[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you for hearing us this evening and for the schedule that was put together and thought out over the course of the next couple of months. We're looking forward to working our way through those hearings and running a successful process with you here. We will start the process off. Do you want us to present first or do you want Cliff to present first?
[Mike Caldera]: Whatever your preference is. I got a notification ahead of time that there was a preferred order and so let's just do it that way. Okay. Whatever you prefer.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Sure, Cliff, if you don't mind, we think it might make sense to have you just sort of kick things off and run through a summary of how the peer review process has gone and maybe give some of your thoughts. And then we have a PowerPoint presentation that we can share and elaborate on some of the points that we discussed with you, if you're okay with that.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Hi, everybody. I'm Cliff Bomer. I'm at Davis Square Architects. I'm the peer reviewer. for the proposed development. I'm fine with that idea. Maybe, and I think I can keep it pretty brief, but I'd maybe ask the applicant to bring up, if they can share their screen and bring up the, I think probably the most useful document is the conceptual site plan that's been submitted so far, not any of the proposed changes. If that's possible, that'd be nice to have that there because I think that encapsulates and we can see most of, I think, what we really focused in on the working sessions. Absolutely.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Hopefully I can share my screen without the same issues that I had last time, just a moment.
[Unidentified]: That's good, thanks.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I can go ahead and start just a really brief chronology, and I invite anybody who thinks I may have gotten a date wrong to correct me, but I think you last saw me about a month ago, exactly a month ago, a month and a day, At the end of November, we had a hearing, and I thought it was very informative. I think there was a good bit of, from my perspective, illuminating comments made by the board and by the public. And of course, I had reviewed the project prior to that, but I thought it was, really rich with commentary that helped a lot in the working sessions. And we've had, since that hearing that I attended, I didn't attend the hearing earlier this month, but we had a working session on the 10th of January and another working session just a week ago on the 22nd. And I would, yeah, probably, I think the landscape plan is probably the best one. But I can start, maybe I'll wait for the site plan. There you go, that's it, great. Anyway, the original site plan, I think where I ended up was looking at the architecture, you know, limited to the building, didn't really make a lot of sense to me at the very beginning because I think It was really the way the building was placed on the site and the kind of strategy to mitigate the scale of the building that to me spoke the most clearly in the proposal that I was reviewing. Just to put a little more detail on that, my feeling was that the building is starting with a tough problem. They sort of made their own problem, which is not an unusual problem or an unsolvable problem, but of placing parking on the entire ground floor. And generally speaking from an urbanistic perspective, that's tough to make something fit. you know, connect into a neighborhood that is a very large perimeter with really the primary engagement, certainly at the pedestrian level, is parking. And I think the strategy that was adopted, and I don't really, the applicants can speak for themselves, but we did have two very, I think, productive working sessions, so I think they know where I'm coming from. The strategy to deal with that because it is a very big building. I think just from an architectural perspective to me, clearly the scale of the building isn't what is going to tie it in to the neighborhood for sure. If you're giving yourself the challenge, of connecting at the street level when it's all parking at the street level. The strategy that I think that they adopted, and I think with a reasonable degree of success, was screening the building, particularly from Myrtle Street, which is kind of the front of the building, kind of the front of the building, I think, was the thought. Certainly where most people in the public realm would perceive the building from was Myrtle Street. So the idea of creating the line of smaller-scale townhouses, which do fit in scale-wise, you can discuss the architecture. To me, it's kind of a separate subject. Scale-wise, I think it works. Setback from the street, it works. There are issues with power lines along that street. There are details that need to be figured out. But I think the strategy was primarily a screening strategy. And where we went in the working sessions was questioning that strategy. And actually, a good bit of it was, I think, launched from comments at the hearing at the end of November, of really, how does this fit in to Medford? And I think my main issues were that, Amaranth is also a street and I think Amaranth is particularly and when you look at plan north where it actually is north, north of Myrtle Street, Amaranth is kind of a homogeneous texture on the street. It's very well kept, very consistent and scale and pattern of development. And from my perspective, it was really a lost opportunity to not acknowledge that, particularly both because there is an existing development directly across the street to the west, but also Emirates could be activated in the future if there is a a pedestrian and bike path that happens down to the south end of the site. So from my perspective, it was really, at a minimum, a lost opportunity. And I think with respect to the neighbors to the west, It was a very large building that would have a very big impact on their day-to-day lives in that development to the west. That was one area that we looked at in the working sessions and had, I think, some very productive discussion. Maybe even more importantly, only because of the number of people who see it on the Myrtle Street side, That is really the front of the building. It's the best opportunity for the front of the building. As this design shows, there's a garage entrance at that level. There's a lot of paved area. There are some green spaces. But in my mind, it was insufficient, I think, to the degree that the screening was successful in screening the scale of the large building that was kind of disconnected. from the neighborhood, it was another really big lost opportunity. And as I said, connecting back to the hearing I went to, that idea of really connecting with Medford, making it part of Medford, it wasn't working for me. And we had, I think, very good discussion about that. Lastly, and sort of limited primarily to the residents of the building, who would enter it from the Fellsway is that long parking lot, basically, between the existing building that's been truncated in order to make site work. But entering the building from the Fellsway and a view down that long elevation, that long north to south elevation of a very long parking lot, to me was questionable. Again, sort of a lost opportunity, less important for the public realm than the people who come and go every day. But to me, there was work that needed to be done on the site plan before really moving into talking in any level of detail about the building itself. So I think I think it's fair to say, and I invite the applicant to expand on this or alter it in what their perspective was. But I think for me, the most productive path is feeling comfortable with how the proposal fits into the neighborhood. And that was really the focus. There were some, I had asked, I wrote a letter, a very brief letter near the end of December, asking for some additional exhibits. Those were provided, and particularly the street sections that were provided across Amaranth, to me, reinforced the case that that is not making the best use of something that's already out there and is part of the public realm and could be improved as part of the project, as opposed to, I think, making it kind of unpleasant, frankly. So that's, without going into a lot of detail, I think the two sessions for a couple hours total, maybe two and a half hours total of discussion. And I haven't seen where they've gone. We talked at the second session about some ideas that I was very supportive of that involved moving the building to the east to help the situation on Amaranth and really radically, in my opinion, shifting from relying on a screening mitigation strategy to one that works harder at actually tying the building in more successfully, particularly along the Myrtle Street side. So maybe that's where I'll leave it. I thought they were very productive. And the applicant was really, I think, very open to suggestions and they came to that second session with some ideas, very simple sketch ideas, and I encouraged them at that second session to see what they could do with those ideas.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. So I think From a flow perspective, it makes sense to go next to Mr. Noon. We'll hear an update from the applicant and then the board will ask questions either to Mr. Bomer or the applicant or both at that point. So, Mr. Noon, please go ahead.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Mr. Bowman, thank you for the presentation. I echo a lot of the things that you said. We are excited to be presenting here tonight. We agree, we feel like we had a couple of great meetings, some great conversation, and we feel like we have some things that people on this call will hopefully be excited about. I will just provide a brief introduction here and I'll actually try to go backwards in the slide deck just to So I'll start with the agenda. I'm going to be turning it over to the project architect, Eric Samuelson, to really run through the presentation, to give some of the thought process in the design, some justice in his explanation. Before I do that, just providing some context just with what we're presenting, what we're hoping to get So, as Mr. Bowmer said, had had some very productive peer review sessions. We got some great feedback from him. So, tonight we are here to present a concept plan. We, we believe that. The plan that we originally submitted is a developable plan. A developable plan was a good plan, but we also heard a lot of the feedback from the board, from the neighborhood, and then obviously the comments that we received from Mr. Boehmer. So what we're presenting this evening is a concept, an alternative plan. We are hoping at the outcome of this meeting that there is some positive feedback for this concept that we can get the board to pursue further with some additional peer review sessions and a later architectural presentation, but just wanting to sort of set the table for what we will be seeing is a concept. It's high level, but it should incorporate some of the things that Mr. Bowmer mentioned and hopefully addressing some of the concerns of the board and the neighbors. other goals of this evening is also to be able to clarify with this concept plan that the scale of the project is largely similar. So what we didn't want to have happen this evening is to present and have any concern with the ongoing process of some of the other peer reviews. Just in terms of the We also believe in talking to the design team that while we may have made some significant changes and updates to the project that hopefully everyone agrees are improvements, we also don't believe that these updates would impact the integrity of some of the ongoing peer review design from a civil or traffic perspective. And we can discuss that further later in the presentation or answer some questions, but just with those 2 wanting to outline the goals of this evening and hopefully have a productive conversation where we are able to move some things forward and make some progress. So, with that, I will turn it over to Eric to start the process of really presenting on some of these updates.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, thank you, Pat. And I also just want to say thank you, Cliff, for the process over the last few weeks here. I feel like that's been very productive and I appreciate your time and walking through the plan with us. So next slide, I'm just going to go through, just reorient everyone to the site here. Nothing groundbreaking in these next few slides. I just want to rehash project location for everyone. So the red outline is the full property footprint, with the yellow being the proposed project site that is being discussed tonight. This is just an aerial view of the existing building. As you can see, a fairly large industrial building occupying the site currently. So, we're just going to walk down the street here. So we're on Myrtle street looking West. We're towards the intersection right now. You can see kind of along the sidewalk. We have a fence and pretty tall shrubbery working its way, creating a barrier down the sidewalk. As we get a little further down Myrtle in the next slide, we look in at the, you know, looking in at that existing industrial building, a lot of blank brick walls and a lot of paving and parking within the site. And then as we get to the corner of Myrtle and Amherst, you can see there's an access point in the site on Amherst as well as the building abutting basically right up to the street on Amherst currently. So this was the conceptual site plan that we had originally submitted. One thing I did want to just cover briefly before getting too far into it, and we're not planning to cover exterior design tonight. This is really a mapping and site plan exercise that we're going through tonight. I think we'll probably cover an exterior design facade at a later time with Cliff. But I think right now we're really discussing site planning and building locations more than anything. So, this was our original site plan with the 11 townhomes along Myrtle and the 278 multifamily 5 story over 1 story of parking building with 2 courtyards. And we had some park space at the corner. I'm just going to briefly rehash what Cliff said. I'll say it pretty quick since he kind of went through a lot of this from the next slide. Some of what we heard along the front of the site had to do with the open space and the pocket park and really trying to make sure that that felt like it was a part of the neighborhood. The townhomes themselves, Cliff was saying that we're creating a barrier along Myrtle, but I think we're looking at it as a transition between the neighborhood and the project and trying to find the right balance using those townhomes along Myrtle Street. And then looking at building relationships and vehicular traffic I think was a talking point we had where it felt like there was a lot of impervious pavement area at the front of this building between the townhomes and between the building and creating kind of a traffic flow that I think Cliff was hoping we could utilize a little better than what we're currently showing. And then along Amherst, you know, some of the things we've heard along here was creating, you know, COPA was looking for us to create a better streetscape along this edge and kind of utilize, you know, the street, you know, closer to how we were utilizing Myrtle. So, you know, we heard about the building proximity to this edge and the vehicular traffic kind of coming, you know, along this edge. So we took a look at that piece. The next slide more internal to the site, Cliff mentioned the uninterrupted parking between the 2 buildings as an area of opportunity as well as the main garage entrance directly onto Amherst. So this is the alternate conceptual site plan that we worked through based on ideas and concepts with Cliff and other ideas that we had heard. So the first thing I want to know is that you'll see a black dotted line on the site plan, which is the previous footprint of the original design. So there's going to be a few changes here and we're going to walk through them kind of in response to the comments that we just discussed both from Cliff and the ZBA. One thing to note kind of quick is just that, you know, at the bottom is there's more usable open space in this plan and there's less impervious area in this plan. There's actually 8,000 square feet of more pervious area. So in the next slide. Um, a couple of points and changes in. And how we were approaching traffic in this concept. So the. The main entry to the garage is coming off the east side of the building internal to the site. We're placing this kind of north side of this building in hopes to promote traffic through the Fells Way area. And that would be our main garage entry and holding that internal to the site. And then we have a turnaround coming in off of Myrtle Street, and this is really only for deliveries and pickup and drop-off for Myrtle. The reason we're doing this is to create a front door on Myrtle Street and trying to create a connection to the neighborhood without creating a high-volume traffic location. So this would really be only for deliveries, pickup, drop-off, and leasing parking. So it should be a very low traffic and create a nice front door on the building. Next slide, please. So the other pieces along Amaranth, you'll notice that we have an additional setback from where we were previously. So the building set back a little bit over 40 additional feet from where it was currently. And the new setback from the property line is about 50 feet. This should both create a better streetscape along Amaranth as well as decrease the shadow impact on adjacent properties. This gives us more opportunity to create landscaping along Amherst as well. And then along the front of the site, we maintained six townhomes along the front of the site. We eliminated five townhomes to open up the space along Myrtle Street and create a better connection. With that, we created a break in the top left of the building that you'll see here to create a better connection with the neighborhood and create further engagement with the open space at the corner of Myrtle and Amherst, as well as the neighborhood to break down the massing as it approaches the neighborhood. I'm just going to turn this quickly over to our landscape architect.
[SPEAKER_02]: Good evening, everyone. My name is Massoud Bagheri. I'm on Boller Engineering's landscape team. I just wanted to go over some of these examples of open space landscape designs to kind of give you a glimpse of what you could expect in some of these areas that was just shown on the plans and some of the points that Eric touched on. Keep in mind these are present images to show some ideas and inspirations for different aspects of the open space, and they do not necessarily reflect the exact scale or material choices of our project. But based on what some of the comments that we heard, we think planting and some other landscape strategies can be used to address those concerns about open space and street scape. As mentioned earlier, the alternate concept gives us more opportunity for a bigger and more consistent open space and a better chance to integrate the site with the neighborhood. We created a small playground and a small dog park as two separate open spaces that can be accessible to the neighbors as well as the residents of the building. We added more green by use of vegetative buffers around the pocket park and some more additional trees both to the front plaza and in the open spaces around it. And you can see some examples of the planting mix and the scale of these buffers that you could expect at those areas. The connection to the intersection is softened, as Eric mentioned, it shifts the building and the site to face the neighborhood. And creates a more, we try to create a more welcoming open space by breaking the scale of the building and adding trees and more green patches. These green patches could be a lawn or could be more robust shrub and perennial planting. And this second slide shows some examples of some linear landscape buffers that specifically could be applicable to Amaranth. We can add a planting strip along the Amaranth with the new setback, with the space that the new setback gives us to create a visual buffer between the parking lot that exists on the west side of the building and the neighboring properties and also creates an opportunity to add some seating elements and lighting elements to elevate the street escape experience, particularly for pedestrian users on Amaranth. Thank you.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Thank you. I just want to kind of finish that, you know, we recognize this doesn't capture every comment we've heard to date. But, you know, I think through the process, working with Chris, that, you know, we feel confident in the alternate plan that we are showing, as well as the original plan. But I think the alternate plan approaches things from a different perspective as well. Thank you. I don't know if, Peter, you had any closing comments here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, Mr. Chairman. We'll defer to you. I'm happy to to uh to help and respond and Anticipating, you know next steps, but I I know the public and and the board i'm i'm certain we'll have comments I don't know if we want to go back to the alternate plan for you to reference I think that like well, is that that'll be the one I think most folks will want to Visually reference when when speaking so, uh, yeah, why don't we
[Mike Caldera]: open it up to questions and thoughts from the board.
[Unidentified]: Who would like to go first?
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I think I saw Jamie before Andre, so we'll do Jamie, then we'll do Andre.
[Unidentified]: Um, looking at based on the last meetings that we had and the changes with the alternate plan, there's obviously significant improvement opportunities that they've made with. both the landscaping and the setback from the community. I know there was significant feedback at the last community meeting from the folks that live on Amaranth Ave adjacent to the property that were really concerned about the shadow impacts. Shifting the building over obviously is a big help with that. It'll be interesting to see how that changes those impacts at a future meeting. The landscaping, the green space, removal of the townhomes definitely integrates it more with Myrtle. I would be interested to see where this takes us with traffic patterns with the drop-off and pickup because I would expect that you're going to see a majority of Uber or Lyft rides coming in through that way rather than coming in through from the Fellsway. But I think this is definitely a step forward from what we had originally seen. Thank you, Jamie.
[Andre Leroux]: Andre, please go ahead. Thanks. Well, mostly I have a couple questions, follow-up questions on the presentation. So the first floor is still all parking, is that correct?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Majority, not all. There are some amenity space in the leasing office as it approaches the ground floor towards the north. A large portion of it is parking. Yes.
[Andre Leroux]: And the parking that we see now, like, wrapping around amaranth have in the back of the building is that is a replacement of what was in the internal alley or is that. Is the parking laid out differently.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I wouldn't call it a 1 to 1 necessarily, but we did check parking.
[Andre Leroux]: So was there more parking outside now in this kind of schema than there was before?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: We internalized a little bit more in the alternate scheme than we had before.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. And just a couple of other questions too that are just sort of big picture design questions. You know, we see this The 5 floor wood construction over 1, the 5 over 1 proposed. A lot, and it's built in this area a lot. Did the team explore any other possibilities? I'm just wondering in particular about. You know, having. different kind of construction, maybe a higher construction that steps down more, something that would be more to the south of the site and interior to the site. You'd have more views, you could keep the same level of units. I'm just curious whether you guys explored that or is this just you guys started with five over one and that's what you're going for?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I, excuse me, I can provide a bit of context here. I think. Starting with the 5 over 1 scheme and moving to this was was generally the thought process just maintaining the same building type. Speaking generally, there's a couple of factors that. We consider when looking at sites and construction type and height of building, we didn't necessarily think based on some of the feedback that we heard that it was appropriate to necessarily propose a building that was taller. just based on some of our takeaways from some of the previous meetings that we've had, but also just taking a step back and looking at the cost of construction. This is a more cost-effective building type to construct. Going to a high-rise construction type introduces additional building elements, changes in material, changes in code. To answer your question specifically, we really have focused with this site on being a podium type construction. At this time, thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: And. Along the townhouse houses along Myrtle street. I'm just curious about whether you considered the other side of the street is like a 2 and a half story like. two-decker type of homes for the most part. But I'm wondering whether you explore instead of townhouses, maybe matching that with a more contemporary three-decker. We haven't had any new three-deckers built in the city in a long time. Could be interesting to see that. You could probably get the same number of units, especially if they were condoized.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Um, it's a great question. Honestly, we hadn't considered it just from a market perspective. Townhouses are a product that from the scale. Uh, we felt were appropriate and in the fact that there are 2 to 3 stories, but. you're able to get a bit more space there. Units that can attract users and occupants of different size and demographics, some family, just given the fact that they're larger units, maybe more bedrooms. We thought that they were a good mix. We haven't studied actually constructing traditional free family homes in that area. It's something that we can look into a little bit closer, but we have not put much thought into it to date. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions or thoughts from the board?
[Yvette Velez]: I'm just going to chime in and of what Andre is talking about in regards to like that the design of the building the five over one and it being a traditional more bland looking type of building and And I think I appreciate this push to meeting us somewhat in the middle, adding more green space and pushing it back. But I also think it could still, I agree with Andre that it could be pushed more. And I know this is high level conceptual. So when we get down to what it does, when the building does come a little bit more into frame of what this will look like, this five over one, I would hope that if you're not pushing the stuff that you're using to, you know, the, pardon my, I don't know the words of the construction material you use to look like the neighborhood or creating eaves, right, to mimic the surrounding neighborhood or things of that nature, right, then you go the other way, right? and make it look really unique in some way so that it's not looking like an industrial building that you're replacing with another industrial building. So that would be my only comment at this point.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mary Lee]: This is Mary. Do we know how many trees that will be surrounding the exterior, the outside, on the borders of the site? It looks like the front looks like there's four, but I'm assuming there must be more than what's on the graph.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: I would say just right now, this is a conceptual landscape plan. We're planning to plant it appropriately, but we haven't gotten to the detail to have an exact quantity at this point.
[Mary Lee]: Do you mind do you know what an idea of what's appropriate for in terms of the greenery around around the site plan?
[SPEAKER_02]: I can, I can, I mean, I think, like, along Amaranth, the goal is to kind of create that buffer so we're going to look into finding tree species that are the right height and the right width and the canopy size and like the right spacing. to achieve that. We haven't, this is again, as Eric said, this is concept level. We haven't quantified the planting plan, but again, in terms of the open space in front of the building, there should be a balance of trees, like certain areas that would be more densely populated by trees and certain areas that could be a little more open to create some sort of passive lawn for people to spend time on. So achieving that balance would be kind of the driving factor, I would say.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. to get that feedback. If there is a concept or a thought process of how to plant the site, we're all ears and we want to, we're hoping to get that feedback so we can incorporate that type of feedback into our future plans if this is a concept that we're moving forward with.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. I'm just obviously processing this after hearing it for the first time and seeing it for the first time. I guess my initial reaction is to hope for something between your first one and your second one in terms of I don't love the Surface parking wrapping around the building on Amaranth Ave. It doesn't, it doesn't, I feel, really address that whole idea of turning that part of Amaranth Ave into a little more neighborhood-like You know, street, and I know on the other side of the street, the buildings there are really facing. Towards each other, there have almost a defensive posture against the. The industrial building you guys own across the street right now, but that could change in the future. And so I'd like to set. The kind of urban design parameters of that by. By having kind of a street scape and. you know, I would almost like to see your building, I like the fact that you moved it in some, but I'd almost like to see that row of parking along Amaranth Ave kind of get maybe gobbled up by the building a little bit, like edge the building closer to Amaranth Ave, if we could front it with, say, a stepped up approach where you had maybe three stories along Amaranth Ave, and then it stepped up a little further into the site to the six stories or what have you. That's just something that I'm thinking about. Maybe that would give you a little bit more interior space for to absorb the parking as well. I'd love to hear what Cliff's reactions are to this too.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Boehmer, any thoughts you want to share both on what Andre just said and just generally? I got the impression you haven't seen this yet, so you talked about a lot of the ideas that are represented here, but yeah, I would love to get your take.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, I've seen in our last working session, we definitely talked about moving the building over to the east to ease up the impact on Amaranth. So I think I've seen, or at least I've imagined this footprint pretty well. I would respond to a couple of comments I've heard so far. One is the idea of the parking still wrapping the entire perimeter. I know some of the discussion we had in the last working session included with this idea of engaging more with Myrtle Street, having a kind of front to the building that that last little bar leg of the building that goes east to west, I think there was a discussion about that being the area for community space or not necessarily parking in that piece. So that northernmost wing of the building could be more open to the outdoors. So I just want to put that out there. Also commenting on the eastern side, we did talk exactly about what Andre was talking about, which is what happens on that west elevation of the building that's left in place. And that is a the building is being truncated along that line. And we had some discussion about how that elevation could be shaped by the design team. And we carried it only as far as it certainly would be important at least down from the entryway off of Fellsway to where you enter the building, that that should be thought of as a streetscape because it would be a heavily traveled area by the residents of the building. But I agree. I mean, it is the street. We talked about potential security concerns if it's really just a long alley with not much activity on it. But that was just a discussion. I don't think they've gotten to that point. I would go back to Yvette's comments that are very good. Getting to what this building, the materiality of it, and how it fits in is something quite different and just transitions through the townhouses. I don't think we didn't talk much about that. It really was more just looking at a different site plan, which is what this is about. Finally, to Andre's comments about the parking along Amaranth Street, I think it's an interesting idea if you enclose the parking. You would see from the shadow studies, most certainly shadow studies of moving the building, and they'd be, you know, morning light. Moving the building that much further to the east is making a very big difference. So how you treat that streetscape matters. You know, the success of that as a streetscape at least there's space now to do something with it. Whether this idea of that extended peninsula is sufficient, which I was looking at the images that the landscape architect presented as interesting, because I hadn't seen a landscape concept that went along with this displacement of the building. But the idea of there being a smaller, you know, a lower level along that street, maybe still in closing parking, I've got to say I'm ambivalent about that. Whether a landscape parking area with, you know, maybe with some passive seating areas is more successful than walking along the facade of a parking garage, I don't know. I think the devil is in the details on that. Having a lower piece on that west side, if you've moved the bulk of the building to the east, you've fixed the big issues of shadow and view of the bright sky. That doesn't really matter if you've got a five or six-story building that's 60 feet away and you insert a three-story piece between it. That's really not impacting the sight line to the cornice of the building and doesn't affect the access to the open sky. I don't have a strong opinion about that. I think it's an interesting point generally having It's impervious one way or the other, whether it's a roof or whether it's parking space. It doesn't really, I don't think it changes things from a sustainability perspective. To me, it's about the streetscape. This is a very conceptual landscape plan. And I think the goal from, at least, I think the big goal is make Amaranth a legitimate streetscape. And whether you do it with a peninsula or whether you hide the parking more effectively in a lower piece, I certainly would not make it taller. I think they've made a big gesture in the right direction by moving the primary massing towards the east. But I don't have an opinion. I'll tell you that one discussion we had that I'll bring up only because it affects the residents of the building, and I respect the fact that the applicant went in this direction. The previous design had an open courtyard on the south side of the building where the swimming pool was. It had some advantages for sunlight towards the swimming pool, but I do think working with this idea of opening up the building on the north side more for the benefit of the public realm and for making it fit in is a better move. In the big picture, to me, it has the most potential for helping them make the building fit in. Between that and really activating that northern wing, of the east to west wing of the building on the northern end, activating that to the greatest degree possible. And it is a really good opportunity for a community, community spaces, common use spaces that actually would have direct access to the outdoors. So I think I hit on most of the, just some responses that we're all responding to this in real time. Right now, I think what the developer is looking for is next steps. For me, I think my position remains, get a site plan that creates the potential for a project that the neighborhood really feels like it's adding value to the neighborhood in ways that they really understand. And in my opinion, having more space from existing streets and the opportunity or the potential for really developing that space. And I think we're hearing a cooperative spirit of working with those spaces collectively is a good direction.
[Mike Caldera]: Mr. Bomer. So one clarifying question I have for the applicant. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the conceptual site plan correctly. So I believe you mentioned that a brown rectangle on the east side of the building is an entrance to parking. What about the brown thing to the to the northwest of the building. Is that another entrance to parking, or is that something else? Yeah, that's a secondary, but internal to the site, not opening directly onto it. Right. Okay, and so then does that mean that the open space depicted here that's adjacent to that, that that's actually not ground level, that's raised? Okay, got it, got it. Um, yep, that's the second quarter right there. Cool. Yeah. Uh, so my my initial thoughts like in terms of um, like conceptually I think good focus areas and aspects that I like about what you've shown here. I think finding a way to shift the building east certainly opens up opportunities to activate Amaranth Ave, which I do think should be a goal. of this design. I like that you found ways to add additional open space, both at the ground level and elsewhere. I share the sentiments about not really liking the string of parking especially along Amaranth. I understand there are enough things that changed here that maybe the footprint changed in ways that sort of need some of the outdoor spaces to make up for lost indoor spaces. But yeah, I think I'd like the board to get to an understanding and a place of comfort with what are the actual parking needs of this building and you know how well served are they by the proposed parking and then just really try to minimize the impact that parking has on this ability to activate Amaranth. As currently depicted, I'm not really sold on that aspect of the design, but it's hard for me to say what the better alternatives are without a better understanding of the parking needs of the development as well as the other options. And then there was one other thing. Oh, I know this is a topic mentioned that we should discuss later. And I would like to at least have a conversation about it. So I understand how a lot of the changes here would not be anticipated to materially impact engineering and traffic. I do wonder if there is a traffic impact to this change just in that one of the stated rationale for the earlier building positioning was to make it somewhat hard to exit on Amarant. The only way you could do it was out of a specific exit of the parking garage and there wasn't really any other way to you know, to navigate there and now shifting it, which I think is the right decision, it does seem like maybe it also has the implication that Amaranth would become a more preferred exit from the site. So those are my kind of high level thoughts on that last one. I don't know if the applicant wants to weigh in on that. It's possible I'm just misunderstanding that aspect.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, no, it's thank you chair. That's a good point. I think. That 2nd access point off of was a topic of discussion for us in our peer reviews in our, in our internal meetings. I think it's something that we want to be thoughtful about in comparing this plan to the original. I think the only thing that I would say is. It's, I would consider it to be somewhat equivalent. If you are, if your intention as you leave the site is to travel north, then. That exit onto amaranth may be the logical place for someone to try to get to and if your intention is to travel self. Getting onto the fells way to travel in that direction is. Probably the path that the resident would intend to take, but. Conceptually, with our movement of the access point to the garage, we do believe that it will. It will drive more traffic from the Fellsway into the site and out of the site. So that is our belief from a traffic study perspective. Again, I don't know that this plan versus the original plan is going to I don't know that I would necessarily generate significantly different results in terms of your comment on leaving the site out of Amaranth. I would maybe ask Scott Thornton to comment. I'm certainly not an expert in that field. So it's something that we can look into further as we leave this meeting. But that's my general response, just hearing your question, Mr. Chair.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Scott Thornton with Vanessa and Associates. And, you know, I think we're very early in the process for identifying the roots and the distribution of the traffic. We do expect that to some extent this This configuration, it really depends on the amount of parking that's located in proximity to this access point. As Pat indicated, we do think that a lot of the traffic is going to be utilizing Fellsway. But obviously, with the one access point onto Amaranth, I think it probably reduces to some extent, the amount of traffic that we were expecting with the previous plan and how much of that traffic would be using Amaranth and Lawrence and Myrtle and some of the other streets in the neighborhood. But it is something that we'll continue to look at.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: If I could throw my like six, two cents in. Can I just share my screen for a second? That's fine. So I'm sure many of you are familiar with 100 Cambridge Street, and this is a very different urban context, you know, Beacon Hill. But I'm just trying to explain a concept here that I would like to see along Amaranth Street, which is wrapping smaller residential buildings around a larger building and obviously there's we're not going to have a high-rise building like that or anything but what i like about this is that this breaks down the scale of a significant building and it does not look as visually impactful and it blends in with you turn around the other side of the street which is the more historic brownstones over here okay again this is more dense than what we have at medford But the idea of having multiple entrances next to each other along Amaranth with some different kinds of making it look like different buildings, I think, is a good concept to try to apply to this situation. Thank you, Andre. Other and oh, sorry, the other thing that I meant to say was and. I would really like to see the parking inside the site. On Amaranth Ave, we could have that first floor be residential. I know the economics of it may be tough, but I prefer to see a second level of underground parking and the parking wrapped around on the street sides by first floor uses.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, other questions or comments from the board. All right, I would like to check in with city staff any questions or comments from city staff.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, Mike director. So we hadn't seen this before, Danielle and I, so I think that we may both have some comments on it. In a big picture way, I just wanted to comment that I really like the added drop-off area and the turnaround, and that that's not a drive-through for residents in any way, but by having an area like that, it really facilitates residents to not have to have their own vehicle, because they can rely more reliably. It's easier for Uber, it's easier for Lyft to come in there and find the place and have a place to pull over and wait for them to come out. We know that package delivery is huge, and I encourage the applicant to have a good size package room, including refrigerated area. We know that that's huge in buildings these days. But having a place where the trucks can come in, Drop off their stuff pull off of the street I think is actually critical and something we're looking into adding into our zoning for any large buildings, because it's so important. So, that said, the. I would really like us as you yourself actually just asked about their parking needs. I'd like to understand the parking ratios, and whether all of this parking is really needed, because the look of the parking all along Amaranth Ave and along what we hope to be a future shared use path on the side of the building. Um, we, I don't like it like at all. I will give you the minor caveat that when there is a large wall there that the neighbors on Amaranth and elsewhere will never meet the people in that building. And if people are coming out to get in and out of their cars. But I'm not sure that that would be a lovely interaction there. Right. If that if there was some seating area or whatever, they might actually interact with each other. And along those lines, so the the northern courtyard. If that was a ground level courtyard where people could be and the residents in the neighborhood could see people and then they maybe could interact and get to know each other, that's getting to know your neighbors. And having that courtyard up above looking down on the neighborhood just feels very isolating and not be not a community space at all. Granted, it is. And I'm not even sure that I like it as much as something that's completely isolated because it has this feeling of looking down on the neighborhood, which I wasn't, I'm not, I'm looking down on Little Park area. So that kind of like was very off-putting once we realized that that was up on the second level and not a ground level community space. with the parking, because I'm totally fixated on the parking. I did want to be clear, is that losing all the parking that is for the storage facility? Because that could become a neighborhood problem, because that is a very popular storage facility, and people do need to come and use that facility. Unless, of course, you want to make it go away and move the building over. Still good with that idea. But along as long as there's outdoor parking I do want to call your attention to our zoning. I realized that with this comprehensive permit you don't have to comply, but you do have to ask for waivers for everything that you don't want to comply with so section 9463. we have requirements around the number of trees you need to have per number of parking spaces and breaking up linear parking spots with trees. And then I think a couple of people asked about shadow studies that I think actually would influence our opinions a lot to understand the shadowing of the building on the neighborhood and how that changed. Those are the notes that I had. I'm not sure if Danielle, our senior planner, might want to add on any of those.
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, through the chair, Danielle Evans, senior planner. Yeah, I share a lot of concerns that Director Hunt has as well as member LaRue. I'm not In favor of the line of surface parking on that side, I feel like that. The property and the development could be better knit into the neighborhood rather than just having those surface parking spaces there and basically turning its back. to the neighbors, be nice if it was more part of the community. And I think it's, Alicia made a really great point about if there was like seating areas, then maybe there'd be opportunities for folks to get to know each other in a more like natural, organic way. I was a little curious about the, did the number of townhouses reduce when they dropped?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: It went from 11 to six.
[Danielle Evans]: I have mixed feelings about that. I feel like having the small scale along Myrtle to mimic the rhythm on the other side is more in keeping with the neighborhood and then having the large development in the back. I don't know if you're able to keep more units that way in the larger building, but we definitely need family-sized units in the community. We don't have a lot for rental stock, three-bedroom rentals. We have a lot of ownership and single families, but none of this multifamily. And it's particularly in this area. And I also agree with member LaRue's suggestion of kind of stepping down the massing with that concept of smaller scale. residential and was actually it's funny because we actually looked at that same building as an example when we're meeting with Cliff as an example of a way that could could be done here, and I'd love to see that explored. And also, um, a shadow studies would be really important for me to know if the benefits of moving it back that far and stepping down would be any negative impacts on the neighbors with shadows, having it step down if it would be, you know, not impactful for them. So those are my initial kind of off-the-cuff responses having just seen it tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. All right, I'm going to check and see if there are other questions or comments from the board or city staff. If not, we can open to public comment on this conceptual site plan. All right, Chair awaits a motion to open public comment for this session of the hearing. I move. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. And so Mary's our associate member, and we've got all six of us here. So I won't be calling on her. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. So that might have dropped. So, Mary? Mary?
[Mary Lee]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, public comment is now open. If you're a member of the public and you'd like to speak on this matter, the conceptual site plan specifically, You can raise your hand on Zoom. You can turn on your camera and raise your hand. You can type something in the chat. You can email DennisDMcDougall at Medford-MA.gov. I see we have someone with their hand raised on Zoom, so I'm going to call on them first. Allison D., please state your name and address for the record.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_11]: Hi, everyone. My dog, of course, picked the perfect time to howl out the window, so I apologize. I'm Allison D'Agostino. I represent, I guess, the D'Agostino Trust. We own 1022-1024 Fellsway. Been residents, my mother-in-law, resident over 50 years here in this home. Myself for about 13. I want to start pleasantly surprised. about some of these conceptual changes. I certainly am still opposed to the scale of this build, but I understand that's not really what these comments are for. I did have one specific question that was a bit confusing to me just from the site plans that I was hoping we could clarify, but my understanding I'm trying to figure out how this is going to work. There is a property towards the corner right where Myrtle and the Fellsway meet which is Walsh plumbing. It's a business. It is a brick building, stand alone. It does have parking and its own cutaway entrance on Myrtle that is outside of the scope of the plan from the property ownership from my I don't think that there's a lot of. Going away in this design because I could very well see folks trying to access through Walsh's property into the larger building property. So that was my my one question and just keep my comment short. I do think definitely from a traffic assessment standpoint. I understand, too. You're trying to contain as much within the building planning as far as traffic flow, but the Fellsway in that direction is only going in that one direction south. So I do think some sort of traffic assessment based on this new scope or plan would be warranted. I appreciate moving it. I do agree with some of the comments as well, the board. I appreciate the time. Definitely streetscaping and really, ideally, just a smaller building, but I'm sure I'm not going to get my way there. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much for the time.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I'd love to get an answer to that question about the Walsh plumbing location. Is there access to that still, or is that being removed?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Currently, that's not a part of the project scope. That is a separate owner that owns that parcel, and they have no relation to this project. And we currently are not showing any access from that property to the proposed project. Thank you for clarifying.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other comments from members of the public on the conceptual site plan?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: I do, but I can't find my raise my hand button.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, great. That's all right. You unmuted yourself. So please state your name and address for the record and go ahead.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Christina Catch, 130 Myrtle Street. So I've attended a lot of these and I, as a resident, definitely in your splash zone, I still don't feel confident that the applicant, when they say things like, we heard you, quote, we are here, we are all ears, that the, concerns and the questions that we're asking are being truly taken to heart and not just used as a projection for actions that you want to do anyway, like throwing in that green space that we have lawns, we have backyards, we don't necessarily need that. So I just wanted to express a little discomfort on our expectations and vocalization and seeing the results coming in a more aligned way with what we're sharing than just throwing out more things like this.
[Mike Caldera]: Just a clarifying question, was there a specific neighborhood concern or maybe a couple just for illustrative purposes so we know what you're talking about. I know we've been taking notes and that Mr. Bowmer was at the first hearing and did try to address that in the peer review, but if there's specific aspects of the project that you are especially concerned about, that would be helpful information for us.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so I was taking notes while Cliff was speaking at the beginning of this. And while a very robust report out to us, I didn't really take a bullet point nugget of his study away from that long speech. So I would have liked a one or two sentence, here's the key takeaway for you residents of my study. It was just kind of a lot of talking. Sometimes the sentences weren't even finished. And then a couple other things that the residents have raised is trash, smoking areas, snow removal. the bus stop of the amount of residents that will be taking that bus stop and partnering with the MBTA, the shadow study. So I feel like we've raised a lot of items that we still don't have concrete responses to yet. We're just being continued to be told they're coming. Oh, electric vehicles, like the charging spaces. We know we talked a little bit about parking about that, but that didn't come up, bike parking. So I feel like we keep peppering these worthy concerns that we're not getting answers to other than we'll talk about it or there's a study coming or there's a peer review coming.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, that's really helpful for us from a process standpoint. there will be at least one additional session on the design. And so if I understood Mr. Bowmer correctly, the thought in the topic for today's meeting and the kind of focus area for comments was really that the applicant needs some directional guidance on the site plan, the conceptual site plan, and what is and isn't working about that. And then I think it's everybody's intention to get deep into the details of the full building, including the interior elements in some of these issues. And then some of them will also be spoken to in the civil engineering peer review. So yeah, thank you for sharing. I fully intend for the board to go through all of those topics over the course of this year.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, if I could ask a question to Christina. Sure, through the chair, that's fine. Yeah. So Christina, just because this might have a bearing on the site planning and positioning of things, I'm just curious about the bus stop and the EVs, what specifically you or the neighborhood might be looking for? Are you looking for public EV spaces? And in terms of the bus, stop, are you looking for changes to that?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: So for the EVs, a question came up in a previous meeting of, what is that going to look like? Just kind of in a general sense, what is that going to look like? Because you see more and more electric vehicles coming. So there's only two spaces over there for electric vehicles. How are they going to handle that? And also, I don't know a lot about electric vehicles. I'm just bringing up that that electric vehicles were brought up in a previous conversation. Now we've not heard anything else about them. And then in a previous conversation, it was also elevated as a concern that buses are already pulling into the 100, the 100 bus route that pulls up to the end of Myrtle Street in rush hour is already coming in full. So have we had the conversation with the MBTA about adding additional potential residents of the street to that bus stop during rush hour and the impacts. And the question was raised about that, and somebody took an action away to connect with the MBTA. And that's just another example of something we still haven't seen an answer from.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you, Christina. And thank you, Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. To the question about the MBTA, what's the current status of those discussions?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I I'll take that Mister chair. Um, so we are actively working on on the traffic study. We have data that's been collected and we should be getting it shortly. And one of the things that we're doing is reaching out to the MBTA, uh, to find to get ridership statistics and to get information on the 100 bus. And see if there's if there's ways to improve the experience at that bus stop at the end of Myrtle Street but again it, you know, at the, at the risk of, you know, repeating something that's been repeated a few times. It is something that's in the works and just part of the normal process for conducting a traffic study is reaching out to these different entities and that information will be in the study. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have other members of the public who would like to speak on the conceptual site plan? I see someone by the name of Maureen has their hand raised. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Mea Quinn Mustone]: Hi, this is Maureen Terenzi. I'm at 132 Myrtle Street. I want to just touch on a couple of different points. One of them was the shadow study. I know there's been a lot of talk about the shadow study and how this will impact Amaranth, but we're also concerned with kind of the shadow study and how the apartment building will affect Myrtle Street and sunlight coming in that direction. That was one part. Another piece was, uh, reminded me when I- when one of the pitches, you know, has snow, like, is there room for snow removal, like, around there? Like, what's gonna happen when it snows? Is there- is some of that? I know if we put the parking inside, that, to me, is a pro and supports the- the idea of putting the parking inside. So- but that was another consideration. And, um, I know for kind of rapid firing in the interest of time, but, uh, The third one really I think was elaborating on what Christina touched upon. I think part of the conversation too around electric vehicles and having parking spaces is that there's a concern now that regular fire trucks can't put them out. So there have been issues where these electric vehicles catch fire and you can't put them out. So that was also part of what I'm just going off my recollection of one of the last conversations and considerations around the electric vehicle specifically. I do like the changes that have been made. I do like some of the changes. I don't want to sound all negative, but do still have some concerns and I'm anxious to see the traffic study and the shadow study and all these other components that we keep talking about.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yes, we intend to discuss all of those topics. So on the electric vehicles and fires, that's something we might talk about in the engineering sessions, fire safety and so on, snow removal, absolutely, shadow study. I think especially once there's more clarity on the building massing and location, I think that'll
[Mea Quinn Mustone]: And one more technical question. On the map that they showed, just out of, what is building number eight? Or what is the section that has a little eight on it?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: It's right on the corner. Sorry? That's a parking count for that area. That's eight parking spaces in that top right, right on the corner of Myrtle and Felsworth.
[Mea Quinn Mustone]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, other questions from or other comments from members of the public on the conceptual site plan?
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: Yes, hi, sorry, I can't raise my hand.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, no worries. Please state your name and address for the record.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: Hi, my name is Paul Terenzi at 132 Myrtle Street, right across the street. I just had a couple of questions the 1 that he said the entrance from the plumbers doesn't connect to their site. That's not true. Anybody can drive in that driveway and go right on to that property there. And even with the new. buildings, they're going to still be able to cut through that property unless they build a wall. And there's no wall in their plan. So people coming off the Fellsway are going to come up Myrtle and then into that to get into the property. I find that to be a problem. I also find the problem of you saying that all deliveries will be coming in on Myrtle Street and all the Uber drivers and all the Lyft drivers and the UPS trucks and the moving trucks. And that's a lot of traffic on Myrtle Street. I find that to be a problem. And they haven't addressed, cars can't get by going two ways at the same time. The picture you have of Myrtle Street with the snow on it, I have a feeling that was taken during a snow emergency because there was no cars on the opposite side. So I feel that's very deceiving picture of Myrtle Street. So those are the issues that I have.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Just to that point about the plumbing location especially. So we're going to review traffic, like I said, but the plumbing location. So if I understood the earlier comment correctly, it is the intention to close off that access. Is that right?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, we don't plan to have paving up against that property line. We're showing landscape and you know, shrubs, trees that will be surrounding that property. Whether it will be a full wall, I can't say at this time, but I would say we're not planning to have any pavement connection to that property.
[Bill Lucas]: I think to clarify Paul's question, will there still be access from Myrtle Street to the Great Sun?
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I'll interpret this as you have your hand raised next, so if you could state your name and address for the record, you can go ahead and make your comment. That was Bill Westpole, or he's on the device.
[Bill Lucas]: Oh, I'm so sorry. I should have introduced myself to start. I just wanted to clarify because I understood the question to be a little bit different from Paul. And I think his concern was that traffic could not enter the property from Myrtle Street anymore, and that is not the case. They will still have access from Myrtle Street, but they will not have access from our development to that property anymore.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. Is that clear?
[Bill Lucas]: Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Property has access to Myrtle Street still. Correct. Will to cut through that property onto this property because it will be surrounded by landscaping or other buffers.
[Bill Lucas]: That is correct.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: Got it. That's not in your plan though. There's no picture of that in your plans.
[Mike Caldera]: Well,
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: Right now you can drive right through and according to your plans, the back part of the condos that you're going to be building on Myrtle, you're going to be able to drive right around the plumbing and come right in that way. They're going to have access to your property that way. Unless you build something there.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not entirely sure I understand the concern. Which one is it? Is it that little triangle thing? Yeah, I see that surrounded by shrubs right now. In the blue.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: So then where's the access going to be on Myrtle Street at the corner of Myrtle and Amaranth? Is that the only access to your property from Myrtle?
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, there's the delivery loop. In this conceptual site plan, there's the delivery loop on Myrtle, which is the access on Myrtle.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: Access from where on Myrtle?
[Mike Caldera]: It looks like right at the intersection of Myrtle and Amaranth, there's a loop just for drop-offs. So no car could get to a permanent parking space. It looks like there's some parking for the leasing office in that loop.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_10]: So the problem with the traffic will be coming off the Fellsway and up Myrtle. Everybody coming into your property is going to come up Myrtle. off of the Fellsway to get to that location, get to that entrance?
[Mike Caldera]: We'll find out more with the traffic study. So currently the two ways to access the property are one on Fellsway and one on Amaranth. And the traffic study should help us to understand anticipated where the traffic will be coming. And that's certainly something the board will consider. I see Alice has her hand raised again. In general, I don't intend to take double comments from the public, but if there's a clarification or a, please go ahead.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify my original comment. So, and I think I, I follow Paul's logic. So there is a, I understand it's outside the scope. I know you don't own that piece of the parcel. That's why it's kind of land, but there is curbstone. There is a driveway there. and my, it's just a little bit misleading how this is depicted, which was really kind of where my comment was coming from. The location of the bus stop, where you're proposing those eight parking spaces to be, that's really where the bus stop, I mean, again, I definitely am not a planner by any means, but, and my understanding is some of those spaces that are currently right across from the bus stop are owned by the plumbing. And I could be wrong. I've just, again, we've been part of the community for a long time. We know that family that owns that property. So my understanding is there's some parking spaces that would still be allocated to him that don't look like they're part of the plan. So I think that's where the confusion is, at least for me. And I just wanted to clarify that comment. I appreciate you taking it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, is that something you could speak to? Is there any agreement with the plumbing business owner as to the use of the spaces depicted on this plan? Would customers or employees of the plumbing company be parking in that lot with the eight spaces or?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, I can respond. For the record, Peter Tam of Goulston and Storrs on behalf of the Davis Companies. The areas that are illustrated here are owned, outright owned by the Davis Companies are an affiliate. There is no planned parking for the adjoining property on the Davis property, period. The parking area that's conceptually shown here would support, in part, the existing storage and industrial facility that will remain. I hope that clarifies that point.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, that does. Thank you. All right, do we have other comments from members of the public who haven't already spoken on this matter? We're taking public comment on the conceptual site plan. I do not see anyone else. We do intend to take public comment throughout the hearing. So in general, if there is a themed meeting on the schedule, we intend to take public comment on the the focus area for that meeting. So there will be other opportunities to speak. But I don't see any other public comment at the moment. So chair awaits a motion to close public comment on this conceptual site plan. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I'm going to take a roll call. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? public comment on the conceptual site plan. All right, I think the board is at its chance to ask questions and make comments as well. So why don't we talk a little bit about next steps? Was that the next thing, Mr. Noonan, that you wanted to discuss?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, Mr. Chair, that would be great.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, sounds great. So as was referenced at the beginning of this hearing, the board and the applicant have discussed a schedule for this hearing. City will make sure to include that schedule in the folder with documents for this meeting. So for this case, our next scheduled hearing is on Thursday, February 15th. And the topic for that is intended to be engineering considerations and initial peer review comments. So I guess first and foremost, I just wanna check in with the applicant based on where things, oh, actually before we do that, Andre, there's something you wanted to say.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I mean, I think given some of the public concerns that we heard, then the applicant still is looking for some direction, right, in terms of overall site plan. So I'm wondering if we maybe should just take a few minutes to kind of not rush on past that, because I don't know if we can go to engineering without kind of having some clear direction from us.
[Mike Caldera]: You know, I know I have a couple of thoughts, but I certainly intend to discuss direction. in this hearing, in this session, rather, to be clear. I'm just right now trying to get to a point to understand what is the current state of things. So we had a plan and both acknowledged that this would be subject to change. It's hard to perfectly anticipate where things will be at various points in a hearing of this length. One of the focal things about the 15th is that it is a date that I believe we checked with the engineering peer review consultant, and they have availability. I understand your point that it's hard to speak to engineering if what's under discussion with the design changes things substantially, but also I anticipate we're gonna get some initial stuff and then there's gonna be things that get incorporated into the plan, so.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, let me be a little bit more clear in terms of my comment. So just in terms of the order of things, generally, board asks questions, public hearing happens, and then when that closes, the board discusses. Are we gonna have that board discussion?
[Mike Caldera]: Sure. I'll put on pause what I was going to say about the schedule. Why don't we as a board kind of discuss and summarize our thoughts and takeaways from what we heard today? Thanks for that suggestion.
[Andre Leroux]: So if I may, again, I just want to share my screen here so I can point out So, you know, we've heard some concerns from the members of the public just again about the access points and. You know, 1 thing I want to maybe suggest as something to look at is, I'm wondering whether, you know, this part out here. That that protrudes out on the North side, I'm wondering. if it could be shifted over to this side here, and this roundabout could be put in over here on this side and more internal to the site. Now, obviously, you still have to look at circulation. Folks coming from south to north along the Fellsway still have to turn left onto Myrtle Street, but maybe circulate around. to get to it but maybe it's a one-way circulation pattern that comes out and then this part of Fells Way is a two-way with the traffic coming both ways. I just want to see if that's something to look at because then this concept that I was talking about of wrapping the building with a smaller scale, I like what you were trying to do up here with the townhouses. If you could bring that aesthetic to this side, Instead of the surface parking and try to put the parking inside. I think you'd have. A much more workable design that would get a lot of support. Uh, that's my opinion.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Andre. I see just 1 to 1 clarifying it under the. For the fellows where they have to go up to the lights at. Central lab, there's no left turn on tomorrow. unless that's changing.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie, just so I'm clear, so they go up to the light at Central Ave, then they turn onto Central Ave, and then that's the part I'm missing, or do they do a U-turn?
[Unidentified]: If you're taking the Fells Way from Wellington, there is no left turn onto Myrtle. The only access is going to be at Central, either making a U-turn at Central or turning left down central and coming back into Lawrence from either Evans or Kenmare. Let's see.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, and in that case, there doesn't necessarily have to be a lot of folks turning into the Myrtle because they're going to be coming off of Fellsway anyways.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other thoughts from the board? So I shared my earlier, I mean, in general, I think there have been enough feedback from various members of the board, city staff, the public, Mr. Bomer. It seems like this isn't our forever site plan. So there's some opportunities to make it better. It sounds like there's, alignment that shifting it some amount east is part of the solution. It sounds like there's alignment that activating Amaranth and making it functional is preferable to wall of parking. I think directionally, those are the themes I'm picking up. From a pure logistics standpoint, I do, I would like to make sure that we're able to progress at a reasonable clip. And I also acknowledge that. So I acknowledge there's like this dependency between the design and some of the engineering, but then at the same time, between each cycle of feedback, it takes time to like adjust and incorporate that. So I'm, I'm a little, I would be a little reluctant to pivot. off of plans to get initial review of the engineering next, unless we think like the design will change so foundationally that it would just the whole engineering review would just be invalidated. So yeah, Attorney Tim, was there something you wanted to say on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can appreciate, and I don't want to interrupt the board's discussions and deliberations, but I can appreciate your just recent comment and that of Mr. LaRue. We are taking from this that it may be opportune to have a follow-up discussion with your expert followed by a return to the board with a sharpened pencil on this alternate and what sort of the push and pull of the site plan and the implications. I think with respect to parking, I'm just going to make a statement. I think it's obvious that, and we will demonstrate this, that there's going to be a combination of surface parking and parking beneath the building. It's unlikely that underground parking, meaning subsurface parking, can be supported for a project like this. But we can certainly work with the board and address comments of the public. So that to your point, if some relief from Amaranth, for example, is the clear direction that you're sending us, it may be that we don't shift the building entirely for the full 50 feet or so off of the street, but rather shift it and give you some alternatives. where that row of parking would be on the east side of the building as opposed to the west side, where it formerly was, while still providing a sufficient landscape buffer to address some of the concerns along Amarant. And I can appreciate that the shadow study informs that, and your expert has the preliminary shadow study, and we can follow up, but it should be obvious what a shift in the building would result in. But I do think that we have a plan which we can defend and which we can build, which the Davis companies can build, We are entertaining this as an alternative, and we're engaged in good faith, and we appreciate the level of collaboration and the spirit of collaboration, I think, as Mr. Bomer put it. We will continue to engage, but ultimately, the scope and scale of the project remains the same. We're talking about approximately the same number of units, plus or minus. approximately the same amount of parking, the same environmental impacts. And we're dealing with a site that today has an industrial use on it that is entirely paved with a number of different curb cuts that will be closed in. So we appreciate you and others that have recognized that we're working towards further improvements and enhancements. But we're never going to get to a place where this is a Beacon Hill-style complex, you know, for the reasons that I think Pat Noon had indicated. This is going to be a 5 over 1 concept, and we can focus in subsequent sessions on what the materiality and what those impacts will be. we can have further detail on the landscape plans. But we really do need direction, and I think you were alluding to it. If the message and the takeaway is that we're on the right track, we can consider what the implications are to Mr. LaRue's point about potentially shifting the northern sort of wing of the building and how we might have that drop-off turnaround area located within the site as opposed to potentially off of one of the streets. We can evaluate that as well. But we're really looking at this session for some clear direction from the board because we don't want to further progress this alternative and waste time doing it.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, thank you, Attorney Tam. To that point, so I heard at multiple spots, members of the board state their thoughts on this, but I'm curious, Mr. Bomer, I tend to agree that one of the obvious next steps is another session between the applicant and you. What's your take on this? Directionally, is this, Is this what you were envisioning, or do we need to go back to the drawing board?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: You're putting me in a pretty tight spot here. But I can tell you, I mean, I've had about page 9 of notes so far. Let me say that I think the Backing up, Danielle was totally correct. At one point we talked about, you know, just outside of any sessions about the notion of how to activate streets and creating multiple entries on a street can serve that function. So I love that idea. It's complicated and it's, It's generally a multi-level idea. Remember that this development has parking on one level and then residential units on the second level. It's absolutely not impossible. And I think that it's doable without becoming a beacon hill idea. So I do think there's territory to look at that. I'm pretty hesitant. I think for me, really one of the most positive things that they've done is actually that moving of the large mass of the building towards the east. That has, certainly on Amaranth, is the most important move. And it does open up However you deal with the 50 feet, the additional 50 feet is an open, in my opinion, is an open design question. And I think that's where I would really focus is make the right argument for turning Amaranth into a really nice extension of what is already a nice street further north. That is absolutely worthy of study. As I said earlier, I really am nervous about the idea of if the applicant is willing to kind of create the squeeze point on the site, on their side of the site to the east, I think that translates to a benefit for the public. That I feel pretty firmly about. It makes me very nervous, particularly if you only have one story to play with, because you'd be blocking access. If it came to this, really changing the second floor plans, it makes me nervous. It's not impossible. But again, I'm speaking as an architect who does a lot of multifamily buildings. And I do understand the economics and advantages of the podium construction. So I just want to put that out there. I think another thing that I think is really worth thinking about is Andre's point about relocating the drop-off area. And what I don't have sufficient information to understand, and this is really the traffic engineer who I think would speak to this, is how much traffic does that drop off, where it is now. Not that I think it's the best place, because I like that idea if it turns out that it really is impactful to have that drop-off off of the Fellsway entry, that's worth knowing. And I think that is doable. I think it's very doable roughly with the site plan they've got of looking at that drop-off from there. I just don't have the numbers to back it up, so I don't want to speak with any notion of any authority on the subject, but I think it's worth looking at. And I do want to make one comment on something that one of the neighbors brought up, that Paul brought up, and this has to do with something that did come up in our working session, and I'll report it out as is something that came up, which is how narrow the street is, that Myrtle Street is. And the applicant during our working session, the second working session, did share with me some ideas of addressing the issues of how narrow Myrtle is. And I don't know if they're in a position to talk about that tonight, but we've talked a lot about the streetscape on on Amaranth, but during the working session, the applicant actually did have some thoughts about how to improve the streetscape on Myrtle that directly dealt with that issue of the width of Myrtle and how to deal with the power lines that run along the south side of Myrtle. So I don't know if they want to speak to that. As far as how to sequence things, I think I do believe that until they can get to a point where there's a reasonable degree of consensus about that conceptual site plan, you might waste time, certainly on a civil review, who's going to be looking, I presume they're looking at where stormwater goes. traffic, that's a part I know the least about. So I can't really tell you how much difference it would make to put that drop-off off of the Fellsway instead of Myrtle. Yeah, instead of off of Myrtle. So I guess I am curious if the applicant is in a position to talk about those ideas they had along Myrtle Street for improving that area.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: And talk at a high level. Thank you, Mr. bomber yes so we in the process of of looking at the site and hearing some of the feedback from the neighbors have. Um, some ideas on how to address some of the traffic impacts on myrtle specifically with how narrow it is. I don't have an updated sketch. Unfortunately to share that. That is reflective of the current site plan, so I'm hesitant to put anything on the screen, but in concept, we've, we've looked at. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. I don't have a firm stance on whether or not that's an improvement or not for the area, which is why we've hesitated to share it just yet. It's, I think, to the overall point of the meeting, hoping to get some some feedback on the site plan itself to be able to advance some of that concept and move it forward. But yes, we are certainly exploring and trying to be responsive to some of the things that we hear, such as the narrow access along Myrtle Street with cars parking on both sides of the street. So it's something that we are interested in continuing to pursue.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: And one other quick comment I wanted to make was getting back to the Amaranth is that the 90-degree parking that occupies most of that space in that conceptual plan that we all saw tonight, it isn't necessarily the only option. I could imagine a line of parallel parking spaces with street trees, it was something that really makes it more of a kind of normal streetscape, but with a significant buffer between the primary massing of the building and the street line. So I think I'm just repeating again, for me, it just makes me very nervous about certainly moving the higher parts of the building towards the west. What the shadow studies are going to show, it's obvious that the morning light is really the biggest impact on the neighbors. On Amaranth as the sun wraps around towards the south, they'll recover the sunlight that they lost. in the morning during the winter and transition periods, shadows. I don't know the exact shadow impact that will reach all the way out across Myrtle too and across Myrtle certainly in the middle of December. Those are things that everybody should see and of course they follow the mass aid. So once you kind of pick the site plan and figure out how to Or can you come up with a site plan that makes a streetscape that works for you and then transition to the mass scene if you assume that you're going to. maintain for reasons that are above my pay scale, you have to maintain roughly the same volume and you're distributing the volume, then the shadow studies follow from that. I'm just kind of reacting to some of the way the comments have come in that there is a course, a logical course that you engage in each of these studies that you know, that really gives you the information at the time that makes the most sense.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I really do want to make this tangible. I think it behooves everyone to try to do what we can to I'm curious to hear the board's For for making the focus really be the positioning of the building and the other elements of the site plan, rather than some of the alternatives to the. kind of the building massing itself. I have some serious concerns with leaving this meeting with five ideas for what a better building design would be and a date on the calendar two weeks from now without clarity on how we get to all the information we need to have by the end of this hearing. So just a curiosity question. Eric Bussis, Applicant Olive Olive-Webster, Applicant Olive-Webster, Applicant with Mr. Bowmer and focus less on the actual building itself. We'll, of course, do another session to go through the design of that, but prune out some of these alternate options on the different building designs just for the sake of actually getting to something tangible.
[Unidentified]: For me, the shift east is definitely important. The shadow studies we saw, the impacts on Amaranth were significant, and I think the shift east is a significant priority there. I understand the concerns with the parking on the other side, but I think that the impact of having that six-story building over those properties is more of a concern. The parking can be masked, or alternatives can be found with the positioning of the building as it is now. I did raise my concerns earlier about the drop-off circle to, I think, both Mr. Bomer and Andre's point, the question of being able to move that drop-off circle to the interior off of Myrtle Street. It sounds like there's an opportunity to improve some of the traffic on Myrtle Street, and it would be interesting to see the options there. But I think those won't change the positioning of the building. So I think if our focus is the building mass position right now, the east shift as it is presented is preferable.
[SPEAKER_02]: Other thoughts from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I'd be interested in hearing what the other board members have to say about it. I know that sounds like some of the city staff weighed in with similar concerns too. I just don't want, it's a big project. I don't think we need to, we should rush into making decisions that are kind of fundamental to the project as a whole. And I think it would be good if we let the design teams do a little bit more work and explain to the board and the public what some of the trade-offs are in terms of design. I would definitely like to see the parking on the inside, but I want to, if the case is made that The negative effects of the shadows are going to outweigh that, then we need to have that discussion. I just feel like seeing a plan tonight and making a decision on it to endorse it is just not necessary. We should have another design meeting about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so actually, Andre, to that point, that certainly wasn't, it wasn't my intention to give that impression. That's not the question I at least thought I was asking. So, yeah, I just want to clarify, it sounds, if I understood you correctly, like your preference would be for the guidance to the applicant to be You've received a lot of feedback on the design and some of the candidate alternatives. Talk with Mr. Bomer. Come back to us at our next hearing with more details on the design you'd like to proceed with based on all the feedback you've received. And that's how we hone things down.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that seems to make sense.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Danielle, was there something you wanted to add?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, thanks. Through the chair, I just wanted to understand what is the parking ratio and is this over parked? Because it seems like the parking is really driving a lot of the site plan. Our parking requirements have changed since their initial filing back in 2020, 2021, whenever that was. So I just would like to understand what the ratio is If it can be trimmed down a bit and implementing some provisions to make being a one-car, no-car household easier, like the drop-off in large package rooms. I don't think it has to be a six-story wall up against Amherst or a big surface lot. I don't think it has to be one of those. I feel like that's a false choice. Again, just want to understand the parking, how it's driving this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, I can begin to respond.
[Mike Caldera]: Please, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think the design professionals can take this on, but obviously, the previous plan, as I understood it, reflected 289 units. I think there were about, between the surface parking spaces and the podium parking, there was approximately 377 parking spaces. Is that correct, Eric?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: That was including shared with the storage as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so that included the shared parking along the alley. So that, assuming that the unit count remains approximately the same, Miss Evans, question, I think that would amount to roughly 1.3, 1.4 spaces per unit.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's my calculation based on the numbers you just shared. And that is substantially higher than the current requirement. Danielle, is there something you wanted to add?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I was just going to That's higher than what's required. Only 0.5 spaces is what's required per affordable unit. And if you're providing 25%, then, you know, crunch numbers. And then for multifamily, it's market rates. It's one and a half. And then there's a further reduction if it's near high frequency transit, which I'm not sure this would qualify for.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I don't recall the rate at which the bus comes. I know that's one of the determinants. I think if it comes every 15 minutes during peak or something, then that qualifies.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chair, we can work with staff to review what we think the market supports here, because I don't think at a certain level, while It may be more parking than is required strictly under the ordinance. We need to have, you know, there's a tension between that and concern from the neighborhoods that there be, you know, spillover parking into the residential area. So we want to balance that. We want to right-size this in terms of the parking demand. But ultimately, this is a conceptual plan. As I pointed out, we do have to acknowledge that there'll be a combination of surface parking and podium parking. And, you know, again, I point to the fact that I think for any objective observer, the streetscape will be improved over what is there today and the amount of impervious area and parking area that's out there today. And that's our goal. But I'll say one other suggestion as the board is contemplating kind of next steps. I think I won't speak for Pat Noon directly, and he can speak for himself. But I do take the point that Mr. LaRue and you, Mr. Chair, have made. If at the next session, if we could have the opportunity, if it were to work out in the next week, to two weeks to engage further between Eric and Mr. Bowmer. We can report to the board in terms of progress if there is an updated schematic, even conceptually. We can talk to a number of these issues, both including parking, including the drop-off area, some of the site and landscape areas, because I think we are, in fact, trying to respond and You know, some of this is very subjective. But I'm personally not adverse to continuing this conversation if the board needs sort of more time. Understanding that we're really at a site plan level, we're looking at adjustments. I don't think, and we've talked with our civil and with our traffic engineer, that the environmental impacts in terms of site, civil, and transportation fundamentally change based on what we're talking about. It's ultimately kind of site circulation and on-site impacts that change. So we don't think that there's a waste of time in engaging with your civil peer review consultant. on the overall approach, for instance, to stormwater management or to the utilities or to, you know, general impacts, traffic is going to be deferred anyway until later. So I guess my suggestion would be we might take, we can both chew gum and walk, we might take some time a limited amount of time to provide an update to you on the 15th with respect to some of these design comments we're getting from the board, from you and staff and the public, understanding you have just looked at this revised alternative concept, and then also take some of that time to engage on initial comments with respect to peer review of civil.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Tam. I think it depends a little bit. So in the world where we're not discussing any fundamental changes to the building footprint and massing and all these other things, and it's just a question of the site plan, I am a little skeptical on the traffic side of things. But as you mentioned, that's deferred. I tend to agree engineering is going to be in the right neighborhood. If the plan is that we're going to get an update on the 15th, and then we're going to go through engineering, it's basically an acknowledgment today that the feedback on the other elements of the design something that we're going to have a substantive discussion about. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but there are things discussed today that would change the engineering. If we proceed with the plan to discuss engineering in two weeks and are confident it's not going to be a waste of time, for me, it sounds pretty similar to the first question I posed. Is the board amenable to just having the focus be more the positioning and other elements of the site plan rather than the building itself. I'm hearing some feedback from a member of the board and the city staff that the preference would be take in all the feedback, have the discussions, come back, and give additional details as to your proposal for how to proceed. And if that proposal ends up being, hey, we think you've got a good rationale for this particular design, so be it. But I don't know how we could with confidence know that engineering is a good agenda on the 15th in a world where we're considering all of what's been suggested today.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. If a better option in your opinion than that of the board is to essentially defer each subject for two weeks down the schedule, I think you've built in some room to do that. And we could focus exclusively on this as a follow-up, understanding that at that point, we really do need to start sharpening our pencils on the follow-up that would come from a potential change to the site plan.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so the thing I'm clear on is we cannot leave the next meeting with things this up in the air about the site plan. That has to converge. I am committed to keeping this on track. I'm also committed to doing our due diligence. The board is going to review all the information that we should to make sure that we're getting you the right feedback and proposing the right conditions and so on and doing the statutory analysis. We're going to do that stuff no matter what. I understand the importance in running an efficient and expeditious hearing here. I think we do have some limited buffer built into the schedule to absorb a delay for a topic we really need to zoom in on. I'm getting some feedback from at least some members of the board that that would be worthwhile, so I'm open to consider that. I do not want to leave the 15th. with the action item being, hey, let's use the next meeting and talk about big additional changes to the site plan. At that point, I'm just going to start scheduling extra sessions because we're going to run out of time. Jim, you wanted to say something?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, I don't feel comfortable. I personally would like to see the site plan previewed before moving on. Just a personal, I just feel like we haven't really seen any changes. We've talked about what the public would like to see and what we would like to see. So I just feel like if we get right into engineering, we're not really putting the time into this for us to move on. It's just my personal opinion.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Jim. I'm comfortable with that being the plan. And I actually think it would be a mistake, even if other members of the board are willing to proceed without doing that, to just rush things. And we've got multiple key stakeholders who have already expressed a desire to use the next meeting to really hear the update in terms of consideration of what was discussed today. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to talk again with Mr. Bowmer and just report back, hey, we considered it all. We had a back and forth. This is the site plan we'd like to move forward with, and here's why. I think that's a good use of time. Like I said, if we find ourselves down the road in a situation where time becomes a constraint at the current cadence, we're going to just have to schedule more of these. But we have a little bit of contingency built in, and it sounds like that will be a productive next meeting. My immediate next question will be, Is that something that the applicant and Mr. Boehmer, you think, can we in two weeks actually get to a point where there's a substantive update that we're discussing on the design on the 15th?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, I'm available for another working session, but I'm not the architect. They have to speak for themselves on that.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I won't speak for Eric. Go ahead, Eric. There you go.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I was going to say, I mean, I certainly think it's doable to get to a place of the next session. I guess my concern that I've heard, it seems like there's a lot of different directions that people want to head tonight. And I guess I'm not very clear on what people are looking to see. I don't think We have the opportunity to show 10 different site plans to address 10 different comments. Do we have the opportunity to address some of these and move forward in a couple of directions to provide a couple of options? Absolutely. I'd just be nervous about spreading too thin.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I certainly don't think it's a reasonable expectation of the board to have you come with a site plan for every option proposed today. I think that there are a lot of themes that do carry across those ideas that are certainly ones to focus on. I believe city staff is willing to make themselves available. Mr. Bomer confirmed he's available for a working session. I'm perfectly fine with you coming based on those discussions with what you think is your best shot site plan. And as long as you can tell us why that's the one we should proceed with, I think we can have a good discussion about that. But I really do want you to take a step back and consider all of the feedback, including some of the ones that maybe are going to require a little bit of additional effort to incorporate. If it's the right thing for the project, and you know that to be the case after giving it some thought, that's a good option to consider. I don't want to constrain ourselves just to the options that are reducing the splash radius. There are some material changes some have proposed. I didn't hear anything that was like, completely, like, just blow up the whole plan and start over. So, yeah, just, you know, if you could consider all the options, talk to city staff, talk to Mr. Boehmer, and come back with your best shot site plan and a rationale for why that's how we should proceed, I think we'll have a good meeting.
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: I don't disagree.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We can do that, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would might characterize it slightly differently in that we do have a site plan which is final that is reflected in terms of a great deal of preliminary architectural detail and design and elevations. Floor plans, it's really based, this is being driven by you, by the public, and by your expert. So when we return, I like the idea that I think Mr. LaRue characterized it as we can, and I think Eric and others here can help explain the trade-offs with a little more definition in terms of how to have an active streetscape and what the trade-offs are, for instance, with the shift in the building. But clearly, our intent tonight was to show that the movement of the building, the increase in open space, the increase in active programmable open space accessible to the public, some of the additional community benefits, the greater impervious cover, and the redesign of the garage to shift some of the impact to the Fellsway. All of those are steps in the right direction. we believe, and are responsive to a number of the comments, not every comment, but a number of the comments that we've consistently heard. What we can't do is, to your point, continue with a site design process. You know, Davis Companies intends to build this. They're confident in the program that they've provided. But it can't be a fundamental redesign that continues on and on. So we, like you, would like to get a very clear definition based on, I think, an explanation of the trade-offs. But it's probably going to be informed by some variation of the site plan that you've seen tonight.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I certainly don't think it's the board's role to tell you the the site plan to proceed with. So you have the feedback, you have the board's concerns, you have the board's feedback on what we really liked. We appreciate the spirit of collaboration. The board will proceed with you know, whatever site plan you settle on, and the only thing that will change is the amount of concerns we have. So, yeah, you know, I think it's really for the applicant to decide what to move forward with at the next hearing. The board expects to understand the whys behind that, whatever plan we're reviewing on that date.
[Andre Leroux]: Mister chair through you I have a question for the city's 40 be consultant. Yeah, please go ahead. So I think it'd be helpful for the board members as well for the public to understand, um, you know, what the parameters are in terms of the 40 B process, uh, in terms of when we offer suggestions or, uh, you know, when we're requiring certain things, can you just explain that a little bit more? Like, what are the parameters for our, uh, guidance of this project?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: You absolutely have the right to make requests of the applicants throughout the process. And if the applicant is willing to work with the board and make changes, you know, that are responsive to those requests, it can be a very collaborative process. The applicant, on the other hand, is not required to acquiesce to the board's requests for changes and can move forward on the project as they originally designed, and then it's left to the board to either impose conditions or deny the project at the end of the process, knowing that an appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee would be a likely result, and the odds of prevailing in an appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee can be pretty daunting for a board. So I think that it's very advisable for the board to try to continue in a collaborative process with this applicant, push for whatever changes it deems are appropriate, and hopefully you can get to a point where we ultimately are issuing a decision that you are comfortable with, that the applicant is comfortable with, and that results in no appeal taken by any party. That's the ultimate goal. I'm not sure you're going to get there or not, but that's what you should be trying for.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. I think we have the plan for the next meeting. plan is applicant will consider what we discussed today, what members of the public shared, Mr. Bowmer and city staff are making themselves available if you'd like to kind of go back and forth on certain ideas. And then the board looks forward to seeing an update on the site plan on February 15th. At that point, the applicant will present the site plan that they'd like to proceed with for the remainder of the hearing, and we'll explain some of the rationales and trade-offs behind that. The board may still make some suggestions at that time, so the site plan could shift, but I think the intention is to consider all the feedback from tonight and come back with A site plan that considers that feedback and an explanation of the whys and then we'll go from there. Sound like a plan? All right, wonderful. I want to check in with the applicant. Are there other topics we should be discussing today, kind of logistical topics?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't thank you and the board publicly for putting together the schedule with the additional meetings that you've laid out. So on behalf of the applicant and the Davis companies, we're very appreciative of the board and the commitment of time that you've put aside to spend with us on this project. That was a point that we did not want to go unnoticed. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I will just say it was great to see that we were able to align on a high-level schedule. I know there were some questions about the timing elements and just getting to a point early on where we're in agreement about how things will go really helps me as chair to make sure that we're moving in an efficient fashion, considering all the information, but ultimately able to get to a decision as quickly as reasonably possible while doing all of those steps along the way. Thank you for your partnership. And yeah, looking forward to our next session. Any other items we should be discussing tonight?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not from our end. I think we're prepared to kind of drill down on this and we'll kind of reconvene internally with the site plan in front of us. have the opportunity to work with Mr. Bowmer and Cube 3 to be able to follow up with you timely and in two weeks time. Knowing that, you know, that meeting will be informative and instructive in terms of Pat being able to basically instruct the design team to then advance and update materials based on what we anticipate to be a revised alternate plan.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, we are aligned. So sounds good. Thank you. All right. Well, if there's nothing else, chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to the special meeting on February 15th at 6.30 p.m.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: Do I have a second? All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim?
[kCdGHg1OaMo_SPEAKER_21]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Amy? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, this matter is continued. Thank you, folks. We'll see you in a couple weeks. Dennis, I think that was the last item on the agenda. Am I remembering correctly?
[MCM00000643_SPEAKER_12]: That is correct.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Well, in that case, do I have a motion to adjourn? Adjourn. All right. Motion to adjourn. We're going to take a roll call again. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Amy? Aye. Beth?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right. We are adjourned. Thanks, folks. We'll see you in a couple
|
total time: 1.82 minutes total words: 211 |
|||