[Mike Caldera]: Hello, welcome to this special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. So to kick things off, we're just going to take a quick roll call. Jamie Thompson? Here. Jim Tirani? Here. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: Here.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue? Present. Mike Caldera? Present. Also, I believe everyone received their appointment letters by now, so Jamie is now a full member of the board, so congrats, Jamie. And yeah, so Dennis, can you kick us off? Yes.
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to 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 a 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. All right, thank you. First item on the agenda. 4000 Mississippi Parkway case number 40 B dash 2022-01 continued from April 12 2023. The resumption consideration of petition of MVP mystic LLC and affiliate of milky residential trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 40 B for multifamily eight story apartment development, consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4000 Mississippi Parkway, property ID seven dash 02 dash 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]: Great. Thank you, Dennis. So, folks, this is a hearing that has had multiple sessions already. Today's hearing is occurring right after a planned work session between several stakeholders for the project. And so the primary item on the agenda is that we're going to listen to kind of updates stemming from that. So we'll see a presentation from the applicant. We may talk with some of the peer reviewers. And then also, we received a letter from Fire Chief Friedman uh, relating to, um, some of the concerns about construction that were previously raised by, uh, commissioner 40. And so, um, I don't see chief Friedman here right now, but I will want to call on chief Friedman earlier in the, in the hearing if possible, but why don't we, uh, go ahead and, uh, kick it off, uh, Mr. Alexander, please go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to follow up from last week. So, I think it was it was two Wednesdays ago. Now, with our last hearing, and we put, we put a working session on the calendar for last Thursday, the twentieth and so just everybody. You know, we want to provide an update from that and a summary of sort of revisions that have come out of that working sessions. The working session was from the mill Creek side. I was there Tony or civil engineer. Andrew Stebbins from TAT, our project architect, and Jeffrey Dirk from Van Essen Associates was in attendance, and then Sean Reardon from Tetra Tech and Cliff Omer from Davis Square. So, you know, I think, you know, hopefully I could speak for everybody to say it was a really productive session, collaborative, and so we appreciated that, certainly from the peer reviewer side, and hopefully they felt the same. Um, I have, if it helps, I have a couple of slides that just summarize the, the major items that we discussed and I think, you know, uh, more or less found resolution for, so I can share my screen and walk through those. Uh, if that, if that seems like the best course of action, please go ahead. Great. Right. My, uh, I've got a split screen and trying to show two things at once. Is that working or is it too small?
[Mike Caldera]: Working for me. So I'm seeing it split screen. I think the text on the right hand side is a bit small, but I'll zoom in as I go through it.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: And then obviously, you know, please interrupt with questions or if you can't see something. So I've got really just two slides. We went through, just before the working session, the Mill Creek team, the proponent team, went through both recent comment letters from the peer reviewers, annotated those, and came up with a list of items that we sort of already knew what we wanted to attack and try to propose. And so we went through, we went through the engineering items first, actually went through traffic items first, which really bled into the engineering. So the list you see on the left side of the screen are really the highlights. And these, none of these should be new to the board. I mean, I think they've come up in a couple of different hearings in the past. So just to, well, I just want to pause, Mr. Chair, I did see that Chief Friedman is here. Did you want to jump to him or do you want me to keep going?
[Mike Caldera]: Well, um, I do want to jump to chief Friedman before we engage in any substantive discussions. You said two slides. So yeah, maybe you can be brief. Okay.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Great. Thank you. Um, so one of the topics of discussion is certainly has been the idea of a loading and unloading zone, um, you know, within the public realm of the, of the proposed projects, uh, to allow for short term, um, you know, whether it's ride share or, food delivery, certainly our proposed shuttle during rush hour hours, and potentially some plans and managed move-ins as well. So with feedback from the peer review team, what we've done is actually expanded The drop off area to really be the whole North side of this East West roadway, the red box here at the bottom was what we initially proposed and we've decided with their guidance. And I think rightly to expand this even further airing on the side of caution, I believe, but. You know, we still will certainly manage move-ins and move-outs, so we don't have multiple trucks there at any one time. But, you know, we worked as much as we would like to be able to quantify the, or have sort of precedent for what ride share and food delivery and things might be. It's a new and changing world in that realm. So we landed on this as a proposed solution. And this is just a very crude sort of cut and paste of that, of what we'd already proposed, but this will obviously get revised on the drawings. So that was one that I think was beneficial and good feedback from peer reviewers that we took into account. Another item related to short-term loading and unloading was the idea, and I think Mr. Bomer may have mentioned this in our last hearing, the idea of reserving one to two spaces within the garage for whether it be a maintenance van or potentially a moving van and something that is close to the building entrance, close to the core, but is not exterior, it's interior to the garages. So we're gonna designate a space in each garage for that type of short-term use. we think that will help further alleviate any potential blocks. I don't want to say overuse, but if there should be some congestion out here in the exterior, there's an option in the interior as well, and sometimes it may be the preferred option. I'm going to keep moving here. This is another topic of discussion from a couple of hearings, the idea of these, um, and head in spaces on the lowest level. Uh, we talked about, you know, how to really best to handle these. And I think, uh, we're all in agreement that we more than likely have. Adequate vehicular parking for the community today. And we know that over the longterm vehicular parking is probably demand wise is probably going down. So we're comfortable re-striping this end parking node to basically eliminate these three spaces, but pick up a space instead on the end. So it's a net loss of two spaces per garage or four spaces total. With that, our parking ratio still remains above the 1.1. It doesn't really have any meaningful or substantive change on parking supply. So that was something that came out of the session as well. A couple of things that don't show up necessarily on the plans yet as clouded are really just making sure that the stormwater management design and detail is adequate on the plans. We have a slide on utilities and it's being revised right now. We actually, as part of the peer review, the suggestion or comment was made that we should do a little bit of on-site field work to confirm the height of seasonal high groundwater below the surface. We were able to do that last Friday and take three test pits around the site and have the results of that which are positive and basically show that the stormwater management system as designed will work. as designed and won't require any revisions. So we're going to, we're adding more detail to the civil engineering plans and ultimately a stormwater report and narrative will be, um, if it's not a part of the record for the comprehensive permit, it will certainly be a part of the record for the conservation commission. Um, uh, process. So that was the fourth or fifth bullet. Um, another civil engineering item, I think we've talked about a little bit in the past. I get to it was, um, the area on the, so this is, this is obviously a plan. This is the North to this end. And there is a short knee wall here that's shown, um, as basically a way to, um, make sure that the grade between our neighbor to the east and our grades are sorted out. And along with that and some of the other walkway in this corner, there are questions, and rightfully so, about exactly how stormwater management works in that area, drainage, making sure it stays on site and is captured and retained appropriately. So those are some details that our civil engineering team are revising as well for the final submission. And then lastly, on this slide, we talked, I think, a couple times about different things, but maybe not have them incorporated into the record or fully submitted. One of those are the turning movements for fire truck and emergency vehicles that we actually went through with the fire chief back in the fall prior to our 40B submission. But those, you know, we had overlooked the fact that they weren't actually submitted as part of the plans package. So we will include those. make sure those are everybody, you know, fire chief has seen them and make sure everybody else is on board and understands how the turning movements are working well. A trash management plan was a good suggestion for Mr. Bomer about, you know, not just, you know, we've talked through it in a hearing about how trash is, you know, collected in these trash rooms and then pulled out at the time of pickups, trash pickup, which is customary and, Um, and it's sort of a well-worn process with multifamily buildings like this, but let's just write it out and make sure that it's clear. And so that's something we can, we can provide. And then lastly, we continue to work with the city engineer and his team about the I and I strategy, um, the potential scope for offsite scope that our project would take on as a way to, um, meet the I and I mitigation, um, piece of, of the city's ordinance. So those are obviously not every last item in the civil engineering peer review letter, but those were the bigger items that required us to look at the plans together and come up with a solution. So I can pause there for any questions or keep moving onto the architecture side.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so yeah, the, the architecture side, roughly how long is, do you think that'll be?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can do it a little quicker.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Yeah. I want to, my thought is, and I know it'll, there's no good way to do it, but I want to let you kind of just finish the core update. Then I want to go to, uh, commissioner 40 and chief Friedman who have a joint presentation they want to make. And then I want to make sure the board has an opportunity to ask all their questions and that we have a chance to talk with the peer reviewers. So yeah, why don't you continue and just kind of, you can summarize for the architecture, because then we'll plan to come back to it.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Is that good? That's great. Yep. And I've got six bullets here I can run through. And again, these are items that I know the board has seen before, so it's just coming up with resolution. The first couple focus on landscape and one was Mr. Bomer's great ideas on if we are incorporating a play scape and play equipment in this northern courtyard, we should look at ways to revise this layout. So it, it, uh, it actually works better with the amenity space that we're planning within the building at this level. Um, and then also the idea of having storage space, uh, within right off of this courtyard for that equipment in the off season. So that's sort of a combination between landscape and building revision. But both that and then a quick revision to the hardscape here in the southern courtyard to, again, pick up the change in that amenity layout. So, you know, I don't want to call them, you know, I don't want to call them minor things. They're things that we definitely want to get cleaned up, but things that we kind of already had general agreement on with the peer review team. The other landscape and Mr. Bomer picked this up in the last hearing was that this rendering shows just sod and that really should pick up as a combination of sod and planted material along with the street trees. I think we talked about this two weeks ago, but just to make sure that this gets to the point of let's make sure all the plans are fully coordinated in this final submission that civil and landscape. We've been moving quickly with a lot of different revisions, but now is the time to make sure we dot every T or dot every I and cross every T, excuse me. Two things on the building facades themselves, which we talked about two weeks ago, but I think found some good agreement on is, sorry, I'm going to move ahead here. On the elevations, we know we have one more elevation to to submit it's the north side of the north building and we'll get that to Mr. Bowmer here hopefully in the next couple of days so he can review before we submit it fully to the board but there are a couple of tweaks that we're making to this northern basically the the facades that face each other between the two buildings and it was the idea of strengthening that horizontal band especially knowing that this is going to be a well-traveled vehicular and pedestrian path, give that appropriate scale to this building and bring that two-story element a bit more prominent. It's the portion of the building that the residents and visitors and anyone else will feel and interact with a little bit more, just with a little more strength. Then we're also re-looking at the building entrances that face each other. We'd initially called for this area to be a cement fiber panel or a cementitious panel. And I think Mr. Bowmer's got great ideas there that this should be You know, this is the area where people are closest to on the building. They're walking in and out of it. Let's enhance the materiality there. And our idea is to pull over some of the masonry material, um, a little higher quality, a little, you know, got a little heavier feel to it. That makes it feel more substantial. Um, so those are a couple of tweaks to the building architecture and design that we're making. And then lastly, similar to engineering, a couple of plans that we have reviewed in these hearings, but haven't been submitted yet. the bike storage plans as revised that we did review last time, and the construction management plan that we, I think in early March, we presented it, but didn't include it in our last submission. So we'll make sure that gets included as well and coordinated in a couple of different ways with the civil engineering erosion control and sediment plan, just to make sure that all those things are ticked and tied. So I'll pause there. I know you want to come back with questions, we can pivot.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds great. Thank you for the update. Certainly good to see progress on a lot of these points because I know when we last met, they were still unsettled. So it's great to see some some headway there. So I do intend to let the board ask specific questions about what was just presented. But like I mentioned, like to transition to I believe Commissioner 40 will kick this off and then transition to Chief Friedman. Please go ahead, Commissioner.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board and to the to the petitioner. Thank you for your time. So over the past few weeks, we have met with both fire chief and the petitioner on this issue of construction fire safety, specifically, the possible requirement from the Zoning Board of Appeals to require early activation of the sprinkler system. I think that the word temporary is probably not the correct term, more so the early activation of the sprinkler system. So unlike the word temporary, there is nothing that gets torn out as a result of the sprinkler system being activated early. I wanted to commend the petitioner for joining us on site a little over a week ago at 305 Winter Street, a permit that I issued, a project that I issued a permit for in Waltham before I left. And it is almost identical in construction type to what we're building here. And we had a very good site meeting. We were able to ask questions to the sprinkler contractor. Some of the questions regarding how the alarm system works, the activation of it, the early detection systems now being wireless. A lot of questions I think were answered. In addition to that, we actually got to see what the size of this thing looks like. And so Just to be clear, I just want to be clear to the petitioner and be very public about this is that I have no opposition personally with this project, I want the project for the city I want it to be. I want the I want the petitioner to prosper I want housing for people of median income and I'm all for this project, I have no other concerns about this project. Except for the dynamics of the construction while the building is being built, it is highly vulnerable to to to fire danger and again I know I've said this over and over again I don't want to sound like a broken record but I witnessed one of the largest construction fires in the United States in my jurisdiction and. the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Council in Waltham started to order these buildings be sprinkler alert as they were being constructed. And again, there is a cost associated with this. I did, I've been speaking with the petitioner and their contractors about cost and we are concerned about it. And certainly we feel as though it's something that is manageable. It's not something that's probably desired by the petitioner. When we put cost aside, I think that the big factor here is the amount of wood that is being used to construct this building is absolutely enormous. The building elements, while under construction, are not fully protected. They're not tested in a lab in a certain degree. It's not a controlled environment in the field. And again, had I not witnessed this firsthand, I probably wouldn't be making these comments. But while the building is under construction, it's highly vulnerable to fire. And my concern as the building safety officer for the city and the expert, I will say the expert in construction, the city's expert in construction, I do have to very politely and very directly petition the Zoning Board of Appeals to write in an order with this comprehensive permit to require the petitioner to sequentially install the sprinkler system as the building is being constructed. I happen to not only be working on this nationally to get this codified, But the NFPA 2019 has already started where the means of egress requirements for sprinkler systems in buildings that are temporarily under construction greater than 40 feet of type three or combustible construction have to be sprinkler. And so, you know, this isn't anything new, although it's not a common practice nationwide or even statewide. This practice is being undertaken and it has been successful. Um, I just feel as though that the community, um, you know, deserves this level of public safety and fire protection I don't, but no other reason I just want to be sure that the, not only is the city protected in the petition are also protected, but the construction workers as well. The, I think, I think the big thing the gravity of this whole thing is that I just want to make it clear that, you know, we're not trying to punish the petitioner with this order. If the order does not get written in, again, this is only a suggestion, but under 760 CMR, the ZBA, the Zoning Board of Appeals is allowed to protect the interests of public safety for their community. And they speak for the entire group of department heads and the entire city as a whole. And again, I would just implore you to think about it only because Here again, we've only got one chance to get this right. I see a lot of these projects that may be coming up in the next year or two. And, you know, the idea here is to set precedents that fire safety is our number one concern. I think that there is no greater concern. than fire safety on a building this size of this material type. Don't forget, this is a wood frame high rise. It's almost unprecedented to see these buildings being constructed in the enormity and the quantity that they're coming in. And I know that the governor has big plans to move these types of buildings forward. And so the other advantages too is that When the petitioner does approach me as the, you know, as the billing official for a, for a temporary certificate of occupancy no matter what phase of construction they're in. If the building is not actively sprinkler. There's no chance not even a slight chance but no chance. that they'll get a TCO for any portion of this project without the activation of those sprinklers being in place. So given the scenario that let's just say building on the south side is completed, right, sheetrocked, it's ready to go, and then you have a bear frame wood building being constructed 30 feet away, there is absolutely no way that I'm going to issue it under my jurisdiction a temporary certificate of occupancy for that building. And so again, I'm only trying to be advantageous and head this thing off Um, you know, down the road where I don't want to get into a battle with the petitioner or the construction company. I want to make sure that you know that that they understand fully that, you know, these things are of grave concern to myself and to the fire chief on the fire chief and I have had several meetings on this we've gone to seminars on it, we've spoken to other communities. And I'm going to let the chief kind of segue into how he feels about this. But certainly, again, I don't want you to think for a second that we're ganging up on the petition or that we don't want the project. We certainly do. And I'm in favor of the project with this caveat that I believe should be something that the ZBA should consider. So thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Forti.
[Mike Caldera]: Chief Friedman, please go ahead.
[John Freedman]: Okay, thank you for letting me speak and allowing me to sort of help you to make an informed decision. That's my goal here tonight. So everyone understands where I come from when it comes to public safety. And when I look at a project like this, what I think about is the fire suppression aspect of it. So when we pull up to a site like this, that's under construction, it's a monumental task to be able to get water For example, if there was something going on in the upper level floors, so in the highly combustible nature of the construction, it just poses, and I would echo Bill's comments, it poses an imminent fire. it to minimize the risk, in my opinion, as the fire chief. And by allowing them to change the order and how they install it, like the commissioner said, we're not asking them to install like that word, temporary system. It's the actual permanent system they're putting in. They're just putting it in in a different order. So, and then it will afford not only us the ability to be able to fight a fire and suppress the fire to hold it so that what we can respond in our apparatus, it gives us that time that we need to get up there and get in place. It also gives us the water source. So if that water, in the absence of that water source, for example, the other way is we'd have to actually create that water source as we go up into the building. So that causes a huge delay. And then a lot of times these fires get out of control. So that's, I just wanted to let everyone know Um, basically, I strongly recommend that, um, we try to implement this in a way that, uh, it's built with this temporary, I shouldn't use that word temporary with this, uh, system put in, in the order that we're asking. And like, as the commissioner said to it in the future, this is probably going to be, um, the code. It's just not there yet. And, um, Medford's never seen this, this, um, magnitude of a wood structure of this size. And going forward, I want to set the standard, like Bill said, so that we do everything that we can to make it as safe as possible for not only the workers that are working it, because this also affords time for the workers to get out of the building if something goes on. It gives them an early warning system, will suppress the fire, give them time to escape, and then give us time to go in and set up suppression and then we can actually put the thing out. So I'll stop there because I don't want to get into, you know, and take up any more of your time. I just want to let you know that I am 100% behind this. And if there's any way we can make it a written order, and then this would be the standard going forward for these types of projects in the city of this magnitude.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Thank you, Chief Friedman. Um, so I just want to check in with the board. Um, what questions do we have for Commissioner Forty or Chief Friedman, um, based on what they just shared? Uh, go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. This is actually a question more for the proponent as I obviously hearing such strong desire for the system. I'm curious what the response is. Is this something that the proponent can do or has a problem with?
[Mike Caldera]: Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Alexander?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sure. Yeah, happy to. Yeah, I would also just start by echoing Um, the building commissioner and chief Freedman's points about the coordination we've had. So we appreciate that. It's been, it's been, um, you know, came up early. We've been able to have a meeting via zoom and then have the site visit, um, a little less than two weeks ago, which was very helpful. So, you know, very, you know, we're totally understanding of, especially the building commissioners, you know, unique perspective on this, right. Having lived through it in Waltham. We've you know, so I'll be give you just quick update on where we are. You know, it is a unique and new technology You know, it's it's I think Waltham we were not able to find Jurisdictions other than Waltham that are employing it. I certainly understand why Waltham is given the history there So what we've been doing is a you know, very helpful to understand that the installation, the technology behind it, when we visited the Winter Street project in Waltham, and then we've been digging more into the cost side, right? So that's the one thing where we're still trying to get fully up to speed. We understand the benefits of it, but the cost, there is one piece, and not to get too far in the weeds, I think there's one piece that is sort of temporary, and that's a wireless fire detection system that goes throughout the building. that is wireless during construction and then goes to a wired system after construction for operation. And that's a fairly costly endeavor that we got a little bit more intel on from the electrical subcontractor. And so just understanding that cost, I think it's probably the biggest or the sort of final thing that we're doing as we evaluate it. You know, the only other thing I'd say, and we're not, this is not a, you know, no, we can't do it, but it's, you know, there are others. I want to. I want to also just state that. In our, in our current and frankly, nationwide practice of construction of what frame communities. There are a certain amount of obviously fire safety measures that already go in. I understand how this can be above and beyond, but whether we've got fire watch at night and a certain technology that can detect heat, whether there are people on site or not. And then a certain amount of fire protection infrastructure does go up during construction in the form of the standpipes for water to get up. It's not the same, right? It's not the same as fully installing the sprinkler system pretty much right when the wood frame goes up. So I do recognize that, but I also want to just make sure the board knows that there are certain measures that are already in place and have sort of been in place for every other community that's been built in Medford and beyond. And so we're getting our hands around it, our head around it too. And I think when we have the, I've tasked my construction team to make sure we have a good, handle on cost here by the end of the week, and we'll be able to probably respond more fully at that point.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I see Commissioner Forde has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the petitioner, I absolutely agree that the building is not completely unprotected during construction. There are measures in NFPA 241, which is the standard for fire protection during construction. I actually give seminars on it. Fire extinguishers are required every 50 feet. It's unlikely that a fire may occur during the regular business hours. And the fact that an arsonist would burn a building down that size is almost almost impossible measure. But again, if I hadn't seen it happen with my own eyes, I wouldn't even be here. But I would just say this is that the petitioner, ultimately what happens here is the petitioner You know, if, if the ZBA decides to write it in the order. Okay, and gives it as an order. The petitioner does have the right to appeal this to the DCHD, they will likely prevail. I don't, I don't know that the DCHD would uphold it. But again, when you look at the cost of delaying the project, these things that are weighed out during business discussions, I'm sure on the petitioner side is, is it easier to go ahead and just follow the order or is it better to appeal it and save the half a million dollars, whatever it might be? So again, the responsibility really does fall on the Zoning Board of Appeals to articulate this order. and certainly it is the petitioners right to go ahead and appeal it. And again, because this is not a standardized building code, I don't want to use any scare tactics and say that the building is completely exposed. There are great safety measures that are taken for this. Standpipes and stairways are required. Early warning systems are required. Fire extinguishers are required. Stairs are required. There's a whole bunch of things that are taken into account. And so, again, the point is not to scare anyone. It's to just bring reality to a situation that Um, that needs the attention. So, um, I just wanted to, you know, follow on the heels of Mr. Alexander's comments. They're very accurate and, um, you know, and, and certainly, uh, the board should be aware that, um, that those measures are taken as part of a requirement under the state building code.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, commissioner 40. Um, and I certainly interpreted, uh, The part of what you said, just as an interest of full transparency, uh, my take is, uh, as a board, I would rather we not let hypothetical lawsuit scenarios enter into our decision making. So we're basically going to think about what is and isn't in our purview and what is right for this project. And I think, you know, if the board were to, write such a condition in the order it would be based on our assessment of the safety concern. But again, I know you're just letting us know all the angles, so I appreciate that, Commissioner Forde. Audrey, did that answer your question?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, it just seems like we're going to have to wait a little bit longer for a response from the petitioner. So in order to evaluate the options.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. Mr. Alexander, do you want to say something else?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I was just going to agree with Mr. LaRue, but it is our goal if we've got a little under a month as sort of currently scheduled to get the hearing closed and for the board to start deliberating on conditions. So it's our goal to have, like I said, by the end of the week or certainly well before the next hearing to make our position a little bit clearer based on, you know, again, I'd love to set aside costs, but we're not able to do that. So we've got to sort of factor that into our view on it. But yes, we'll get that as soon as we can. It'll be in the next week or 10 days.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Just want to double check. Are there other questions from the board on this topic?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, go ahead, Mr. Chair. Not exactly on this topic. But while we have the fire chief, I'm wondering whether I was going back and looking at my notes and seeing that there was a question about whether The building might be shifted a little further east. Oh yeah, talked about that and and I'm not sure whatever happened to that conversation, because I think the next step was to talk to the fire chief about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so just to be clear. So, there was a question I believe it was from Mr. Bowmer about. whether the sidewalk on the, I guess it's east side of the building could be counted towards the 20 feet and what the chief's position was on that. I don't want to put the chief on the spot, but yeah, I don't know if that discussion's occurred and Chief Friedman, you want to weigh in on it?
[John Freedman]: Okay, that discussion, it did occur. And I think what I reiterated was that 20 foot width is the required width, and it has to be roadway. The reason it's in the code is to allow, in the case of a fire, the 20 feet allows two trucks to get around each other. So on one-way roads, it's 20 feet, two-way roads, it's 24. And making the sidewalk into that, I think it would, I just think it would cause a problem. The roadway needs to be that wide. So if you were able to like eliminate a sidewalk, which I don't think is the best either, you know, you could shift a little bit there. But I think I just, at that point, you know, I felt like I was at the limit of what the code implies with the 20 feet. So I've run into this before because now, you know, then it becomes a question of during the winter time, clearing the roads and following it and all that stuff, people parking their vehicles. So there's a reason it's 20 feet in the code. So that was my answer to that. I know it's not helpful, but I gotta kind of adhere to that when I get those questions.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Chief Friedman, thank you. Any other questions for the chief before we move on?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Mr. Chair, could I ask a question? Judy Barrett.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Please, go ahead, yes.
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: Um, maybe the building inspector and or the fire chief could explain why they cannot impose this requirement on their own under their current authority to just really a jurisdictional question. Why does the board of appeals need to step into this at all? So that would be helpful to hear.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure. Um, Mr. chair, through you, um, to answer on this, miss Barrett's question. Um, so it is currently not a requirement under the state building code. Um, we do not have the authority to impose this. The fact that the building poses a significant fire risk is well within the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. But again, it's not a requirement under the State Building Code. So what we're trying to message to you is that because of the size of the building the bulk and the mass of this building okay on its on its lot okay if you're looking at the lot coverage the open space the height all of these things add a significant they pose a significant fire risk beyond what would be allowed by zoning so let's just say we took this building and we and we did it by right okay we probably end up with about half the mass okay i think the concerns would probably be a lot lower at that point um i i think that because given that there's 350 units in this building um and and the fact that it's on such a dense piece of property um i i think it's within the zoning board's purview to require this as a mat as a measure of public safety and the protection of the interests of the, not only of the proponent, but the public in general. But yes, we do not have the authority to require this under building code. And so we're asking for it as a special condition of a special circumstance, which here again is bulk density and height.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Ms. Barrett, did that answer your question?
[MCM00000619_SPEAKER_04]: I think for the time being, yeah. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. Yeah, and I just want to add that the board won't be voting on conditions tonight. We may propose a few candidate conditions, but we do have legal We can consult with the city's legal representation if needed, if there's questions about that. Okay, I think I saw Jamie's hand next. Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Thanks. Thank you, Mike. I guess to the department building chief and fire chief, obviously you guys have a lot of experience in this area. My question would be with the Waltham event and other events that have occurred nationally. I think this type of construction has been in use, as you said, since 2000 nationally, if not earlier, but approved in mass 2015-16. Do you, can you provide data on the size of the buildings that have experienced these types of fire scenarios compared to, as you said, it's not part of the code today. This building is larger than what we would see in a scenario that would get approved by right. And there's data that you can provide us that shows that these larger buildings carry a higher risk based on the events that have occurred nationally.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure. Mr. Chair, through you, I guess I'll answer for both the chief and I, but certainly the chief can weigh in on this after. Just in 2017 alone, there were three fires in this type of construction. Just in 2017, if I pull up a list nationally, you're going to find that there are approximately Approximately in this type of building even even after they're constructed and fully sprinkler. You're going to find a very high incident of fire. you know, fires in these structures. They're not bulletproof. I would say that once the construction is completed and they're fully sprinkler, they become compartmentalized, if you will. And so fires, basically, this kind of construction is unique, other than a type one construction, which is basically concrete and steel and really non combustible. What happens in this type of construction is if It relies heavily on the sprinkler system for its containment of fire, whereas a building of type one construction really doesn't always rely on the sprinkler system as part of the integrity of the structure itself. Here, the building relies almost completely on the fire suppression system being activated early on and being able to douse and suppress. In addition to that, the fire stopping requirements in these buildings is very stringent. And so that's another portion. But yes, I can get you a list of statistically these fires over the years. And I think that you'll be feeling surprised that they are not as uncommon as you think.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I saw Mr. Gomer's hand and then Jim. So Mr. Goldberg, please go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Thanks. Um, I just wanted to make sure that I understood Ms. Barrett's question. I think where she was going with that is what, uh, what's under the boards, the CBA's jurisdiction, uh, versus what might be a state requirement and the commissioner. So my question to the commissioner is that, um, You said under the state code, it isn't required. Is the it the temporary alarm system or what is the it that we're talking about?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sorry, the it is like the elephant in the room that we're trying to communicate to everyone. So respectfully, Mr. Bulmer, thank you. So the it is actually the requirement of early construction and activation of the sprinkler system. That's the only it that we're talking about. So under NFPA 241, all of the requirements will still be enforced, whether that's standpipes in the stairways, whether that be early warning systems, security systems, there are a whole bunch of requirements in that standard. But the only thing that's not in that standard, at least up to date anyways, is the requirement for early sprinklers. What it does require is that the sprinkler system be activated as soon as practical. That's the only language that's in there right now. And it would be way beyond the scope of my authority as a building official to require this and try to get this to be a code rather than have it written into a special order under special fire load circumstances, which I think this definitely warrants.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Although the NFPA standards are adopted by Massachusetts and a number of other states. And they will be enforced. Yes, absolutely. Okay. I think the only log I would throw on to what we hope is never a fire is the, uh, it's kind of back to the construction management plan. Cause I'm, I'm obviously as an architect, I'm very sensitive to life safety issues. So I think that for me, the special issue isn't like the Walpole fires or the Boston fire that was equally monumental. It's the phased occupancy. In one case, it's all about property damage, which is, of course, terrible and wasteful and all the rest, and even can endanger properties that aren't even next door. But for me, it's about that phased occupancy, the idea of somebody living in a building not that many feet away, that's a five plus three construction type. That to me is the most important. That's just me. It isn't addressing, I think, Ms. Barrett's question about who has jurisdiction. Just from a practical perspective, this is unusual. In Maltham, that wasn't the issue. There was nobody living that close by. And at Ashmont in Boston, that certainly was not the issue. So I just want to bring that point up. Whatever jurisdiction whomever has, to me, that's a real issue, is having people living so close by, potentially.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Bowmer. Yeah, and like I mentioned earlier, on the jurisdictional issue, we will plan to check with legal representation. Okay, Jim.
[Unidentified]: This question is for Bill, our commissioner. In Waltham, the fire that you had mentioned, what type of precautions did they take, if any? Could you share that with us? I know that Tim Alexander has mentioned that there are other things, and I'm just curious to know if they might have, you know, attempted to use some of those other things.
[Bill Forte]: Sure. So, just in a nutshell and I don't want to take up too much time but I think it's worth. It's definitely worth reflecting on. So, after the Ashman street fire in Boston in June of 2017 I immediately ordered all of the wood frame structures in my jurisdiction to be inspected. for NFPA 241 standards and guidelines. So NFPA 241 is a standard that basically requires you to protect your job during construction, especially in wood frame structures. This is very, very important. And so all of the buildings that were inspected in Waltham in that two week period, actually this one was the most compliant out of all the others. And so what happened was that we inspected three of the buildings. Two of them were in kind of tough shape. And one of them actually, I required, I actually shut it down for a week because I didn't have a standpipe in the stairway. So at the time that the fire occurred in June, I'm sorry, in July of 2017, the building was fully in compliance with NFPA 241. Of course, NFPA 241 does not account for arson, except for the requirement for on site security so that's the one of the things that they were lacking is that they didn't have 24 hours security. Now in FNF PA to 41, you're required buildings of a combustible construction over 40 feet must have full time security on site. That's probably one of the things that was lacking in there, but every other precaution was taken. The site was fully secured. It was locked. There was no reason for anyone to be in there. It was well lit. There were no other, you know, and again, the code does not account for an arsonist, you know, and that's the whole thing. So yes, to answer your question, everything was fully compliant. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Did that answer your question, Jim?
[Unidentified]: It did. I was just curious to know Because if we do hear about some of these precautions that they are going to implement, I was curious to know if these other buildings have implemented those same precautions. But thank you. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I'm prepared to move on unless there's other questions from the board. Okay. Um, thank you for joining Chief Friedman. Um, and thank you, uh, commissioner Forty for your presentation as well. Um, all right. So, um, we, uh, Mr. Alexander kicked us off with a high level summary of the, um, the, um, the working group session. Um, I just want to check in, especially, I guess, first with Mr. Reardon, because I know you had communicated a conflict with our last hearing, and you had some of the more substantive concerns that hadn't been addressed pre-work session. So Mr. Reardon, do you want to just share a brief update with us, how you think things are going?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Sure, sure. So yeah, like, like Tim mentioned, we had a really good productive working session. I think we're, we're all on the same page and there's no sort of fundamental disagreements either on how things should be handled or how they should be documented I think we're just in the period or awkward period of time where just the documentation hasn't caught up to what everybody's thinking in their head. So I think right now I'm hoping that the next round of submittals will go a long way in substantially addressing the comments that I've listed in my prior letter. I think that the biggest one and the one that I sensed I had the most anxiety about because I didn't see it that easiest solution was the whole loading area. thing, which I think they've gone a long way to addressing. So adding that extra length outside, adding two spaces in each building inside, that really starts to sort of trend in the direction of a more reasonable accommodation that I think is satisfactory to me. And same thing with all the other items that we discussed. It's really just a matter of the documentation catching up to what everybody's thinking.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Uh, thank you. And then, uh, same question for Mr. Ballmer. Um, what are your takeaways from the, uh, from the work session?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Um, I think the, it's been pretty accurately represented in those two slides and it was definitely a very good working, but I, I do want to add a couple of points. Um, One is I concur that the engineering issues are more easily measurable and substantive in that sense. But I think there were a couple of architectural issues that I think qualify for being very much in the public interest of how it's resolved. But I'll quickly go down, I think, It's been pretty clear just from the first hour of discussion, almost hour of the construction management plan and the importance of that. And I think we've talked a decent amount and I think the board saw some plans that were largely about constructability, but I think this territory of constructability uh, not versus, but constructability linked to life safety is really important. And whomever ends up with jurisdiction, uh, is not the important point. The important point is getting to the right place on that. So we just don't want that to fade away as an issue. I think Sean's point about backing up what happened at the, at the session. with revised documents is really important, and that's a way to really tie a bow on this whole thing for sure. A couple other quick points just on the slides. I think there's one slide, it was on page 2, the fourth slide. I appreciate the applicant's commitment on this facade, material selections on the entry points. But we also did discuss being more specific about the materials that actually are flat most of the building, which is cementitious siding. There really is a very big difference in quality of that siding type. A building of this scale and prominence would push really hard to have a material that doesn't require a lot of regular maintenance, even if that maintenance is on a 10 or 15 year schedule. Personally, I'd be looking for more permanence. Another discussion we had that I think maybe the board would like to be privy to is we talked about, and it was a big part of the last hearing actually was bike parking. and how that may relate to car parking. And I think one thing we did talk about was maybe the board would show some flexibility in approving a minimum number of parking spaces that might give the applicant space to expand bike parking if it really turns out that the world is going in the direction we think it may be going so that car parking spaces could be converted into bike parking spaces. But looking at tonight's presentation, I think the slides are accurate and I do look forward to seeing revised documents to back all of it up and coordinate across the different trades in the submission.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Alexander, looks like. Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I might, I appreciate both of those comments. And I just wanted to add that both Mr. Reardon and Mr. Boehmer offered that, you know, while we are preparing these revisions, but before they're submitted, we want to run something by them and have a little back and forth. That I think was a great suggestion for Mr. Reardon that we'll try to take advantage of over the next week to 10 days. So that was it.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Thank you. So I know We've been potentially holding questions for a while on the original presentation. So the easiest way to do this from my perspective is Mr. Alexander, if you'd be willing to share the first slide again, then I'll ask the board if they have any questions about the content of your update for slide one. Okay, wonderful. And so, yeah, I know there was some accompanying plans, so we can reference those if needed. But I will open it up to the board. What questions does the board have about, or comments for that matter, about these changes?
[Yvette Velez]: I don't have any questions. I just have general comment of, um, appreciating the realistic, um, change of those spaces for loading and unloading, as well as that parking and, um, those four spaces and losing the two, uh, definitely was, um, minimal, um, for what looks to be pretty common sense, um, uh, moves or re. reorganizing of the plans.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I think I saw Jamie's hand. Jamie, did you have a question or comment?
[Unidentified]: I concur with Yvette. The adjustments for loading are great. Actually, as well as the changes made for parking spaces and the allotment of those short-term parkings, those are definitely in line with what we've been looking at and asking for. Um, and I'm looking forward to the stormwater management plan. Obviously, there's a couple of items that are covered with drainage and those items, and that'll be important for conservation as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mike Caldera]: Go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. I'm just wondering if you could show the before after slide of that of the sidewalk where the, the temporary loading has been expanded, just so we can see the kind of before after change. That'd be helpful.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Sorry, so that on screen now is the original plan that was originally submitted in November, which had green space here. And then we, in our next submission after that added this eight by 50 zone. And then in the most recent discussion, you know, that would become roughly eight by, 130, I will scale it and make sure we have the appropriate measurement. So it's more than doubling, almost tripling our initial idea. I didn't mention this in the first rundown, but the other thing that would come with that is the full, then extending the sidewalk all the way down the north side of that road directly adjacent to this pull-off. And so what that would allow us to do is, um, then probably eliminate the sidewalk from the South side, knowing that we have crosswalk and people get over, let's, you know, we're losing some green, um, planted area here on the North side. So we'll try to give it back on the South side. Um, I think that's probably an appropriate solution and still works for pedestrians and also gives us as much, uh, planted areas we can get.
[Mike Caldera]: Did you have a follow-up question, Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: I guess I'm just processing that a little bit. So how much is the planted area, the buffer area on the north building now with the sidewalk and the expanded parking area?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think Andrew or Rob can back me up, but I believe it's roughly five feet now from the building face.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I think it's pretty close to that. And we may we may find that we shift the service drive a little bit. I don't know if we'll make it even even on both sides, but we may wait it shifted over a little bit plan right to give us a few more feet.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: We'll always maintain the 20 feet clear. Yes, question of exactly how that shifts and right buffer on the north and the south. Okay, that makes sense.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions about other things. I'm pleased with this progress here. There are a couple of other pending items I just want to check in on when the time's right.
[Mike Caldera]: It sounds good. Yeah, it looks like Mr. Reardon has his hand raised possibly about this exact view, so please go ahead.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I just wanted to add one other thing that I saw as a pretty significant benefit to expanding this loading area. One of the other problems we had was just the lack of sort of transitional space to manage snow. So in terms of my concerns about that, this is a game changer for that because you can imagine this is space that's largely going to be available during a snow event, you're not going to be expecting too many deliveries at that time. So it also sort of serves double duty that it basically gives you about the equivalent storage of that you need for all that paved area to manage the snow. You give it a place to push and so you can load it on a truck and move it out. So I think that's the added benefit of that. You can't be understated.
[Mike Caldera]: So Mr. Reardon, just a clarifying question. So this was actually gonna be one of my questions and I think you partially answered it for me. So say there's a snow event, it's plausible to me the demand for the loading area will be low, if not zero during that. So what I'm hearing is that snow could be staged in that area. It was a little unclear to me if you were saying that that plus the other areas available would be adequate to stage the snow for the entire development. So I wanted to double check on that. And then also, If I understood you correctly, you still believe it would need to be transported off site? Or are you saying that this would be suitable for the actual storage of the snow, that it wouldn't anymore need to be hauled off site?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: No, I think it still needs the basic expectation is that it's gonna be removed off the site immediately. Because if you can imagine, it's 20 feet wide, every 20 feet needs to be clear for the fire access. So there is no adjacent space along the courthouse property, got a sidewalk on the other side, so there's literally no storage anywhere. What I was troubled by was that under the old plan, there was no storage in no handling area. So it was effectively impossible to manage the snow in an easy way or a reasonable way, whereas this fundamentally changes that. It gives you a convenient and a realistic place to move snow to, so it can be loaded for offsite removal.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks for clarifying. It looked like Mr. Alexander had something he wanted to add.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, just nodding because we're in agreement on that, that it would be, you know, short-term staging, but that's not a plow and leave area for sure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So, Andre, you said you had other questions. Were they related to the content of slide one? No. Okay, so in that case, are there other questions from the board pertaining to slide one? Okay, I'll just say I'm also encouraged by the increase in loading, unloading. I'm not sure I know exactly the right amount, but it just seemed like the earlier version was clearly not enough. And this seems like a much more plausible amount of loading. So I appreciate the modification there. And I'm also glad to hear it helps alleviate partly some of the concerns about snow removal. And just generally also pleased to see the parties were able to achieve so much alignment during this working session. It does seem like it was worthwhile. So thank you all for participating and figuring out something that works for this project. Other questions or comments from the board about slide one? Okay, Mr. Alexander, can you advance to slide two? Thanks. Same question for the board. Any questions about the content of the update for slide two? So I guess one clarifying question I have. Oh, you know what? Go ahead, Jamie. You go ahead with your question first, Mike. I'm going to. OK. So as I understood it, this may be cemented a little bit more in the new submittal itself. But I'm trying to. get a better understanding of the progress that was made in terms of the revising and coordinating the playscape layout and equipment storage. So it sounds like there's a strategy for off-season storage. But yeah, are there other details you could share at this point just to help us understand where the progress was made there?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, Mr. Chair, sorry, I'm just pulling up another feed from the architecture plans. I think it's, if you can remember what we saw on the, sorry, moving around here. Really, this was a good catch by Mr. Bomer and the fact that you see this area where we've got community amenity area. So this is where we could have work from home spaces, club room, other amenities. And Mr. Bowmer's point was, let's make sure that the hardscape is designed specifically to meet and sort of coordinate with the inside as well. So there are areas where we can have the outside spill out or the inside spill out to the courtyard and vice versa. And so if we're going to have hardscape and playscape, make sure that it's coordinated with the public amenity of the building and not in front of somebody's apartment home. So that's really what that's intended to show. And then we outlined a potential area here where we could cordon off a portion of that space for storage, off-season storage of, in this case, play equipment, but it could be anything that's out in the courtyard that doesn't want to be there 12 months a year. Rob, anything to add there?
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: No, I think you, Summer, I mean, we're, as Tim said, the interior and exterior are catching up with each other and we're gonna extend the lawn area so that it spills or it connects to that storage area and then move some of the hardscape around so that it's more in line with the amenity space. All good comments and items we would have caught, but it's good to catch them now, right, as we're progressing these drawings, so.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, and the same goes for the South courtyard, Mr. chair. Really? It's a, when we did this, when we move, we basically created the rooftop amenity on the eighth floor in this zone. We then. the entrance and exits are here in this amenity zone, and this is where the interaction is. And again, not in front of the apartment home patios. We usually, I think we've talked about this, there's a fair amount of landscape buffer, sometimes even a knee wall or something similar to that, that really provides that buffer and that separation between an apartment home patio at that courtyard level and then the public space. So something that Rob does all the time.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So as I understood the updates on the play area or the portion that will be used for the play area, so there'll be alignment of the interior and exterior space. There's the storage for off-season. In a prior hearing, there was discussion about the intention for none of the play equipment to be, well, I guess it was, it was just, it wouldn't be a permanent feature, but it didn't, we didn't really get into whether the usage pattern would be always out during some seasons, never out during some other seasons, or if it was, you know, take it out as you need it. So just wanted to to check in on what the intention is there, especially because I'm just trying to think through the logistics in an access pattern where I don't know if residents or if it would be the building management are engaging with this indoor storage space frequently. It's not clear to me the logistics of how it get brought out and put back in and whether that would gel with the intended use of the indoor amenity space.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So our vision for that, and Rob, you can fill in, but I think generally what we would intend is that, you know, so for instance, the blue movable parts that you see on the bottom left of that slide, that's something that can be left outdoors, you know, sort of during the spring, summer, fall season. So that storage area would really just be for the off season, not an everyday use. Display equipment, or not equipment, but, you know, the sort of movable parts as shown or something of the like. Um, would certainly be handled by our building on site building, uh, community management team. Um, on a day to day basis to make sure it's, you know, sort of kept where it needs to be, but it's, it's generally out and available for residents to use.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just to add on to that, I mean, I. On a personal side, just go back from San Francisco and the Presidio and folks that have been out there, like they had these big red lawn chairs that, you know, kids turn over and make play equipment. So it's not necessarily prescriptive just for children, right? It's an element that's in the landscape and creates a little bit of fun and whimsy. So I think, you know, as Tim said, it would be out there for a majority of the season and maybe parts and pieces come in and out, however it works out. But yes, readily available to the tenants.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. That answered my question. Jamie was next, but I see Mr. Bowmer raised his hand. If it's about this, please go ahead, Mr. Bowmer.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. I just wanted to re-emphasize how we got to where we are. There were discussions earlier on in the review about the lack of usable outdoor space. And normally, I think there were some suggestions about creating more at-grade usable outdoor space on the site. And I think that normally, I wouldn't push very hard on micro-programming of interior and exterior, how the interior space relates to the exterior space, but I think I was I am convinced that that courtyard can really do the same thing as an exterior space could provide for the younger children who will be living in this development. I just don't want to lose sight of that. Detailing that commitment to that, I don't know exactly how to do that other than more detail and commitment. But I just want to point out that for me, that was an important point, that this was going to be the substitute for exterior play space, at least from my perspective. The board, of course, is the decision-making body. But I just don't want to lose sight of that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Jamie, please go ahead. Since we've had the conversation about fire suppression and the bike layout storage is on this one. I will preface this with I do not want to sidetrack us because I understand there is likely no code around this. But with the, and I guess this question is directed to Commissioner, Building Commissioner Forty and Fire Chief Friedman. We've seen a lot of news recently about electric bike and other personal transportation devices, fires related to the batteries in those devices. With increased bike storage, and I believe most of those fires have been attributed to charging scenarios, water is not an effective suppression for fires that are related to electric and lithium-ion batteries. Is there a consideration for alternate suppression systems in the bike rooms? Or, I know this is a new topic, a bigger conversation needs to be had about it. Not specific to this project, possibly, but... in a longer-term view. Are there opportunities for placement of other suppression systems in the bike storage areas? And also, obviously, in a longer-term scenario, dealing with potential lithium battery fires within units.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Jamie. Commissioner Ford, did you want to speak to that? Is Chief Freedman still on? I couldn't tell. I do see Chief Friedman on the call. Yeah, he is currently on.
[Bill Forte]: Okay. All right. So I'll comment to the fire protection requirements. So any you'll have almost a three hour fire rated assembly if bikes to stored within the first three stories of this building. So it's a type one a which gives you up to three hours of fire rating, especially where this is going to be a It's going to be a post tension concrete structure deck, it's essentially it's going to be bulletproof. I think the big concern here I think would be with the fire chief to is that people have a tendency to bring their electric bikes up with them and store them in their living rooms. That would be the bigger problem I think. I'm not exactly sure how a fire with lithium batteries is suppressed. You could certainly I'll certainly leave that to Chief Friedman, but there would have to be a restriction and a definite, you know, warning about the storage of any electric bike or any kind of lithium battery charge type thing, especially with, you know, with electric cars, obviously those will be stored in the garage as well. But I'm not sure about the suppression requirements. I do know that there's a three hour fire rating in the garage area. But again, I'm not exactly sure because I haven't seen the construction design as to where these things might be stored. I know that the parking garage is open on the first three floors and so I'm not sure how they would, you know, where the best placement of that would be. That would certainly be up to the fire protection engineer as to where that, you know, the optimum location of both car charging stations and bike storage would be. I would leave that up to the fire protection engineer, but certainly I would think that there are definitely gonna be provisions in the technical plans for this as well. And again, I'll let the chief speak to fire suppression. Thank you. Commissioner 40 chief Friedman.
[John Freedman]: Okay, I can speak a little bit on the fire suppression side of it. What we've run into these types of fires and what we found is that they do require copious amounts of water to put them out. You have to cool the battery down below it's, you know, you're gonna get the core temperature below that sort of a cascade effects that happens inside the battery that, you know, will continue to burn it, you know, well, it's that temperature. And so what you have to do is what we found is that just a lot of water. So once you cool the battery down below that, um, so that catalyst temperature where it'll interrupt that process, then, um, you know, the fire goes out, but some of these batteries in these vehicles that you're talking about, the small bikes are, are less of an issue because it's a smaller battery. But for example, in a vehicle, it's a, it's a whole of a bat. Some of those batteries, uh, uh, for example, in a, uh, for like in a Tesla or something like that, there are 90 to a hundred kilowatt batteries and just massive. And so when, when, and usually these fires happen from an accident or something, it's not typical that you get a car hooked up to a child or where it catches on fire can happen. after there's been some sort of damage to the casing on the battery or the battery itself, or maybe the vehicle was in an accident and it causes some sort of electrical issue, they don't discover it and then they go back and plug it in and then you have a problem inside. But those are rare. Most of the ones we get are on the road, there's been an accident, the battery is compromised, and then once it starts, it just requires For example, a normal car fire, you can put out with tank water. We have 500 gallons of tank water and usually you got tank water left and the car goes out. An electric car, you better start laying lines because it, like I said, it requires copious amounts of water. So when I look at this, I think, okay, how many cars are gonna be in there? Obviously there's gonna be fire rated walls, there's gonna be sprinklers, but we still have to think about if there was a problem, how we would fight it. What I would say is water. That's what we use. That's our medium. That's what we use to put them out. And it does eventually go low. But like I said, copious amounts of water. So in some of these garages, our standpipe system in that area so that there's water, maybe not exactly where they go, but somewhere so we can hook up to that and use that to feed ourselves if we're in that fight in the fire. But it's definitely something to think about. You know, maybe there'll be some code changes once we see a lot more electrification. I mean, right now we're moving in that direction. That's what we're seeing a lot of it. So we're trying to change and keep up with it, but it's changing so rapidly that it's tough. So that's the answer. Hopefully that helps.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Chief Greenberg. Thank you. Did you have any other questions on this plan, Jamie? No, thank you. Mr. Alexander, I saw you put up a visual. I wasn't sure if it was just to sort of help aid in the discussion or if there's something you wanted to add.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah. Mr. Chair, just trying to aid in the discussion and to confirm that the bike rooms, as we've revised, are Commissioner Fordy was referring to. And I would also say, you know, just to add on the idea of bikes or e-bikes in, in a, in actual apartment units, um, you know, the eat, this is something that I think somebody mentioned is, is kind of new, right. And evolving. Um, so it's something that if we haven't already, and I'll check with my operations and management teams, but I'm guessing we've already got a, We may or likely already have a stipulation in place or a condition in the lease that you can't store an e-bike anywhere but in a bike room within the concrete portion of a building.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. I actually had a different question that this visual may be helpful with. So I remember at the last meeting, and then again at this meeting, there was mention of this possibility that the board approve a minimum number of parking spaces to allow potential leeway to expand bike storage if needed. What I'm not convinced I'm at a point of understanding on in that domain is when I hear three hour fire rated wall, I think substantial. So my, at least my preconceived notion is that the cost of changing the dimensions would be material. So in this hypothetical scenario where the board, say, decided to approve a minimum that's less than the number of spaces on the plan to allow for some increase in the storage. Can you give us a sense of, would it be costly to do this sort of extension? Like, what would it take to actually make good on an allowance like that. If we approved a smaller number of parking spaces as a minimum, and then you have these three-hour fire rated walls, and then you learned, uh-oh, there's not enough bike parking.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Is that question to me, Mr. Chair?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I know there could be a couple of people who weigh in. So Andrew Stevens can probably speak, or definitely can speak more definitively, but the three-hour fire separation is standard within that type one concrete structure. So that's not anything over and above, that that's gonna be per code and per that building construction type. So I think maybe you're saying if we're building out a larger bike room down the road, how do we ensure that that room within the garage has the same fire separation? Is that the question?
[Mike Caldera]: No, not quite. So it's more it. I'm trying to understand if it would be expensive. for you to change your mind on bike storage, given that you have to have these three-hour fire-rated walls. What would the process of actually expanding the bike storage even look like if you had to go beyond the footprints of what's currently in the plan?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: I can speak to that. It looks like this, Andrew Stebbins from the architectural team. Please go ahead. Yeah, I think Mr. 40 is about to jump in see hopefully say the same thing I was going to say. So we talked about the three hour construction or the type one a construction that is for all the first three levels are all type type one construction. So there's a three hour So each of the each of the floor plates, not just in the garage, but all the way out through the units is concrete construction and anything built in there, it's got to be built to a specific standard that meets the type 1A. metal studs for the units, metal stud exterior walls, whatever. So it's not that the bike room walls are three hours themselves. We decided we didn't even have to enclose the bikes storage rooms. We had done it really kind of for an extra layer of security. And also they added benefits as Mr. Bowmer has pointed out in several meetings is this, The notion of having some issues with the charging of the electric bikes has been where the issues run up. So to provide a wall around that would also provide additional help with that. But it's not a required three-hour separation there. It's a storage use, the car area is a storage use as well. So, you know, we do have a separation between the garage itself and the resident corridor areas in addition, but that wouldn't affect an expansion of the bike storage rooms at all, would not preclude it. It's really just be taking up Um, you know, we could stretch this bike storage room over to the left as much as we desired, although we might relocate it somewhere else so that the accessible parking can be remained where it is, which is close to the closer to the entry and this graphic that Tim has up right now. So, but it's really nothing more than just taking striping away and, you know, likely having a similar approach of adding a, um, you know, a wall around an area to, you know, increase the security aspect of it. It's not really a big lift. cost-wise to expand the bike storage itself.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. That helps and that gels with my intuition. I thought the earlier comment was saying that all four walls of the bike storage were three hour fire rated. So thank you for clarifying. Commissioner Forty, did you have something to add?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, just for clarity. So, you know, from a zoning standpoint, right, if there's an expansion of the bike area, let's just say that bikes really become popular in the next five years and they need more spaces. I think you can write into the order that a reduction in the number of parking spaces for vehicles can be reduced up to a certain number without having to come back to the board for a change in the order. And again, to speak to the spirit of Mr. Stebbins analysis, Uh, there is no fire separation requirement for, um, uh, for a bike rack or any other kind of, uh, storage within that three hour fire rated assembly, which is the first three floors. Um, essentially those, uh, there are no separation requirements in between those floors. It's only, it's only for, unless you are storing some kind of high hazard, um, chemicals or something like that. And in this case, That wouldn't happen. Chargers are not required to meet any of the other requirements except for S2, which is storage 2, which is basically vehicles across the board, whether they be gas powered or electric. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so I asked my question. Jamie, did you have other questions or have you asked yours? Okay. Did we have other questions from the board about slide 2, the contents of slide 2?
[Andre Leroux]: Andre, go ahead. I'm just wondering what the status of the lighting plan is and whether we might see any renderings of how the project would look in the nighttime.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Rob, can you speak to that?
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I can. Specifically, there are some comments about light spill on plan north, which is actually east, that there is some, I'll say, some higher than Anticipated foot candles across the property line and so we've asked the lighting designer to. Increase the quantity of light fixtures, which may seem antithetical, but actually reduce the wattage associated with each lamp. So we'll get an even amount of distribution. along that access drive, but with less powerful lamps, they won't throw light as far, and so we'll see a reduction in the light spill across the property line. Along the Mystic Valley Parkway, there's also a little bit of light spill, and we went back to the lighting designer and consulted with them, given the proximity to mystic valley parkway they didn't feel like that was the minimal amount of lights didn't seem to be a concern with those fixtures and there wasn't really opportunity to increase the amount of fixtures within that area and so we are making some revisions along that i'll say top property line um and then uh keeping all the other light fixtures as they are because there's relatively minimal light spill onto adjacent properties except a little bit onto mystic valley parkway And from an external rendering point of view, no, we hadn't planned on and aren't anticipating creating night renderings, just the photometric plan updated per the earlier submission.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Just to add to that, I think that photometric plan, which basically has a foot candle in where foot or every couple of feet is meant to really depict how the light levels would be. I understand it probably needs a semi-trained eye to read that, but that's what that photometric plan intended to reflect.
[Andre Leroux]: In particular, my interest would be in seeing what that corner looks like in nighttime.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: This is my honor.
[Andre Leroux]: No, no, no, the, I'm actually thinking about the, the corner of missing Valley Parkway and commercial street. Although I am curious still to see, like, what that, you know. Aside facing the woods are as well, since you mentioned that.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, the foot candles on that north what's actually true north are very, there's, I think there's almost no light spill beyond the, there is no light spill because we're just using pedestrian scale bollards at that northern left property line. And then, you know, obviously is Andrew and I advanced the building right we're going to be considerate of making that. because it's in everyone's best interest, right, to be an appealing and attractive public corner. I don't know that, you know, as part of 40B, that exterior night renderings are really part of the process, but I can rest assured that obviously it's in all of our best interest to make that attractive and welcoming corner public realm in that corner.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, and I think the balance defined on the northeast corner, right, that back walkway is obviously to ensure safety of if folks are traveling back there at night, but then not have to the neighboring property.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Safe, but not inviting. That's a good term.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre, it looks like we have hands from Mr. Reardon and Mr. Bomer on this topic. So I'm just going to check. Mr. Bomer, go ahead. I'm sorry, Mr. Reardon, go ahead.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, yeah, I just wanted to make sure that to remind Tim and his team to make sure that those light fixtures get populated through the landscape plan and the civil plans, just so we can make sure there's no overlapping conflicts.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I coordinated with the lighting designer today. He's gonna, she's gonna send us something early next week. We'll disseminate that information to both architecture and civil so that it applies to all the drawings.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_09]: Great, thanks.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yep.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Hi, um, I'm just, uh, Rob reminded me on the lighting plan that during the working session, we did talk about street lighting as well. And on the West side of commercial street, there are some existing, uh, fixtures that are presumably municipally owned, but, uh, I know we did talk about coordinating. street lighting notions with what's happening on the west side of commercial street as well, and ideally incorporating whatever is coordinated into those plans.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, if I can, we both myself and civil reached out to the city to talk about what street lighting standards were and obviously, as we continue those conversations with engineering I think it was Republic works, sorry. can't specifically remember that whatever those standards would be incorporated or right obviously if future work is going to be done we're not going to install something and have it ripped out so yes we're in touch with the city and and we'll continue to do so terrific okay thanks all right thank you both um andre um did that answer your question and did you have any follow-up questions
[Andre Leroux]: I think that's fine for right now. I guess a, you know, for folks without that untrained eye in terms of the foot handle, you know, reading those things, it would be helpful to have some kind of a, you know, description or rendering, at least of that corner to understand what that might look like.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, and I think it's good. Also, like, city doesn't have any specific standards other than not to cause quote unquote harm or forget the exact term of motorists is really no per se standard although there is an international code of some sort around average light spill onto adjacent properties. And so with this change, we are fully within kind of that level of reasonable design solution from a pure public realm design point of view. And then obviously within the city's requirements about doing no harm within to motorists. So we're confident that Again, I know the photometric plans are difficult to read, but we are falling within the requirements.
[Andre Leroux]: Maybe you could just describe, though, are we talking about, especially for that corner, which is a strong corner, and we've talked about doing something on the mystic frontage that could be a mural. Is there any uplighting? Is it all downlighting? Is there spotlighting?
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, Andrew can talk about the architecture. I know on the, from the landscape point of view, our intent and the technique we've used a lot in a lot of urban conditions. Providing essentially a recessed hidden led strip fixture underneath the wooden benches or underneath the benches to essentially slide. Sorry, I'm lost for words, but essentially a welcoming public realm right there's a soft glow emanating from the seating area. Most likely a series of, I'll say a handful of pedestrian scale bollards providing some wash along that area. We'll have to look at whether we're going to apply trees in the world of dark sky initiatives. We may do some minor up lighting, but put them on timers so that we don't incur a lot of light pollution. So, from a landscape point of view, yes, the idea is to essentially give some warmth. As my lighting designers always tell me, right? Like it's not about the amount of light, it's about the contrast. And so, you know, part of this whole larger process that we're gonna embark upon, we'll be finding that balance of creating enough light, again, that it's welcoming in here. We do want it to be inviting. We don't want it to be so bright and glarish that it causes, you know, dark spots essentially when you look away. So from a landscape point of view, it'll be well lit, warm colors, warm candle. values, and then I don't know if Andrew has any anticipation around canopies or lighting of the buildings along that corner.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, we'll likely have the downlights at the unit entries. We have a band that runs along the retail face along Mystic Valley Parkway. Also, at each doorway along commercial street which we likely put a simple small series of Kansas to wash wash the area.
[Andre Leroux]: For whatever public art element is incorporated into the frontage, I'm just thinking it might be nice to have some lighting around that. Again, I'm not thinking big spotlights or anything, but it'd be nice to have it visible if you look at the building at nighttime.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I think on the mural, right, Andrew, easily, we can provide some grazing lights on the mural or element over by the retail entry. And then as noted, we'll have some pedestrian scale bollards and we can manipulate them in their location to graze whatever kind of artful interpretive element we incorporated into that plaza. I think that's a completely good request and good suggestion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Audrey, did you have other questions?
[Andre Leroux]: That takes care of it. Other, I guess the one comment I'll just make again is for that corner. You know, right now there's nothing across the street. Um, there's nothing like further down commercial. So just thinking about safety, I know I already suggested having, uh, you know, incorporating to the back of the building somewhere. of a, you know, a safety or security phone or emergency phone or something, you know, thinking about that front part to is there just making it feel safe. And maybe that's done better through lighting than anything else.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just I'll chime in right all of our landscape and urban situations, the idea of having clear visibility into the space having enough light so that here definitely it seems inviting and safe. And so, and being at a major intersection, it'll feel very open and public and accessible and. Most importantly, it has two exits, if you will, like humans, we don't like to feel trapped. And so having it be a kind of free flowing open space with clear visibility, I think it'll be quite successful amenity to the space. I can assure you again, that it's in all of our best interest to create an amazing little kind of gathering space up there. And that's our intention.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, do we have other questions from the board about slide two? So one thing I didn't see mentioned specifically in slide two, but I presume with the intention to submit updated plan packet for our next hearing. We were getting to the point where this decision needs to be made. So there was still the open question about electric versus natural gas for the building and then solar on the roof. So has there been any headway or any progress updates on that?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, sure, Mr. chair, I can provide an update. Let me go in reverse order. If you don't mind. So, you may recall from the on the solar, the roof plan in our restart submission from the end of March. uh, indicated potential areas for solar array. Um, you know, what you see is the rooftop, uh, units that are, that are basically condenser units for the apartment homes below. Um, and then that leaves certain areas for potential solar array. We've engaged with a firm called select energy, who's a designer installer, operator of solar array and familiar with this product type. Um, And so they're putting together the sort of review and assessment that's based on the Medford ordinance, or the portion of the Medford ordinance talking about that solar study. So that's in process. I had a communication with them today that they should be done by the end of this week. So that will be a part of our updated package as well, prior to the hearing on the eighth. Second question on utilities, heat and hot water, and whether that's gas or electric. That's a little harder to answer. I think I mentioned last time with the new building and energy code that were rolled out at the end of last year, the beginning of this year, there's a lot of, not to get too in the weeds here, but there are a lot of different stipulation on energy efficiency. irrespective of whether it's gas or electric, the efficiency of the buildings is going way up, or the required efficiency is going way up, to no one's surprise. And so there's still just a couple of questions about whether, in some cases, a gas-fired hot water heater can be more efficient than in some ways than an electric air source heat pump. So, I'm getting into the weeds that I didn't want to get into, but I'll also say it's not a very simple answer today. I do believe that whether it's in this forum or certainly in our state MEPA review that there's going to be more input on that from the Department of Energy. The State Department of Energy will be reviewing our MEPA submission. And so, um, we know it will come up there. And at that point we'll, we'll be making, we'll, we'll be having to make a, a, you know, uh, determination on which way we're going to go. So I know it's probably not super helpful, but hopefully you can appreciate the level of detail that we're into on trying to understand the code and where it's headed.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole either. But from a process standpoint, I'm just trying to make sure I understand. So the MEPA review would be after the conclusion of this hearing before the board. Is that right?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yes, it would be, the meat of it certainly would be.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, and then so say hypothetically the plans that exist at the end of this hearing are deemed not acceptable as part of the NEPA review, like what happens from there?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So, Chris, maybe you can help me out too, but I mean, I think in terms of what was looking at, right? They're looking at building efficiency. They're looking at maybe building on. So, and that could come in in the form of of that utility infrastructure could come in the form of the building envelope. I wouldn't think that anything that comes up in a MEPA review would necessarily have a substantive impact on building design in terms of massing or facades or elevations. It's usually what's between the sandwich of the walls or what's within that rooftop unit, but not a greater degree of change than that. Again, There are probably a few people on here, whether it's Mr. Bomer or Stebbins or Chris Rainier, who could add to that answer.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I can disagree with you, Tim, is really what you're saying. This process is mostly about the zoning requirements, and the VIVA process will be about environmental impacts, which are a little bit different.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. There was reference to this stretch energy standard and the possibility that gets adopted. Is the mechanism for that also this MEPA process or is that something else?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Director Hunt can probably speak to that better than I can, but no, that would be a city action that the city would adopt the opt-in stretch or sort of stretch, stretch energy code, if you will. Is that right, Director Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so there's the stretch code which the city has already adopted which I assume the applicant is planning on. There's a new enhanced building stretch code that communities can adopt and our city council is discussing it. Commissioner Forte and I have been preparing some materials to share with them about it. But if it was passed, what would be in that jurisdiction is not within the jurisdiction of the 40B process. So that would be stuff that is overseen by building code and what's in building code is not part of what this board has jurisdiction over. The same way that the things that are within MEPA are not really the same things that are within jurisdiction of this board. That's why they're separate.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, okay. Again, I don't really want to go too far down the rabbit hole, but I guess I'm just not clear on whether this would also fall into that category if it happens between the walls, and therefore it wouldn't entail substantive changes to the plans we're reviewing after the fact or like when these when there are these conflicts where we get to the end of a hearing and have the understanding that, you know, here's the motive of heating it. It's just not clear to me sort of what happens if then down the road building code says, oh, you know, this is not to code. Yeah, Mr. Bomer.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, it is complicated and I think Ms. Hunt's uh, opinion and I think Chris's opinion matter here a lot because if the, my understanding of the opt-in code is that if the locality adopts it, let's say we're in May now, uh, by June 15th, that the city would then enact the code in January of next year. And so the project would have to be permitted under that opt-in code, which is different. It's different from the current code. It's not so much that it's going to look different. I don't think the building would look any different from the way it does. Andrew can address that, but it could be a different budget that they'd be looking at to meet that code. So what I don't know is if that happened, who, is that really a state code requirement or is it because it's only adopted locally? It's an opt-in code locally. So I don't know. And maybe the applicant does or their attorney knows, uh, whether, whether that is something that actually is governed. locally or whether it's a state code and the ZBA has nothing to say about it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Um, I see, uh, commissioner 40 has his hand raised.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the MEPA filing really wouldn't. affect the way that the building is situated on the lot. I think what we're looking at mostly with the MEPA filing is if there were significant traffic impacts or significant environmental or other impacts that there may be some mitigation processes outside of the project itself. So they would look more at the surroundings and if there were any changes they would add those as conditions there too with the comprehensive order. I don't see that the that the impact on whether the building is fueled by electricity or fueled by solid or fossil fuels, I don't believe that it would impact significantly the scope and size of the approved project. And if so, I think a minor modification, there is something in 760 CMI that allows the petitioner to come back. If I feel as though that change, When issuing the permit, if that change is significant, I can always throw it back to the ZBA, and I believe the ZBA has 20 days to decide and hear on that, if that's a significant change or whether that constitutes a change under 760 CMR 56, I think it is. In any case, I don't think that I would have any grave concern about any impacts of any other agencies or even this change in the energy code adoption as being something that's detrimental or significantly, you know, putting it on a taxi and then turning it the other way. So, just a thought. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I think that addresses my question. So are there other questions from the board that aren't related to the two slides?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I did have a question that I didn't ask during slide one, but it might be related to slide one, I guess, more than anything else, since it is kind of a traffic and engineering issue. You know that entrance around the between the two garages continues to bother me a little bit. I know that it's been described as being kind of pedestrian grade, and almost like a little plaza, but I don't really see. the, you know, to me, it still looks visually like the sidewalk ends and then you have a car dominated plaza, right? So that I would, my instinct would be to prefer to have the pedestrian kind of plane continue at least visually. So cars going in and out of the garage can tell that they're crossing a pedestrian you know, crossing into a pedestrian plane or across a pedestrian plane. And I'm just thinking in terms of, especially now that the temporary parking has been expanded along that north side, there's going to be, you know, people coming in and out, crossing across that way. There's only sidewalk on one side. They're going to be kind of going there's going to be potential for a lot of conflict in the garage doors. I think last time I had asked to see some kind of a pedestrian eye rendering of what that area is going to look like. I haven't seen that at all and I'm wondering what you can do for me here so that I can feel a little bit more secure about this.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Rob, why don't you jump in and then I can supplement.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, the answer is yes. The pedestrian, the public sidewalk, the streetscape will run contiguously across the curb cut. So there'll be, I forget what the sidewalk is, six or eight feet wide. It'll be a continuous pedestrian sidewalk at the elevated grade. We won't dip down to driveway to roadway elevation. In board of that, I'll say behind the back of sidewalk will be again all flush condition, you know, pavers, bollards. Benches, plantings, et cetera.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Do you want me to share the.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: The graphic that we, yeah, we, we did create a rendering. I think Andrew can share.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: See if I can.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: And I'll just, while you're pulling that up, Mr. LaRue, it's a great point, right? How do we deal with the hierarchy of vehicular and pedestrian, right? Hierarchy and maybe, you know, in some sense, it's conflict. So I think a couple of things I'd pull out from Rob's comment that I think are key. One is seeing it, which we're working on, and I think we're going to see. And two is the items of the way that and a vehicle's not. So I think it's a combination of the landscape, the hardscape, the other safety measures that are going to be in place. And it's not, you're right, it's not, it's a little, it's probably a little bit unique to have these buildings that face each other and have the entrances that face each other, but it's also, you know, it's sort of a semi-urban condition. I think, you know, folks like Andrew and Rob deal with all the time, but we'll try to get, you may What can we give you that gives you a better sense of what it's going to be and a better sense of comfort that it's going to work?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: That chair? No. Not yet. Hold on a second.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Now. Yeah, you can see your desktop screen. There you go. And so a couple of things on this rendering. continue, it looks, ignore the yellow of the sidewalk, we're not gonna pave the yellow brick road, but right, so the sidewalk will be contiguous, roadway surface will ramp up to that elevation, flush curb conditions that are on either side, as well as the bollards to define the pedestrian area, and then a secondary crosswalk between the two lobbies. And I think the two things that are, as Tim said, or that you said that are the most important. One is maintaining that contiguous public realm, that pedestrian corridor at the higher elevation. And then what you can't see or hear in a rendering is the actual audio, the volume, the tactile nature that the pavers will create. And so there's always a heightened sense of awareness by both the drivers as well as the pedestrians about the comings and goings of one another. So the condition we've employed, I won't say hundreds, but dozens of times in urban and semi-urban conditions, very effectively, very safe.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, this is exactly what I was looking for. That's very helpful. One question that I have following up on this though, I see, so the garage doors here are closed. Are they gonna be sort of electronic? Are they gonna be open? And what does that mean for unloading? You know, if someone has to park a moving van or truck in the temporary space, how are they getting into the buildings?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: This was, Also brought up in the working session. Actually highlighted the plans. Depicted differently and we have to update this so really. To assist with a turn into the building, there actually won't be a garage door here and it's not as much of an issue here when you're on the right side as you come in and you have this wider swath to pull in. It's really. more for when you come in here and you pull into this building. Let me pull up the plan.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can share too, Andrew, but I think that the short answer is the door on this rendering is incorrect. Mr. Reardon pointed this out during the working session. The door is going to be inboard. um, you know, by a car length or two there, right? So that allows not only for queuing before the door, it is an electric, you know, very sort of, uh, high speed roller door. Um, but it also allows for, to your second question, if you're parking in that loading zone, you need to get to the elevators and you've got clearance within that zone, you know, before you get to the doors to get into a pedestrian door, a loading door.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so it's a little hard to depict on a 16th inch scale plan, but we do like to use line widths for the edges of the building, but really this would be open. We have to coordinate the shift of the garage entry. It didn't get shifted with a two foot when the building shifts. That's another coordination item between TAT, Hancock, and Halverson. But really this is intended to be an open, folks can come in here and have a sort of waiting spot as they they can click the clicker as they turn in and this this door can open and close back here not out here.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay well I understand that's great that the door is a little further inside but there might be I'm imagining there might be people with hand carts moving things in that area as well, in where the car queues, is that correct? To get inside, to move things in, or would they use a pedestrian lobby door?
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: So to move in, for your safe spaces here, like a moving van or pickup truck or whatever, so you might have, they'll unload it here and then they'll just traverse into the, into the elevator lobbies here. So they don't have to go back out through this area.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, but to your point, if they're parked in the exterior loading, then yes, they are coming in. Sorry, you can't see my cursor. But they're likely coming in through that vehicular entrance, too, with a hand truck, not through the lobby. Right. Okay.
[MCM00000612_SPEAKER_02]: I see. We can get in through here instead of coming around and coming in here.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Andrew, your audio is not great. We're just kind of crackling up.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, so that makes sense for the North building, I get it. You don't have to cross the road, but if you have to park outside and then cross the road to go into the South building, I'm just wondering if you could think a little bit about how to make that safer. I don't know if there should be a cross, like there's gonna be no sidewalk on the South side, it sounds like now. So just making it clear.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, we may introduce a we may say it's a their pavement or line striping crosswalk there to trip first from the loading area. Over to the South building will have to look at that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: But it's a good point and we talked about a little bit last week as we talked about the sidewalk swap and I think it's a little bit of a balance between wanting to provide. Adequate crossing areas, but not introduce too many where it starts to become confusing or there are too many options part of us to say, you know, just having 1 crosswalk along the garage entrance and then 1 for towards the building entrances. Yeah, keep it clean and simple.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, and we can do, I think we can obviously rearrange some of the planter beds and just to give a better access, you know, so that if you do have a hand card, there's opportunity to make those two turns.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. And thanks for preparing this graphic. This just makes it much easier to read visually what's happening.
[MCM00000624_SPEAKER_08]: We'll get it cleaned up too for the eighth. Yeah, I think we'll maybe have a slight value change in the pavers that are in the roadway or slightly different blend of pavers. Anyway, it should be a pleasant but safe environment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Okay, I'm not seeing any.
[Mike Caldera]: So for May 8th, the intention is that this would be the meeting where there would be the updated plan packet, which would essentially be final or, you know, very, very close to it. And include some of the items that we've been putting off because the prior plans hadn't converged. So updated waiver lists, zoning analysis, any miscellaneous studies that haven't already been reported back. And so at this meeting, The applicant would be presenting the updated plan packet. There'll be an opportunity for board questions. I think this is a natural hearing to open for public comment again, so we'll plan on that. And then this is also the meeting if the administration is gonna provide any information on Any need or lack thereof for local preference. This would be the meeting where we'd want that. That documented, um, so just wanted to check in. And see, um, are we, are we on track for that to be our agenda on the May 8th meeting?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can answer from the applicant side that absolutely our goal and hopefully that. Plans that are presented on the eighth are largely what we saw tonight. Um, just all in one spot. So yes, that's what we're aiming for. And our goal is to be able to submit that full package, um, by the, by the fifth, right. The Friday before that Monday hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, commissioner 40.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. chair I just wanted to remind the petitioner that we had talked about this a while back was the. I do see that the that the decks have been proposed on some of the architectural drawings but again I didn't see them on a site plan tonight. And I think that, you know, because they're considered structures, they should be calculated and included in the zoning table for the required setback, they don't count against lock coverage or open space but they do, they are a projection of a structure and it's within there are some areas there that are pretty close to almost being to the property line. I just want to make sure that the relief is written into the order properly so that it doesn't get overlooked when issuing the building permit.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Any concerns on making that a reality in the next set of site plans? Um, all right. So sounds like we have a plan. Um, Andre, I know you had mentioned at our last meeting, um, that you were, you were interested in possibly. Proposing some draft conditions tonight. I just want to. Yeah, I'm sort of leaning towards no, but maybe, you know, if there's certain areas where a member of the board is strongly considering a condition, you know, maybe we could just let the applicant know tonight so they have an opportunity to build that into the plans if they think they have a strategy to mitigate. So Andre, I just wanted to check in with you. Does that work for you or did you have specific conditions in mind that you wanted to just?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I don't think we should do it at this time. I was just thinking that as we go through the conversation tonight, we should start we should start flagging potential conditions so that we can put that list together soon. I don't know if Dennis has been taking notes along those lines or not.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, so actually I was attempting to do that in the background just in case. So I have some notes. I don't know if the board would consider this a comprehensive list what we discussed tonight. So there is a question of purview, which we'll double check. So there's the proposed condition regarding the early activation and sequential installation of sprinkler system during construction to ensure the safety of the site. There's the question of the cementitious siding, choosing a a version of that where it's a material that doesn't require much maintenance. So that was an open question. I don't know if that would ever amount to a condition, but it's something that I think needs to be spoken to in the plan itself. Maybe a condition surrounding maintenance plans, if there's a different choice of siting. There's... written into the order, this would be in addition, but the possibility that we would approve some amount of parking reduction to facilitate future growth of bike parking. I do believe that even though it sounds like this is part of the plan, there might need to be a condition regarding snow removal, ensuring that, in fact, the plans take that off site. And then I don't know what the condition would look like, but the details on the management plan for the play equipment. So those were the ones that were enough on my radar that I took a note while we were talking. We'll certainly have an opportunity to actually deliberate and propose conditions at a later meeting. But yeah, I just wanted to call those out there. If any member of the board thinks I missed something, we can certainly talk about those. And I see Commissioner Forty has his hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to volunteer to write in the paragraph of the language regarding the early activation of the sprinkler system. I think I'm qualified to do that, and I will provide that to you as a matter of public record probably within the next week or two. Okay. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: That sounds wonderful. Did I miss anything, folks?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, yeah, I mean, I think there's going to be a few other things too, Mike, such as the, you know, the mural, the public art element, as well as potentially, you know, the corner park. What do we want to say about that? Minimum bike parking, probably.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. I'm taking notes just so we have it. I think some of these might be the plans, the plan packet itself might have sufficient detail that we wouldn't ultimately need a condition, but certainly, like for the mural in the corner park, if the plans deviated from what we discussed earlier, I think that would, yeah, we would need a strategy for that. So, but yeah, I'm including all of this on the list. I plan to actually run this list by the city's legal representation as well, just so they can kind of weigh in on what would and wouldn't naturally live in conditions. And we'll also talk with Ms. Barrett.
[Andre Leroux]: And I don't think we finished the discussion about a possible blue bike station.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. Blue bikes. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
[Andre Leroux]: An emergency call box. Emergency call box.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, yeah, so I've drafted a list including the ones that you and I just mentioned. I do wanna run them by Ms. Barrett and the city's legal representation just to get their take. And then if a member of the board has other ones that they just escape them, but then come to them in between meetings that you'd like me to also get an opinion on, you know, please feel free to send them my way.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. The other big thing, Mike, I should, I think is, you know, any improvements.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, I think you froze. I'll give you a minute, see if you can come back.
[Mike Caldera]: It looks like you're back, Andre. You froze halfway through saying whatever you were trying to say.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You look like maybe you're typing.
[Andre Leroux]: Sorry, I'm coming in and out a little bit. Apologize, my internet connection got unstable. So anyways, I just think we should be clear about the public realm improvements.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Okay. So I think we have made it through the core agenda for tonight. What we were hoping to accomplish. It's been a productive meeting. So thank you folks. for talking through this with us. And like I said earlier, certainly excited to see that some good progress was made during the work session and then in the past week and a half. So yeah, we'll plan to reconvene on Monday, May 8th. And so the chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to Monday, May 8th at 7.30 PM.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I move. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Yep, and we'll do a roll call. Jim? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Amy? Aye. Andre?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the motion passes. This matters continue to Monday, May 8th. And then I just want to double check. I don't think we had anything else on the agenda.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not this one.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, okay, so that was the last item on the agenda. So do I have a motion to adjourn?
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn.
[Mike Caldera]: Seconded. All in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Good night, everyone. Thank you.