[Mike Caldera]: Good evening, everybody. This is a continuation of our 40B hearing. Jacqueline Doherty, our typical chair, is not present this evening, and so I will be assuming the role of acting chair for this meeting. So I'm just going to update my title in
[Adam Hurtubise]: in Zoom and then we can get started momentarily. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: So just to remind folks the agenda for this evening. So we will be taking public comment. Um, and in particular, um, there was, uh, an engineering peer review that was commissioned, which we heard about in our last meeting. Uh, it did not at that time have the, uh, the traffic portion of that report, uh, which we have now received, uh, and reviewed. Um, and then additionally, uh, there's an architectural, uh, peer review, uh, that was also received. And so the. the format, the intended format for today's meeting is we will, first I will check in with the applicant just to see if there's any specific items they would like to request in how we proceed this evening. But the general format will be we'll pick up where we left off with the with the engineering peer review and specifically focus on the traffic portion. And so I will give time to the peer review consultant to make a presentation about their review, just to describe it. The applicant will have an opportunity to respond. I will check with the board if they have any questions for that portion. And then we will open the hearing to members of the public just for the traffic portion. We'll then close that and then we'll proceed to architectural and we'll follow the same pattern. And I do see that we have some members of the public that are also serving on other Medford boards and commissions. And so they will, if they have any comments to make, we will give them that opportunity to speak during the public portion of the hearing. We may give them, first priority just in terms of the order in which folks are called on, but everyone will get a chance to speak who would like to speak. So that's the agenda for the evening. And so with that, I'd like to just check in with the applicant to see. Yes, go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: I just wanted to jump in with the open meeting live.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, please go ahead. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: On July 16, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which, among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the open meeting law, March 31, 2023. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15th, 2022 to March 31st, 2023.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I don't know if we have to take the roll call and reopen the hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Just yeah. So, yeah, I think we'll have to take the roll call and then we will we'll also have Dennis read the the first item on the agenda and then we'll get started. So yeah, for the roll call, Andre LaRue. Present. Jamie Thompson. By the way, we're appointing Jamie as, well, we're not gonna vote tonight. So Jamie's our associate. So Jamie Thompson.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez.
[Yvette Velez]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, and then Jacqueline Doherty, uh, let us know she would be absent. Um, and then, um, I don't currently see, uh, Jim Tarani, um, and then, uh, Mike Caldera present. Um, so we do have, uh, five members of the board present. Um, yeah. And so Dennis, can you please go ahead and, um, read the first item on the agenda?
[Denis MacDougall]: 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continued from February 6th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC, an affiliate of Mill Creek Residential Trust, LLC, for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B, for a multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land, 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350 unit rental apartment building containing a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. So I'll not repeat in full everything I said previously, but I just would like to check in with the applicant for 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Mainly wanna know, do you have any specific presentations prepared for today? Any items you'd like to make sure we cover today? And did you in fact receive the peer review reports that we'll be hearing about this evening?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Good evening, members of the board. Tim Alexander here on behalf of the applicant Mill Creek. Thanks for the overview. And yeah, so to answer your question, sort of yes to all the above, we did receive the traffic and the design peer reviews over the course of the last week. And the agenda, as you described it, is largely what we had anticipated for tonight. So we're all set and we'll be all ears.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Tim, if I could, Mr. Chair and Judy, just a point of maybe procedure. I think we have four members of the ZBA here this evening. My recollection is that this board was expanded to five members. And so with member Tarani absent, and Chair Doherty absent, I'm wondering whether we need to entertain a continuance of this evening's hearing until the next scheduled hearing to make sure that we've got both a quorum and enough voting members.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, thank you for bringing that to my attention. Yeah, so we do have four members, I misspoke earlier. So, So for this matter, three members is a quorum. So right, it's three votes on a 40B. And then for most other matters, four members is a quorum. So I certainly would be willing to discuss entertaining a motion to continue. We do expect our membership to familiarize themselves with the recordings of any meetings that they've missed. And I do not believe we have any members who have missed more than one. So because we have a lot of members, sorry, peer review consultants and others who, as well as yourselves who have shown up and members of the public who've shown up, I would be inclined to proceed unless you have strong objections with that plan.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Mike, how many full members of the board are present this evening?
[Mike Caldera]: We have three full members of the board present.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: And two associate members, is that how you're getting, or an associate member, is that how you're getting to four?
[Mike Caldera]: Now I'm questioning math. So there's myself, Andre, Yvette, full members, Jamie, associate member. I think James Tirani just entered the Zoom, so. Oh, Jim T, okay, yes. So now we have, with the addition of Jim T, who we will make co-host and verify it's the correct Jim T, that would bring us to four full members and one associate member. Yeah, and so we do have the ability to have up to two associates, but presently we only have one appointed, so yeah. We have one full member absent, which is our typical chair, Jack Dougherty, and then the rest of the board is present.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And I think, through you, Mr. Chair, if I could, to Judy Barrett, Ms. Hunt did confirm that Medford has adopted the Mullins rule. So with the chair missing this evening, this is her first hearing that she's missed. So I think we're comfortable moving forward as, you know, she can review the transcript and participate in future hearings, but certainly comforted that the additional members joined for this evening.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you for the call out though. It's, it's good that we, um, we checked this, did our due diligence. All right. Um, anything else, uh, before we move on? So the, uh, the plan is we'll go, we'll go back to Tetra tech since we heard part of the peer review, uh, from them at our last meeting, and then we'll move on to the, um, the architectural review after that. Okay, hearing no objections, I see we have Mr. Reardon from Tetra Tech. Would you like to make a presentation?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Sure. Again, for the benefit of anybody who wasn't here last time, my name is Sean Reardon. I'm the Vice President with Tetra Tech and we're hired by the ZBA to review the civil engineering traffic environmental components of the project to assist the board in their review. We completed a civil engineering discussion last time and just in the way of an update for that talk with the applicants engineer today and sort of got on the same page with regard to expectations and and how you know we anticipate responses coming through and thought that was pretty productive. Basically, I think everything's well understood and on its way to getting resolved. As far as traffic, traffic trail a little bit further behind because we had a little bit more data to review and a little bit more work in the field to get done. So what we did is we filed a second letter that was intended to add on to the existing list of comments. So all of our future responses will be combined into one single document. So we won't have to track those separately. We have all those comments in a letter that we issued on the 15th, so we expect that the applicant would respond to each of those comments. I think the bottom line is obviously the applicant had a seasoned traffic consultant and they did a really thorough job and exactly what we'd expect from them. I think the bulk of our comments had to do with some of the age of some of the information, because a lot of the information had its origin back in 2019. So we're now several years past that. So typically what we like to see is some additional data collected, some additional information collected, just to make sure that the numbers still track the way they were expected to. And if we see big deviations, then we'll probably ask for the suite of information to be updated, but we wouldn't expect it to be too drastically different. The bottom line is, I mean, Mystic Valley Parkways obviously get a lot of volume. The project, although a significantly sized project, it's really a small percentage of the overall traffic volume in the area. So the lion's share of the volume from the project is really sort of de minimis to the bulk of the volume in the area. So we really don't expect the project to sort of manifest itself as any significant changes. However, we did have comments that sort of reflect on the particulars of the project, including, for example, some of the stuff that we talked about in the civil discussion was the lack of a really true sort of methodology for trash pickup, for move-ins, for vehicle drop-offs. For a project this size, there's gonna be a lot of activity that there's not really a clear place to accommodate it. So we'd like to see some more thought or at least some responses to our comments with regard to that. The other thing is, we're sort of questioning whether all the curb cuts on the front of the project needed to be there. Obviously we're right near the intersection of commercial street and mystic Valley Parkway. So having all those driveway entrances at that one location might be a little bit confusing and a little bit complicated. So we're wondering if there's a way to sort of maybe consolidate that driveway and eliminate one of those curb cuts. Then probably the last thing worth mentioning is obviously the project's well-oriented to public transportation. So we're expecting a large component of the project to be walking to and from Wellington Station. And our thought was that we'd like the applicant to just basically look at the pathway of the pedestrians going from the project to that station and identify if there's any improvements that need to be made as part of the project to sort of support that movement. But aside from that, everything was pretty much as expected. Again, we listed out some 30 comments or so that are all important to get addressed and we look forward to seeing the applicant's response to those.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Reardon. Are there any questions from members of the board to Mr. Reardon based on the content of the traffic review? I'm getting folks shaking their head no.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: That is rare.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, Mr. I do have a question if you could speak a little bit more about the kinds of of intersection improvements that that would be helpful at that. You know that very, very busy crossing.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Are you referring to the crossing of Misty Valley Parkway or.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, the pedestrian access across the street.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: One of the things that I think needs to be looked at is the project needs to sort of detail that a little bit better. I'm not sure, maybe I see Jeff Dirk is on the phone. I'm not sure how that signals phased for pedestrian crossings, if at all. So clearly that's something that they'd have to look into.
[Andre Leroux]: Not great.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Jeff, can you respond to that?
[Jeffrey Dirk]: I can, I guess discretion of the chair, if it's okay, I'll respond briefly.
[Unidentified]: Please.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: Thank you. And you know, I think Sean was 100% correct kind of as we looked at the last comment about connectivity to public transportation, that intersection when we had originally looked at it was, I'm gonna probably use a harsh term, deficient as it relates to pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, both with regard to compliance with ADA requirements, as well as looking at the signal timing. And so one of the very early items that we had addressed as a part of the project is the need to upgrade all of those amenities at that intersection. So we do see as a part of the project reconstruction of portions of that intersection to make it mobility focused for not only our residents, but anyone that's going through that intersection as a walker or a bicyclist. And then by extension, as Sean had mentioned, we want the residents to live here because they don't want to have a car and they want access to public transportation. And so I think as was mentioned in the peer review, the important thing is safe and accessible connections to public transportation. So we're going to start at the intersection and then we're going to run basically an evaluation getting over to Wellington Station to make sure that we've got a truly accessible, walkable, bikeable, ADA compliant connection.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: If I could just point out one thing, Mr. Chair, Jeff, thanks for that explanation and response. Just wanted to make it clear for members of the board and members of the public that Jeff's 100% right, you know, potential upgrades or improvements to that intersection we feel would be, you know, beneficial and impactful for member, you know, our folks living in our community, plus obviously the general public. The one thing that we just want to note is that that's obviously MassDOT jurisdiction. And so while we can talk about those improvements within this context, it obviously has to go through a MassDOT review and approval as well. Right, Jeff?
[Jeffrey Dirk]: That's correct. Any of the improvements on Mystic Valley Park will be subject to MassDOT review and approval.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thanks. And so just for Mr. Alexander just to that point. So could you basically describe the process that you would follow in a project like this to propose what you want to happen and actually attempt to secure that approval?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, I can start and then Jeff can fill in the gaps, but there are really a couple of things that we'll interface with MassDOT on. One is actually a MEPA environmental review, because the second thing we'll interact with them on is a construction and then sort of long-term access permit to maintain the curb cuts that are currently within their right-of-way. So we actually are talking this morning about starting that outreach to MassDOT, re-familiarize them with the project, potential improvements. So we can get that started, that conversation started right now, but ultimately it's part of A, their MEPA review, and B, their review of an access and construction permit for the project.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Mr. Dirk, was there anything you'd like to add to that?
[Jeffrey Dirk]: The only thing I would add is that one of the things that MassDOT wants to see is understand what the community wants as well. As they review the project, they're also looking at it. They're looking to make sure we comply with their standards. But one of the things they will not do is issue a permit for work until the city is done with your review. They want to make sure that we incorporate anything that you might require as a part of the project as a part of any application we make to them. Although they'll review what we send to them, the comments that Sean has made, as well as any comments that the board makes as it relates to state highway related issues, we need to bring those to MassDOT. And then ultimately, they don't issue permits for projects that are not approved. So we would need to just make sure it has everything that the board would like as well, and that that's brought forth to MassDOT.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: And Mr. Chair, our goal would be to get as much of that detail into your decision. So in the way of project plans or descriptions by the applicant, so some way to get that menu of improvements as specifically defined as possible, so that it's clear that what your objectives are and what you're expecting from them with the understanding that of course, MassDOT has the final say over what can and can't be done, but we do want to document it as part of this process.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, thank you, Mr. Reardon. Andrea LaRue.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two comments that I'd like to throw out there that I'm not sure are totally addressed by Mr. Reardon's letter, so I want to kind of ask them. One is that, in thinking about that intersection, traffic on Mystic Valley Parkway that is going west in front of the site and taking a right onto commercial street would PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. if Mr. Reardon, you looked at that issue at all, if not something new.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, we looked at it enough to know that we need more detail from the applicant in terms of how that problem is gonna be solved. And you're right, that's always a tough challenge when you get on roads like this is the sort of the navigating the bike roads and the right turns and the pedestrian movements at these intersections. So what we hope to see is a more developed plan that addresses those things and more clearly describes them.
[Andre Leroux]: The second item that I had was about the sidewalks on Commercial Street. So, it's easy to imagine the sidewalks along the site being improved as a function of this project, but then there's no sidewalk on that side of Commercial Street. And the sidewalk, if any, which I think is intermittent, is on the other side of commercial street. So I'm just wondering what, you know, how do we deal with pedestrians who might start walking down commercial street adjacent to the site, but then the sidewalk disappears? Are we, do we need to put in some kind of a crossing or, you know, how are we, are we directing people to the other side of commercial street?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: That that would be the expectation. And I think you're hitting on sort of one of our principal comments so far was sort of the lack of detail on some of the drawings. And I think based on what I've heard from the applicants engineer, that that detail is forthcoming. So these are all things that in the next iteration of submittals, we'd want to see those exact things described.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Those are just two things I want to point out for your attention. All right.
[Yvette Velez]: Um, I had, um, when I had reviewed the comments, um, my quick question regarding the bikes, do you offer any suggestions on where they should be placed in regards to all the storage and the racks and the blue bikes and things of that nature? Or is that something that you don't offer Sean to the applicant of like best practice and where these things should go? Um, cause they felt like it was very sort of, and then I assume that they're going to address that of course, but I mean, just. from your angle, do you do that? Can you do that?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Typically, it's more a function of how the building's expected to work in the space that they have available to them. So typically at this point in the review, we'd have a bit more detailed information that sort of puts forward a more specific strategy for where their bikes are going to go. So at this point right now, what we thought our best sort of approach was is to ask for some more detail, let them provide us this information, just sort of like Andre was just commenting. And then at that point in time, we'll better understand what their proposal is. And then if we have any objections to it, we can speak to that in response to their original proposals. So right now, the struggle we had in reviewing what we've been given is a lot of it was sort of not coordinated. A lot of the detail was missing that we typically see. So really what it felt like to us that it was a work in progress and that what we do is ask for a bit more information, a bit more finished product, and then we'd be in a better position to respond in more detailed ways.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So Mr. Reardon, two clarifying questions I have for you. So in item 47 of the letter, there's a recommendation to conduct a turning analysis and that point also mentions that the configuration may require some vehicles to back up for extended distances. So is it your position that if that's indeed the case, the turning analysis indicates that this would happen, that there should be a parking garage reconfiguration?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, so that was sort of trying to be a polite way of saying we didn't like the layout. in recognizing that it might not have been completely thought through. So we're hoping that in response to this comment, they'll revisit the layout, maybe, you know, come up with a little bit better pattern and then we won't have that same issue.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then my other question, clarifying question. So we will get to the architectural peer review in a little bit. One of the comments made in that one that I didn't see mirrored in this letter that I just wanted your take on is citing for a school bus stop. Is that something that you, agree with the other peer reviewer that we need more details on for this project?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, and that typically comes out of a similar discussion about trash pickup, vehicle drop-off, loading, sort of amassed in that whole, okay, you have a big facility that's going to have a lot of interaction at the street level. You really haven't shown any clear accommodations for it. Let's see what you've got, and then hopefully it addresses all of those things.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board for Mr. Reardon? Well, just one comment.
[Andre Leroux]: I just want to say, you know, thank you for the work that you put into that and your comments were really helpful. And I do want to endorse your suggestion about the blue bike station. I know it's, you know, it's not a, it's not a cheap item, but it's a good location for it and would be a great amenity. So if that does happen, you know, thinking about where that goes is important.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. All right, so I will check in with the applicant. Do you have a presentation you'd like to make? I'd like to at least, you know, talk through your responses to some of the items pointed out in the peer review.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, appreciate the opportunity. I think not to be non-responsive, but our team, including obviously Jeff Durk, have reviewed the letter. We've got a plan in place to renew the parking counts as requested, I think even as early as this week. And then we've got to, our goal really is to reply and respond in whole cloth to the three disciplines within the peer review. So I'm not sure we would get into too many specifics on traffic, for instance, tonight, but, you know, as we now are going to have all three after tonight in hand and presented, we'll be able to come back at a, you know, both in the interim and then at a future hearing to provide responses. Does that make sense?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, it does make sense to me. And, you know, if There's still enough in flux that you don't think it's appropriate to respond to these tonight. I'm certainly sympathetic to that. One thing I'll just call out is that at least for this traffic peer review, I'm interpreting it as essentially, I can't fully review it until I get some of these details. So I just wanna be mindful of the timeline. I know we have a number of other meetings scheduled, but we do need to converge on some of these items quickly in case there's another round of back and forth. So is it just to make sure I'm understanding, you know, based on your read of the peer review documents and what you've received, Is it your expectation and intention that you could largely address them in full at our next meeting so that if there are follow-ups that we still have time to work through those?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes. In thinking about all three peer review scope, our plan, The sort of taking them if they came in was to be able to respond most comprehensively to the engineering peer review by next hearing, which is two weeks from tonight, and then possibly even be able to respond to the traffic. comments at that hearing as well. That may be a little bit of a stretch, but we'll work towards that. And then the hearing after that, so four weeks from now, is when we would propose to have more fulsome responses on the design and architectural peer review. And we're open to discussion on coordination on how that plays out, but that was our general thinking.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So, I actually have a clarifying question for Director Hunt. So, I know when we, Director Hunt, I know when we had, I think it was our second, first or our second hearing on this matter, we had a discussion about, you know, the relationship between the department heads and the peer reviewers and the desire for the department heads to see the peer reviews, but that they might still provide letters of their own. Is that still the intention or are these peer reviews already kind of authored in consultation with those folks and these are the letters?
[Alicia Hunt]: The department heads have not responded to these letters. We've just started sending them out to department heads who might want to comment on them, but it being school vacation week last week, we don't anticipate that they've actually had a chance to look at them. So yeah, no, this was not done in consultation with the city staff, it was independent.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: And we typically try to do it that way? just to provide sort of another input point for the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Totally understood, Mr. Reardon. Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I'm just more thinking about like forward-looking what we should be realistically expecting at these upcoming meetings. And so, Director Hunt, I know you had said often six weeks is the amount of time we give department heads to respond. What's the plan here? Like, is there a target meeting where the department head letters would be ready? Do you know?
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, I think it's different for each department had how much time they need. In particular, I think you're looking for the traffic that the city's director of traffic and transportation to comment on this. And I'm not had a chance to connect with him yet about his ability or intent to comment on this. I have a feeling that in general that he's going to be in agreement with some of this, but he would have a lot of the same questions about the data. That's usually where he ends up is, you know, is this data good and is there enough?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And yeah. And then the other is this, the city engineer, I think he would potentially have comments on the engineering peer review.
[Unidentified]: I would expect so. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Um, all right. Well, so then, uh, Mr. Alexander, so the, um, I think the plan you laid out makes sense. One thing I'll just, I'd like to clarify is so in. I believe all of the peer reviews, certainly the traffic one, there are specific requested analyses. And so when you say you're planning to respond, should I be interpreting that as that these, that you're amenable to conducting the requested analyses and that we'll be getting those analyses or are we going to be getting your response to whether or not you think you need the analysis? Like returning analysis, updates to some of the traffic report, And then I think in the engineering one, there were some other analyses requested. I know in the architectural, there's like a shadow study and there's some other analyses we as a board had requested in prior meetings. So like, are those, are we going to be getting responses to whether you'll do those or are you going to actually be doing those analyses or something in between?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can take that, and then my consultant team can jump in on any details. But broadly speaking, Mr. Chair, our responses would already completing additional analysis. So the best example is in the case of traffic, the request for updated counts to confirm, as Mr. Reardon said, that the counts from 2019 remain accurate. So that's something that we're already scheduling and taking care of, so then we can respond with the new analysis in our response. And I would just say, if there are any items where We felt that there was a request that we either weren't able to complete or had questions about. I think, you know, to the credit of the Tetra tech team and also the Davis square team, we've been able to coordinate offline, you know, in between meetings with them on that. And we'll continue to do so.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I can just add quickly with respect to traffic. In fact, and Sean could cringe, we would have had responses to his comments by this meeting, absent school vacation last week. Sean can attest, we can't conduct traffic counts during school vacation. So those counts are happening you know, outside of the snowstorm that's going to happen tomorrow. They're going to happen during favorable weather. They're scheduled for this week, weather dependent. So, you know, hopefully we don't get a lot of snow. We're going to go out there. All the counts are scheduled and the parking observations that Sean had mentioned. One of the items was just to document what's going on with respect to parking. along commercial streets. We're looking at that as well. That's all happening this week. We will then conduct all of the analysis. The comments are very thoughtful. We don't take exception to any of those. We will respond to every one of them, including providing the additional analysis.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you, Mr. Dirk.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Mr. Chair, may I just ask a question? I understand the applicants thinking within a month's timeline, they would be back with a response to all of this. And I just wanna clarify for the board, where are we with respect to the 180 day timeline for this hearing? I think Dennis would have that information.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, Dennis just messaged me in the background that the end of that, it's April 29th is 180 days.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. I just want to make sure that we don't bump up against that too close.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. I mean, that, that was the reason for my questions. I just, I want to make sure that if there's opportunities to paralyze, or if there's not alignment that we're, that we're taking those just, we get as complete as we can in terms of the expert comments, um, you know, so that we can make the best project.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: I understood. I just, I just don't want the board kind of compressed here at the end.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: unable to have any flexibility in case there are additional issues that have to be resolved.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: And to your point, Judy, I don't, and to Tim's point, I don't sense any sort of disagreement in terms of expectations between what we'd like to see and what the applicant's willing to provide, but there is a good deal of information that we expect in the next time around. So we are likely to have other questions and other comments. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, any other questions from the board on the topic of traffic? All right, so as previous, please go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: I was just gonna kind of motion to open to public comment.
[Mike Caldera]: And just to clarify I public comment for traffic traffic related comments. Yes. All right. Do I have a second? second All right, Jim seconds. We're gonna do a roll call is that I Andre I Jim I Jamie I And Mike I All right, so friendly reminder, members of the public. So if you're a member of the public who also serves on a board and commission, you raise your hand, I will try to call on you first, but we will call on any member of the public who would like to speak at this time. Please feel free to raise your hand in the reactions or type something in chat and we will call on you momentarily.
[Denis MacDougall]: Also, just because we have people who might be watching this on public access. If you have any questions and you want to email them in to me, I'll write my email in the chat as well, but it's, it's my email is D-M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L-L at medford-ma.gov. So it's D-M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L-L at medford-ma.gov.
[Andre Leroux]: Dennis, is there a phone number someone could call?
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, they could call here, but they, well, yeah, they can call our office and leave a message, but in terms of answering it, I'm the only other one here. So if someone wishes to call 781-393-2480, the phone's like a ways away from me, so I could possibly answer it. But if you have a question that doesn't need to be answered right away, like if you just have a general question, please feel free to call our office.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you, Dennis. We'll give it a minute to see if anyone emails you.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, Mr. Chair, while we're waiting, another clarifying question for Dennis. Have we received any public comments by email or letters from members of the public about the project?
[Denis MacDougall]: Nothing to date, no. A few residents come in to look at plants, but we've told them, I've given my card and said, any questions, please feel free to let us know, but nothing.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, Dennis, it's been a minute or two since we opened it. Do you have any emails you've received? Just want to double check. You're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: If one does come in, I can go back to it the next time we have a public comment for questions. I'll bring it up at that point if you still want to send it in. We can get that in. We'll make sure we get an answer.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Worst case, we can reopen. All right. The chair awaits a motion to close public comment on the traffic portion of the hearing. So moved. Do I have a second? Looks like Jim Teague seconded. Thank you. And then roll call. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. Thank you. So now we are going to move on to the architectural peer review. And so do we have a representative from Davis Square Architects on the call?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: You do. I'm Cliff Bomer. I'm a principal at Davis Square Architects, and I appreciate being here tonight. I think I'll start by just generally describing my role, because I do see there something like 25 participants. Although I will say you've given me between the board, the peer reviewer and the applicant, you've given me too many segues to get into my report or emphasizing some of the points I made in my report. But I'll get to that in a second. For people who don't already know, I'm a design peer reviewer. I'm not the project designer. I work for the zoning board. My goal is to get the best possible project that we can within the confines of the comprehensive permit statute. And I've done a lot of these, and I think there's a lot of value between an exchange. maybe where I'll start is talking about each of these segues. I'll start with Tim's comment about being all ears. And I think that's terrific, because certainly my experience has been that the best place to be when looking at a large project, and this is a large project, to open up a productive exchange between the board and your expert help and the applicant, because I think it's undeniable that it's in everybody's best interest to have a project that works from a variety of perspectives. And that's what all of us represent is a variety of perspectives. So strong kudos to all ears. And I think that's a really good place to start. And I think I just responding to one other thing that Tim said is, you know, in preparing responses, I think that, um, and this is again, just working on previous experience. Uh, I think, uh, the exchange is, is maybe the most important thing versus response. I don't think my comments or, or Mr. Reardon's comments are laid out. There's tit for tat there. really I think points and they're both designed. The civil engineering is a design. It's not something that's happened yet. It's a concept. Same with the aesthetics and placement of building, height of building, et cetera. They're all abstract at this moment. And I think keeping that discussion open with all parties weighing in, can come up with the best possible result. So that's what I'll say for introduction. A couple of the other segues, I'll jump on to the traffic. And I think in my report, you may have noticed that I did reference the DOT studies. There is a lot of material out there. I may be just a total victim, of just believing what I read on the internet, but I did read the DOT studies. There's a tremendous amount of thinking that has happened of what different potential futures to the East of this site. As I noted, the getting there from this site, getting to the Wellington station is challenging. complicated, you cross something like 19 lanes of traffic to get there. So certainly interfacing with DOT on, you know, coming up with the best way to work together to make that happen to the benefit of this and other projects that may happen on the parkway, specifically the site to the west. I do have a couple questions about Other segues as far as Mr. Reardon's comments, the drop-off area, I mentioned that as well. The logistics of operating a site of this scale are really important. Drop-off area, move-in areas, where do you wait for the Uber, trash management plans, school bus, shuttle bus, all those things are There's enough site there to work with. I don't know that the current footprint or site plan specifically deals with it. I think it kind of doesn't, but those are all things that I hope the applicant takes as constructive criticism. As far as a couple of comments that the board made tonight, I think there was a question about bicycles on the site. And I know the architect is sensitive to that. As was mentioned, there have been, I did have a contact with the architect where I just wanted to make sure I initiated the contact. I wanted to make sure that he really understood the most important points. There are a lot of points, my report's eight pages long. There are a lot of things that I think could help help initiate a discussion about the project. Bicycles was one of them for a frame of reference as far as what other communities do about bicycles. It's broadly ranging what different communities do for bicycles, but certainly many communities would require a minimum of at least one secure indoor parking space for every unit in the building. So I think having a solid attitude for that, how to accommodate that, are there safe spaces for bike, bicycle charging that can be problematic as far as having some fire potential. Just having a plan is really important and how that ties in with the other bigger community, transportation issues is really important. But I'm just going to mention maybe three or four that I think are the most important issues I was citing in my report. Although I don't want to diminish it that at the last pages, I do have something like 15, 16 comments that there are a variety of things. woven throughout the report that are, a lot of them are just missing documentation, things that Mr. Reardon mentioned, some of us, we actually mentioned some of the same things, but others are specific concerns about what we can tell from the plans as far as they're developed at this point. I think that the overriding concerns point that I want to make, having looked at a lot of 40B sites, I think it's a terrific 40B site. So I don't want to water that down in any way. It's a terrific opportunity for the town and for the residents of that building. Having that park across the street is extraordinary. It really is an amazing park. It's not overutilized. In fact, I think having more people close to the park will help invigorate the park, because the times I've been there, and I've been there a number of times, it's never felt overused, maybe a little underused, in fact, for how wonderful it actually is. That combined with the amenities that are within walkable distance, I think I make the point in several places, not very comfortably walkable, is also amazing. So it's a terrific site, and I don't want to understate that. So I think the big points for me are, and it's really the big ones because, and I only mean big because I think they actually have site plan impact versus looking at, you know, whether they're two bathrooms or whether they're stone countertops or whatever. I'm not at that level of looking at this. From a site planning perspective, I think I'm pretty strongly believing that even with all of the nearby amenities, I do think that the project would benefit from having some outdoor space, some more outdoor space on the site. And I'll start with the play space for small children. Even a couple of pieces of play equipment on the site I think would be a huge benefit for people who don't really have the time to get to other sites. There are walkable, there's a walkable school. I don't think there are children's play spaces across the street in the state park. I did describe in the plan the idea that would result in the loss of developable volume of removing the northern most extension along commercial street to provide some usable outdoor space. Particularly, it could be particularly useful if there were a way to utilize that funny little strip of land that divides this site from the wetlands to the north. So to me that, An important issue, as I noted in my report, there are almost 250 bedrooms that could potentially be occupied by children. So that one to me is very important. Second is that I think this is not an infill project. So one of the important parts of 40B is that while the developer does have the freedom to introduce greater density and scale of building, you know, building bulk and height and that into a neighborhood, it doesn't relieve the developer of fitting in, of mitigating the impact of the building, understanding that it will be larger, but mitigating that impact. What's interesting about this site is it's not an infill project. So there are no easy cues about how to make it fit better. So I think you have to look on a bigger scale of what's important to make this project work. Some of you have already talked about tonight through the transportation planning, pedestrian access to get to public transportation is a big one. But I've made a case in my letter that I think that connection of commercial street towards the north is really important. It's clearly a direct path that connects with other already developed parts of the city that gives those neighbors to the north. And it's not that far before, I'm sorry, I don't remember the name of the street. I have the Google image here, but the street to the north connects across to other residential areas. So I think looking ahead, improving that pedestrian path towards the north, which is a little challenging. You talked about it tonight as a minimum, creating a crosswalk that gets to the other side of commercial. But unfortunately, as you continue to walk north along the sidewalk on the west side of commercial, it doesn't really work anymore. There are utility poles in the middle of the walkway. There are huge expanses of curb cuts that service light industry and commercial spaces. So it just isn't working in that direction. I think it will become more important than it is now. And maybe some people know, I don't know. And I said that in my report, I don't know the future of that site to the West, but there is an undeveloped empty site that's bigger than this site immediately to the West of this site, which will increase, I think, the desirability or the need for connectivity. So from my perspective, I think while there isn't immediate context, to really help figure out how to make this project fit. It's more of a kind of planning issue of looking ahead and figuring out what could be the future of commercial street if you don't already know it, but coordinating the development of this, particularly the West side of this building with what could happen in that huge site to the West and how that, can work in a coordinated fashion for the benefit, not just of the city, but of course the residents of that development. So to me, that's a big issue. I think the fit on the Mystic Valley Parkway side works. I think that while there is a much, much smaller scale building immediately to the east, which is the district court buildings, I'm not, seeing where that negatively impacts them really. I don't know, but I think it's probably not a lot of likelihood of that use ever changing or really carrying one way or the other, whether this building is there similarly to the north or the wetlands. I did mention I have been on projects where people are concerned about shadow impact and wetlands. I don't know if Anybody's looked at that, I understand from the architect, they have done some shadow studies, but I don't know if that has extended to any impact it might have on the materials that are growing in that part of the site. So that to me is a big issue, thinking about that streetscape on the West side. I think it's exacerbated by another factor which is that I think the southern elevations of the building have been well articulated. I think they have a lot of visual interest. I think there are a lot of moves made in those elevations, both through accentuating the lower levels of the building where there will be commercial space, as well as some entry areas. I think that's working well, but I think when you go around the corner and work your way north, on the Western elevations of the building, I'm very concerned that they will be perceived as vast and under articulated. So my recommendation was to take the same kind of approach on those West elevations that I think has been well done on the Southern elevation. I don't know, and I've said it before, I don't know what's going to happen to the West but it's a prominent elevation both for drivers on the parkway, but probably more importantly for defining the pedestrian environment on the west side of the building. And it is that elevation is 85 feet tall. I think it's important to really look at the same level, use the same level of discipline that was exercised on the Southern elevation along that Western elevation. It's like 400 feet long between the two buildings. Connected with that was another recommendation that I think dovetailed with some of the concerns of the civil engineer. He was mainly, I think concerned, mainly concerned about two things. One was, constructability when so much of the site is going to be occupied by construction activities and fronted on the north with vulnerable landscape areas? How is this thing going to be built with such limited areas? But I think as importantly in the civil report, there are potential environmental impacts from the construction process in the wetlands. From an architectural perspective, I think I'm believing at this point that we have seen some landscape plans that are preliminary, but in my opinion, what's described as a setback on the west side is really minimal at this point. particularly on the Southern building, where there are dwelling units on the first floor level. And I think there's a 10 foot setback from the sidewalk. What I recommended in my report, and I know the architect has done building to Boston before, but I'm a big believer in looking at the Boston complete street standards. And I think in a project of this scale on a street that is clearly going to be developed, define what that streetscape is going to be. And in my opinion, I think there's a very good chance that if you study what could happen across the street, as well as what might work best for the residents who occupy those first floor units, it could result in an increased setback on that side. The civil report. Uh, also on that point, I think is often concerned about, um, post construction slack in the system. So while something can be properly engineered and backed up with, um, with, I think, you know, correct level of due diligence as far as test or test pits and, and site borings, if anything is. may be off in the calculations if the site is really jam packed with no slack space, it could be problematic in the future. So I think the, again, I don't want to downplay a number of the points that I did make in this, but I think it might make sense for me to open up for questions, Maybe I'll close by saying it's critical, in my opinion, I think if there is a response, I hope that it's aimed at providing additional information to help enrich an exchange, a productive exchange about how to advance this project in a way that will have a better outcome for everybody. And without going through a kind of a checklist, I think that'd be pretty boring for everybody. So I won't do that. So I think I'll open it up for any questions anybody may have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Bowmer. Are there any questions from members of the board? Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Mr. Bowman, I really appreciated your review and your comments. I think they're excellent. So I wanted to follow up on a couple of them. One was, this facade along Commercial Street, I think also has troubled me a little bit because it has this feel of kind of an uninterrupted long block. And I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit more about that. You mentioned, you know, greater articulation. You also mentioned, you know, maybe a larger setback than the proposed 10 feet. And I'm wondering if you could kind of elaborate on that at all, or maybe you know, in the mean, like after this meeting at some point, it would be helpful to see some visual examples if you, if you have those or could come up with some of those about ones that, that, that could be helpful, that look and, you know, incomparable projects, just so we get a sense of, of, you know, how, like what, what would we be looking for that might, we might be able to do this. And Obviously, I'm also curious to hear from the proponent about, you know, what they think about this issue, but.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, I think my response would be is the, the, the good news is I think the, the applicant has already done, I think, a good job on the South elevation. Uh, you know, they mainly, there was a strong definition of, uh, the lower levels of the building. There's very strong banding on that side. but they used the inset balconies in locations along the facade as well as on the corner of the building. But I think that worked quite well. So I think the way to imagine it would be taking the same kind of attention that's been played to that Southern elevation and wrap it around to create maybe a more kind of coherent view of the prominent elevations of the building. I think what's interesting in this is that the east elevation has from the top of the third floor to the top of the building, so the fourth through the eighth, or no, I don't have that right. for the first three floors, you see the parking garage. You see that Eastern side of the parking garage. I don't think that's problematic actually. And what's funny about it is that it really successfully kind of breaks up that long elevation. And I don't think having an open parking garage on that side is really, you know, negatively impactful to the public realm either. The West side is entirely different. That is the major engaging elevation of the building for anybody who's out walking on the street. So from my perspective, I would use the same, my suggestion would be to use the same strategy that they've used on the front of the building and consider the Western elevation a front uh, to the same degree than the Southern elevation is. And, uh, but I, I do want to emphasize, I think whomever knows whatever about what's happening on the Western, what could happen on that Western side of commercial street in a very large site that could easily support a project of this scale, figure out what, what, what what could be known about that and try to coordinate a vision for the streetscape, because it's really an important place. I don't know if I answered your question or not.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, no, I think you did. But I guess in dealing with the streetscape and the greater articulation and also a greater setback would affect the footprint of the building. So I'm wondering, you know, how do we evaluate the trade-offs there?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, some of it is doable, even if, and I mentioned this, I think I mentioned this in the letter, that at least the northernmost building, there's actually enough space where that building, even if you didn't change the footprint, could move towards the east to create more space. There are other, I think my concern is, is the height of the building and how close the building is to the street. And that's studyable, and I think there are approaches that can be taken. Plenty of us live in cities where there are tall buildings that are directly on sidewalks. But this is kind of different. I mean, most situations like that, at least where it's successful, is there may be a really active commercial use strong articulation, step backs in the facades versus a kind of sheer wall that goes all the way up. There are plenty of ways to make that work. My position on where it is now is that they just need to go around the corner and convince us that the West elevation works as well as the Southern elevation does.
[Andre Leroux]: And I'll just make one kind of personal comment on this to build on. I do think that, you know, maximizing the balconies and the number of units that have balconies is very important. I think, you know, that's, we've seen some of that already, but that can also help with the articulation, I believe. I think we saw during the, you know, the pandemic, how important it is for apartment dwellers, especially to have access to some of their own outdoor space.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think the, but you'd notice on the other elevations of the building, there's a stronger reliance on projected balconies that are kind of tacked on to the building versus balconies that are created by, you know, modulation in the facade. Yeah, which is why that southern side works as well as it does.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. And I also I do want to endorse I really appreciate your suggestion about carving out space for on site, open space, particularly the taut lot I do think that that would be a real, real amenity and benefit to the design of the project. I know there's been a lot of comments about you know McDonald Park across the street. You know, as somebody who uses that park a lot, who kind of bicycles through it to get to Wellington, who walks and runs there very often throughout the year, I can say that that park, I know it's often characterized as underutilized. It is not underutilized. It actually gets a lot of use, particularly from, you know, immigrant families who have birthday parties there and day-long picnics. And I mean, obviously when the weather's nicer, but there's a, a surprising amount of use of that park. It is, however, a passive park. And I consider that this is one of the most important ecological areas along the Mystic River, and not all open space has to be programmed to depth. We have just down the Mystic, or up the Mystic, around Riverside Park, which is very close to where I live, almost every part of that open space, which used to be somewhat more of an urban wild, is now also heavily programmed. And I would not want to see that happen to McDonald Park. So I really like the idea of putting the tot lot on site in this place, because I don't want to start putting playgrounds over there. It's an important ecological area and a wetland and a passive open space that's really a respite in the city.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Understood. All right. Thank you, Andre. Jamie. Thank you, Mike.
[Unidentified]: Mr. Boehmer, both your and the Tetra Tech study brought up a lot about the drop-offs, move-ins, deliveries, the pathway coming into the property from Mystic Valley Parkway, transitioning between the buildings and out to commercial. You brought up the first floor units. Could you go into a little bit more specific detail about the concerns where the flow of traffic and the spacing there and potential impact of not having the space to do those, have those larger vehicles coming into the property, as well as those first floor units, both on the middle of the building and on the commercial outside potential impacts?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, well, let me start on the commercial street side, which is clearly more heavily trafficked than the parking and egress lane that goes between the two buildings. The concern on the commercial street side is It starts with kind of just privacy, realistic privacy issues of anybody who lives in those units. And the other side of that is trying to activate that space. So in the Northern building, there is a community space. There's a community room on the Western elevation of the building that I think makes a very reasonable and potentially street enlivening element on that Western side. In the Southern building where you have units, given that they're only 10 feet away from the sidewalk, and we do expect even now, and maybe even more later if there's more development on Commercial Street, that those people will have their blinds closed, because that would be the primary way of maintaining privacy in those issues. And in that circumstance, it's kind of a loss for both the resident and for the public realm and the pedestrian environment. So that's really my concern. There are ways of dealing with it. I spoke to the architect about it last week. I'm not saying this is the best solution. I don't think it is the best solution, but there are scenarios where that first floor level could be elevated even as little as 18 inches. where the units are so that people will more likely have windows open. So you're at least walking by something that has some life to it as a pedestrian. But ultimately I think for me, the easiest way to solve it is with an increased FEDPAC and a robust landscaping plan. You know, combined with a vision for the streetscape, the, the loading issues are different to me. Um, they're really just kind of technical, uh, issues of how do you maintain this building? Can a truck pull in and not be blocking access? Does it have easy access to a service elevator or an elevator that's suitable for moving things in and out of the building? Trash pickup is always an issue. Just what we're used to seeing are diagrams of how larger vehicles maneuver on the site and stay out of the way of just day-to-day circulation around the site. Certainly you wouldn't want to have maneuvering space for a trash truck six feet away from a resident's window. So it's just stuff that, that is kind of normal in figuring out the operations of a building is wanting to see something as impactful as move-ins and trash. The drop-off and pick-up is a little easier, given that I think that drop-off drive area along Mystic Parkway is not inconsistent with other developments. I think the setback of the building that provides that space, makes sense for the scale of the building and kind of respect for the vision of the parkway. So I think there's the drop-off thing is easier to solve at least for the Southern building than the logistics of day-to-day operations of the building. So I don't have an answer, I think more to what Mr. Reardon was saying is put something out there and let's look at it and make it part of the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the board? All right, I can go then.
[Mike Caldera]: I would like to, this is just for the applicants. So I would like to understand the impact in terms of the number of units that are, would be potentially lost of some of Mr. Bowmer's proposals, but generally speaking, I too am in favor of the tot lot. I think that that is, really critical space for families with young children. And in the absence of that, I'm not really sure what their alternative is. So just want to come out and say that I too generally favor, I'd like to understand the impact on the building itself, but that does seem like a good constructive feedback. And then Mr. Bowmer, just, I think you kind of indirectly answered this question but I just want to get an explicit answer just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. So, in terms of the setback on the west side of the building. is it your position that the setback should be increased or is it your position that there are some issues on the West side that need to be addressed and to properly address them that the setback might need to be increased? Excellent question.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: And I'm not gonna dodge it. I think the reason I brought up the potential, I mean, I have several issues. And I'll just back up a little bit first. I think getting out on the table, what anybody knows about the future of commercial streets, specifically that side across and any city wide initiatives about improving the pedestrian environment of that whole Northern stretch of commercial should at least be reflected in how this project is talked about. because it's not an infill project, because we don't have immediate adjacent cues about how to make things work. It's kind of visionary in the sense of how is this project going to plug in in a convincing way, kind of maybe no matter what happens on that street. So the way it's, the way that, the argument is set up right now, I would argue that the, uh, given the height of the building, the presence of dwelling units at ground level, and, um, probably it, you know, again, combined with not understanding what kind of streetscape they're proposing to me that they've set up a pretty difficult problem for themselves. And, uh, If it bridges over to constructability and slack space on the site, there are other engineering issues that could be involved. But in my opinion, unless, I just think there needs to be a solution, a justification for why it is where it is. It's not unusual for a 4DB development to maximize the developable volume of the site. That's completely understandable and it helps them work through that option of what happens if we maximize development on that site. But, you know, you kind of have to follow that all the way through. And if you're maximizing that, then how about all these other issues? And, you know, and we've, we've named a bunch of them already. My perspective, even though I'm the design reviewer, actually I view the kinds of issues I'm bringing up as technical issues as well. They're well-established standards of how to make a pedestrian friendly environment and they're measurable. It's why I included that link to the complete street standards. This is material that's been studied a lot. Um, so that's what I'm looking for is, is, is justification that all of the various components and aspects of this building have been satisfied under the current plan. And if the argument can be put out there, then so be it. But from what I've seen so far. a simple solution on that side of the building is a greater setback. I think it can be resolved in other ways. I think you can create a walkable environment with a building, a tall building only 10 feet away. I think it is possible. I think it should be linked into a landscape plan for the street. I think you need to address the privacy issues of the residents. And I'll let the civil reviewer emphasize or not emphasize the importance of having slack space on the site once the development is occupied.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the board?
[Yvette Velez]: This isn't necessarily a question, more of a just general comment, because it was noted excuse me, that there's no lighting plan and it being a very commercial streets and, you know, with lots of improvement. How would that, could that be addressed if things, I live in a building myself, so I say this from a personal point of view of the street is very bright and I'm also across the street from a park and I'm also have a busy side. right here on high and 16. The Regency tall building, I get all the noise, I get all the, so I can experience a building and the need for thick windows and the street lighting plan and the building lighting plan itself and how that impacts your quality of life and having balconies whether they look good on one side of the street versus the other and how that influences, again, your quality of life. So my comment is more of just, I look forward to what that could look like in such a large building, because it is significantly larger than even the one I'm in. And so again, no question, because I recognize there are no answers for that at this moment, but just to acknowledge of the space and location-wise and what that would imply for, again, quality of life.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: If I could, I know it wasn't a question, if I could respond a little bit, because two responses. One is that that is one of the missing documents. And the importance of a lighting plan is, For me, again, it's about how this building will fit. And in this case, there are lighting plans that I think can make that pedestrian experience really desirable. I think all of you have walked this site and walked the length of Commercial Street, and it's not very pedestrian friendly. So how you choose to to light, not over light, don't light pollute, don't have dark sky compliant lighting, all of that stuff is what ultimately will create the most favorable environment, I think. So again, at this stage, you don't expect, we don't expect, peer reviewers don't expect to see completely engineered plans. I think it can be a mistake at this level of design to over spend on things that are mutable or ought to be mutable at this stage, but in general sense of like, are we going to make, are we, do we have all kinds of uplighting that are making this building a highlight or is it very low lit? And we're, you know, it's a critical element as far as the perception of it.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: And I'd add to that too, I mean, you have to have a place to put the lights. So, you know, when you get into a site that there's such a premium on on available space at ground level. you know, those sometimes make a difference, right? If you don't have a place to put a light and all of a sudden now you don't have options that allow you the latitude to creatively problem solve. I think as anybody who's taken a walk through IKEA can tell you, you can do some pretty cool things with really small spaces, but they have to be well thought. So we don't wanna do is sort of foretell a scenario where they don't have solutions, but you know, We need a little bit more thought to all of the things that have to happen at that ground level in order to prove that that what's being shown is, is, is a good idea.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So one other comment, and I guess this will end up being a clarifying question for the applicant, that came up when, or the thought came up when I was reading the, design peer review is so in the design peer review it does reference rooftop solar and I know the applicant has already committed to provide an updated list of requested waivers but in the original list of requested zoning waivers one of the requested waivers pertain to essentially compliance with the city's solar ordinance. And so just wanted to check in with the applicant. So you've stated you plan to respond in full now that you have these peer reviews. Will that response include a commentary on the design elements related to rooftop solar, or is it the position that that is a requested? still a waiver you intend to request?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can handle that, Mr. Chairman. So I think the short answer is we, and I'm trying to think back, sorry, but I think we discussed potentially reviewing that once we had a little bit more feedback, right? And understanding what our rooftop area was and how it was laid out and what other items might be on the roof in terms of HVAC units, et cetera. So all to say that's something that we will look at as part of our peer review responses. I don't see it being a hard and fast, continue to be a waiver, but we're gonna look at it again and see whether there is square footage that makes it feasible.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I see Director Hunt has her hand raised, Director Hunt.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just thought it would be helpful at this point to clarify on the solar ordinance in the city, that it doesn't literally require solar to be installed. It requires that you do an analysis to see if it's feasible and if there is space for solar. And if it is feasible, then it requires it to be installed. But the first piece of it is an analysis. I'm happy to review that. The analysis then has to get sent to me. for review. So it may be that if that is the concern, then you don't need the waiver because you should just have the you'd have the analysis done and then determine from there. So I just wanted to offer that at this moment.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. Yeah. And so what I'm hearing, if I understood correctly, is the applicants intention to to at least do a preliminary analysis, if not the full analysis, and then they'll determine whether they still intend to request that waiver. Is that accurate, Tim?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's accurate. And I appreciate Alicia's additional information. That's helpful. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I see Commissioner Fordy's hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just as a side comment, I know that we have the new adoption of the 10th edition of the State Building Code forthcoming, and I know that we're also looking at the revised stretch code that's coming up, which may not allow for waivers because the state building code is a standalone code. So just something to consider, you know, while we're looking at this, that by the time a building permit is issued, I would say that we're gonna be in the adoption of the 10th edition. So just something for the designers to, you know, to maybe see. Thank you.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I would also, point out that that is, I appreciate the intent of the local statute that requires studying it. The roof plan is one of the plans that we're looking for and maybe amplifying on the commissioner's comments. There are already requirements in the building code for the building being structurally suitable for a rooftop. you know, installation of rooftop panels, whether they're hot water or PV. My own opinion is it, I appreciate you bringing that up. My own opinion is, is that the Southern exposure is terrific on this building and it's a very large roof. So I, my own opinion is from a very preliminary fashion is there's plenty of space for integrating a rooftop solar in, in this development.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Bowmer. Just want to double check if there are any other questions or comments from the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Commissioner Forty, did you have another?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, just one more comment in regard to what Mr. Bowmer is stating. It probably would be In these types of buildings, usually there are separate AC condensers and heat pumps for each individual unit. In my experience, sometimes you don't quite have the roof, excuse me, the roof area. I don't know that the property owner may want to consider solar canopy versus flat solar panels on the roof. Because in my experience, there's always there's not always a lot of flat roof space where panel arrays can can sit with without obstruction and without, you know, taking up a percentage of the, the usable roof area or the accessible roof area. So it's just, again, I know that the 10th edition, and the revised the revised energy code is really stringent and I know that it talks about a requirement for solar panels, especially on multi residential and I just would, I just think it's definitely worth taking a look into the revised energy code, because I think that even without stretch energy, the requirements are quite stringent. And I know that that's the direction we're going. So I think that any part of this project should be considered that it's almost going to be a requirement to have solar panels on this roof. So just, again, my opinion.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. So I know the applicant indicated they primarily plan to respond in future meetings. I just want to double check, Mr. Alexander, is there anything else you'd like to share before I open it to public comment?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Nothing specific on our end. I just appreciate the detailed presentation.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Chair awaits a motion to open. for public comment on the design of this building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Do a roll call, Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, so members of the public, as a reminder, this is an opportunity to share any comments you may have on the design of the building. And like I said, if we get a bunch of comments and some of them are from members of other Medford boards, I will plan to call on the members of the other boards first. And as Dennis previously shared, You can feel free to email him at dmcdougall at medford-ma.gov.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You can also raise your hand, you can drop something in chat.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, Dennis, I'm not seeing anything. Do you have any emails from the public that you received?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nothing in my inbox.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Do I have a motion to close the public portion of the hearing on the design of the building? So I see Andre attempting to move, but he was on mute both times. I'll accept that as a move. So moved. Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. We'll do a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike, aye. All right, so we've closed the public portion of the hearing. All right, and so now I believe we're just down to coordination topics in terms of the next meetings and so on. So first of all, Mike, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Might I just make one more point? It wasn't directly related to the peer review, so I didn't say it then, but it is design related. Please go ahead, Andre. Yeah. One thing that I've been thinking about this building a lot, and it's really a key site along Mystic Valley Parkway. And I think, you know, in particular, I've been thinking a lot about the corner, that pocket park, and what value it has to the surrounding area in a relationship to the Mystic River and the park across the street. And I think that because it's such a prominent corner, I would really love to see some public art integrated into that corner. I think this is something that's very doable. And if you'll let me share my screen, I just wanna show an image or two, which I think is interesting and illustrates what I'm talking about.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, please go ahead. I think you should already have the permission.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: So let me show this first. So here's an example of a multifamily residential building. This is called the Dairy Block. It's in Denver. Kind of a way of using a mural and public art to really highlight the center. And it's kind of a multi-story, large, I've got a crash message, so try to let me know if anything.
[Mike Caldera]: So Andre, there was a delay when you started sharing, but it's currently showing at least on my screen.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, so this is just an example of how, you know, public art can be used to accentuate a corner, like the building that we have would also provide some definition to the commercial street edge. And then you know, not that this is what we'd like, but my, you know, suggestion in particular would be to, let me see if I can get it now with all these menus here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Can't really get the Zoom menu out of the way. Let me try this one more time here. Put this down. So, you know, I did a little bit of very basic research into the... Andre, we...
[Mike Caldera]: You kind of froze in the middle of it and then it popped out. But we did see the murals. They had purple notes. Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, yeah, my apologies here. I just want to make one point. I'm gonna try to share that one more time. And so, you know, this is a, this is one of my favorite, I think, muralists. He's done things in, you know, Worcester, and I think he lived Cambridge, in Cambridge at one point, you know, very kind of indigenous. This is more Mexican. He's, you know, has Mexican heritage. So
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's got that style, but you can see some of the kinds of buildings that he does.
[Andre Leroux]: I think my computer has got too many things open so I'm not even going to try to do that right now, but I can send I can send it along but but I guess my point is that in doing a little bit of research there is some very interesting like First Nation Native American history to this area that actually Medford was a very important. site at the time of colonial contact in the early 1600s, and the, the non key people. One of their central settlements was here in Medford, and they. really had a large nation that covered all of Northeastern Massachusetts and beyond. And the leader was really his burial site somewhere here along the Mystic in this area, in the Medford area. And so it would be really interesting to, I don't think we have anything in Medford that captures that important history of indigenous settlement along the Mystic River and potentially could be if we could create a partnership with some of the tribal nations that might be related to descendants of the first inhabitants of this area. It could be a really special piece of the project. So that's just a suggestion to explore.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Andre, for the suggestion. I'll check. Oh, okay. Um, so Klaus, I know you're on, uh, a city board. I think we would have to reopen the public portion of the hearing to take your comment. So, um, I'm sorry about that. My computer crashed and I had to restart. Okay. Um, the chair awaits a motion to reopen, uh, the public hearing on, um, the design of this building.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to reopen the public hearing on design. Second.
[Mike Caldera]: Second. OK. I have a second. Do a roll call. Yvette?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. Members of the public, raise your hand. Klaus, I know you just did, so please go ahead.
[Claes Andreasen]: Hi. I'm sorry, everyone. wanted to speak earlier, but I just had a couple of comments because I think this, like everybody has talked about tonight, it's a really important project. And I just want to say that I really appreciate Cliff's comments. I think they were spot on and they really paralleled a lot of the things that we talked about in the community development board meetings. But a couple of things in particular, I think taking a really good look at the commercial street thoroughfare and the west side and how close the building is designed up against that, I think is, you know, super important to this project and really important to the whole neighborhood because, you know, if that building is so close to commercial street, you know, any sort of future improvements to that street are, you know, really, they have to conform to you know, what this building does, and that might be restrictive in a way that's really not great. Totally agree with a lot of the open space comments, the tot lot, I think that's super important. Andre's comments about, you know, McDonald Park being very passive and, you know, having a playground, I think, you know, would just be great. I guess, you know, those are the, The brunt of my comments, I think, one thing where I may slightly disagree with you, Cliff, is on the southern side. I really felt that maybe the design of the building was working well, but I really felt that the drop-off was misplaced on the southern elevation of the building, and really it should be around the side, similar to what it is on the more northern building. so that that setback within the front of the building that sort of fronts the park in a way and the parkway really is free of vehicles for the most part. I thought that would be a sort of a nicer way to sort of keep that front face clean. And I think that's probably it for me. obviously an important and interesting project and some work to do, but yeah, thank you everyone. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we have any other comments from members of the public? Can I make a quick comment?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, please go ahead. We're not going to do back and forth, but you can certainly respond.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I think to Klaus's comment, I think that the concerns about the front, I think solving the issues, studying the issues of drop-off and pickup and moving and all that will help reach the right solution for that space. I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree in any way. I think we're only looking at one proposal that leaves a lot of things unanswered. So it could very well be that it makes more sense putting it somewhere else. And to Andre's suggestion of looking at that corner, I respond to that and it reinforces the importance of connectivity. And in the absence of there being a lot of immediate context other than that park, which is remarkable, I understand where you're coming from completely. And to me, because it's already awkward to cross the street to get to the park, that pocket park, it plays a really important role of being a connective piece to the park across the street. looking at ways to make that really work. It's just another way to make the building really fit in. And I appreciate that idea.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Bowmer.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Klaus. All right, any other comments from members of the public?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, so that was, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: That was a different comment. Chair awaits a motion to close the public hearing on the design.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to close the public hearing on the design.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, seconded. All right, seconded by Andre. We'll do a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, so just to the last two comments shared, I certainly would appreciate if, in their responses in the next meeting, the applicant could speak to the idea about the mural, as well as to speak to the drop-off location on the south side of the building and how that does or doesn't make sense. So yeah, any other questions or comments from the board that weren't related to the specific design reviews before we move to some of the more procedural items? Okay, well so first off, let me just preempt a question we've gotten every meeting and I really genuinely appreciate the question. So then our next meeting will be held remotely as our previous meetings are, I believe it's Chair Doherty's intention to continue meeting remotely As long as we can. And so, based on the governor, the former governor's order that will go through the end of March at least so our next meeting is still subject to that order and so we'll be meeting remotely. I also, so my understanding is the applicant intends to respond to the peer reviews, especially the engineering peer review, likely the traffic, and maybe in part to the architectural review at the next meeting. Is that correct, Mr. Alexander?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: That's correct.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then I do intend for us to take public comment again at the next meeting, just on the response to these peer reviews. So I'll just say that now in case we need to notice that. Any other logistical items anyone would like to discuss before we adjourn for the evening?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: And I don't remember. I think we do have to motion to continue and motion to adjourn. Can anyone check me on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: in the absence of- I think you want a motion to close the hearing, right? And to, but you don't want to adjourn the meeting because we are, we'll do some administrative housekeeping after the- Okay. The hearing is closed this evening.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: It just- Sure. If I could, this is all the same hearing. So we don't want to close the hearing. We want to continue the hearing until March- We don't know who said that.
[Andre Leroux]: Oh, that was Chris from the proponent of proponents attorney, but that's what Judy told us last time too.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. So we don't, yeah. So to be clear, I think, I think we're all talking about different things, but we're using shared terminology. So I think we need to continue the hearing. And then we will pause before adjourning the meeting in case there's any administrative items unrelated to this hearing that we need to discuss. And then someone will motion to adjourn. So I believe procedurally that's what we're going to do unless there's any objections. We are not going to close the hearing though. All right. Chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to, I just want to double check our next scheduled date. anyone has a handy chime in. March 13th. Chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to the special meeting on March 13th.
[Andre Leroux]: I motion to continue the hearing on the Mystic Valley Parkway project till March 13th.
[Yvette Velez]: March 13th, I thought it was the 6th. I'm sorry, because I have on my schedule Monday, the 6th, ZBA 40B meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: So I'm wrong. I think I have the 13th as well. Yeah.
[Yvette Velez]: OK, great. I'm wrong. I'm just confirming then.
[Denis MacDougall]: 6th is next week, and I'm actually off that day. So yeah, I'm gone. So no.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, so there's a motion to continue to the 13th. Do I have a second? All right, we'll do a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. And then Mike? Aye. All right, so now we're at the end of our agenda. And so it seems Director Hunt may have some administrative updates. Thank you, everybody, by the way.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please go ahead, Director. Bye-bye.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, it's not that I need everybody else to leave, but it's very disorienting as all the heads are disappearing. So I don't know, Dennis, if you wanted to We were going to talk about reappointments and people that the terms all expire now.
[Denis MacDougall]: You're all set with me, right, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, we're all set. Great.
[Bill Forte]: Have a good night, everybody.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks.
[Alicia Hunt]: So just even though it looks like everybody left, we are still on TV, still being recorded. Still want anybody to forget that the meeting hasn't legally ended. So so Dennis, I don't know if did you want to Yeah, I'm just, I'm calling up the... While Dennis is doing that, y'all missed all the excitement. The fire department was at city hall during the meeting. It was a big brouhaha, like lots of fire department. And police cars. Oh, and police, they determined, hold on. Sorry, can you wait one second? They determined that there were snow blowers in the front entry of City Hall, and that was causing the building to smell like gas. The building still smells like gas, but they've been through with their monitors and detectors that it's safe to be there. And in case you're wondering, are the right people notified? It was in fact the mayor who called the fire department. So all the right people know.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I'm glad they're on top of it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ready, Dennis. I lost it. So too many. Here we go.
[Denis MacDougall]: So basically the gist of it is, and I'll try to make this simply. So right now, I don't want to do is not have this happen. Like if we appoint everyone reappoint everyone. for another three year term, we're going to have the same thing happen in three years time with everyone at the same time. So what we want to do is stagger the appointees. So basically we'll appoint someone for one year, some people for two and some people for three. So the associate member is always one year so that we can sort of make that nice. But what I think, you know, either, you know, we'll just, what I can ask is that you guys kind of sleep on it and you know maybe sort of say like you know if anyone wants to just do one more year let us know and that's perfectly fine we're perfectly fine with that that's or two years or three years everyone says three then we can just sort of i don't know draw draw from a hat but but then it's a question who are we referring to i was just appointed so i don't know if are we gonna this is sorry yeah i But I think a bunch of everyone else it was just last year reappointed so.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so my understanding and folks can chime in chime in if I'm wrong is that there was a point in time where all, this was before Andre was appointed, where almost the entire board was expiring in March of 2023. And at that time, I believe Yvette was expiring in September of 2022. Andre, I know you were appointed, I believe it was to a three-year term. And then Yvette, I think you were, were you reappointed or are you still a holdover?
[Alicia Hunt]: So assuming that the website is correct, which if anybody disagrees with what's on there, let me know. We can go find the appointment letters. Yvette, you got appointed longer, right, to 2025. They fixed that. So what we have right now is that Jack, Jim, and Mike all expire on Wednesday. So this is something that we've run into other boards and commissions in the middle of hearings. And so I had this clarified with legal counsel a couple of times over the past two years just to nobody's appointment goes away. You remain in your position in what they call holdover status unless somebody else is appointed to replace you. So it's not a problem that the appointments expire. but we do need to get new appointment letters out. So we have Andre and Yvette both expiring in 2025. So we need at least one member to expire in 2024 and one in 2026. And then the other should be either 24 or 26, right? So that you have each year either one or two people expiring. And that way you always have rotation. This board does not legally have any term limits. So, if somebody is appointed for one year there's nothing that prevents them from being reappointed, unlike other boards I think actually our planning board has legal term limits. So that doesn't matter. We have a strong preference right now to reappoint everybody because we are in the middle of a 40B hearing and we don't want to run into the problem of not having enough people to vote on the permit at the end of the hearing because people have left the board and they're new members and they can't get read in. So if anybody wants to leave, can you please, please, please stay until the end of April when this case is closed.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so just want to double check one thing we didn't specifically speak to. So Jamie, it looks like you were reappointed as alternate for another year. Is that is that correct?
[Denis MacDougall]: I wonder if that date's incorrect. That might just, because I thought like the alternate associate was only for one year.
[Mike Caldera]: My understanding is the appointment is for one year at a time.
[Denis MacDougall]: So I think the date on Jamie's might be incorrect. That'd be my guess on that. Well, you only got appointed over the summer anyway. It wasn't in March. So I think that one.
[Alicia Hunt]: So when we, right, when that was over the summer and the choice was like,
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, I see.
[Alicia Hunt]: Cause otherwise it would have been less than a year.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay. So, so Jamie, your appointment letter was anyway through March of 2021 year from, okay.
[Unidentified]: Makes sense. That way the renewals all happen at the same time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay, cool. Um, so sounds good. So it sounds like Jim, myself and Jack all have action items to let. Dennis and Alicia know our preferences and then we'll just close it out over email and then the appointment letters to follow. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Cool.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any other questions or comments on this topic?
[Mike Caldera]: Any other administrative updates?
[Alicia Hunt]: completely unrelated, but I'm saying it everywhere. We have some jobs posted economic development director, a housing planner, and the CPA manager, and I'm actually going to be posting a climate and policy planner as well. shortly. And if anybody knows anybody who might be interested and might be qualified, please send them our way. There is a very small pool of qualified available people, apparently. I've seen a lot of applicants for people who, you know, have one time been a clerk in a store and applied to be the economic development director. So, like I'm not being overly judgmental on some of these. We do have some, we have some qualified applicants for some of the positions. But we definitely need help spreading the word about open positions. And I'm told that this is a, like an industry-wide issue. There are so many planning positions open in municipalities in Massachusetts that it's kind of insane.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thanks, thank you. All right, do I have a motion to adjourn? To adjourn.
[Unidentified]: All evening?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I can say good night. So good night, everybody. So there's a second. All in favor? Bye bye. All right. Good night. Thanks, everybody. See you soon.