Land Use Committee · CivicPulse

AI Generated Transcript

AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Meeting Title: Land Use Committee
City: Somerville, MA
Date Published: 2025-09-04

Back to all meetings
View Official Recording
View Summary

AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Time & Speaker	Transcript
Matt McLaughlin	All right, and I'll call this meeting of the Land Use Committee to order. Please note that pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation. We have audio, video after the meeting. Individuals with disabilities or aides for communications written materials can contact the City of Somerville at 617-625-6600, extension 2059, or ADA at Somervillema.gov. Clerk, please call the roll.
	Thank you.
SPEAKER_05	This is roll call of Councilor Clingan. I think I heard present. Councilor Sait. Present. Councilor Wilson.
Jake Wilson	Present.
SPEAKER_05	Councilor Ewen-Campen.
Jake Wilson	Here.
SPEAKER_05	Councilor McLaughlin.
Matt McLaughlin	Here.
SPEAKER_05	With all Councilors present, we have quorum.
Matt McLaughlin	All right, let the record show that Councilor Clingan is pitch hitting for Councilor Davis today, who is away on a family event. We only have one item to talk about, but we'll get through the other items first. I'd like to start with just approving item one, the meeting minutes. Any discussion on approval of the minutes? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote to approve that.
SPEAKER_05	And on agenda item 125-1150, approval of the minutes of the Land Use Committee meeting of June 17th, 2025. Councillor Clingan?
Matt McLaughlin	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	Councillor Sait? Yes. Councillor Wilson?
Matt McLaughlin	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	Councillor Ewen Campen?
Matt McLaughlin	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	Councillor McLaughlin?
Matt McLaughlin	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	All councillors in favor, those are accepted.
Matt McLaughlin	All right. And I'd like to also move to place items two and three on file. They're both communications. Does anyone have any objections to doing that? Seeing none of those items will be placed on file. And I'd like to keep items four, five and six in committee. We're going to have a meeting in a couple of weeks where hopefully we might have some updates on this. But Madam Clerk, can you read the final item?
SPEAKER_05	And that brings us to agenda item 725-0085 by Councilor McLaughlin, Councilor Davis, and Councilor Wilson that the Director of Planning, Preservation, and Zoning draft an amendment to the zoning ordinances for transit-oriented height and density bonuses for additional affordable housing and other enumerated community benefits.
Matt McLaughlin	Alright, so our land use analyst Samantha Carr is here and she has a little update for us and presentation on what she's been working on in regards to this item. I'd like to turn it over to her and then we can ask some questions and talk about next steps and that should be the bulk of the meeting.
SPEAKER_00	Thank you, Councillor. Nice to see everyone. I hope you had a nice recess period and excited to be chatting with you to move this proposal forward. So I have some information to share with you all tonight specifically around upzoning in Gilman Square. So the contents of this presentation will just be focused on that neighborhood area in the context of the transit-oriented development upzoning amendment. Next slide. So just to kind of set as a baseline I've included a slide on the current zoning here for reference, if you can go into the next slide. So you can see we're kind of looking at the key intersections here along Medford and Pearl Street. Primarily, the neighborhood currently in terms of mid-rise parcels has a mid-rise 4 designation along this corridor. And then the adjacent Broadway Street corridor is already largely zoned to mid-rise 5 and mid-rise 6 designation. I did want to note that this is a screenshot from the online zoning atlas. and does not reflect a couple of recently adopted upzonings and select parcels, including the YMCA proposed parcels on Highland and School Street and the well not Medford Street parcels that were designated as bid rise for. You can see on the right here just for context, the transit walk shed map. So we're primarily talking about parcels here that are falling within that dark green quarter mile walk shed buffer. Next slide. I wanted to share with folks a proposal that we received from the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council for consideration and as a point of discussion that we could use to catalyze tonight's conversation. So here we can see the draft map, and I've had a couple of areas that I've highlighted in red that we could talk about a bit further. So some of the key differences between the current zoning and this draft proposal from the neighborhood council. There was one additional fabrication district parcel designated that's currently a mid-rise four parcel. It's that small dark blue parcel that's circled in red. And then additionally we're seeing Incremental upzoning within the mid-rise designated parcels along Medford and Pearl Street from mid-rise four to mid-rise six designation. Additionally, the Holman site parcel that's currently designated a civic space is being proposed to be converted to mid-rise six. And then in the green highlight, you'll see there's an expanded pedestrian street designation that goes beyond the few blocks that are currently covered within the zoning map to extend further along the Medford and Pearl Street corridor. I've included on a slide we can touch upon just shortly after this, there's an additional component of this proposal that discusses setbacks for mid-rise lots when there's an abutting neighborhood residential building type. So I've included that here as a point of reference. And I'll say that the other parcels that we're seeing currently that are in the mid rise six designation that are circled in the red. Those are some candidates with the potential for us to discuss in terms of looking into designating as high rise parcels. This was coming in response to resident feedback where folks have expressed to the neighborhood council that they might be open to higher density on parcels adjacent to the transit station. with an appropriate context of abutting parcels that would allow for a higher density development. If we could go to the next slide, please. And this is the second piece of the Neighborhood Council's proposal. So this is included just as a point of reference and discussion in terms of setbacks. So anecdotally, there's been some commentary from folks that current zoning regulations are specifying an abutting district setback, So this is based on a parcels abutting zoning district where the setback lines fall between the two properties. There have been some neighborhood conflicts over the side setbacks between parcels that are being developed under the current mid-rise four regulations and an adjacent parcel that has been up zoned to mid-rise four. but has an existing use of a neighborhood residential building type. So the proposed resolution for this was a 10 foot front and side setbacks between the two lots that might be existing in this scenario and a 10 to 20 foot rear setback. So this is a point of conversation, but I think the bulk of what we were hoping to discuss tonight is around the map amendments themselves and designating those parcels to a higher density. Next slide, please. And then just a little bit of background in terms of kind of contextualizing this with some past bodies of work in terms of alignment with summer vision. as well as previous zoning proposals that have come through the table. So here we have the pre-2019 zoning proposals, if we go to the next slide. I know earlier this year the Council had asked to look at previous upzoning proposals prior to the 2019 Somerville Zoning Code adoption that we currently have. in place for the majority of the city's parcels so this is included as a point of reference comparing the gilman square neighborhood council's proposal to the proposals that were set forth in those pre-2019 zoning maps um so as a point of context i'll say gilman square was one of the sections of the city that saw a large net up zoning compared to the pre-2019 proposals This was largely due to the fact that there was over 100 urban residential parcels added, as well as 48 parcels that saw some incremental upzoning from mid-rise 4 to mid-rise 5 designations and throughout the neighborhood. So in conclusion, I think We, in terms of a path forward of looking towards up zoning for the neighborhood this might not be an appropriate source to draw from but is included as a point of context to kind of set it and set expectations of what's been looked at previously, we could go to the next slide please. Then, taking a step back to see. where this upswinging falls in terms of alignment with broader city planning goals, starting with the alignment with summer vision. I've included a couple points for consideration here, if we can go to the next slide. So primarily in terms of alignment, first of all, looking at the Transform, Enhance, and Conserve zoning map, The primary directive was to enhance parcels along the Medford and Pearl Street corridor directly adjacent to the Gilman Square T stop. So we're in alignment in terms of the catchment area of where we're looking at this upzoning proposal. In terms of values alignment, we're seeing that alignment with community. So celebrating the unique character of Somerville's neighborhoods, specifically by taking this neighborhood by neighborhood approach to upzoning and considering the unique context of each area, thinking about Promoting growth. So having a resilient economic base centered around transit by unlocking higher density by right on these parcels. Sustainable by building a sustainable future through varied and affordable housing options, which would be unlocked with the potential of bringing these parcels up to potentially the mid-rise six designation within the transit catchment area. Go to the next slide, please. a few other areas of summer vision in terms of alignment with thinking about this upzoning so in terms of implementation priorities one of the key priorities was to reduce vehicle miles traveled to achieve a multimodal and environmentally friendly system where people want to live work and play and have somerville be a destination instead of a cut through and route elsewhere to destinations so i Having this potential to have mixed use commercial residential spaces in proximity to the Green Line transit station helps us to maximize that infrastructure investment and enable folks to rely on other modes of transportation outside of a car to access goods and amenities in Somerville and beyond. In terms of alignment with the topic areas we're seeing high correlation with the environment topic, which is touching upon that implementation priority goal so really looking at leveraging the Green Line extension to advance Somerville's environmental goals and make thoughtful land use choices in terms of situating housing and commercial in proximity to multimodal transportation options to allow them to be accessible to folks and hopefully reduce the cost of living by lowering the transit cost index. Thinking about a few other topic areas, commercial development, business in the arts, zoning on commercial corridors within walking distance to subway stops, so directly near the Gilman Square T stop in this case. And then housing, thinking about increasing supply as a key strategy for containing cost. Go to the next slide please I also wanted to just quickly highlight alignment with the Gilman square station area plan, and this is a guiding planning document and similar to a neighborhood plan and that we're seeing some other areas of the city, this is a. document was produced in 2014. So we have a little bit further of a look back timeline here in terms of when the document was implemented. However, we could see some key alignment with the goals of this upzoning proposal. So if we go to the next slide, please. A couple of alignment with priority areas. So one being to fill in the gaps and to facilitate and encourage redevelopment of underutilized sites in the core of Gilman Square, primarily along the Medford, Pearl, and Marshall Street corridors. Two, to promote attainable housing through constructing new buildings with a percentage of affordable units, which would be achieved by unlocking up zoning on these parcels. The 20% affordable housing requirement would still be in place. So this would allow some new affordable units to come into the mix and new development in the neighborhood. Next slide, please. And then finally, a few other priority areas in terms of alignment with the Station Area Plan. So one, reforming the zoning regulations to advance the goals of enhancing and preserving the areas of the square that were outlined in some revision. So we're seeing an indexing on these enhanced areas of how we can unlock that density in a smart way where it makes sense to support residents and to support the local economy and allows zoning reform for economic growth. included this context slide here just as a zoom in of the quarter mile transit station walk shed buffer. So in that dark green area in the center of the map here, that would be our quarter mile walk shed. And for comparison, I've included the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council's proposal just to see kind of the extent of parcels that are falling within that boundary. So this can be a point of reference we can use during our conversation this evening. And so, in conclusion, and I have a couple of recommendation points here and then a slide for discussion, so we can open it up for feedback to the broader committee and but. kind of as a starting point recommendation, I think, a strong start in terms of looking at up zoning for this neighborhood would be building off the initial proposal received by the Gilman square neighborhood Council and then thinking about. Its counselor Wilson.
Matt McLaughlin	We'll wait until you're done with the presentation.
SPEAKER_00	Thinking about areas that we might want to tweak or enhance that will meet the goals of this committee. So a couple of areas that I think we could explore. One being the potential to explore upzoning select parcels adjacent to the train station towards a high-rise designation. There has been a massing study completed for the Holman site in particular. So that might be something we can draw upon to be thinking about this conversation and whether there might be some suitable parcels within the neighborhood to explore for high-rise designation or something beyond the mid-rise six category. Secondly, expanding the incremental upzoning. So we have you know, kind of a, incremental up zoning from mid-rise four to mid-rise six for the majority of parcels being considered within this proposal. So thinking about that quarter mile transit walk shed map that we just saw, are there other parcels that might be notable to consider in terms of advancing this in an incremental fashion? So that might look like expanding urban residential designation for parcels that are currently zoned neighborhood residential adjacent to a mid-rise property. or potentially looking at phasing from mid-rise six to mid-rise four parcels along the Pearl and Walnut Street corridors, as well as Medford Street, for example. A few other points of context to bring to the conversation. So one Thinking about taking a judicious approach to expanding the pedestrian street designation, the pedestrian street designation has some great opportunities to enhance active transportation infrastructure and parcels that are falling within that designation. It does require ground floor commercial use if a parcel is adjacent to that street designation. So there's a little bit of nuance here between requiring ground floor commercial versus in a mid-rise parcel enabling for that condition to happen on the parcel. So that does kind of lock developers into a set building typology pattern if we were to move forward with expanding that pedestrian street designation. So this is just included as a point to note and think through when we're discussing this, ensuring that we want to have a balance of bringing new commercial activation and having that public realm enhancement on the street level to folks living in the neighborhood while also making sure there's enough of economic growth in this sense to not enhance the space in a way that could potentially lead to vacant storefronts if there's not a demand for those spaces to be filled. Also thinking about a trade-off between upzoning and tax increase on naturally occurring affordable housing units in the neighborhood. So this is a complex phenomenon in terms of seeing property tax increases as a result of infrastructure enhancements in the built environment. Upzoning is one of several factors that can lead to higher tax assessments on a parcel. But in fact, if there is an existing structure on the parcel and it does get upzoned, say, from urban residential to mid-rise six there's a higher latent potential of that parcel to be unlocked and this can result in a higher tax assessment for the property so it's another consideration to think through and finally thinking about if there's any mechanisms we can explore to incentivize public assets in the space alongside development such as public furniture or lighting enhancements and the enhancement of pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks and bike lanes in the neighborhood, with the expansion of the pedestrian street designation being one potential tool to think through for that piece. So I'd welcome folks to open the floor for discussion. I think what we were hoping to do with this presentation is kind of summarize work done to date, conversations with the neighborhood council, as well as a scan of past planning documents and alignment checks there, and hope to be able to continue this conversation to begin working on a draft proposal for upzoning for the neighborhood. I've included a few points of discussion here that I think we've touched upon in some of the previous slides, just as a point of reference, and appreciate your time. And I see Councillor Wilson has his hand up.
Matt McLaughlin	Yes, before that. Well, thank you for the presentation. Just a few thoughts before I turn it over to other people. One, just want to be clear to people in the audience, people on this committee, that this is just a discussion right now. This is not a proposal. It's all theoretical. If and when we get to a point of introducing something, there'll be a public meeting notice, public hearing, all the things that come with any sort of significant zoning change. So there's added I did. I also want to just explain why we decided to focus on Gilman Square when this item is about city wide up zoning. The city is working on the Broadway corridor zoning, which will cover areas such as Ball Square in Lagoon Square and other areas that are pretty close to the Green Line. So we felt that it was a good idea to maybe start with the low hanging fruit of Gilman Square, where we know there's an appetite for upzoning. Focus our efforts on Gilman Square while we wait for the city to come with their proposal for Broadway Corridor. And if we get the two of those done, then that'll cover a lot of the train stations. So we'll have a lot of density by transit. And then we can start focusing on other areas as well. Just want to give some context there. I have Council Wilson and then Council Ewen-Campen.
Jake Wilson	Yeah, thanks, Chair. Through you, I want to thank our land use analysts for that presentation. I'm just really excited to finally be here talking about this stuff. I feel like this has been something that we have... talked about in the abstract and wish that we were talking about for years. And it's just great to finally be here talking about this. I love the idea of starting with Gilman Square for the reasons that the chair noted. It just makes an incredible amount of sense. Let's make Gilman Square happen. I also, in the presentation, really liked that recommendation of going with UR instead of NR next to MR, just in terms of the setback issues. that we heard about. General approach that I favor is height in the immediate areas around the T stations where the parcel sizes make sense for that. MR surrounding those in the general area of that T station, I tend to favor MR6 versus trying to get cute with less dense MR, and then UR around that. I'm generally a big fan of UR. It seems like the data that we got in that presentation before the recess showed UR to be a really underrated workhorse of new housing creation in the city. And I think that we can do a lot with UR. But, yeah, and to the point that just came up about assessments, I'd love to hear during this process, if it's possible, from the chief assessor exactly about those impacts on assessments of upzoning. You know, as we're sitting here looking at doing that. Those are just my immediate top-of-mind reactions to this. I'd be happy to hear from colleagues.
Matt McLaughlin	Yeah, maybe we could – let's see – He is on Radassi. To Council Wilson's point, it would be interesting if at a future point we can get the, you said the auditor's office, Council Wilson, is that who you asked? Or the assessor's office to see the tax implications. Council Wilson, Council Ewen-Campen.
SPEAKER_08	You there, Council Ewen-Campen?
Ben Ewen-Campen	Yes, can you hear me? Sorry about that.
SPEAKER_08	There you are.
Ben Ewen-Campen	I was muted. Through you, Mr. Chair, I want to echo the thanks to Samantha. Thank you so much for the work. I apologize to my colleagues. I have to attend a community meeting that starts at 7 p.m., but I did want to share kind of my big picture thoughts about this. So I have a lot about Kilman Square. For one thing, and I just want to make this really abundantly clear, the thing that is holding back the Homans site redevelopment is not zoning. That is property. It's owned by the city. And there's just, you know, we could be joined, I'm sure, by Director Nad Carney, who could tell us all about kind of the issues that are remaining ongoing to kind of unlock that parcel. But I don't, if we wind up with a proposal here, I think it's very important that that remain zone civic and the parcel next to it remain unchanged. Not because I don't want to see a large building there, but because that's a process that the city actually controls in a lot of different ways. It's not just a matter of we change the zoning and it goes. And then I also, you know, on the, on that topic, I think everyone that I hear from in the Gilman square area, what they want to see is like a really vibrant mixed use neighborhood, right? They want coffee shops, bakeries, places to shop and, and more housing. The challenge is that I think we're, for some reason, the upzoning that we have done already, it just hasn't worked, right? It hasn't done anything. I don't want to say it hasn't worked, but like, We've done two different rounds of upzoning in this area in more targeted ways, but they have not led to actual groundbreaking, right? So clearly, I think it's the market, basically, is my understanding. And so I think... on the one hand that gives us opportunity. We're not in a huge rush. I don't think to, you know, do this this week because there's developers champing at the bit to build exactly what this community wants to see. Um, I think it's, we have the time to get this right and come up with a proposal that, you know, the neighborhood supports that the council supports and that is going to, you know, ultimately lead to a vibrant mixed use square. Um, so, you know, my, my view on this is that it's important that we do it. I very much support, um, the kind of citywide and gilman square specific goals and also i think we need to be realistic and cognizant of the fact that it's not just zoning that is keeping this this that is keeping gilman square kind of in the stasis that it's been for a while um and so when i approach this i think first of all like are there any downsides to you know decisions that we might want to make and i think um you know, our land use analyst counselor Wilson just raised kind of the, to me, the, the only one that really concerns me is the idea of if we are going to up zone parcels that are, for instance, currently NR, I think there's very good reason to consider doing that. A lot of them are right next to a T station. It really does not make sense that they're just zoned for three, four units. There are, you know, people who live there, maybe one or two unit houses right now. And if they have no intentions to redevelop anytime soon, that could be a, in theory, could be a massive tax increase on them, right? And so I would just like to understand that. I'm not saying that that's disqualifying, but I do definitely want to understand that. So I want to second the request from the assessor. And then lastly, I would just say on the proposal as my recollection of the neighborhood council's proposal is that it doesn't really include school street directly across from the field there. There's still a bunch of NR parcels. And that's another area where I think you know, off the top of my head, it seems like UR is totally appropriate. I think a bunch of those buildings already are UR building types. And I think that that makes sense. So I guess I would just say, I'm also excited about getting to work on this. And that also, I think that there is a little bit of nuance to kind of the blunt tool we have of zoning.
SPEAKER_08	Any other questions or comments from the council?
Matt McLaughlin	Go once, go twice. All right, so just wanted to recap just a couple of requests here. So the liaison can go back and work on this. Keep home inside zone civic space. We have a request of data and maybe an appearance from the assessor's office to understand the tax implications. uh consider School Street possibly for zoning changes um and then for myself eventually I'd like to do a draft proposal uh so we can have an actual hearing on this and hear from the public formally um I do I do want to add to Council you and Cameron's point though um I definitely agree that you know zoning is not going to change everything however this is the land use committee and this is what we do for work so this is just the one thing i know we have power over and with uh land use analyst uh we we now have skill to go with that strength uh so i definitely want to take as fullest advantage of that as possible uh and i'd like to and i thank you again um miss carr for bringing this proposal to us doing all the leg work That's all I have on this for now. So those are my requests as well. And I would like to start thinking about a formal proposal. I see Director Dan Bartman's in the audience. I would love to get his two cents on all this since he bothered to attend before us. Mr. Bartman, did you want to talk at all? Sure, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? I can hear you.
SPEAKER_04	Yep. Director Dan Bartman from the Planning, Preservation and Zoning Division. One thing that I am encouraged to hear is a willingness to discuss upzoning neighborhood parcels that are not necessarily right on the main street. When I first joined the city, it was very hard to entertain those conversations and I and there are a number of pockets in different areas of the city that never, never were up zoned. In, for instance, Union Square has two of them where there's high density zoning surrounding tiny areas like Allen Street, and then it ends up being this um question that is outstanding about what will allen street in that area ever be up zoned and so um i some of the first drawings that samantha highlighted that we made for the gilman square neighborhood plan actually um contemplated potential up zoning of um some of the neighborhood blocks potentially into something higher density than what what it was um back then so I am encouraged to hear um the discussion around potential potentially using the UR zoning district um to accomplish that um and I think we did ourselves a favor um well actually Councilor Ewen Campin I think did us a favor by suggesting that we nest the building types from the NR district in the UR district um because if we were to up zone um some of those parcels or whole blocks to the UR district, we wouldn't cause those buildings to at least be non-conforming. So those current owners and residents would be able to use those buildings without having to get variances to do everything. And so if we can minimize the tax implications, then that might be an advantageous situation to use that UR zoning district. So Like I said, third time now, probably, that I'm encouraged to actually hear that discussion. We're looking forward to engaging the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council and the rest of the neighborhood on the topic and look forward in the coming weeks to work with Samantha on putting something together. I do think that the original board order that you put in, Councilor McLaughlin talked about additional affordable housing and community benefits for trading that off for higher buildings and higher density. And I do have to echo what Councillor Ewing-Campen highlighted, that we are in a very different economic situation than we were in 2019. I was kind of stressed out about whether or not all of the requirements in our code would add up to buildable buildings. And I do think I agree with everybody's sentiment that Gilman Square wants to see things happen. And we have to make sure that our proposal understands the current economic conditions in what it wants to ask from development if we actually want buildings to result from the upzoning. Because as Councilor Ewen-Campen pointed out, we've done a couple parcels already to MR6 and they haven't popped yet. So really uncovering why, you know, could be one of the next tasks. But I don't think that um will take a huge effort we have some um uh similar or some related studies that are about to come out for the housing needs assessment um that have been looking into the economics of development in the city um and we are studying that for a couple other projects too so we should have some information to share related to the economic conditions and and what we may or may not be able to do through incentives or development bonuses and what we might be able to require. So looking forward to working together in the coming weeks. And I would love to put a little plug in for September 23rd. We're working with Councilor Sait to put together an event around the Broadway corridor. If you remember, we had done a project over there discussing upzoning. from Ball to the top of Winter Hill. And so we will do a hybrid community event to review what that study had come up with and share that with the public. And then we also hope to put together a proposal shortly after that meeting that would address upzoning along Central Broadway. And that's all I got for tonight.
Matt McLaughlin	Excellent. Thank you. And do you have a timeline expectation for the needs assessment study?
SPEAKER_04	I'd have to circle back with housing. I understand that was in the closing weeks with the consultant, but I don't know their exact timeline.
Matt McLaughlin	Okay, great. Any other questions or comments from the council? Councilor Sait.
Naima Sait	Through you, Chair. First, I want to thank our Samantha for the great presentation. Similar to my colleagues, I'm very excited we're having these conversations finally and trying to figure out ways to upzone the transit areas. And yeah, Gimlin Square is a great candidate for that. Since Director Bartman is with us tonight, I do have a question, and I think it was raised by Councilor McCampen. But just at the moment, besides the tax increase, are there any other downsides to upzoning Digimon Square, the lots we saw on the map?
SPEAKER_04	I think my question for the scope of the upzoning project is, what all lots would be included? And what height are we willing to entertain on each of those lots? Some of the lots are positions where upzoning will cast shadow. And we should understand those shadows. Luckily, we had done a massing study for the Homan site. But if we explore upzoning, for instance, up Medford Street, all of the parcels on the south side can cast shadows on the north side. So we do this for every project. But we'd want to actually attempt to model that. We do have some software. in our department that we can do that with SketchUp that is at least good enough for determining shadows. That's one thing I can think of. If we do go high-rise with the Homan site, Once you get so tall, you do need to start worrying about wind. Redirected wind from the taller portions of the building to the ground level can make the pedestrian experience very unpleasant. And we do demand when a high rise building is built elsewhere in the city that they actually do wind tunnel analysis. So they build a model and analyze how the wind will flow around the building. some of those master plans that have happened and done that um are their wind analysis is also based off of the full build out so we've are now finding ourselves in a market slowdown that built about half of the built boynton yards project for instance so there are some undesirable winds currently happening in the neighborhood because of that the rest of the buildings have not been built yet, which influences the wind of the whole area. So I'm just using that to kind of explain the wind situation that can happen around a tall building. So that's something I would want to consider. And then the last one that has come up related to all of our train stations is the reflectivity of buildings next to, the reflectivity of the materials, the exterior materials of the buildings next to the train stations. Because they cannot shine glare in the train operator's eyes while they're driving past. So the D2.3 building that people refer to as the Bacon Building in Union Square, one of the reasons that its material looks kind of matte finish... is because originally it was designed to be fairly high gloss. And when they did the reflectivity analysis, it was in fact going to blind the tea driver that was pulling into Union Square Station every day. So there was some design changes that came to that building because of its materiality and how that would impact the operations of the tea. And we also have a tea station here. So that's a couple of the other things. based on context. And in, you know, once we look at it, there might not be problems. But those are the types of things you kind of take into consideration outside of the ones we've already mentioned.
Matt McLaughlin	Thank you very much for that. Do we have any further questions or comments? Miss Carr.
SPEAKER_00	Thank you, Chair. I was just curious to hear if folks had any thoughts around the pedestrian street designation portion of the proposal.
SPEAKER_08	Anyone?
Matt McLaughlin	I currently don't. And unfortunately, Councilor Ewing-Campbell had to leave. We can save that. Maybe if people don't have a thought now, they can reflect on it and get back to Land Use Analyst. And is there anything else, Ms. Carr, you'd like clarified for next steps? Do you have an idea of where to go next?
SPEAKER_00	Thank you, Chair. I've been taking notes from the committee, so I appreciate folks' feedback. And I'm looking forward to chatting through some next steps with the planning department as well to see how we can move this proposal forward and interim between the sessions.
Matt McLaughlin	Okay. All right. Is someone else talking?
Jesse Clingan	Yeah, no, Mr. Chair, through you. I mean, like you said, Councilor Ewing Kemp is on here. I can't speak for him. I mean, most of my side is already designated pedestrian street area. But, I mean, yeah, once you don't have a gas station there anymore, I mean, I think it – and, you know, whatever else happens, I think I'll definitely – have to be serious consideration around uh extending that that area but um yeah and then also just thanks to everybody for for doing this uh to um miss carr for uh for all her work on this i appreciate it all right so see no further discussion uh liaison radasi um do you think we could maybe i think the next meeting we have is the 18th
Matt McLaughlin	Yeah, the 18th. Could we have someone from the assessor's office attend that meeting and maybe discuss the tax implications? Is that far out enough for us to get?
SPEAKER_02	Through the chair, I can double check. I think that should be enough time and I can see what they'd feel most comfortable, whether that's submitting a memo or showing up in person. But I can definitely make sure that there's something for the next meeting.
Matt McLaughlin	I would prefer in person, and I don't like wasting people's time, but I feel like this would be something people are going to have substantial questions on. If we can knock that out, that'd be great. And then we have three items. The other items are going to remain in committee. If possible, I'd like to finish those. That's the outdoor bike racks, as well as the heavy timber. If we can close those out by next meeting, then we can move on to other items.
SPEAKER_02	Through the chair for the mass timber item. I think we had previously discussed that from the city's perspective, we wouldn't be weighing in on that item one way or the other to avoid conflicting with state laws about materials. So just I just want to make sure you weren't waiting on the administration to provide some kind of response on that.
Jake Wilson	All right, Council Wilson. Yeah, Mr. Chair is the originator of that item. The point is to basically just make sure that we're ready for this. Obviously, it's new. It was just approved. It doesn't have to be a lengthy discussion. I want to know that we're ready for a very different type of construction in terms of inspections, in terms of everything to go with that. I'm assuming we are. It could be a very short discussion just to hear that, yes, ISD has done everything. Everyone's trained. We know how to do this. I just think there's a value in folks on the development side hearing that and knowing that this is a go in Somerville. The other part of that is also the potential impact on what we should be doing in terms of the zoning districts we have and especially stuff around Heights. The zoning that we have right now, that zoning overall happened when there was that donut hole. uh there's a it's basically a financial donor hall it doesn't make financial sense well it didn't prior to the arrival of type 4 construction to be building you know well seven-ish but definitely eight through eleven story buildings because of the economics around steel frame construction uh that's why type four construction you know, is such a game changer is it unlocks an area that had been previously basically a no-go zone. So the point is, you know, as I explained when I introduced this, the point is to just make certain, you know, I think it's a, I'm looking at Director Bartman really for this, you know, to have that talk about, are we sure that what we have now on the books for our districts and the heights and everything around that makes sense given this given a recent change that's the point mr barber um thank you mr chair through you uh to counselor wilson you are highlighting the
SPEAKER_04	same thing that i i happened to attend a architectural presentation about the mass timber changes to the building code and you're highlighting the one thing that they brought up that i did think was applicable to you know my department um which was um the donut hole that you highlight was that people either built um what was also sometimes referred to as five over one which is one story of steel and concrete construction within five floors of wood or stick on top of that. The building code does permit 5 over 2, but that's harder to pencil than 5 over 1. So typically what you see are those six-story mixed-use buildings that we all are very familiar with. Beyond that, nothing pencils until you build a 20-some-story high-rise. And the thing that they're calling attention to is that that type four construction will unlock financial points where eight, 12, 15 story buildings now will likely pencil where they didn't previously. and and you do highlight that our high-rise zoning district is based off of that understanding um there is only currently one high-rise zoning district in the high-rise districts chapter because we always kind of thought that there would be additional high-rise districts to add in somerville's history as we continue into the future and um that might be the what the mass timber amendments to the building code cause us to do with the zoning ordinance? Not because you can't do that now in our high-rise district, but we could have more precision. If there are type 4 buildings that could be built at 8, 12, 15 stories, we could code for 8, 12, or 15 stories, or even places that could be 6 stories or 8 if there are more affordable housing, maybe. That could combine with even what Councilor McLaughlin is exploring with transit oriented height and density bonuses once that is adopted in the building code. I don't have any specialty knowledge beyond that, but that you made me remember that presentation that I had attended. I can see if I can get ahold of that deck from that event and share as much that would be valuable for our discussions. But that was why we didn't have really much of a response beyond What we've shared previously because it is kind of outside of what PPZ deals with except for those potentially potential taller buildings penciling where it was a gap before either we got six or 22 before and we might be able to get stuff in between now.
SPEAKER_08	That's awesome.
Jake Wilson	Mr. Chair, that is exactly what I was hoping to hear in terms of the start of a discussion here. Director Bartman, thank you. Through the chair to Director Bartman, thank you. I appreciate you bringing up what you heard at that conference. I think that's where the opportunity is here in the zoning to actually update that in light of this new innovation. And through the chair to IGA, I'd love to just, even if it's a staff memo, just something from ISD just confirming we are good to go in accordance with the new state building code with type 4 that we know how to handle that when things come in. I think this is a big step forward for us here in the city and just in the state. And I want to make sure that people know out there that this is on the table.
SPEAKER_08	You think that's something possible? Memo for next meeting.
SPEAKER_02	Through the chair, I can double check with ISDNC. I know everyone's aware there's been a little bit of transition there. So let me just make sure that that timeline is realistic for them and I can circle back.
Matt McLaughlin	Okay, thank you. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Council Wilson moves to adjourn. All items that we did not place on file will remain in committee. But Council Wilson makes a motion to adjourn.
SPEAKER_05	Chair, through you, just to clarify, the two public communications and for discussion can be marked worked completed.
Matt McLaughlin	Yes, those are worked completed.
SPEAKER_05	Perfect. Okay. And the left remaining in committee and on adjournment. Councillor Clingan.
Jesse Clingan	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	Councilor Sait. Yes. Councilor Wilson.
Jake Wilson	Yes, please.
SPEAKER_05	Councilor Ewen-Campen. Councilor McLaughlin.
Jake Wilson	Yes.
SPEAKER_05	With four councilors in favor, one absent, we are adjourned.
SPEAKER_08	All right. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night.