[Mike Caldera]: And so yeah, we have quorum, we can get started. Dennis, could you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at the meeting location and provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you. I'm going to read the first matter. 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway case number 40B-2022-01, continued from March 30th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC and affiliate of Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B for multifamily eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located on approximately three acres of land at 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]: Thank you. All right, folks, so this is a continuation of a hearing that started back in November of last year. At our last meeting, we were presented with an updated plans packet, a draft plans packet for this project, as well as some details in response to earlier versions of the peer review letters for architecture and traffic. And so the agenda for today's meeting is that we have received updated peer review letters based on those draft plans, both for architecture and engineering. And we're gonna review those in this meeting. Also, if the applicant has any updates they'd like to present surrounding some of the action items from the prior meeting, we'll have an opportunity to do that. We're not going to be taking public comment today, but we will be taking public comment likely in our next meeting. We've been taking public comment periodically throughout. Next meeting is the one where we expect to have a final draft of the proposed plans. And so intention is unless something changes, we'll do public comment in that meeting. So yeah, that's the plan for today. Before we get started with the peer review letters themselves, I just wanted to check in with the applicant to see if there's any kind of logistical items you wanna go over before we get started.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Good evening, Mister chair members of the board evening. No I think that I think that summary sounds fine nothing logistical on our end. But we'll look for the discussion tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: All right wonderful folks. Chris rainier may have a constraint please go ahead.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you for the record Christian Wilson. I will say. Mister chairman members of the board that we don't have our civil engineer tonight he's traveling. I understand that the board's civil and transportation peer reviewer is also unavailable. We did have a chance to review, although we haven't had it long, the civil engineering peer review letter. I just want to mention there have been some meetings that the applicant and its civil engineer have had with town staff related to stormwater, I&I, some utility coordination. I think it might be helpful if at some point tonight we could think about maybe when we get Sean's availability, scheduling a working session with our team and with Sean, because I think a lot of the issues in his letter could be, one, that they're easier to talk through looking at plans, but two, we want to make sure that he's up to speed on some of the productive dialogue we've had with town departments and department heads. that may not be reflected in his meeting. So I did just want to let the board know one of our civil engineers on availability, and two, maybe a thought that at some point tonight we discuss a working session.
[Mike Caldera]: Noted. Thank you. Yes, happy to discuss that later tonight. Sounds like a plan. All right, and I just want to check in. So I see we have the former with Davis Square Architects. Sean Reardon did mention at the last meeting, he wouldn't be present today, but had mentioned an intention to have someone from Tetra Tech representing. Do we have anybody here on behalf of Tetra Tech tonight? Okay, well, that simplifies things for now. We will hope that changes, but Cliff Bohmer, would you like to share some details on your updated letter?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I would, and I would add that I'd see there isn't anybody from Tetra Tech, but I have spoken with Sean several times about his letter. because there is a lot of overlap between my letter and his letter. While I can't really represent him, I think I can explain what I think the categories of issues are. Although I will support what Chris suggested about a working session, I think we're within a range of viable solutions that a working session would go a long ways to, you know, bundling up a package. And that's, I think Sean would agree with that. We talked about it actually this morning about the option of a working session to resolve a lot of the issues. So I'm going to be kind of general because I don't want to go too deep, but I think the range of issues are, I think, reasonable expectations that I have had, and I think Sean has had, of just some pieces that are missing from the documentation. There really aren't huge numbers of them, but I outlined some of them in my report, and Sean also cited in his report, just some missing pieces. And I think if we are to schedule a working session, it would be terrific if if those things have been presented previously and I haven't seen them or Sean hasn't seen them, if that could be gathered up. so that we could review it collectively. I hope provide materials that may genuinely be missing that have never been presented to anybody. I'm hoping the applicant, if they agree to a working session, that they could prepare in that sense of culling through things. This always happens when there are lots of iterations, but making sure everybody's on the same page on the current best information that's available and has been submitted for record. And there's another category of issues that are design issues. And I think if you've read both reports, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read mine, given that I submitted it at one o'clock this afternoon, which I apologize for, but there are some design issues. I think probably again, speaking to the overlap of Sean and my report, I think the delivery, pickup, drop-off, trash collection, that realm of issues, there was some movement made in the right direction, for sure, by providing that space between the two buildings. But I think Sean had the most complete list of of just day-to-day practical issues that I think that both of us expect would come up regularly in a project of this scale. I'm hoping that there could be some solutions floated. One thing that I've seen other developers provide that is really helpful are kind of choreography plans that explain what happens if a trash truck is picking up trash and an emergency vehicle comes showing that there's adequate space. Whatever it might be, there's a whole lot of day-to-day activities that I think are probably not sufficiently accounted for in the current design. In my letter, I also bring up a couple other issues. I think there was a really important change. Actually, it was more of a clarification than a change that I was really happy about, which was locating the children's play area in the north courtyard. In looking at the landscaping plans, I think I suggested some changes within that courtyard that would that would open up more usable square footage within the courtyard. There are a number of things that are in my letter that are kind of small level of design revisions, but I think the big ones actually are more site related that I touch on and Sean goes into greater detail of. And I think There are other issues that come up in Sean's letter about verification. I think probably his biggest issue is understanding stormwater management more thoroughly. I don't think he feels like that's adequately documented in the documents. see if there are other ones. If you haven't had the chance to look at my letters, let me just quickly hit on a couple items. I already mentioned that usable open space. The reason I picked on that one is that I think the developer made a good argument of why cutting that northern tail off of the northern building wasn't necessarily important. Really fleshing out that courtyard space and that it's really suitable, I think is very important. I brought up also on the plans, the landscape plan, my understanding was at least from the renderings that the commercial street elevation, the buffering area was increased, which was a good thing. From the renderings, it looked as if there were types of shrubbery or plants that might grow up to a height sufficient to provide some buffering, but in the landscape plan, it shows sod in a lot of those areas, which in my mind is a kind of coordination issue, which is another, I think, important thing. Sean brings it up, I noted it too, that Well, there is a lighting plan. We don't know where the fixtures are. We don't know what the fixtures look like. These are things that would generally be coordinated across both the civil plans and the landscape plan just so everybody knows what's actually being proposed. There wasn't an indication that I saw, and I'm sorry if I missed it, I didn't see what the street trees were. There are indications of street trees, but I didn't see where the species was called out. There's a missing elevation. I had some design ideas. I think the space between the buildings, I think it is sufficient. for servicing the needs of the building, but I think there are some improvements that could be made in the building elevations that can bring the scale down more to a pedestrian level. It is 85 feet tall along that run of the building. Another thought that I would love to discuss in more detail, particularly if we have a working session is the materials I had asked for material call-outs on the building elevations, and they were provided. As I noted, I appreciated the integration of masonry in the facades. A big reason is it really speaks to the permanence of the building. Buildings of this scale, I think, really need to feel like the materiality is there for a long time is sustainable. So I did suggest that in the final material selection that areas of, some areas that are currently shown as fiber cement panels could be replaced with metal panels, panels that require less maintenance over time. what will, I think, probably end up still some very large areas of fiber cement. I suggested using higher grades of fiber cement that have integral color, so you're not worried about having to repaint the building in nine years. I think that kind of material palette is more appropriate for a building with this kind of prominence and scale. A couple other points, and I understand that there were some shadow studies or at least discussion of shadows. I suggest that these, whatever has been presented in meetings where I haven't been or Sean hasn't been, that they do get introduced into the record. I beat the drum on bicycle parking again. I know that, I think I suggested looking at Cambridge's bicycle parking. I know they're kind of on the far end of the bell curve as far as bike parking. But I think there were two points I made. One was that I didn't think the designated spaces were really adequate for 48 bicycles. And that was of concern and then I didn't understand the rationale for establishing the ratio for bike spaces per unit. I think that is worthy of discussion. I understand maybe there has been a misunderstanding about the construction management plan. I've been advocating for a more thorough construction management plan. If that's been presented, that would be really good subject to discuss if we have a working session. And then a couple other kind of small issues, I think, and I both pointed out that some dimensions, I appreciated the introduction of the graphic scale on the drawings. It helps me review the drawings, but getting dimensional strings in the parking garage really helps anybody who's trying to understand how well parking works to really see the dimensions and not have to use a graphic scale for that purpose. That's my world. I don't want to go too deeply into Sean's issues. From my own read, some of the important missing materials are a detail sheet from the civil that show us how the sidewalks are constructed, wall sections, pavement sections. It's all in Sean's report that you've had at least one more day to review things from mine. I think in his own way, Sean is also looking for a choreography plan, vehicular access on the site and how that all works when you look at all the various day-to-day needs. But that's my quick report. I'm happy to answer questions. I think on the I think I did in this letter and certainly during the last hearing I attended. I am happy with the way the facades have evolved. I think the introduction of the roof deck is a really, really nice amenity. So I'm really pleased with the advancement we've seen and really making the building more coherent across its elevations. I do think there's more work on that North elevation of the South building and vice versa on the North building. But I'm very happy with that. But I do think some work needs to be put into assembling a final well-integrated, coordinated, not design development by any means, but still schematic level, coordinated set, so nobody's really uncertain of what's coming down the pike as this project moves ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the board for Mr. Bowmer? Go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: I think it's the north facade of building one south of us out of building to where you said. Back up of the 2nd floor. Could be recommended could you elaborate on that more because I don't think we spent a lot of time talking about
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: They're very tall and they're very unarticulated vertically. So that side of the building, the work that was done on the west elevations, which is a more visible world for sure, really helped kind of chop the building up into smaller digestible pieces, creating shadows and opportunities for material changes. lots of ways to create visual interest and break down the scale of the block. In that area between the two buildings, I'm a little concerned about a canyon effect. I think there is going to be a lot of activity in that part of the site. My recommendation was provide facade elements that really relate more to pedestrian, scale. I think there are many, I mean, many innumerable examples of how that gets done. But in my opinion, it's best done by some very strong horizontal articulation, probably at the top of the second floor level, but not totally sure of that. And that can be achieved either with a really strong banding effect that really brings your eye down and focuses on the facade below that line for a step back that creates a literal expansion of the space above that second floor.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry for interrupting. I'm just wondering if someone could share their screen so we could actually see it while you're talking through it.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I think that maybe the best thing to look at if you could look at the the perspective views that were provided in the latest package. If nobody else can do it, I can fumble through it, but Andrew may be the best equipped person.
[Mike Caldera]: I see Mr. Alexander raised his hand. Is that something you're, do you want to make a comment or are you planning on sharing it?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I was just going to volunteer because I just pulled the clips off.
[Mike Caldera]: Please, thank you.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Thanks, Andre. It's kind of hard to understand verbally. Some of this work has already been done. For example, on the Mystic Valley Parkway side, I think it's been done very well. And actually here, if you look at the northern building, there's a very strong band that cuts across horizontally that really brings the scale down to pedestrian level. My argument was to accentuate that in exactly, thank you, Andrew, in that area because those faces are sheer compared to the Western elevations. I think it's normal that we work our way around the building, ultimately trying to get a kind of coherent structure. And I think a lot of work, as I pointed out before, on the South elevation of the South building was really well thought out. And that same thinking was carried around on both of the Western elevations. So I was just encouraging the developer to look a little more closely at that space between the two buildings.
[Mike Caldera]: Andrea, did you have other.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I guess just kind of a follow up question on this. So. Well, or either, you know, reaction from the proponent about those comments. But I'm just wondering in terms of the banding and step back that you're talking about, are you suggesting actually like stepping back above the second floor or are you talking about like visual, some kind of a visual effect?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I think either one could work actually. It would be probably a an extension, the banding wouldn't be one-dimensional, it would be two-dimensional or three-dimensional banding to create a shadow line. Again, just a visual reference at a lower level. It is where you experience the height of the building, I think most intensely is in that area. It's not public realm, so it doesn't have quite the scale of importance as the walk along commercial street does. But the setback on commercial, and I think the work that's been done on those elevations has mitigated the scale of the building, I think, sufficiently.
[Andre Leroux]: And where the building kind of meets the public realm in terms of like the plantings, the landscaping, the amount of the width of the planting. I know we talked a lot about kind of the pickup drop-off and that, the transportation aspect of it. But I guess, are there issues around the landscaping that you'd highlight still that need to be worked on further?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: There are. One that I brought up before was at least my reading of the landscape plan is not showing the kind of landscaping that we see in those perspective drawings. The landscape plan, I believe, designates most of the area along the west side of the buildings as sod with trees. There are trees, street trees. In my opinion, that's probably not the best choice. I think I like the idea that's expressed in the renderings. We just need to see consistency across the drawing or commitment to what they're really thinking. So I suggest something a little more lush that could actually provide some screening at those first floor level units.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm wondering just to help mitigate the canyon effect in between the two buildings, whether there's different kinds of plantings that might be useful. I'm thinking, I don't know, clusters of evergreens or certain kinds of.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, it's an interesting point because, well, I'm not the designer of the project, but I can't help but think of where there might be potential area for solving some of the pickup drop-off move-in issues. I'm not sure what happens in that zone if a lot of that turns into more service area. There is some landscaping shown on the eastern end where the road narrows, there are bump outs on that intervening road where we do see landscaping. But yes, that could help, but it is a tight space. To me, that's going back to where probably the most important design related issues are tying together all of those site needs. I think we have a lot of work to be done across both ranging from pedestrian issues to screening of units to providing sufficient service area at street level. And it's just in my opinion and I think in Sean's opinion, we're not there yet. So I'm hoping to see
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, Mr. Chair, if I might, I have a few thoughts and responses, and then I'll lean on Andrew Stebbins from TAT, the project architect, and Rob Adams from Halverson, the landscape architect. Let's see if I can remember him in order. But just first and foremost, the idea of the, I think maybe the word articulation of the building facades where the two buildings are in the central drive area. As we pulled it up, maybe I'll pull it back up just so we can look at it again. So, this view shows I think what, partly what Mr. Bomer was getting at, which is that differentiation of materiality, but I think, you know, additional, the word sill keeps popping into my mind, where you've got some, relief and some, you know, that setback or that articulation that Mr. Bomer is talking about is something that we can look at as a design team and see if we can add to that to give those two facades a bit more articulation. Andrew, do you agree with that? Or it may be an issue also of just the rendering not quite showing or giving visual credit to what's already there. What would you say?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Uh, this moment, uh, can you hear me?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Oh, great. Sorry about that. I lost my zoom window for a second. Yeah, I, I agree. Um, you know, I think initially we were counting on the materiality, the strong, um, you know, the, the sense of having the, the masonry at the, um, at the pedestrian level. And I agree with, uh, with Cliff's, um, you know, assertion that, you know, that two-story level and having that break is a good, you know, it's a good date in line to carry around. So you can see that's what we did. As we came around to commercial, we sort of changed that to three just because you're getting longer views of these facades. And generally, that's what I'd say about, you know, the design of the facade in general. Experientially, the pedestrians is really going to be seeing this on the oblique. We think the projected balconies will provide that interest of things popping and protruding and have an interesting perspectival view as you're at the ground plane. Whereas the facades along commercial and along Mystic Valley Parkway, you get a lot more longer views. I think the experience is not necessarily right up against the building. Having a more robust articulation that he has suggested and we've provided is far more impactful on those facades. We did start layering in some transitions between the masonry and the area above. It's not showing very well here. You can see it a little better. On a commercial street, we have this banding between the horizontal siding and the brick. I don't know if that made its way to that facade in between the buildings, but we can make sure it does and then rerun the renderings with it. It could help to have more of a dimensional aspect to it so that there is a three-dimensional component to the break as well. But we don't feel like you're not going to experience the space between the building the same as you are around the rest of the more public and longer use spaces.
[Andre Leroux]: Mr. Stebbins, if I could just interject for a moment. I'm sorry if this is very basic and I didn't know this, but are the two buildings the same number of floors? Correct, yes. Okay, because I'm only seeing seven on the north one here in this rendering.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so what happens, so the areas that are amenity spaces, they actually take up two levels. So that area that Tim's pointing to now is actually, it's actually a combination of two levels. And we do that, we do that so that there's a greater ceiling height. So the building on the right, As we've shown in detail, there's units along the front there. And so those are single height spaces, no more like nine foot ceilings in the units where the image to the left is really two story. And if you look at the plans, you'll see some areas that say open to below. And those are generally around the, I'm not sure if you can see that. Yes, there you go. Those are the areas that are over the amenity spaces. You can see them there. Thank you very much. That's why it appears to be 7 stories on one and 8 on the other.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: commercial street landscaping buffer is a great point and a coordination item that we can pick up. Clearly, our intent here is not just to have the street trees, but to have the sort of generous buffered landscape that we showed at the previous hearing. So, you know, the idea is to have obviously not just the generous I'm not sure if you can hear me. I'm trying to get the street trees in terms of height but then the lower level items to be planted and not just sod as well. Rob, you can back me up. I know that's our intent and we can pick up that level of detail in the next set. Rob, I can't hear you.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: That was a miss on our part. We fully intend to carry that same typology from the left building onto the right building. And then, I don't know if I can share my screen real quick, if that's possible.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, I'll stop. I can bring up our materials plan that we submitted. Can you see my screen? Yes, we can.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Great. So another of Cliff's points, probably just, I'll say an oversight on Cliff's part, we can both say we missed something. We do have all the trees called out by species and variety, and they're on the tree schedule listed below. I did reach out to the tree warden via email, didn't hear back, but did a little bit of research on some of Some recent projects I think tree Medford as well. Some of the trees that have been planted and so the ones that we've listed are all native and or highly adaptable species ones that have been proven over our course of urban. um tree shade tree installation and so I think you'll find the information you're looking for on the plans. I will say from a planting plan quote-unquote planting plan point of view at this level we typically don't provide a full detailed planting plan because that's really getting into the weeds and I don't know that anybody has the budget right now to start laying out a full planting plan. What we typically do is provide a representative planting legend that talks about the types of plants, the scale, the diversity, but primarily that they're all native or highly adaptable species. We do this a thousand times. This is something we're very good at and the plant quality and the plant material will always, on our projects, be front and center. And so it's something we pay a lot of attention to.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So... Rob, Rob, sorry to interrupt. Maybe you've already got this, but I think what might be helpful is to at least, you know, so if we're not going to, you know, delineate every last plant item, if we can just show the areas that are going to be sod versus the areas that are going to be planted. Yeah, we currently... I just missed it in the...
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: No, we currently have that there's a hatch that represents what's planted beds and there's a hatch that represents what's lawn. Our intent then is to create, as we move this project through construction documents, fill in those beds with more robust planting plans, obviously. And again, the plant list is annotated, the tree list is annotated on this plan. I can't remember Cliff, if you had any other comments, I apologize.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, actually, if you can zoom in on the area between the two buildings, I wanted to address the other comment about planting and in this area. And I think Mr. Bomer was responding, it was kind of took the words out of my mouth. So the one of the big things that was pointed out both in the Tetra Tech Peer review letter, and then was echoed in the Davis square peer peer review letter is the question of adequacy of this short term loading and unloading area. As designed, it's thank you. It's it's 8 feet wide by 50 feet long and our intent there was to be adequate for the daily shuttle bus. It's going to be there for a few minutes at a time. Pick up drop off obviously adequacy for. the daily, you know, whether it's Uber Eats or Uber itself on rideshare, and then obviously in the extreme instances of a large moving truck, which we feel are going to be and far between, that's an area that can handle those as well. Totally understand the comment about, you know, potentially making this longer or larger, and we're happy to look at that. I just would point out that the reason we designed it as is is because we were trying to toe the line and find the balance between, you know, creating enough space for that short-term loading and unloading, but also maintaining as much buffer, landscape, green, I think that's something that's a great thing for us to talk about at a working session with Tetra Tech and Davis Square as we get that schedule hopefully very soon.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: space on the western side of the north courtyard. I think that's in front of the shared space of a community space on that third level. I was thinking that might be, because it is a community room, it might be better to expand the play area and have it connect more directly with the amenity space.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I agree. That's a good point. And that's simply an issue of coordination of us reconciling the updated architectural plans.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So yeah, 100% agree. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre, did that cover your questions? Or were there other questions you have?
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. Yeah, I think Andre you'd mentioned the plant material and the corridor right our, our objective would be a series of large shade trees, some understory flowering ornamental trees in that area to really start to bring a series of layers of scale down, and then intermix some larger. Evergreen shrubs, viburnums, et cetera, that have quite a bit of wildlife, high wildlife value, which is another objective typically of our planting plans in these urban conditions. So yeah, I agree about finding a good amount of scale and using clusters of trees to help bring the scale down to the pedestrian level.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So good point, one we often try to employ as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have any other questions from the board either for Mr. Bowmer or the applicant pertaining to this letter? It looks like Dennis, you have something to say. Go ahead, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hi, this is just to talk about the plantings that we were discussing earlier. This project, and what we sort of said before, this will be going before the ComCom as well, and usually that's a lot of times when Plantings and whatnot will be discussed a little more depth and. You know, having stepped come come for as long as I have, I know that that is a large concern of theirs using, you know. Native and proper plantings and whatnot and things like that that are appropriate for the area. So. It's only the northern part of the property is part of their jurisdiction, but. You know, if they make suggestions about plantings to put up there, I would assume that. They would be followed through throughout the property as well.
[Mike Caldera]: actually to that point and it's just one thing I wanted to double check so I know that it. Part of why it goes before the conservation Commission is this the state law. But I wasn't sure if if that changes sort of the scope of what the compound would review you happen to know.
[Denis MacDougall]: Now it what basically it does is that like if we had a wetland ordinance you know we have a wetland ordinance in the city and if we had anything that if If we had any anything city related that we have doesn't apply, but the state protection act still apply. So it would be a very. Straightforward filing without a. So, it wouldn't be that honestly that different than. Our normal filing, to be honest, it just, we wouldn't use the wetland ordinance that we have because 1 of the things there's a few things in there, but it doesn't affect. You know, there's certain things in there about, you know, jurisdictional things and things like that. But in this case, given the wetland and where it is that it would still be under the state, it's still jurisdictional. So it would still fall under their jurisdiction for that. I mean, it is limited to, you know, basically it's 100 feet from, you know, the edge of the wetland. So it's a fairly limited portion, but it still is part of the property. So they would have some say in that aspect of the project.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Sorry, I had time to think of 1 more thing. Yeah. I'm wondering if we could just walk through a little bit what the. The lighting might be like around the building, particularly on the North side where it abuts the. Out of the, I guess, wilderness area. And just whether there's any. You know are there any entrances to the building on that side is there like a safety call box and what is that going to look like.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: If you're OK I can share the metric plan. So again, I'll say, similar but not the same as as planting plans. Typically at this level we provide a photometric that starts to identify height of fixtures, lumens, wattage, but we don't get into the actual character per se. necessarily of the fixture. That's all work to be done later on. But to answer your question, what we've provided is a series of pedestrian-scale bollards along this northern pathway to provide, as often quoted in saying, is enough light to make it feel safe. but not so much light that it invites unwanted behavior. And so it'll be illuminated and safe, but it won't be so bright that you'll find people playing whatever hopscotch at two in the morning, whatever that might be. And so a series of Bollard fixtures along this edge. And then once we move into the drive aisle, obviously we get into more full mounted fixtures, but again, keeping the pole heights relatively low. And then as you get closer to the building entry, some wall mounted building pack, some wall mounted fixtures, sconces, as well as one or two overhead lights as well. And then up at the corner, some pedestrian scale fixtures with some accent lighting. along the benches and areas of lighting along the entry path. But there's no primary entrance onto the rear of the building. There's an emergency egress along this section, but we place a lead bollard directly adjacent to that. So that answers your questions.
[Andre Leroux]: That helps, although it does make me raise the question of whether there should be a call box there somewhere or some kind of public safety feature. There's not, along with those bollards, please remind me, is there like a retaining wall there or a difference in height or is that kind of ground level that bleeds into the north?
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: It'll be a grand level. There is a retaining wall along the north east along the sorry along this edge of the property that's relatively low just to make up some grades and as noted in the peer review to prevent sheeting of stormwater onto the adjacent properties will clean up all that information for the peer review comments, but it is for the most part. to the north side of the property. It's not a flat condition between ourselves and the adjacent property and then flat between us and the finished floor. It's only this upper corner where we start to have 10 to 20 or 30 inches of grade change along that edge.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: facade of the northern building. So the area we're just talking about was omitted from the latest plan set, but we'll make sure it's included in the next set. The design, I think, I'm not sure if we have a perspective of it, but the intent certainly is to carry forward, you know, obviously the same general design elements that we see in the other facades.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: And to Cliff's point, and I think the other peer review comment on the landscape plan will obviously translate these ballot locations so that we'll reference this drawing for the fixture type, etc. But we'll just know their locations on our landscape plan. So it's a it's a very good point.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: And just to reiterate, Tim said, yeah, we we will provide that north elevation, I think. We had the north elevation of the southern building a little more. More ready made just because it was showing up in the.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In the. Okay, thanks.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just want to flag that because I would really like to see that. You know, that elevation and, you know, it's such a different side of the building since it's facing. of open land or woodlands that, you know, what is that going to look like? How are you going to deal with those particular set of issues?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Absolutely. Yeah, interestingly, you know, that's one facade that has sort of the most articulation already as part of it. So we'll make sure that gets included.
[Andre Leroux]: I would just consider the call box. I don't know how often people are going to be walking around that building there or how safe or unsafe it's going to feel.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I absolutely appreciate the comment and idea.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I had an additional question. I think you're saying that I didn't look quickly enough in the lighting. plan, but I don't think you're proposing any lighting along commercial. You're relying on the existing fixtures across the street. I'm just bringing it up because they are pretty broadly spaced. I don't know the quality of that light or
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: I'm a little bit over my skis, but I know that he has started the conversation with the town. Around lighting standards and figuring out, you know, the process and so agreed that. It's been our understanding that those. That lighting will occur as part of the overall street lighting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, do we have other questions from members of the board about this letter?
[Mike Caldera]: So, okay, I'm not seeing any, so I had a few. So the first one is for Mr. Bomer. So you, and Mr. Reardon as well still have some concerns about constructability. And I know that the applicant did give a presentation at one of our meetings. I don't recall who was in attendance. Were they essentially described the phases of construction. I don't know if it was a full-fledged construction management plan, but just wanted to check in with you. Is that concern something you think that would also be addressable in a work session, or is that something that you think we should be discussing here?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, you know, I don't know the nature of the presentation, but yes, I think that was one of Sean. And Sean in particular is just concerned about it. So I, it certainly should be discussed at the working session if there's been any preliminary plan generally prepared by a general contractor or whomever, That would be useful. I think that's what we're used to seeing is a very preliminary facing plan or protection during construction plan. I think we could certainly make it very clear in the setting of a working session what we think would be the most valuable exhibit to include in the application materials.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. One thing I will just share as a reminder, so in, I think it was maybe our second session of this hearing, Commissioner Forty had shared some details on a letter he wrote, which had some recommendations in terms of the method of construction to prevent fires. And so I just want to make sure that this is something that is also discussed as part of any work session, because I don't believe there was a official indication one way or the other from the applicant at that time about whether the intention was to adopt that methodology. Commissioner Ford, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if Mr. Alexander updated you, but we actually are on site today to a very similar project in the same level of magnitude of construction, almost identical construction type, you know, type type 3 over type 1a construction and Mr. Alexander and his team were able to get a close-up look as to what I'm trying to you know advocate for and I think that we had a very clear and concise you know visit today and you know seeing it up I think seeing it up close I think Tim will attest that it's not as difficult as it seems and what we're trying to do right now is exactly what I'm trying to do is work out some of these construction details off public meeting it so that we can both agree that moving forward that we can write these things into the order. The other hurdle or obstacle that we'll be discussing in the near future I think is going to be phased occupancy, which again is a grave safety concern if the fire and life safety systems are not activated in both buildings. So, you know, we're slowly working through those details. I'm very confident that we're going to come up with something that agrees with both parties. And I believe that most of my concerns here about fire and life safety are going to be satisfied, I think. And I believe that we're going to have, you know, a good solution for that. So just wanted to give you an update on our discussions and our interactions. And Tim, if you would agree with that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I would yeah, thank you Mister 40 and I hadn't had a chance to provide the update so thank you for that. I just to for the board's benefit and others. The first item in the reason we had the site visit today was was again just the idea of I think we're calling it early right early sprinkler installation during construction. And so it's very helpful to see the project in Waltham that's in construction right now. To me, you know, I really appreciated the sort of proactive coordination on Mr. Fordy's part. And we were able to get some good info today. Our team has continued to sort of study and try to get up to speed, quite frankly, on this subject. The temporary or early sprinkler is is a fairly new, you know, technique and design. Certainly understand the benefits of it and why it's clearly going up in WALFAM. And so our team is just getting as smart as we can on both the design of it, which I think we have a really good handle on now after today, and then secondly, certainly the cost that's associated with it. So it starts to get, as Mr. Forty said, it starts to get, a little clearer in our minds, and we hope to have a resolution or suggestion or proposal here over the next couple of weeks.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. Thanks for that update. And then, so the other theme, it's actually like a few related questions, but I think I'll just ask them all together. In Mr. Boehmer's updated letter, there's a mention of how essentially a decision has not yet been made on whether this will be an all-electric building or whether there will be natural gas. And then related to that, there's the potential solar panel locations on the the current plans, but we haven't gotten an official word from the applicant to my recollection about whether the intention is to actually do The solar study that is required by ordinance when we last talked about it, I think I would probably characterize the reaction as applicant was amenable to looking into it. But in the original waiver list, which we haven't yet. I would like to have an understanding as a board when we're reviewing essentially the converged plans, anything that pops out of a working session, you know, is this a building that is all electric? Is it natural gas? Is it going to you know, future retrofit of the building at a later date. And so, yeah, I just wanted to check in. I guess this I'll really direct to the applicant. Is that something that you think after having this working session and, you know, based on the discussions that have already happened, that you'd be able to provide some clarity to the board on at our next meeting?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah sure, thanks Mr. Chair. So a couple questions there. One on solar and viability. You're right, so in the last plan set that was provided on the 24th, I think it was the 24th of March, we do show that roof plan with potential solar area and we're running that through now with a couple different solar consultants, right? to have a plan to have, you know, a conclusion or an idea on that, either for the next hearing or certainly for our next submission of plan sets. The first one you brought up, is an interesting one. So the idea of when we're talking about heat and hot water for each individual apartment home, you know, historically, both I think in Medford and many other communities in greater Boston, natural gas had been used and was efficient and was cost effective, both to construct and to operate. We know the world's changing in that realm. We've been studying it really, all sorts of different ways not only because of changes in technology but obviously changes in code as well and so there's a new there's a new code both energy and building code that's being that's sort of in a phase of adoption right now and so the combination of that and the fact that our project this project will go through a MEPA review that we're sort of planning for and starting to work on. Both of those have really caused us to look very closely at the question of electric versus gas. I can't sit here today and say we have a chosen direction or path. All I can say is things are changing and we're looking at it very closely. I think probably the thing to lean on is the fact that you know through me but in code this is going to get sorted out. Over the next. You know a few months probably at the most. Does that help.
[Mike Caldera]: It does thank you. I see commissioner 40 has his hand raised is going to go.
[Bill Forte]: Yes Mr. Chair, point of interest, I think that Director Hunt will also probably weigh in on this but we are in the process of looking at a specialized stretch energy code adopted here in the city. I don't know if it will be adopted or if it will be delayed before this actually gets permitted and so I don't believe that there's any waivers that can be thought from a specialized stretch energy code because I don't think that the statutory requirements would allow it. So because it is an adoption through the state and it's an incentive. So just one thing I would just advise the applicant to look at is the possibility of the specialized stretch energy code getting passed in Medford. I would say it's likely, I know that the city council has asked Director Hunt to come up with some draft language. So just something you may want to consider. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So I see Mr. Bowmer has his hand raised, but before I call on him, I just want to check Director Hunt, was there anything you wanted to add to what Commissioner Fordy said?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just say that Commissioner 40 got every single detail there. They've asked for language to approve it before we suggested bringing it to them. So just to give you an idea of the council's position on it. I don't know when they'll pass it, but it could be before this finishes.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. And Mr. Boehmer, would you like to add anything?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, I was going to say that the building commissioner took the words out of my mouth. Then I brought that up in my report that the opted code, if that's adopted, it's a real game changer on building design. And just to put a fine point on what I said about solar, because it is possible to beat even the opt-in or the specialized opt-in. code without solar panels. It's possible. But the current building code does require that the roof structure be sufficient for supporting solar panels. And what I would recommend, because solar, the affordability for the developer of the panel installations, that kind of changes regularly. The funding sources come and go. So my recommendation was whatever happens, that the building be truly solar ready. And so that means structurally, but it also means conduits in place so that you can make connections from the panel arrays down into the electrical rooms.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So then moving on to my third and last kind of floor question regarding this letter. So I think I'm gonna go first to the applicant and then Mr. Bomer, if there's anything you wanna add. So there's mention, you basically in the letter echoed, I think the engineering, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Alexander to speak to some of the peer review concerns surrounding stormwater. Mr. Alexander, you mentioned that there were some discussions that occurred today or recently with city staff that you wanted to update us on. Could you please just speak to that?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Donato who's not here tonight but our civil engineer and I met with the city engineer and the director of public works a week ago today for a couple reasons. One was to talk specifically about stormwater design, make sure that both the design and the plans and to make sure that it met the city regulations and requirements. And so I think we got, that was a great meeting, a good session, good coordination. We got a couple ideas that came out of that in order to make sure that stormwater design as currently drawn meets the sort of, it's not only the plan on a page, but there are a lot of calculations that go into it as well. So that was helpful to us and will be reflected in our next updated plan set. The other piece related to stormwater, and I know maybe Mr. Bowmer knows this as well, but the two civil engineers, Tetra Tech and our project civil engineer, discussed late last week the idea of, and it shows up in the peer review letter, the idea of testing on site to get the seasonal high groundwater level, because that's a part of making sure that the that work with groundwater on the site. And so that's in process on our end as well. It requires a day or two's worth of work on site to basically dig and understand where groundwater is. So that was another good piece that came out of that meeting. A third item, which is related, not specific to stormwater, but is in the peer review letter, was the idea, the concept of the I&I inflow and infiltration requirements. And that's been actually We have a program that is ongoing in the background for a couple of months now between our team and the city engineer. There is a whole program about mitigating the inflow and proposed scope of some off-site work that we as the applicant team would perform during construction in order to meet that I&I requirement. And so that was something we discussed a little bit more detail last week as well. I think we're awaiting a little bit more in terms of specifics on scope so we can make sure we understand what it is, what the cost would be, and then we can try to nail that down with the city engineer as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And so I understand, Mr. Bowmer, that we don't have all those details figured out, but based on what you're hearing in this update, if those discussions and calculations continue to progress, does that address your high-level concern, or do you still have general concerns in this domain?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, it does. I think that I'm happy to hear that. I assume you're doing test pits then, too. Correct, yeah. Yeah, I think Sean's concern and my concern was really that that information wasn't available. So it connects across to the overall tightness of the site. If you can't get sufficient perc rate, it could be that you'd have to expand the field. And if the site's all used up by buildings or is otherwise spoken for, it could be difficult. This is critical information. I think that's really good that you're doing it, you're proceeding with that. The other points again, I think if we do do this working session, it'd be great to get Sean totally up to speed on that. One last lingering comment, I appreciate what I heard today from the commissioner about OSBT- Dave Kuntz, OSBT- Curt Brown, OSBT- Dave Kuntz, OSBT- John Gerstle the horrible fire that happened with buildings that were under construction there, it might have been connected to that. But I'm hoping to hear more about the notion of phasing the occupancy of the buildings as well. I think all this is information that I haven't heard and I know would be useful for Sean to hear. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think what you're looking for is is the 241 plan from the, yeah, okay. It's a code requirement and the commissioner is correct in requesting that to have a thorough plan in place for particularly important for large scale projects during the construction period.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Um, and then yeah, so those were my core questions between the architecture peer review and the engineering peer review. There were a few things that stood out to me that I think I'll address together towards the end rather than bring them up now. But I think my core questions are answered. So are there other questions from the board about the architecture peer review letter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm seeing some head shakes now.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So, Mr. Alexander, was there anything else you wanted to say before we move on to engineering?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I did have a couple of other things that were touched on, but maybe I can provide a little more complete update. One was, I appreciate the conversation about the construction management plan. Yeah, and I, I think it was the the first hearing in March where I presented it, but it wasn't included in the updated plan set. So I think that's something that you know obviously we can look at or we can include and we can look at expanding upon as well and we'll talk about that with Mister Palmer Mister Reardon in our working session. The other thing much more specific was bike parking. and I know that was the topic of discussion at the last hearing. We do have a revised plan and strategy for bike parking that I'm happy to walk through briefly now, if that works.
[Mike Caldera]: Please go ahead. Yeah, that was actually one of the things I was holding. So if you want an update, go for it.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure. Thank you. This is a great exhibit that Andrew and the TAT team put together and just a little bit of background. We talked about the area where we have potential for bike rooms in the parking garage, both on the first level and the second level. In our meeting two weeks ago, we had shown bike storage on the first level only. And after that meeting, we did, we did some research on a couple of different fronts. 1 is to understand the bike parking storage and utilization, both at our Moderna Medford project on cabin road, which was designed probably 2014, 2015, and has been operating since 2018. And we also, I had recently been to the Windsor-Mystic River community on Locust Street, which is the most recently built project and community in Medford. And both are helpful in size, right? Moderna-Medford is just under 300 homes. The Windsor-Mystic River is exactly 350 homes, so exact unit count as our proposal. And what we found there was a bike room of about 70 spaces in Modera-Metford, so a little bit older, not as many spaces in one large room, and it was full. And what we also then found in Hanover, or what was Hanover, now Windsor-Mystic River, had two bike rooms in different areas of the garage. and there was approximately, Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong, it was approximately 130 storage, you know, actual bike racks that are a mixture of, you know, on the ground, stacked, vertical, elongate, you know, spaces for tandem bikes, et cetera. And so we have revised our plan to Not only include bike storage on the 1st level, but also on the 2nd level of the garage in the same location, right? So, in these little interior corners of the garage, and then have further detailed the design around the types of racks that are in each room. These are, as you can see, two-tiered racks here. There are vertical wall racks. There are some U standard spaces that work for, you know, either an e-bike or another bike that, you know, might not be able to get into a two-tier rack like this. So, long story short, expanded bike parking got a little bit more detail on it. We're now at 132, parking or you know racked spaces for bikes and I should have said one other thing about the Windsor project as I visited that two or three weeks ago very thoughtful in terms of bike parking and amenitization but also in in their area of about 130 spaces it was I would say well used but not full so it gave me comfort this updated proposal. So we can get this to Mr. Bowmer as well and others if needed, but I wanted to make sure that we previewed it here tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I see Director Hunt has her hand raised, so please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thanks. I just wanted to comment that that background research that you did is actually quite valuable to us, and if you wouldn't mind sending just sort of what you found in those two locations along to us, that would save us from having to replicate your efforts. we'd really appreciate it. And if you didn't mind attaching this just separately to me so that I'd have it for my staff, just because this is the kind of thing that comes up a lot is really, what is the utilization? What should we be thinking about all over the city? I'd just appreciate it.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, absolutely, I'd be happy to share it. It was a good exercise for us and I'm glad it can be useful.
[Yvette Velez]: Can I just have a question? about that Windsor space you were saying that they didn't use all 130, but how big was the Windsor?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So the Windsor is 350 homes as well. So same count of apartment homes. And so that was why we felt like it was a good precedent and the most recent.
[Yvette Velez]: And where is that exactly?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So it's the community on Locust Street directly across from the Wegmans, you know, Meadow Glen.
[Yvette Velez]: Thank you for that reminder.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, sure. Director Hunt, was there something else?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I just thought it's potential. I like that you're making it in separate rooms because one could speculate that people might be less comfortable putting their bikes into a room with 150 other people putting their bikes in there. It feels very anonymous, even though you're locking it up. And even though, you know, it's, maybe everybody in the building has access to all of these bike rooms you're making, you would assume that people will, this 30 group, these people use this one and those people use that one, and people may actually feel more secure using a space that has fewer people coming and going from it all the time. It's less anonymous. The bikers will tend to know who else is there and whose bikes they are. Because I noticed that you said that the Madera building had multiple smaller rooms that were very well used. And I wondered if that had to do with it, plus, because they're all very proximate to the river, frankly.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: That's right. Yeah. So our Cabot Road community has just one room, one larger room. I do agree with you, though, Director Hunt, the smaller rooms, it also allows for, you know, less potential for mismanagement, right, or just things getting stacked up in in odd ways. So it allows it to stay a little bit neater, easier to use. And so, yeah, well, we can we can pass along our what we learned about about those two projects.
[Yvette Velez]: And just a question about the bike storage and whatnot. Do you all actually go into detail in regards to like monitoring, you know, with management, sort of a, you know, who has the bikes and who wants space. I live in a large building, and that's very much an issue. You know, bikes could get left behind. There has to be a cleanup. Then there's spaces that aren't being utilized. I myself have a bike and a balcony. Like, it's, bikes are growing in number, and it's a struggle for the community. And I live in an older building, so I recognize that. But in a newer building, is that something that folks take on in the management process? And is that something that you'd be able to add to your plan of operations?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure. I can, I won't, I won't, I can't speak as an expert, but I certainly know that it is, it isn't like many other areas of sort of the day to day management of these communities. It's an area where there's. There's oversight by our on-site staff. I wouldn't call it constant or daily, but yes, I mean, I think we've probably all seen or been in a bike room where it's clear that there's a bike that's been abandoned from somebody who doesn't live in the community anymore. And so that would, you know, there's probably a periodic review of what's in there and making sure that it's, you know, the only, you know, appropriate usage. It's not something that, in my experience, has been, you know, sort of, you know, sort of codified, if you will, or put into a manual or standard practice. But I think it falls into the category of that active on-site management that we've got in our communities.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So do we have any other questions from the board surrounding the update on bike parking?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well, I'll just ask mine then. So first of all, I'm encouraged by the increase, so thank you for your responsiveness. I'm not yet fully wrapping my head around all of the consideration that have gone into the locations and the sizing of these. And so I'm just going to sort of blurt out what makes sense to me and then hopefully you could kind of clarify for me some of the other factors you have to consider, you know, that sort of inform this particular choice. So first of all, in terms of the location, my gut reaction to having the bike parking on the second floor relative to say having the same amount of space and storage but all on the the first floor is that the logistics and maybe even the safety of getting your bike outside would potentially change there. It's not clear to me how someone who's storing their bike on the second floor would be expected to get out. Are they carrying their bike down a stair? Are they taking elevator? Are they using the ramp? And whatever the answer is, in the alternate world where we just say put that same amount of parking just adjacent to the first floor, wouldn't that be logistically easier? You just hop in the elevator, go to the first floor, go to the bike room, grab your bike, go on your merry way. So wanted to check in on that first.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I can try and Andrew, you can please jump in. So the to your question about the 2nd level. So this shows the 2nd level proposed bike storage. They have a couple ways and you. You hit on them, Mr. chair, which is 1 and probably the simplest way is like room to elevator and then down and out. there's certainly the option to take the ramp within the garage. We wouldn't consider that a safety issue or concern, but I can understand why it's easier, certainly on the first level, if you're there. The one thing I would say, so as you can see, the way these parking, and this is really Andrew's realm, but the way these parking, any parking garage that's a rectangle that's laid out, there's obviously and whatnot, you know, so we're trying to preserve the number of parking spaces while getting good utilization out of the parking garage itself. So if we were to, you know, if we were to look to expand the parking, the bike parking rooms on the first level of garage, the downside of that would be the elimination of parking spaces.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Andrew, do you agree with that? that is uh everything i was going to say yes yeah and i'd actually we've been working together too long and i'd add those extra notes about um you know building entry garage entry the elevators and the ramp also the ramp um percentage because uh we either did take a peek at some other um you know bicycle guide storage guidelines and that was one from another i can't remember which municipality but it was indicating that ramps are a viable option as long as they're kept under 5%. They're easily traversable by somebody who is may not be biking on the flat all day, so.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, and I believe the concept of the bike storage on multiple levels was part of our traffic consultant's review as well, and something that he deemed, you know, usable and appropriate. So that's kind of how we ended up where we are. Always, you know, to wrap it up, always keeping an eye on trying to maintain or maximize it's a delicate balance.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: And your point as well is exactly correct. We're trying to utilize the spaces that are not taking up parking spaces. And you can see in this exhibit, if that bike and motor extend to the left, you know, we'd just be putting the accessible parking spaces farther from the entrance and next to the elevator. So it's another sort of consideration that we have when we're kind of laying out You know the parking relation to to the entries.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you that that explanation is helpful. And yeah, I think that makes sense to me at a high level. You did touch on an element that that's related to my second. kind of question, which is, so I completely understand and appreciate that since the corners would otherwise be dead space, this is priority space to use for other needed functions in the building, and thus it's a natural location for bike storage. When I think about the potential impact of guessing wrong on the low side. So essentially, you gave an example from a building that was designed a while back when maybe the patterns were different. It turns out that well within the useful life of the building, it's a problem. And so, in general, like as a design principle, I'm certainly supportive of the notion of, within reason, designing for the future usage, not just the expected present usage. And this is an area where there are traffic studies underway, you know, there's still a lot of uncertainty about exactly what the low-level details of the plan for this area will be, but I think anyone in the know who's been following the progress here and who's looked at the comprehensive plan and has even looked at what's happening elsewhere in the city to improve bike connectivity. There was even a meeting last night about connecting certain parts elsewhere in the city by the addition of a bike lane, bikeability is going to be increasing. There seems to be a shift in terms of commuter preferences where biking is becoming more prominent. This is an area where with the appropriate bike connectivity, you could get to a lot of really useful central hubs in a city. I think as a general principle, we should certainly be considering what that usage might look like in the medium term. given all the changes that are expected in this area, and also weighing that against the cost of guessing wrong, too low, versus the cost of guessing wrong, too high. A naive reading of these plans, to me, it seems like it would cost parking spaces within the rounding error. Like, I don't even know if, on paper, your ratio would change with the amount of spaces that would be need to be sacrificed to say double this parking, which I think would be bordering on the Cambridge standard. So I'm not asking you to double the parking, but I just want to call out and also just get a like in any perspective or insights, that there might be an opportunity here to, if anything, err on the high side, just to account for the expected growth in bike usage and, again, the cost to residents of you know, making best efforts, but guessing wrong on the low side. And now all of a sudden my only option is bike on my balcony or something like that. So, uh, yeah, if you, if you have any thoughts or, or, um, you know, comments on that, I'd certainly love to hear them.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, I appreciate that. It's a really good point. And it's something, so when you started talking about, when you were talking about that, I started thinking about how obviously biking habits have changed, maybe even partly due to COVID. It's very location specific, right, in terms of what the biking demands are in each community. When you were talking about that, I started thinking about, The folks who live in a multifamily community or have visited know and, well, and even if not, understand how package delivery has exploded, right? We all know that. And so what we've quite frankly had to do is because of package delivery, you know, growing exponentially over the past few years, our communities that have been in place, we have to adapt. At Cabot Road, for instance, we had a package locker system that now is supplemented by a package room that was converted from other space. I just bring that up to say that while these plans are static from the outset, these are buildings that in some cases and in some ways have to live and evolve, which is something that we would think about the bike parking and bike storage. Two other thoughts that came to mind. One is, you know, should bike usage, and hopefully it does, continue to expand over time, and that most likely wouldn't be overnight, that likely would come in conjunction with, and we're already seeing this in a lot of areas, a reduction in So that could be a sort of a symbiotic relationship where if we're seeing more bikes, but fewer cars, then we are more comfortable swapping out parking space for bike storage. As I said here today, I'm not sure that's needed, but I think it's an interesting thing to think about. The last thought I had, which is even probably a little simpler is, I'm not sure if I'm still sharing. If we look at these bike rooms, I think we took certainly what we saw at the Windsor-Mystic River, but I remember Director Hunt talking about how city staff has a mix and a desire for types of racks. So, you can see these rooms as currently laid out are by no means sort of maximizing the number of bikes that they can store. It's a, it's a mix of vertical, horizontal. You know, 1, 1 tier 2 tier and so, You know, all needing to be thought through, and I can't sit here today and say I've got all the answers, but I think we've got a few ways to potentially, you know, grow and flex if we need to.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I see Mr. Bomer has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I think you're saying a lot of what I was thinking. I think building in that kind of ability to adapt as, The transportation demand. A small recommendation is that. And, you know, the logistics are not my realm of expertise, but the board could consider approving. a range of parking spaces that would allow, without having to change the decision, that could allow cutting back on the number of car parking in order to increase the bike parking spaces. And one other small point, and I don't expect Tim to solve this problem, this is probably more back in the realm of the building commissioner and the building code, There have been a number of recent fires associated with electric bikes, and specifically in the charging process of electric bikes. There have been fires. There was one two days ago in Queens that killed a couple of kids. And there was a big fire in midtown Manhattan a couple months ago from people charging their bikes in their units, which is really extremely dangerous. My only point is certainly I'm advising all of my clients when they include bike rooms with chargers in them that they really provide really a two-hour fire rating minimum of those rooms. A small suggestion, but it's a problem that is going to have to be solved obviously with cars as well, how to deal with the intense fires. from those vehicles.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Okay, so those were my questions. I just want to check in with the board if they had any other questions related to the bike parking update. Not seeing any. Okay, Mr. Alexander, were there other items you wanted to go over?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, that was I think between Over the past little bit, we've covered the items on my list.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. So I don't think it makes sense for us to go through line by line the Tetra Tech letter without a representative on. But I know the board has had a chance to review it. And I do want to make use of the opportunity. in case the board has specific questions for the applicant or suggestions for the applicant based on their read of the letter. This is part of the public record, so we don't need to read it into the record. And to avoid injecting my own subjective commentary on it, I think what makes the most sense is to just enumerate the key comments. And again, I'm not going to read them in full. So in the letter we received, the key comment summary in terms of concerns that were not already resolved by the prior plan packet, general site congestion specifically, there's not a lot of room for adjustment because it's a very dense use of the space. The question about constructability, which I think we've already addressed and we hope can be spoken about in a work session, which we'll come back to scheduling that in a moment. The stormwater, we talked a little bit about that as well. the loading and delivery accommodations. We have talked about that, but we may, maybe not in great detail. And then the, I mean, the last call, I'm actually struggling a little to interpret it. So to paraphrase, it's titled the response timing. And essentially it sounds like there were some anticipated changes in revised submittals that as of the writing of this letter haven't been provided. And so the, okay, so essentially the suggestion is that in responding to this and then potentially future letters that there be an accompanying plan. So those were the key comments as or rather, yeah, the key comment summary is stated in the letter. As I mentioned, the board's had a chance to read it in full. So I guess it makes sense. Mr. Alexander, if you wanna speak to the letter at all before the board asks questions, please go ahead. Otherwise, we can just have the board members ask any questions they have based on their read of this letter.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I'm sure thank Mister chair, I. Nothing specific other because we have touched on it or at least you know touched are going to a little bit of detail on each of these are the first 4 that I think are substantive. I think I had is just a reminder that our civil engineer is able to join tonight either so any detailed questions I think are probably something we want to take to the work session.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, well then in that case, I'll open it up to the board. Are there specific questions from the board for the applicant based on your reading of this Tetra Tech comment letter two?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Just about the deliveries, move-ins, things like that. Is it anticipated that vehicles will be loading and unloading inside the garage?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can take that one, Mr. LaRue. It's a great question, something our team talked about a little bit today as we read this letter. The intention is that short-term loading and unloading, like shuttle bus, delivery services, ride share are handled exterior in that loading and unloading zone. In terms of move-ins, and I may have mentioned this a little bit earlier, but, you know, I think there, I can't give a percentage, but the majority of our move-in and move-outs are going to happen in a van or a small truck that, quite possibly could fit within the parking garage or the first level there. And so that could be one location. A second location would be in that short-term loading, unloading. So does that help answer the question?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I guess I'm just thinking about access to elevators. like that, because you don't want to be carrying a couch from outside, you know, if it's raining or something.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: You know, as many as possible are uploading and unloading within the garage proximate to the elevator. But in certain instances, if the truck's too big, then yeah, it's going to be a. It's going to be in that loading unloading zone.
[Mike Caldera]: and anything else?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, just to follow up on this line of questioning and like packages or meals, is there gonna be any like staff involvement in a lobby area in terms of kind of interfacing, calling up to residents, things like that?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: sure, yeah, so they're a little bit different, but I'll take packages first. As I mentioned, it's evolved quite a bit. And the preferred method these days is just package room that is access controlled. So basically what would happen, so there's certainly still staff involvement from our on-site team. but a package can be delivered directly to the package room. It then gets scanned in by our team, and the resident is notified they have a package. They can then come down and access the room directly through, you know, there's basically a panel with a screen. They get in the room. They can, they're organized shelving systems so they know where their package generally is, and then that's how they retrieve that. The food delivery, you know, is a newer one even still. And so that's an area where we've started to see within a lobby a short-term storage system for food delivery that comes in. Sometimes it offers refrigeration, most times not given the timing of that delivery and then the quick pickup. So in a community that we designed three years ago, we wouldn't have been thinking about that sort of short-term food delivery as much as we are now. And so that's something that we will definitely be considering in this sort of, I don't wanna call it right in the front of the lobby, but in a sort of adjacent area to the lobby areas of these buildings.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, and will those, and those will be centralized in the, the south building, so that if you're in the north building, you have to come over to the south building lobby?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, well, I think the idea is to be able to accomplish those in the lobby within the center between the two, you know, or the two lobbies that are facing each other within the central court of the community.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, do we have other questions for the board about items in the engineering peer review? Okay, so the ones I had are, um, I just want to state that I shared... Sorry, Mike, Commissioner Fordy raised his hand, you might not be able to... Oh, yeah, Commissioner Fordy, please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: So I just wanted to add a comment to the last piece of discussion that any loading zone should be cleared with the fire chief. I know he's not here tonight, but I know that he would have some concern about any access point of his building, you know, for access for firefighting. Again, I would just, you know, maybe suggest that you run that by him, because I know that he looked at a plan that didn't include any loading zones. So, okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Commissioner for the. So what I was about to say is I share the general concern that the amount of short-term loading unloading I don't think necessarily we'd need to take it to the extreme pointed out in the Tetra Tech letter of not needing any relief from the zoning which I think was about five x the current size but. It's, I'm really struggling to envision a scenario where the current sizing is gonna ultimately meet some of the peaks in demand, especially when of the known listed uses for this space, there's quite a few that are really hard for the building management to have any, say over or control over the pattern in which it arrives. I know that there could be rules in place to govern what can and can't be done, but Amazon delivery drivers and the meal delivery or grocery delivery, Uber Lyft, these are things that are going to be requested on demand by residents with very little visibility. for building management. In that sense, those pieces of the usage are going to be largely outside of your control. Correct me if you disagree. I share the concern. I do believe that a work session should be helpful and at least talking through it and getting to alignment. I certainly don't think I personally have a strong expert intuition as to what the right sizing is. I'm just communicating that I'm not convinced the current sizing is appropriate. I share the reviewer concerns there. The other thing that stood out to me, this is a shared concern, I have the snow removal. So I don't believe we've received adequate explanation as to how know, we're going to need those details because I think the. The status or the way things are leaning unless we get clarification as to how you know, conditions and maybe the need to, you know, require that the snow be removed and sent off site. It doesn't seem like the current plan is consistent with the industry standard or recommendations in terms of the amount of space you'd need to keep that on site. And then the third one is, I guess this is, actually, I'm gonna keep it to engineering letter. because there's one I didn't touch on in the architecture yet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, one moment.
[Mike Caldera]: No, maybe I... So then the last one is the flexible play equipment for one of the courtyards, like we talked about in our last hearing. We're really gonna need more details as a board to understand what that looks like. Where is the equipment being stored? Logistically, how does it get moved into the courtyard? Just right now, I think it's a really creative, cool idea. Right now, we're light on the details. And as a board member, I certainly wanna make sure that what's planned there is functional for the residents, because I do think the residents are gonna have that use case. I think I'll leave it there. So yeah, you know, if you have any items you'd like to respond to, please go ahead. But those are a few of my current call outs and things I'm hoping will get addressed in updated plan packets and or the any work session that's scheduled.
[Andre Leroux]: Mister chair, can I just add one comment on to the loading piece so just you know my personal experience last year having moved in my son and his fiance into a apartment complex in Washington DC that had interior you know There was a loading dock area next to an elevator that we had to communicate with the management staff and make sure they knew what time we were coming in. you know, I know this, I don't think it's in your parking plan at all, but to the extent maybe you'd want to consider having a flexible, larger space available, you know, in each of the buildings for that purpose, that could be, you know, so it could be, it could be managed by the staff. And the truck that we had was not like the largest U-Haul truck, but it was larger than a van. I don't think it would fit into a regularly sized space, especially since some of these spaces in the garage are quite small.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, appreciate the experience and the suggestion. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So Mr. Alexander, it didn't necessarily need a response. Did you want to respond to anything that I shared or Andre shared?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: The nothing specific tonight Mister chair. Those are those are those are definitely on our list both for our team to be thinking about in advance of a working session and obviously trying to be responsive so.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay wonderful. Yes, that's it for me so I'm just going to I can with the board one last time to see if there's. Other questions comments or call-outs like to make. uh, regarding the content of the engineer meeting. review letter. I see Mister 40 has his hand raised please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Mister chair just a friendly reminder, I know I had mentioned it in earlier meetings was to make sure that the decks were included in the site plan and in the setback again I had some concern about the overhang of the size of the decks and their proximity to the property line and so I just wanted to make sure that that update was you know was was noted and that it would that it would be on the next set of revised site plans. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I certainly know that. So just want to double check, any concerns including that in future plan packets?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Not from my end, Mr. Chair, I just want to check in with Mr. Stebbins. I think, so we're showing the balconies on the architectural plan, so I need to make sure that we're just fully coordinated on the civil plans as well. Is that right, Andrew?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Yes, calling out the setback, yep.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Other questions from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so now I think is where we come back to the suggestion of the possibility of a work session being scheduled. So I certainly want to talk that through. It sounds like there's general support for that and that it would be constructive. Before we get into the nitty-gritty of that, I just want to mention the intention for our next scheduled session of this hearing, which is Monday, April 24th. So the intention there is that if there is a response in writing to the peer reviews that the applicant provided then the we haven't received any additional department headletters, so it looks like we're okay there. It seems like those discussions are happening behind the scenes. And then the intention is also for there to be a presentation of, and this is in quotes, a final draft of the proposed plan. So what we mean by that is essentially plans that reflect All of the feedback received thus far, including the You know any topics that are discussed in the work session itself. Assuming we schedule one and so This is this will give the board an opportunity to essentially review that and and call out if there are and the peer reviewers for that matter, call out any remaining outstanding issues to address. So that's the intention for Monday, April 24th. That would mean that if we were to schedule a work session, it should take place before that and with adequate time for the applicant to implement some of the elements discussed in that work session. So yeah, I just wanna, oh, Director Hunt, I see you have your hand raised. Is there something you'd like to add?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I wanted to clarify, so the work session does not need to include any members of the ZBA. This is for the engineers to work it out. I do think it has to include Sean Reardon, who isn't here this evening in order to do the scheduling. So I think the question kinda is to the applicant, do you think that it's possible to schedule it to have results by the 24th? Even given that we don't have Sean available this evening to talk about it, I assume that he's interested and he would make himself available, but I don't know his schedule. A lot of people are taking next week off in Massachusetts, and I just wanted to flag that.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Director Hunt. I have some thoughts, but I see Mr. Bomer has his hand raised as well.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, only because I have a very recent text from Sean exactly to that point. He said he could be available for a session on Thursday the 20th, so a week from this Thursday.
[Mike Caldera]: Tomorrow, Thursday the 20th. So, um, so one thing I just want to mention, so my understanding is that there is some flexibility into in terms of who participates so it could. include the peer reviewers, it will include the applicant, can include the city staff, and then we've been advised by our lawyers it can also include a member of the board. I think technically any number that wouldn't constitute a quorum, but I think in cases where a board member participates, it would generally be one. It's my understanding. So wanted to clarify that. So then, okay, so we have a candidate date, which is good. I do want to emphasize that the schedule we have in mind was really done working backwards from the deadline to issue a decision. So, you know, trying to balance the, understanding that it takes time to do these things with what we think is responsiveness and what we think is going to get us done on time. So yeah, I guess my question for the applicant is, what are your thoughts? There's an opportunity potentially to schedule this on the 20th. our next hearing is scheduled for the 24th. I understand there's not a lot of time in between, so yeah. Do you have any requests in terms of the timing of this session?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So a couple thoughts. I had hoped that maybe we could do a working session early next week But late next week, you know, if that's what it's got to be, that's fine. I think it's very important to include Mr. Reardon in that, to Mr. Bomer's point, given his level of detail into the plans and review. It does not then allow enough time to, you know, obviously bring any outcomes from that work session onto a plan set. But I think what it could do is a couple things. One, it'll certainly make great progress and hopefully even getting them down to zero, at least between peer reviewer and consultant and our proponent team. We can then deliver updates at the hearing on the 24th and maybe describe if needed or hopefully point to a couple of marked up plans that show what some of the resolution is or will be. And I think while that doesn't You know, the one question there is it doesn't result in a final plan set by the 24th. But I would submit that we're at a point with the detail and the sort of the level of these comments and potential for plan changes, large scale plan changes, that I think, I feel like that could still be, that could still work if we get then the plan set in, by, you know, call it the very end of April or the first part of May. And my last thought there, and I want to defer to the Goulston team here as well, is, is there an opportunity while the plans are being finalized to also be, you know, advancing the review of the updated waiver list, some of the maybe even the draft conditions that either happens at the 24th or at the next hearing it's just if we could be advancing some of that sort of final work at the same time while the plans are being finalized I would hope I would think that we could we could do a track those. So your thoughts Mister chair Chris you want to jump in.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Maybe I can just jump in I think. One of one of the things that I was hearing tonight. Was comments about plan coordination. And so I think that happened on, I believe, a landscaping plan between maybe a rendering and a plan. When we make a change, it ripples through three or four different design professionals, all who've got different plans. So I think it's better to take a little bit more time and get it right than potentially be presenting plans that just haven't had the time, you know, that everyone can do the quality control between each other. So I agree with Tim, it's unlikely we'll have, you know, the revised full plan set for the hearing on the 24th, but I think providing an update on what was discussed in the working session, and maybe there's some, you know, kind of quickie plans that can be pulled together to illustrate that conversation could be very helpful. We can certainly be working on, and I believe the chair has rightly said, it's not just a waiver list, but we've also on the civil plan have a zoning requirements table and the zoning calculation form. We'll have to Tim check with the Hancock team. Tony, our civil engineer, very important in helping us prepare that which then backs into our waiver list as you know we mentioned earlier he's out of the country to the end of next week so we'll work to start updating the waiver list. Mister chair. But that may be the first hearing in May not the hearing and the last hearing April.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Thanks, Chris. One thing I wanted to just clarify. So Tony Donato, our civil engineer, is he's actually back next Thursday afternoon. So if we can get him back, we may get him back just in time for a working session with Mr. Reard and Mr. Gomer and team. So I'll work on understanding his exact availability. And then hopefully off to the side, we'll get that meeting scheduled.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you for these updates. So I certainly appreciate kind of the logistical challenges, especially with a work session scheduled on the 20th to get to final plans. And so I think that the work session itself, we've heard multiple anecdotes of how it would be helpful, how it's gonna, of get us closer to where we need to go anyway. And so elements of that are substituting for the intended content for the 24th. So I'm amenable to a scenario where on the 24th, if we're indeed having a work session on the 20th, we're not seeing a full plan packet. I do want to emphasize that it's important to have as complete an update as reasonably possible in terms of the outcome of the plan or the work session for the board, just so that we understand what we're tracking to. The one thing I'll call out and where I really do not see a scenario, and I'm happy to brainstorm if there's other ideas, but where we get to a decision by the statutory deadline if this milestone isn't hit, I'm firmly of the opinion that We need everything. We need a final plan packet. We need all the waiverless zoning analysis. There's a list of studies which I think have been many of which have been either formally or informally addressed throughout the process, but I'm going to kind of go through those as a reminder before we wrap tonight. We got to have that on May 8th because There's substantial discussion that needs to happen in terms of identifying the waiver, like reviewing the waiver list, identifying lingering concerns and identifying any conditions we may need to propose. I don't see a path to us having a decision within the timeline if we don't converge on the final packet by our meeting on the 8th so just wanted to say that out loud call that out. You know based on what we've discussed and what we have planned. Do you think that's a day we can work towards and keep this all on track.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: If you're asking me Mister chair and I think that's I think that's very achievable.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, yeah, I was. So sounds good. Thank you. So in that case, I'd like to just quickly check in with the board to see if anyone has a different perspective or has stronger concerns than I do with the tentative plan we patched here. So the tentative plan is we will schedule a work session for April 20th. We'll continue with the intended hearing on the 24th. We'll receive an update. you know about that work session and including responses to any specific items in the peer review that are covered in the work session itself. And then the board will have another opportunity to weigh in based on the update we received. And then on May 8th, that's when essentially everything coalesces. And that would include, and this is just a reminder for the city administration, as a board, we're gonna need documentation one way or the other on whether there's a need for local preference, because that's one of the things we're supposed to weigh in on as a board. So yeah, everything will coalesce on May 8th. And then we'll have the work session on the 20th and then the hearing on April 24th. So just want to check in with the board if anyone has questions or concerns with that being the new plan.
[Andre Leroux]: No, but I just think we should start compiling the list of conditions on the 24th.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, I'm certainly amenable to that, Andre. I think There may be some that we can do then. I think there's some where we're gonna need the waiver list, but certainly I'm happy to do that. Any other comments or questions from the board? Okay, so then just in terms of the actual logistics of the work session itself, so the April 20th is a proposed date. Director Hunt, do you have a preference as to whether and who from the city participates in the work session? I know you called out that a lot of people are on vacation, which I acknowledge and can't make commitments on their behalf, but should we be working to try to loop in certain key stakeholders from the city for that?
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess I would want to know if the applicant or Sean wanted any. It's my understanding that they'd be focusing more on civil engineering things, which would imply our city engineer, but I don't know that they actually need him. I do understand that they had met with him separately and with our DPW commissioner, who just, to be clear, is our former city engineer, which is why he actually weighs in on a lot of these things. I will tell you that I am not available that day, and I'm not clear that they would need anybody like Dennis or somebody to provide staff. We're happy to provide a Zoom link if that's in fact helpful, but I suspect they all have access as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Any thoughts or preference from the applicant?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I actually have very similar thinking to Director Hunt. I think if, given that we had a productive meeting with the city engineer, I would say I would leave that up to the civil peer reviewer, Mr. Reardon. If he felt that was beneficial, we can try to pull in the city engineer. Otherwise, I think the key participants are Mr. Bomer, consultants should be available as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And then one other thing, I'm just double checking the reference guide. I want to make sure I don't misrecall anything. So in terms of if there were a member of the board participating, Is it a, so if the ZBA decides to conduct work sessions, this is from the Massachusetts handbook for 40B, no more than one ZBA member should participate, although other ZBA members may attend as observers. Work session should include either a 40B consultant or the municipal attorney or both. I'm gonna skip over some bits. I don't see any details about, I don't believe this is a, I don't believe this must be a public hearing. I think, We've been told that that's an option, but it can be just for the sake of alignment and efficiency. Just, you know, between the parties involved and then customarily if there is a ZBA member in attendance, they would just be included as part of the report out in the next meeting. So is there a member of the board who would be interested in participating in a work session on the 20th? I understand we've already, you know, there's a lot of meetings already scheduled. So if the answer's no, that's fine. I think a lot of progress is being made and we're having the right discussions, but I do want to extend the, ability if anybody is eager to be there. I'm getting some head shakes now. Okay, cool. So, So I think that, so let's plan on the 20th. It's a little unclear to me whether I even need to schedule it or if I just say, if we just as a board take a vote and approve the scheduling of one. Yeah, Jamie.
[Unidentified]: I just had a quick question. You had mentioned the way that was phrased was no more than one ZBA member. Is one member required I can be available if we're required.
[Mike Caldera]: No, in fact, there's some uh communities that uh and boards that deliberately, um Don't participate. Um Just for reasons that We don't really need to get into here. But essentially it's board discretion. Um, and there's legal debate. Um, we did consult with the city's legal representation and they said that um they didn't have concerns if a board member were to participate. Okay, but yeah, I'm not seeing anyone eagerly raising their hand. So yeah, I believe procedurally, we've got to take a vote to schedule the work session, but then some of the logistics can be handled between the intended participants and the the planning. So yeah, chair awaits a motion to schedule a work session to discuss, I guess, civil engineering architecture and and our picture. On April is to include representatives. And from the architectural peer reviewer and that you're in your viewer as well as some of the project. Consultants yes. Before we do that. Mister rainier do you have something you want to add.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure technically that the board has to vote to schedule the consultation or the working session, but I don't see a problem with doing it. What I would just suggest is that the board in its motion and vote, if it's going to do so, say that the working sessions anticipated to be scheduled on April 20th, you know, at a time and the project team, but it might be that Sean says, you know what, Friday works better for me and it gets shifted. So I'd like there just to be a little bit of optionality in the motion to acknowledge that we need to get the scheduling people together. And so it may not happen on the 20th. And I don't want there to be any confusion if it happens on the 19th or the 21st. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Noted yeah to the legal question about whether or not we need to vote. That's a good point. I don't think we actually do. I think the chair can just schedule these things. Does anyone have a strong opinion to the contrary? I just want to double check. Okay so It's my understanding and you have my permission as chair, you know, to schedule a work session involving the previously named participants and the target date for that is April 20th. Please, you know, make best efforts for this to occur before our next scheduled meeting on the 24th. If the date changes, you know that. So yeah, I'm not gonna vote on it. I think I can schedule for a call out. All right, great. Any other items we should be discussing before we wrap for the day? I don't see any hands. Chris, did you wanna say something?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: No, sorry, I'm just trying to mute myself to cough on mute, not in the microphone.
[Mike Caldera]: Sounds good. So then I mentioned we will take public comment at the next... hearing. So I just want to remind folks that that is an option. And yeah, so chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to the special meeting scheduled on Monday, April 24.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved. I have a second. seconded. And we're going to do a roll call vote. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jamie?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right. So this matter is continued to that meeting. And yeah, Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Second and all in favor.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. Well, thank you, everybody. We look forward to seeing you soon. Have a great rest.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, everybody. Appreciate the progress.