, then the neighbourhood has to be inviting to people to actually get outside. And then, you know, playing the neighborhood outside. So I would like to see if they're available. Some studies regarding neighborhoods where setbacks have been implemented, like the ones that you mentioned in Pittsville versus neighborhoods that don't have them on the sidewalks are much narrower. Because I think I'm thinking about myself, and I would appreciate to have the setbacks. And I agree that we have to build density. And for that, I would actually prefer to have more stories on buildings. So I think the ones that have been shown, they look great. And then one last thing is that I don't really see, you know, why we should have open parking spaces, like the huge lots like that one, the one that is the dark red one around network when we could actually build them up. Right. So I think When increased densities, we should seriously decrease their footprint, but then make them multiple stories. I think that, you know, having open parking lots here in Metford, I personally consider them such a waste. We could go either down or up and just like stack them on the different floors. So I would really focus on that. And then again, having different floors and the setbacks, I think we should analyze it again. It could be a really nice opportunity for open spaces and for the community to actually hang out. So if there are some studies where this has been researched, it would be great to see. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you so much, Gaston. I really appreciate that. And yeah, I think we're all. very interested to see more data on the setbacks to inform where we go with this. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any further comments or questions from councillors this evening? Seeing none on Zoom, would Paolo or city staff have any closing comments to make before we adjourn?
[SPEAKER_06]: No? Madam Chair, I'll just let you know that I'm out of the country on September 11th, but Danielle will be here.
[SPEAKER_08]: Great. Thank you for the advance notice. Well, thank you so much to both of you for being here, for your insight throughout this project. Thank you so much, Paola, Jimmy, and Attorney Silverstein for being on the line with us, as always, and providing expert guidance on these very exciting proposals. Onward. Is there a motion?
[SPEAKER_09]: Motion to adjourn.
[SPEAKER_08]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by, oh, nevermind.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'll second it.
[SPEAKER_08]: Motion by Councilor Leming to adjourn, seconded by President Bears. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[SPEAKER_09]: President Bearson?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_09]: Councilor Calderon? Seems she dropped off. Councilor Levitt? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. And Vice President Palacios? Yes.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you all, meeting is adjourned.