[Mike Caldera]: Hello, and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jamie Thompson? Present. Jim Tirani?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre LeRoux?
[Andre Leroux]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Kristi Evetta? Present. Mary Lee? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Yvette Velez]: present.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm spacing out. Did I call you, Andre? Okay, yeah, sorry. Mike Caldera present. We have the full board present, so we can get started. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill which, among other things, extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. And hold on a second. Am I recording? I wasn't sure if we were recording or not, and we are. Sorry, excuse me for that. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language that I'm making substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, great. And Dennis, can you read the first matter, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: 970 Fellsway, case number 40B-2023-01, continues from March 14th. The resumption of consideration of the petition of DIV Fellsway LLC, the Davis Company, is for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B, for a multi-family, six-story apartment development located in approximately 3.4 acres of land at 970 Fellsway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 289 units consisting of 278 units of multifamily housing and 11 townhomes with 73, 25% of the total units of them being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Dennis. All right, folks, for those unfamiliar with the 40B process, this is a multi-session hearing. The board has been meeting on this matter since late last year. We have topical sessions. The topic for today's session is the design. And so I know the board received updates to the design packet recently. And so I believe the intent is to walk through that today. I see we have multiple representatives for the applicant. I'll turn it over to Pat Noon. Welcome.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you for having us this evening. There are several members of the team here ready to present. I'll ask Eric Samuelson from cube 3 to he will be sharing his screen and running through the majority of the presentation this evening. I'll just wait for him to bring that up and I'll give a quick introduction and turn it over. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Everyone should be able to see that now.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Great. Thank you. So, as I said, we are pleased to be here this evening. Thank you all again for making the time to have us on the agenda. We will be presenting this evening with a focus on the advancement of the design and the several elements of the of the architecture. We just as an update from our last hearing have continued to move this forward from our previous design focus hearing in February. The design team has met with cliff and members of planning staff and a follow up. Peer review session and collected feedback and incorporate that into our presentation this evening. So we're looking forward to presenting on several elements of the design floor plans, elevations and an update on the shadow study with a close out as a review and update to the overall site plan and public benefits related to that. So, Eric, I will turn it over to you to jump in and. present from here forward.
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: That's good. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. So we're excited to go over some updates that we've been working on for the last month or so, since the last time we had an architectural update in these hearings. So Pat kind of gave a brief overview of what we're expecting this agenda. I don't want to spend a ton of time rehashing things we've already discussed, but always happy to talk further at the end of the presentation. So just reorienting everyone to the project site here, located here at the site corner of Amaranth and Myrtle Street. This is our current landscape plan. This was presented, I believe, last week or no, it may have been two weeks ago now at this point. So this is our current plan that we have been discussing for the last few meetings that we have had in some of our project objectives here. More public open space, less pervious area, less curb cuts, reducing the building height along Myrtle and Amaranth. uh, less surface parking along Amaranth, uh, and increasing that setback along Amaranth. And then another thing that we'll be touching on a few times tonight is the Passive House Sustainable Energy Goals, uh, that we are reviewing for this project. We are aware that Medford has opted into the Specialized Energy Code, um, so we will certainly be touching on that a few times here. Uh, we do have a sustainability consultant on board that we have met with, and we have already started reviewing, uh, the project and project goals with them. So jumping into the site plan here, one thing I do want to quickly note is that this plan is rotated from the site plan that we just reviewed. You'll see the north arrow here in the bottom left, which let me get a laser pointer on for everyone. So this is rotated at a degree, it's just in order to allow us to get these plans a little bit larger in scale on these sheets. So this is rotated just for ease of enlarging it. So here you'll see our ground floor plan. This is where we have the majority of our internal parking within the building. Within here, you'll see we have back of house spaces for water, fire pumps, electrical rooms, teledata rooms, where our stair and elevator cores are coming to the ground. We have a trash located here in the bottom left of this building plan. This would be adjacent to where there's some loading for the adjacent industrial use there, the storage use. In pink, you'll see this is where we have leasing and amenity space. This would be facing towards the Amaranth Ave side and the Myrtle Street side. So this would be our front-facing leasing and amenity. This would include leasing offices, our kind of front reception. We have our bike storage. We probably have some lounge spaces and other kind of semi-active uses along this ground floor plan. In orange, you will see these are the townhomes. The lighter orange are the two-bed townhomes, and the brighter orange is the three-bed townhome. Moving up a floor plan, so this is the second floor. This is where we'll have two internal courtyards. We'll also have some private amenities here on the second floor. Within these, you'll find kind of connection between the two courtyards, you know, with more lounge spaces, maybe some kitchenettes. We'll probably have some fitness located up here. So there'll be a variety of different amenities that we haven't finalized yet, but, you know, that we'll be exploring for the residents of the building. The units are all encapsulated here. The yellow would be your studio units. The purple would be your one bed units. The green would be your two bed units. And then your kind of off blue units would be your three bed units. So moving up a floor plan. So this would be our typical floor three through five. And so here you'll find kind of a formalized floor plan. That's our most typical plan for three floors. One thing I do want to call out that we had been working on with Cliff, our peer reviewer, that may look small and planned, but we think really helps kind of open up the corner as we notched the corner towards Amaranth and Myrtle. you know, this was the kind of closest point to the property line. So something we were reviewing with him and based on a comment we had heard many weeks ago, is we try to create a visual break there at that corner. And we'll see that a bit further in the conceptual design. And then the top floor plan that we have been discussing that we have set back. So this is the top floor that set back from Amherst and from Myrtle Street. The Amherst setback actually increased a little bit. We had it further out in some of our initial sketches, but this was actually able to pull back even a little bit further than we originally had. So jumping into the concept design image. So, you know, recognizing this is not a final image, a final construction image of what this will look like. This is conceptual design. So there are still pieces and details that are being finalized. So I don't want everyone to think that this is the, you know, construction ready per se. This is our concept image of what we are expecting for this project. In the bottom left, you'll see a key plan. So we're taking this from about the corner of Amaranth and Myrtle, looking at this corner of the building. So here you'll see that we really simplified the design from the original concept we had from a few years back. And one of the things that we were really emphasizing was trying to do simple and strong kind of massive moves across this building rather than creating a lot of complicated pieces. And part of the reason for that is one, from a passive house standpoint, the more ins and outs that you do on a building, the harder it is to achieve a passive house standard. You do want a more simplified massing model for your project. So from a sustainability standpoint, it was something that we were really keeping in mind. But two, we felt like it was a simple massing created just stronger design moves. So here you'll see on the ground floor, we're really looking to activate this kind of ground floor right at the corner of the property. So we created a band to pull you in towards the main entry, which would be here towards the center of the building. And this would be opposite of the turnaround that we have for visitors and for leasing. So we're trying to create that front door entry and be able to pull people in from the corner towards there. There we have a simplified masonry look to pull off some of the industrial of the site, recognizing we don't want the whole building to feel industrial, but we did want to relate to that piece a bit. Then along the Amaranth side, we created a two-story datum line down the edge here. One thing we were thinking about there was mirroring what's happening across the street at the condos on the other side of Amaranth and try to mimic that datum line. You'll also notice some of the landscaping in here along the front, some sort of play areas. This might not be the exact equipment or selections being used, but just to get an idea of some spaces that we're thinking about, some bike parking along the front of the building that we're looking to create some activity, some seating areas, and maybe some outdoor gym equipment or other things may happen down this stretch that we have landscaped with this nice landscape buffer down Amherst. Here you can see we have the five-story piece. You can just see the very tip of the six-story setback back there. Then here we're just going to jump quickly into elevations. This north elevation is the elevation that's most facing Myrtle Street. So here you'll see that that front door piece that I was discussing before, the amenity on the front, there is amenity as well on the left, but we really wanted to kind of create the focus of the band here. You'll see that the six-story piece is showing here, but we faded this as it is in the background of this image. Just in elevation view, you do see it, even though it is set back from this facade. And you'll notice that same along the west elevation of Amarith. You will see the sixth floor based on just the elevation view, but it is set back from the rest of this elevation. and here we'll have landscaping and such down the ground floor. We're really looking at doing fiber cement siding and masonry. There'll be some metal panel towards the entry, but the majority of the building we're looking at doing a fiber cement siding. And then just the other two elevations for this building, the south elevation facing the rail trail. you know, using a kind of the four-story element with just a break towards the back, and then the east elevation, which is, I say facing the Fellsway, but really that's mostly internal to the site facing the industrial building that we are partially demoing here. So this would be facing that internal driveway that we have. And then just briefly the townhome elevations. So this would be the, what we're considering the north elevation that would be facing along Myrtle Street. Then the south elevation facing internal to the site with the garage entries into those units, and then the two side elevations as well. And then just an example of a few materials that I kind of referenced before, the fiber cement siding, a few of the colors we were looking at, the masonry, the metal panel at the entry, and then some, you know, maybe fiber cement wood panel that we're looking for, maybe at the townhomes. So just quickly rehashing some of the projects that we have done here in Medford before, just to get a feel of some of the examples of materials that we're using on these projects that we will also be using here. You can see a lot of these fiber center products and masonry. So it's a lot of similar materials that we've done before. Designs are a little bit different, but just to get a flavor of kind of what we've been working on. And I also wanted to note some of, you know, what the passive house projects that cube three has been working on. We have three permitted projects with passive house right now, once in construction finishing later this year. And these are in new in Shrewsbury and Salem. And we also have probably about a dozen more that are in design currently that we're planning to be permitted this year for Passive House. So we are very familiar with the standards for Passive House. And we are trying to get more and more people licensed within our office as we speak. And it is a big initiative for us here in not only Medford, but in Massachusetts as a whole and hopefully elsewhere. So it's something we're paying a lot of attention to. All right, so shadow study. So we went through these in a lot of detail last week with the planning board and with Cliff, our peer reviewer. So we're going to show three items here. We have others if we needed to review them, but I felt like these three times of year and the early morning time really highlighted what we're seeing from the site. The majority of the shadows that we see cast on adjacent properties are from this early morning time. And so what I'm gonna show here is on the left, we have our existing condition. And on the right, we have our new condition with the existing condition highlighted still in red. And so we also have timeframes at the top to correlate to how long the shadows are casting on the adjacent property. So this is March, September, which are very similar in shadow timeframes. And this is the 9 a.m. condition that you're seeing in the images themselves. So this is the existing condition at those times of year. And then in the new condition, you can see in the blue line of where that shadow was cast for both multifamily as well as the townhomes. And so we also looked at it as far as how long is the shadow being cast on those adjacent properties. So for the existing, it's from sunrise to about 930 a.m. And for the new proposed buildings, the multifamily building is sunrise to about 10 a.m. and for the townhomes, it's sunrise to about 9 a.m. So from the existing addition to the new condition at this time of year, it's about a half hour more of shadow. And that doesn't mean the shadow is fully casting over the building. That means there is any bit of shadow being cast. on those adjacent properties. So it's not that until 10 a.m. you are in a cloud of darkness. There's a lot of space between the buildings. There's a lot of skylight still being put on these adjacent properties. There is just a slight shadow being a little bit longer than before. And so December is the worst time of year when it comes to shadows because the sun is at its lowest. So here you'll see the 9 a.m. condition for existing fairly large gas shadows and same for the new condition fairly large gas to shadows. This is the worst time of year you will see for shadows because of the angle of the sun. So for the existing it's about sunrise to about 9 30 a.m. and for the proposed the multi-families about till 10 15 a.m. And the townhomes is about till 1230 just because it never is able to fully escape that just based on the angle of the sun. And again, that doesn't mean the townhomes are casting a full shadow on those townhomes. For sometimes a day, that's only a foot or two onto the base of that building. And then towards the summer, it's a lot different. The sun's a lot higher in the air. So you'll see a lot less shadow. And so still this is a 9am condition, you'll see very little shadow from the existing building, you'll see a bit more from the proposed building here in blue. So the existing is about sunrise to about 8-15am in the summer. summer sun, sorry, and the multifamily building is about 830. So it's about only a 15 minute difference. In the summertime, the townhomes do not cast a shadow. From what I can tell, there's any different that would be cast from any of the adjacent trees or buildings just from the sun rising. So just to kind of rehash some project amenities, so we have some numbers here on the left correlating to the plan on the right. So one, we have our kind of dog park here on the exterior. Two, the playground touching along Myrtle Street. Three, the potential rail trail connection here. Four, we have our internal courtyards. One's potentially a little bit more active with the pool. Another one might be a little bit more passive with just lounge and seating. Usually, you'll have one doing one thing and one doing the other. Five, we have our landscape buffer between the building and Amarith, which connects to the whole idea that we've been really working on over the last few months with you know, the planning board, the ZBA, our peer reviewers, making sure that we're creating enough of a landscape buffer along Amaranth and along Myrtle to really increase the public realm condition from what's there today to what we originally proposed to now. I think we've been improving that each step along the way. I think where we are now is much better than where we started. And I think that landscape buffer has a lot of opportunity. And if anyone has ideas or other things that they think could help, that we're always interested. But I think creating that much of landscape buffer between the public realm and the building just gives us a lot of opportunity. And you don't get to see that a lot in projects around this area. So that is all. I hope I didn't go too fast or too slow, but if anyone wants to go over anything, please let me know.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. And so maybe it makes sense to go to Cliff Bomer next, just to love to get your overall thoughts, Cliff.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Can you hear me? All right. Terrific. Hello to everybody. And the last session that we had that did include town staff was, it was just six days ago, on the 20th. I have seen most of what was shown. There are some differences, but minor. And I think the, I just want to emphasize that I think You probably have figured out that most of my comments have been related to site planning up to this point, which to me is the right place to start. There's no point talking in detail about the buildings massing, et cetera, and certainly siting materials, even floor plans, until there's a massing. are until the footprint is really working that really primarily is about the building's engagement with the neighboring streets. And I've been very supportive of where this project has gone from that perspective. And I think we're seeing now the bridge over into the architecture itself. It is important. These really are conceptual drawings, but I think they do reflect, from my perspective, that the project is moving in the right direction. Certainly the significant setback of that top floor is really critical. And I did a little Google Street View walkthrough again, just to remind myself of the scale of the buildings on Amaranth. to what degree that step down on the north to south long elevation of the building worked relative to the scale of the buildings across the street. And I think you know from being there or however you know it through Google or actually being there, those buildings Actually, I think it works very well because buildings across the street, they have fewer occupiable floors, but they have actually quite a high bridge line on the buildings and even some of the neighboring buildings very nearby. You step up to get into the first floor. There are often three habitable floors and then a sloped roof. So I think that step down, as far as scale is concerned, is working really well. I'll go through some of the things that were still outstanding after our session last week that I think are really good cues about how to advance the design of the building itself. I think one thing that we did talk about was It is a large building. And right now, all of the elevations are similar. I think that the moves on the north side are very effective at accentuating the entry piece right off of the driveway, which works very well for me. But do take note that the rest of the eastern side of that north elevation also is common space. and whether further differentiation of that space would be helpful or not, I think is worth studying. I think another point was the sustainability aspects of the building. We talked about kind of similar window treatments all the way around the building. And I think it would be, really worth pursuing having the attitude towards sustainability reflected in the building elevations. And there really are very different types of treatment that I think can be considered depending upon whether you're looking at a north-facing elevation or a west-facing elevation. It might have to do with how far the windows are inset into the wall, whether they're small brisa laid that help with control of the sun. But in any case, I did encourage looking at ways to enrich the building elevations through recognition, and like I said, sort of being able to read an attitude towards sustainability on the elevations of the building. I did go through all of the, however, 27 pages of shadow studies. And I would report to the board that I think they were accurately, as best I can tell, they were accurately prepared. And I appreciate the analysis of certainly the kind of before and after analysis and narrowing that down even to a different perspective, that being time frame of what are the real hours where there's a measurable difference in the shadows. I think that helps put things in perspective. I think for now, I'm I'm happy with where the site plan is gone. It's not completely worked out in detail. I think this image shows all the work that's happened on the west side of the building that I think has really transformed Amaranth Street. There are lots of images that we still need to see about the architecture. And from my perspective, I think the focus of what I would be looking at now is really the materiality of the building, how the scale is dealt with. starting to focus in on the building itself. I have not yet written anything in the reason other than one small memo requesting additional exhibits. The reason I haven't written anything is because it's changing. The project has really changed significantly and I didn't think it really made a lot of sense to nail down my opinions until There was a consensus that things were relatively stable and some form of a closer to a final submission was made. So you will be seeing more comments from me as far as the architecture of the building, but as far as where it's gone and where it sits on the site right now and the preliminary ideas about landscaping and buffering and public space or open space that is multi-use, both for public and for the residents, to me, is in a good place.
[Mike Caldera]: And certainly, I can answer any questions. All right. Thank you for the update. And so, Mr. McCord, just... Yeah, sounds good. So, one thing I just want to be clear about before we open it up to board questions is... So, am I correctly understanding that If the outcome of this meeting tonight doesn't result in material changes to the site plan, then at that point, the exhibits you've already requested and maybe some exhibits you'll request shortly, that would be the next step. You'd request these, and then you'd review them. And then in a future meeting, we would get your detailed feedback on other elements of the architecture. Is that right?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: To me, that makes sense. I do have comments, and I made some of the comments last week about the expression of the building. But it's up to you folks on the board, really. So I appreciate this kind of paced approach. to doing it, but yes, my next steps, assuming that the overall massing, the concept of the massing, if that's working for your folks, that will help inform my next level of analysis, which, like I said, is really about the materiality and other, I made some other comments about how things are, to me, expressed in the elevation, but I think it's more important for you folks to weigh in, and that's where I would start, again, just looking at ways that I think will help. I think, you know, a building of this scale, it's really worth talking about ways to make that scale make sense for where that building is sitting. If the massing is roughly right and the placement on the site is roughly right, you've really narrowed down the variables, I think. I don't know if I answered that clearly or not. I apologize if I didn't.
[Mike Caldera]: Clear enough for me, so we'll take it. Thank you. All right. With that, I'll open it up to questions from the board.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, Mike, this is Andre. Question for Cliff. I'm looking at this building. It's a massive block and a long amaranth. It's just a solid five-story undifferentiated wall. very long, and I really think a lot more could be done to break it up a little bit so it doesn't come across as a big wall. I'm wondering if you have thoughts about that.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I do, and I concur completely. that one of the reasons I brought up that idea of differentiating treatment of elevations based on orientation is one route, I think, to helping break down the undifferentiated large block. There are other strategies that have to do with introducing more vertical elements that can be minor ins and outs along the facade, some changes of material. But I do concur. I think picking up a rhythm that does break down the length of the building that will help in another way to tie in with the development across the street would really help. Which is why, to me, this is kind of the block that you start with. If the fundamentals are working as far as how far away it is from the street and generally the height of it, then you start carving away on that block to get that balance right. It will always be a big building, and there's no way around that. But there are ways to make that scale work for you. I think through, you know, bays, recesses, as I said, maybe some banding. I didn't say banding, that's more of a horizontal differentiation, but I do concur. And note also that this building does have, which is why I think it's really important that that entryway be accentuated and changing from kind of punched openings to more of a storefront approach on the lowest level in that north corner and moving towards the west. That helps a lot, but it's not really enough to help break down the overall scale of the rest of it. It's a nice movement. I think it's a nice shaped piece to have on that side of the building, I do agree. I think there was some discussion last week about kind of balancing a sort of industrial look. I mean, this building is still married to the storage facility to the east, and that's the history of the site is an industrial use. But at the same time, If you look at that current building, actually, the current building is an aggregated structure. It is kind of broken up into smaller pieces. But anyway, to me, that is one thing I would encourage is looking at now, let's see some ways of breaking down the scale of the block.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I mean, Eric, I don't I think you showed an image of some of your other projects. I don't know if you want to go back to that slide, but. So. You know, the. Like the Modera Medford, there's a lot more. Kind of reads as almost different buildings, right? And so I think some of that. strategy would be really helpful here.
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. I don't want to say I'm necessarily countering it, but one thing I do want to mention is with passive house, it is harder to do more differentiation within your buildings. The more ins and outs you do within your building, every basically square foot of exterior wall you add to your building, it is harder to pass the passive house requirement. So it is something we're keeping in mind and something that we've been discussing and, you know, we had talked about it even last week with the planning board, Alicia and Danielle and the rest of the staff that it is a something that Medford opted into, it is a specialized code. And so it's something we're paying a lot of attention to. And it's kind of the future of the energy code here in Massachusetts. So something to keep in mind is that, you know, more and more projects are going to have less articulation and less breaking down in order to meet those energy code requirements.
[Andre Leroux]: And can you just clarify for me is the the stretch code, is that That's not the same as the passive house standard, right?
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: It is not.
[Andre Leroux]: So you think you're going beyond that, right?
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: Well, Medford opted into the specialized energy code, which is a passive house prerequisite. In Medford, you cannot do anything besides passive house for the energy code. And that is a new requirement and something that all future projects will be required to meet. Right. And so that's something that is new to a lot of people. It's been around for a little while, especially in Europe, but it is making its way here and a lot of people are starting to get familiar with it, but it does require you know, higher insulation, you know, continuous insulation on the exterior buildings, higher efficiency, higher efficiency windows, better MEP systems. A lot of times with the, in order to pass passive house, you generally will see a 90%, up to a 90% savings in energy costs.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: One thing I did want to add, and as Eric mentioned, they have three active passive house projects in their office. But a suggestion I would make, for example, because we do a lot of passive house buildings as well. And, you know, if you were looking at the way that these are, it's a very performance-based system. So you may have windows modeled and it's rigorously energy modeled. So if you have really big windows that are much more difficult to get terrific thermal performance out of, if you make, I mean, to that point of how much articulation can you do, a lot of the articulation that's done is in solid walls. And those walls are easy to insulate and get good performance out of. You know, for example, I think one way that you could approach this would be, I think you don't necessarily need windows quite as big as the windows you're showing. So if you cut back a little bit on the window size from a modeling perspective, you can pick up more on well-insulated envelope area. So I agree with you, Passive House does have some really tough ongoing modeling that you have to do all the way through the construction documents. But I don't think we have, and I think we've done about 18 or 19 passive house buildings at this point. I think you can give yourself more freedom of volumetric articulation and still stay within the passive house requirements. We've done it, and we've done it with a lot of buildings.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, the other thing that I would just add to is that I am always a big, big proponent of having as many of the units have access to their own outdoor space as balconies as possible. So that's something that I would certainly be looking at. And I just, again, looking at this, the picture of the Modera Medford. You know, I think you have the porches there, the balconies there, kind of read as much more articulated than it actually is. And so maybe thinking about that a little bit, how you could use those to do that.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: If I could just add one thing. I appreciate Andre bringing this up. I think the articulation of the building is another way to just help tie into existing context. Not literally, but it is a good way to help recognize the differences in the different elevations of the building. which you've already done on the north side. Yeah, we do have balconies showing along the west edge that are recessed as well.
[Mike Caldera]: So Pat Newton, you were going to speak.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Sorry, I just wanted to interject. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify one thing so there's no future confusion for the board as we got into the passive house discussion. Just to clarify something that Eric mentioned in terms of compliance pathways for the specialized energy code. We are not collectively Energy code experts, there are other pathways for commercial buildings. The pathway that Eric specifically is referencing in terms of being required to be passive houses for residential. So, I just didn't want the board to take away our comments to other hearings and have there be any confusion going forward. I just wanted to clarify that for everyone. So we are. To reiterate what Eric's saying, we are frankly, we're excited about this. This is a project for the Davis companies, for Q3, just being on the frontier of designing and building passive house buildings in Massachusetts. We're looking forward to this opportunity and continuing to get more informed and using this design process as an opportunity to do that. But just wanted to clarify that it was specific to residential.
[Mike Caldera]: That's a good point. Noted. Thank you. Attorney Tam, please go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to build on what Pat is saying, I think if Member LaRue's concern and focus is really on the Amaranth elevation, we can certainly, I think, focus our efforts on that because I think the other This elevation that we're all looking at is obviously a good deal of time has been spent on this. But if Mr. LaRue's concern is that amaranth side, I see no reason why we can't spend more time to the points that both Eric and Cliff have been making to try to better articulate that side. This is intended to be proof of concept.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Andre, would you say it's the Amaranth side that you're most concerned about, or does this also apply to the front of the building, the north side?
[Andre Leroux]: Well, I mean, I'd like to see further work on it, as Cliff mentioned, you know, on all the elevations. I think, you know, the Amaranth side particularly strikes me because there's residential properties on the other side of the street, and it's just, you know, and it kind of reads in the elevation as a undifferentiated wall. So, you know, obviously there's the same on the east side, there's another wall and that's facing, you know, the storage building. So I think that probably needs its own type of treatment. It's also going to be what you can see from the highway. So I think all the elevations probably deserve some of their own further working.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mary Lee]: Is there a solar component with this building?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know, Pat, if you want that one.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I can jump in at this point. We haven't studied that specifically. I think it's something that we have discussed. Um, being able to incorporate that into the project, but it's not something that we're showing yet. It's not something that we've specifically been able to analyze. You know, in terms of its feasibility, whether that be architecturally from a space perspective on the roof or elsewhere on the site, or from any sort of. You know, other impacts to the project, whether that be cost or design or otherwise, so it's. An open ended answer we it's it's been a topic of discussion for us. We just don't have a definitive answer yet on whether or not we're planning to have solar on the project.
[Andre Leroux]: And just to build on what Mary was saying, I think there was also mentioned at some point of maybe some like a rooftop area or green roof. It'd be good to see like what the rooftop treatment is going to be, especially since there's some is, you know, five floors and some are six floors.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think we can absolutely continue to evolve the design and incorporate elements to reflect what would be on the roof. I think just to maybe clarify some of the confusion, I think the roof spaces that we have referred to as green to date would be on the courtyards on level 2 that you see visible in some of our site planning on top of the parking deck.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?
[Mary Lee]: So my understanding is that this is just a preliminary draft of the plan, right? Or are we, I mean, at what stage is this plan, is this plan 90% complete, 70% complete or? because I do tend to agree with Andre, because the first impression when I look at this picture is it's very, it gives me that impression of a warehouse rather than a residential apartment. That's the first impression. But I think obviously if this is not the complete plan, then there's probably room to, make modifications.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, I understand it. Oh, go ahead, please, Attorney Tim.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I just wanted to respond as I heard the members question. The plans under, and your council can advise as well, but I know this board has been through this with a number of these comprehensive permits. In terms of percentage complete, the comprehensive permit law requires that we submit preliminary design. I think at this stage, these more than meet that basic standard. I think your staff and yourselves understand we can refine and provide additional detail. For instance, when Mr. LaRue asked about roof treatment, we can provide at least conceptually where we think there's going to be different facilities located on the roof, at least at a conceptual level. If there are specifics that you'd like to see, we can advance them. But other elements where it may be appropriate to provide for conditions that anticipate future design and future detail, these are items that we would like to work on with you. So you're never going to get, at this level of a comprehensive permit, 100% design drawings. And so, but the idea about further articulation with a focus on those areas of sensitivity, such as amaranth. That's something we can really focus on, but it's going to remain at a preliminary level. It's only at the time you get to a building permit that you'll have a final design locked in and your decision will reflect that. I just wanted to be very direct about how specific we can be. In many municipalities and with many projects, and I think with other projects here in Medford, this level of conceptual design is adequate for review and approval of a comprehensive permit. Obviously, we want to address the board's concerns in any comments from the public and we'll continue to do so. But for instance, the building layout plans that Eric went through are more than adequate at this stage for approval. We're really talking about subjective impressions and design aesthetics that we're going to take your lead from in terms of what we can do at this stage. But there won't be, you know, this is the level of plan that you'll get. If there are elements and design elements that you'd like to see further detail on, we'll do our best to provide them. Yeah, we won't have construction documents as part of this. The other point, I guess, is the impression that this is an industrial building. Well, there's an existing industrial building and its footprint. It is an industrial district. There's an industrial building next door. As Eric indicated, we were taking this design from those cues. I think everyone is going to have their own opinion. My personal opinion is that it looks similar to other 40 B's that the city has approved and have been constructed.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you. I have a clarifying question for Cliff Bohmer. I just want to make sure that we get it all out there tonight so that if there's any back and forth discussion, we can all be on the same page. So we've talked about materiality. We've talked about articulation. We've talked about additional detail on the rooftop view. Mr. Bomer, what specifically will you be expecting in terms of details that are currently absent to complete your review?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Well, that's a good question. I'm not going to be able to answer it in deep detail. Let me unwind that a little bit. I think Attorney Tam's point is legitimate, I think, in the sense that the statute itself does talk about preliminary plans. And I think what we've seen from this applicant is a willingness to advance what all parties, I think, ultimately agreed were improvements to the building. So from my perspective, it is a little more, I think, where I'd maybe take some issue with Attorney Tam is, to me, the way the building responds to the existing context and fits into the pattern of development is related to what can be classified as aesthetics. I think that primary elevations that face the public realm, there is an obligation. And I actually really like that concept of proof of concept that the attorney brought up. I agree completely with that is what I think the board needs to know is that the images they're seeing are in a good place and they do prove that something is on the right track. They're not going to produce super levels of detail. That's not at all what they're required to do, nor is it necessary to do, really. I think from my perspective, roof plans matter, placement of mechanical equipment. Are we not seeing the mechanical equipment? Is it sufficiently shielded from the public realm. I'd like to see more information about the ground floor level, which is where it is parking that's at the ground floor level, and that is related to the west elevation of the building. So it's It's kind of, I would like to see, what I would really like to see is in the same way that I think every time that they've presented, they've demonstrated that they've really heard what you've said. And so I would expect another round looking more at the aesthetics of the building, but how they do help the building tie into that or find that right balance between the industrial look, but still connecting with maybe some of the rhythms and scale of the surrounding context. So I can't, it's hard for me to encapsulate that all in one, if I had some time to write a memo, what I would expect to see, for addition, at least at a level that I do see in a lot of communities, and particularly when there are applicants who have been as willing to work with you. I think it'd be a lost opportunity if they don't continue that spirit and look at some of these ideas about how to break down the massing. as well as supplying a few more fundamental exhibits. Like I said, roof plans are very important in this case because we do need to know what is visible from the street. If this view is not accurate, then I don't, I wouldn't encourage a board to make a decision based on that until you're really, I think the applicant does have an obligation to present images that are accurate. They really do represent something very close to what the board and the public would see if this were actually constructed. So there are a couple of those out there that we just really need to nail down. And then I'd encourage them to come back with some ideas about how to work on a more, you know, a finer grain detail with the massing of the building. As far as the floor plans, I agree those are pretty close, but as I said at the beginning, I haven't, because I've really been focused on site planning, I haven't really looked in any great detail about the floor plans, but they are at a level that I typically see, I think from this point, on the type feedback you'd expect from me would be if I see blatant code violations. You know, things on that level would also be kind of truth in packaging that what you see for schematic floor plans are actually feasible based on codes, and I would want to have the opportunity to comment on that. I will point out, and I know the architect knows this, I also am pretty sure that Pat Newton knows this, that the rooftop, there are actual building code requirements that ensure that buildings can transition to rooftop solar in the future, even if they're not doing it now, there are requirements that the roof be designed structurally to receive panels, and I think all developers nowadays ensure that they have sufficient chases down to electrical rooms to accommodate solar panels, even if they're not being installed at the initial construction. So I've kind of wandered around, but I'm happy to prepare a memo of kind of things that were fundamentals that I think may be missing that further this notion of proof of concept. I would just want to make sure that I've had a moment to think about that based on the new materials. But otherwise, I would encourage some further study that does further advance that notion of how do you balance articulation, and as I said earlier, yes, there is a commercial enterprise city along Emirates right now, but it's actually a pretty complex form along there that is interesting and varied and articulated. This is a far better streetscape. I think you have the opportunity to have a really superior streetscape, but I do think it Looking at some of the concerns that we've heard tonight, do another round would really advance your own cause. So I'm sorry if that's kind of meandering, but I can't really, you know, in one statement, what's the other statement?
[SPEAKER_17]: And Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to chime in real quick. For the record, Attorney Christopher Albin, MHP Consultant. Yeah, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I agree with the comments from Attorney Tam and Cliff that these appear to be sufficient architectural drawings and plans submitted under 40B.
[SPEAKER_15]: Design is an important aspect, and I think you have an able and great peer review in Cliff and doing a review, and he's doing an exhaustion review, and the applicant seems to be responding to their comments. Um, the board's obligation is to make sure that the design is acceptable, but more importantly, under a comprehensive permit application, we need to look at more of the technical aspects of the project. We're talking about traffic utility impacts, stormwater and civil design. And I'm sure the board is aware of that. I'm sure the applicant is aware of it. And I'm just mentioning that the board doesn't get too caught up in having a very long discussion and many hearings about design. And, you know, we're under a timeline. We start to focus on more of the technical aspects of the project. I think we've made a lot of progress with the design, so it appears to me. And I think now if the board is somewhat, you know, may want to see some, modifications to design and maybe some updates based on Cliff's additional comments, then it may be time to say, okay, we need to review the civil, we need to review stormwater, we need to review traffic.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you, Attorney Elfin. So my intention with tonight's meeting is I would like the board to make clear any remaining design elements where they would like to see additional details or changes. We've heard from Mr. Bowmer with his details. I concur with the general I would also appreciate that memo in the near future. So please, if you could plan to send us one, Cliff, we'd appreciate that. But what I heard already is, you know, more details on the roof, details on the materiality, a request from members of the board, and from, you know, Mr. Bowmer on just strategies to break down the massing. I heard additional details on the ground floor as well. I think those were kind of the main areas that stood out to me. And yeah, as Mr. Bowmer said, the comments on the floor plans are forthcoming. So it sounds like he has the most of the details he would need, but we just would want to consider those. So I think we have a use case for another session on design, perhaps, in light of all this. But I agree with Attorney Alfin. We can't have this be the endless design thing. In the schedule, we maybe have the latitude for one more meeting session on design, and then we kind of have to make some decisions to stick to the timeline. So currently, the next scheduled meeting in two weeks, the intent, barring any uh, requested changes or issues producing the required documentation is for that to really focus more on the engineering. Um, so we can discuss whether to change that in light of today's discussion, but yeah, we do need to, uh, get the design to converge so that we can also, um, give enough detail to the technical elements so that the board's assessing everything we're expected to assess in the, uh, in the statutory timeline. So that's my intention. Uh, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_15]: No, I was just gonna, you know, add one thing about, um, uh, floor plans. They're important, and it's good that Cliff is reviewing them, but really under a comprehensive permit application, those floor plans could be modified post-decision, uh, either under, um, um, the regulatory agreement that is reviewed by the state, or, uh, as-as built plans, they could be potentially modified, and if they're not major modifications, and usually they're not, determined to be major modifications, that they usually can be done as of right under 40B. We shouldn't spend too much time on things like floor plans and sizes of units. There's a unit count with bedrooms and things like that, but that's just one aspect that can be handled by conditions.
[Andre Leroux]: If you may, Mr. Chair.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, please, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: So I mean, I just want to point out that we just went through a few months ago, another 40 B permitting process where we got into some significant details about the design, which I think resulted in a much better project for the community. And I think that we're in a position where we kind of inherit how large this project is and. Believe me, if I was starting from scratch, I wouldn't design a gigantic rectangle in the middle of a neighborhood. But I think that we have an obligation to do what we can to make sure that this project. Of really significant scale kind of integrates as best as it can. And as far as I'm concerned, we haven't talked about. We haven't really looked or discussed the parking. We haven't talked about how much bike parking. We haven't talked about how many EV chargers. We haven't talked about landscape programming. We haven't talked about public art, in addition to all of the technical things that you mentioned. So I am just going to plant a flag in the ground and saying that those are things that we should talk about.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. I may be misremembering. I thought some of the parking and bike parking discussions in the last hearing we covered under engineering, but I completely agree those should absolutely be discussed, as well as landscaping.
[Andre Leroux]: How are people going to move in and out? How is the trash going to move in and out? All of those kinds of things. The last 40B that we did, it resulted in improvements.
[Mike Caldera]: Right, but so that one in the last 40B, my recollection is that was covered under civil engineering. I could be misremembering, but yeah, if there weren't plans already for the applicant to present those details, please plan to present those details. The board does need those details. I think they're essential to the functioning of the building.
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: Absolutely. And some of that information is carried on our ground floor plan that was in this package as well. Happy to answer any questions on that.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, okay, so I guess to that point. We can certainly open it to questions on that. Is there an intention in a future hearing to walk through that with us in greater detail? Or are you looking for the board to come to you with specific questions on it and then we'll address them that way?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, I can speak for the Davis companies. I think We hear you loud and clear, I think, beginning at the next session, in addition to civil, we can be talking about some of these operational issues and we can quantify. Or identify the standard we're meeting for parking for charges for public art in terms of location, at least in terms of byte storage. can update you on the landscaping plan, and we can talk about some of these operational issues. There may be a standard that we propose if something isn't fully conceptualized. You know, whether it's a ratio or a size or an approximation, that could become part of a condition. That is appropriate at this level of design. But, and we're not at all ignoring, I think we'll look forward to reviewing Cliff's memo and following up on further design details based on his comments and recommendations.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Andre, does that at least partially alleviate your concern?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I just wanted to push back on the notion a little bit that we are going to kind of just skip over a thorough review. And so I know we have sessions coming forward where we're going to talk about some of these other items, but those are some things that I'm concerned about and want to make sure we talk about, and if necessary, condition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: just to respond. Just to respond, to be clear, we will absolutely attempt to address each of those items. We've heard them before. Some of them we have addressed, and as you point out, parking has been an item, I think, that we've detailed in past sessions. And we expect nothing more than a thorough review. I think we've been experiencing and benefiting from the beginnings of a thorough review. But I do... I would say that in a number of instances, there will be items. The public art idea comes to mind. We're not necessarily going to know that level of detail at the time that this decision is before the board. But we can certainly put some standards to it. And I think that's what Mr. LaRue is suggesting.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So at this point, I'm going to check in with members of the board if there's other questions or comments. Once we've gone through the board questions and comments, I do intend to open for public comment on these conceptual designs. But first, I just want to make sure if there is a member of the board who has additional questions or comments that they have a chance to hear those.
[Yvette Velez]: I don't have a question. I just have a comment that I'm fully supportive of what Andre has talked about and brought up. And it's not just him. So I just want to make sure that we're clear. There's like I think the majority of the board would agree with him.
[Unidentified]: Yep. And I would agree as well. My expectation was most of those items would be in civil engineering. The other item I'll add to that list is obviously the lighting plan. but the technical items that the other attorney raised as well. That is the goal.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. I share that expectation.
[Andre Leroux]: Can I just ask if the landscape, is that something for today or for a future meeting?
[Mike Caldera]: If I understood correctly, the intention would be to present some of those details at our next session. Thank you. All right. Other questions or comments from members of the board? Seeing none, the chair awaits the motion to open public comment on the concept design for this project. I move. Second. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the public portion of this session of the hearing is now open. We are now taking public comment. on the concept design that was presented today. If you're a member of the public who would like to speak on this matter, please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera and raise your hand, type something in the chat. You can also email DennisDMcDougall at Medford-MA.gov. I will wait a few moments, and then if there's a member of the public who, okay, I see a member of the public who raised their hand. So we'll go to them first. I see an Allison D. Please state your name and address for the record.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_11]: Hi, everybody. Good evening. Yes, Allison D'Agostino. I represent the D'Agostino Trust, the owners of 1022-1024 Fellsway. I just wanted to start with, again, thank you always for the opportunity to speak and kind of view this. I've learned a lot, quite frankly, through the process. So I really appreciate the presentation and the board. So just a couple quick things. I will be more technical, actually. I just want to agree that You know, and I think Attorney Tam said it best. It's an industrial space. So while I appreciate it's an industrial looking building design, why not just build an industrial building similar to other projects that Davis Company has done with the Amazon Warehouse in Chelsea? That looks beautiful. That is the designed intent for the space, but I'll leave that at a comment. regarding just technical aspects as far as utility something that was mentioned before and again last meeting I was very thankful for the Concessions Davis Company has said to widen the street of Myrtle. One thing we really didn't touch on here was the utility aspect. So a lot of utility poles, electrical poles right on the sidewalk along Myrtle. Widening the street, my concern really, as I was walking the other day with my dogs, where you get to the plumbing company, which is really, again, at kind of the intersection of Myrtle and Fellsway. their property line is right against the sidewalk. So I guess a couple of questions really just, and maybe they don't know the details yet, and I appreciate that, but when you talk about winding the street, what is the preliminary planning as far as electrical and all those utilities, and then how exactly will you be able to widen the street at the actual intersection of Fellsway and Myrtle with that property? Peace where you're not owning that little square, if you will. So, again, materials, I think, very consistent with the other projects. I really think commercial street that project and I apologize the name, I think river something. I think material wise looks fine. I do agree it's a big square building that doesn't fit in a neighborhood. So that was just my comments. And again, thank you for the time. I really always appreciate it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I've made a note, and I do intend to make sure we cover that in the civil session of the hearing. Because that wasn't really the focus here. I mean, if the applicant wants to speak briefly to it, they're certainly welcome to, but I don't necessarily expect them to have that answer at the ready. But I do think that's something that we will plan to cover in the civil session of the hearing. And then I know it's just a comment. It's of course not within the board's purview to recommend alternative uses for the land. So yeah, comment noted. It's in the public record. But we won't engage with that one directly.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I can jump in, Mr. Chair, and just offer at least a brief response so we're not making people feel like we are kicking the can on questions as they come up. We can and certainly will elaborate on the specific question at our next hearing. Mrs. D'Agostino, if you're not able to make it, the current plan contemplates widening Myrtle after, so as you are coming down Myrtle towards the Emirates Street intersection, we're proposing to widen Myrtle on our side of the street after the plumbing building property line. So, from the property line out towards, yeah, you can it's challenging to see here. It wasn't the, it really wasn't the focus of the presentation this evening. But, yeah, from that point out to the fells way, the curb line would essentially remain as is and down. Uh, plan left heading West, we are proposing to widen myrtle street on the property that we do and are in control of with respect to the utility poles. What we what we can show in much greater detail at the next hearing and this was a message received from the last hearing as well, just with people not really able to see the site plan clearly. That wasn't our intention. So we plan to present in much greater and finer detail on this, but, um. The utility pools that are existing, we do we are planning to leave them in place. They do connect to properties on the other side of Myrtle street and we don't want to. We're not planning to relocate them or interrupt any service with them. So the curve. Relocation plan that we have works around them and really creates indentations in Myrtle street for cars to to park out of the driving area, but also maintain that curb space there that that allows the utility posts remain in place. So that's the short answer again. I just wanted to offer something. So you didn't feel like we were. Punting here, and we, we can get into this in much better detail in 2 weeks. So, everybody has a clear understanding of what we're proposing on myrtle and.
[MCM00001504_SPEAKER_11]: Thank you, I just want to say, thank you. I know shouldn't interrupt again, but thank you. That helps clarify some of those questions. So appreciate it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So, I see another member of the public has their hand raise Christina catch. Could you please state your name and address for the record?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, Christina Katch, 130 Myrtle Street, Medford. I have a quick clarification question, and then I have a question on design. Would the light pollution and noise pollution study be part of civil engineering or design?
[Mike Caldera]: So I think, well, light pollution and noise pollution studies, I'm not sure if those are customarily required exhibits. So a lighting plan would be under the engineering, I believe. Are you looking for something in particular?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Well, yes. You're putting a huge building across the street from my apartment. There's going to be a lot more residents, noise, animals, lights. landscaping, streetlights that aren't previously existing here on this street that will bleed into our day to days, especially those of us that work from home. And as well as nighttime, if we go to bed early, there's going to be light pollution from those those units, not just to myrtle, but amaranth in the townhouses. So I have to believe in noise pollution and light pollution study would have to be conducted. for quality of life of the existing residents.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. Thanks for clarifying. So yeah, these topics are kind of split across a few categories. So civil would include the lighting plan, which might give a sense of kind of where the lights are and which areas might result in a you know, lights that impact neighboring properties. And that's something we could certainly consider. I think the positioning of windows and things of that nature, that's more of the the architecture, and then, you know, whether there's soundproofing and so on, which I know there's code surrounding this, but that would be, I guess, civil. So yeah, it's kind of covered across a few of these, but just to be crystal clear, and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe there will be exhibits specifically detailing a study of light pollution and a study of noise pollution. There would be instead a discussion of lighting and a discussion of soundproofing and so on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The lighting plans that the civil engineer will review will include ultimately a photometrics plan. that shows compliance and the minimization of light trespass for exterior sight lighting. And with respect to noise, in addition to the code requirements, there's obviously the city's noise ordinance. And if there are specific sound emitters that are of concern, like rooftop equipment, that's often can be the focus of architectural and civil review to mitigate those impacts. But those are the typical considerations that a board would have.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Christina, did that answer your question?
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: It did answer my question. I'm a little disappointed. There's not going to be a more in-depth study on those things, but I will hold back further comments on it until after Civil.
[Unidentified]: I do have that design.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I had a design-specific question as well. So I guess this is for Cube 3. You mentioned that You have the four properties existing in Medford, you are, you have a pipeline of work coming up for other projects. And so I was wondering, since you're all four of your covering properties do have multiple units of vacancy. built into your design of this building, some of the shortcomings that you had in your previous designs to make sure they don't happen again to this new property. So I'm kind of looking at how you used your after action reviews from previous buildings to inform better decision making on this unit.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So on that one, I'm just going to try to keep it within board purview. I'm going to reinterpret that question as, you know, are there specific elements detailed in these plans for this project that are incorporating best practices and learnings from other projects in the area? So if the applicant wants to speak to any of those details, please go ahead. Sure.
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. I mean, we're obviously always continuously learning and trying to take on lessons learned from prior projects. I think one thing to note is we are working with a different developer here than we have on those other properties. So some of the things that we did on prior properties are not applicable to what we're doing here based on client and location with who we're working with. But we always try to take our lessons learned from things we did poorly and things we did well and try to carry those on to the next project.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a point of information, Mr. Chairman. Could I just be really explicit with the residents of Butters who are speaking and listening tonight that if you have specific suggestions for how to manage, for example, the light or the noise or other elements of the landscape, can you let the city know, or us know, so that we can make sure that it's part of the conditions or, you know, part of our review. Thank you.
[MCM00000654_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, but I mean, I'm an industrial engineer, not a civil engineer. So I kind of need the civil engineers to give me something to work with first.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, well, so just to elaborate on Andre's point, I think the in general, so the board, appreciates both questions and comments from the public. And as you've seen over these sessions, at least I hope this is what I'm striving towards, the board is trying to make sure that if you do bring up a question or something the board hasn't considered or asked that ultimately we're working with the applicant and the applicant's responding and providing those details and the applicant has been responding so far. So yeah, to Andre's point, I think, where a comment, whether that's made directly to the city or in a public hearing or something else, even if it's not coming from a place of expertise, could help is if you do have an idea. you could, in the form of a comment on the record, share that idea. And then that might inspire a discussion or a review that includes an expert in that particular area that incorporates the spirit of that idea. So yeah, I think if I understood you correctly, Andre, you wanted to make it clear to the residents that ideas are welcome and there are forums, whether it's speaking here or talking to the city, where residents could make those ideas known. And then especially if you make those ideas known on a similar timeline or in advance of a focal discussion related to that, then it could be something that the board discusses with the applicant and brainstorms around. Is that fair, Andre?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. And it could be as simple as like, you don't want the lights from the building shining across the street, you know, on your buildings, or maybe you want more lights because that would be better for public safety. I don't know. Things like that.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Thank you. Other comments from members of the public currently see any other members of the public who would like to speak, but I'm. going to wait a few seconds just to make sure. All right. Seeing none, chair awaits a motion to close the public portion of this session of the hearing.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Mike Caldera]: And we're going to take another roll call. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right. So public comment for this session is now closed. We will be taking public comment on other focal topics in future sessions of the hearing. All right. I just want to check back in with the board one more time. Other questions or comments on what we've seen today or other topics that have come up today?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, seeing, uh, yeah, go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Why not? So, uh, just one thing as where, as the architect is kind of looking at this, I would really love to see kind of what the. Plan or program is for the 1st floor wrapping around the building. You know, again, we looked more at the. Side, but. There's that whole first floor is blank. I'm wondering if that could be an area for murals, other public art, some green wall. I would like to know what's going to go on there so that it's not just a blank wall.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm seeing some head nods. Is that something we could get into in a future hearing?
[MCM00000650_SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, we'll certainly look into that and plan to answer that in future hearings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I'll add is we can, I think to respond to Mr. LaRue, we can certainly offer some ideas and possible alternatives for the board to consider on those types of design elements at this level. may be representative and then may inform the board in terms of what the final plans as a detailed condition might reflect. So you'd have a design objective about what you want to accomplish in terms of screening or mitigating or providing for some activation, whether it's murals or, you know, on the final plans. I'm not sure we're going to have a, again, similar to the sort of public art concept, you know, X percentage of the wall shall be devoted to public art. But we can certainly offer a standard and some ideas for consideration of the board.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think representative helps, at least it allows for a tangible discussion, which would then inform the final design. All right. We appreciate that. So now, OK, great. So now let's move on to logistics. So it was indirectly confirmed, but I just want to doubly confirm. So in two weeks, the planned focus area was civil, and it sounds like we are indeed on track to review that, as well as the landscape plan, as well as any updates from today's discussion, you know, maybe not all reflected in plan form, but just a general update on the topics discussed today in two weeks. We're on track for that. Am I correctly understanding?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, Mr. Chair, that's the plan for us to be back in two weeks to follow up on our civil discussion.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. And then, Mr. Bowmer, do you have an estimate as to when you could have that memo for the board and the applicants review, just in terms of the additional things you'd like to see? Probably like Monday, something like that, a day or two, so the next week. Great. Sounds good. Thank you. I'll check in with the applicant if they'd like to get more specific now. My current inclination is let's be a little bit flexible for the time being with the agenda of the four weeks from now hearing, kind of based on how the project develops and the discussion in two weeks. Does that seem reasonable? Or is there a desire to make specific now what the four weeks from now agenda would be.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I think that we can be flexible. I think obviously pending how the hearing goes in two weeks, if there are things to follow up on, we'd certainly like to be able to follow up on them as well as following up on the architectural items from this evening. So I think that to that end, if it's possible, if there are things that need to be cleaned up on multiple topics, maybe it could be somewhat of a utility type of hearing where we're able to cover multiple subject matters.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, thank you. I did want to just state for awareness for members of the public, so the upcoming schedule is there is a, sorry, I'm just verifying this on my calendar. So there is a hearing on April 11th. That's the one where we're going to be discussing civil. as well as the landscaping plan and some updates based on this hearing. And then the hearing after that is April 23rd. And so that's the one where we're keeping the agenda flexible, but we're expecting one of the topics that would be discussed is a more detailed updates to the design based on what the board and the public mentioned today, as well as Mr. Bowmer's memo. So yeah, that's what to expect next, folks. All right. I think we've covered the four topic areas for this meeting. I just want to check back in with the applicant if there's anything else you're expecting us to discuss tonight?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not from us, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the time and the comments.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the details and the time as well. It's really great to see the continued progress here. So, looking forward to our session in two weeks. And so, At this point, a chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to April 11th at 6.30 p.m. I move. Is there a second? Second. I'm going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Andre? Aye. Yvette?
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. This matter is now continued to April 11th. So thank you, folks. So this was the only main item on the agenda. There were some procedural items. So Dennis, could you read the next item, please?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. So we have an administrative update, which the only thing I'll tell you is that this is more just an FYI. I will be not available. I'll be, I'm going away. So I'll be out next Monday through Wednesday or Thursday, depending on what time I get back. So if anything does come in, I'm going to make sure that, you know, you'll get whatever comes in. So, you know, like cliff and beta and everybody else, they'll get forwarded to you, you know, while I'm gone and they'll get updated on the website.
[Mike Caldera]: So, okay. And so just so there, there is a, there is a plan that someone would, um, be, available to help forward that to us while you're out, or should we just expect it once you're back?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, no. My plan is to get someone. So when stuff comes in, I'll just make sure that, you know, I think the plan is, is generous plan will be in existence by the time I leave is probably more accurate.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Sounds good. But thanks for the update. And then the next item I think was meeting minutes. And I did send you one. A few days ago. Yeah, hold on. I see Director Haas has her hand raised. Please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm going to take every opportunity to remind you that we're working with a zoning consultant on zoning updates. If anybody would like to meet individually with her or someone from her staff, we could arrange that. Like if you have ideas of thoughts that you'd like to see. Or if you'd like to have her attend a meeting so you can in a public session sort of brainstorm things you'd like to see in zoning changes. I just wanted to remind you that that process is moving forward in that Danielle and I are meeting with the consultant almost weekly and the city council is meeting in a committee meeting. approximately every two weeks or so as well in a public meeting. So I just wanted you all to have that on your radar to add stuff. And we're going to start with administrative-y type things. So if anything is a pet peeve administratively that's in zoning, this is a good time to tell us.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, thank you, Director Hunt. And so just so we're clear, members of the board who want to take that opportunity, you should just reach out to you directly to set up that time. Okay. Yeah, I think we can certainly as a board in one of our regular hearings discuss if we want to do some collective board action. I don't, I think my personal inclination is at this point in the process, Maybe if members of the board already know things that they have opinions on, they should just work directly with you and the consultant. And then, yeah, we can, any member of the board is welcome to make a motion in a future hearing if they'd like to have a more focused collective discussion in public on that. Um, sounds good. Thanks for the update. Okay. So, so Dennis, you were, uh, starting to say meeting minutes. Yeah, I know you sent, uh, I know you sent meeting minutes. I'm just double checking now.
[Unidentified]: Um, no, there's separate for the, for the regular, I have the.
[Denis MacDougall]: The March 14th one, I know that you all have been sent those, and I'm just trying to go back. I thought I sent them all, but I was sending a lot of things, so I'm not sure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I have 314.
[Denis MacDougall]: January 30th got sent to you all, I know that. I'm just sort of going back to my sent emails things. And there's a lot.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, well, I'm going to check in with the board. So we have the meeting minutes for Jan 30, and then for 3-14, have members had a chance to review those? I'm getting some head nods. All right, Jamie, I saw your head nodding. So yeah, having reviewed those, how did you find the reviews?
[Unidentified]: They were January and March 14th. Both looked good to me.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, yeah, I had a chance to review them as well. They looked accurate. Dennis, I do want to make sure that if we're missing meeting minutes that we get those sent to us.
[Denis MacDougall]: Rachel's done them all, so it's just a matter of me sending them to you. Before I go, yeah, maybe we can put them all in a folder and then you can just kind of send us the whole thing Yeah, that's actually everyone on the Google Drive just straight just for those and I'll have approved and unapproved in two different folders And I'll just send you the Google Drive Google Drive link and you can just get in there.
[Andre Leroux]: That's actually that'll work I think yeah, that'd be good because I can't find the March one. I have January 11th 25th 30th
[Denis MacDougall]: But I don't see the other March when I sent you all on the last Friday.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that was more recent. You were going to say something. No, I was just agreeing. Yeah, okay. Well, so right now we're discussing Jan 30th and March 14th. So yeah, it sounds like several members of the board found the meeting minutes to be in order. So Chair awaits a motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 30th and March 14th. Do I have a second? All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Mike? Aye. All right, the meeting minutes are approved, and thank you in advance, Dennis. We'll be on the lookout for the remainder, and we can deal with those at our next session. Let's see. So just as a reminder, folks, our Thursday hearing, I'm going to be absent. Jamie has volunteered to chair. Jamie, I have some details for you, which I'll just tie out with you offline about. But yeah, otherwise, hope everything goes well on Thursday. And then I'll see you all on April 11th. Okay, I think that's, oh, go ahead, Andre.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. Yeah, just a question, and maybe this is for Alicia or Dennis. Are the city's 40B consultant, I haven't seen him, is, and I don't think we ever actually met with him, right? And I guess my question is, because this is coming up in terms of the design that we talked about today, is what, can we do anything to kind of better shape these 40B projects that come along and so that they're not just these same old massive block projects that we keep seeing?
[Mike Caldera]: So, Andre, I think it's been a couple of hearings where Attorney Haverty wasn't able to join, but his colleague who joined today, Chris, is part of the same office. So we don't have them on currently, but they have been joining. So I would recommend there's a couple of options. The board could schedule an executive session with our 40B consultant to talk about that in greater detail, or any member of the board is welcome to directly reach out to our 40B consultant with these sorts of questions to get those clarifications. The only thing we can't do is discuss it as a large group in private. Yeah, so I would recommend maybe for that question, you could reach out directly to Attorney Haverty and then we could discuss it in public at a at a future hearing. We could also ask it in public. That's the other option. I guess it wouldn't necessarily qualify as executive session. So it could just be, we could confirm that Attorney Haverty or one of his colleagues is going to be present at the next hearing. I think they have been attending and we could just ask them directly in public. That would be the other option.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, I'm happy either one. I'm happy to maybe in light of public. I mean, I mean, here.
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, maybe in light of your curiosity and the two weeks until our next hearing, maybe ask the question. in private, yourself, get an answer. And then based on that, you could ask it again in public, or you could let me know that you'd like there to be a public discussion of that. I'll just state my understanding. I think that there is a delicate balance, and there are some limits in terms of what the board can and can't do. And so it would be best to, if there's uncertainty about what we really can do, I think it would be best to have the 40B consultant just in public state that. I think, in general, the trade-off is local concerns versus something that might render the project uneconomical, especially.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Just because I'm curious, how do we get you know, the whole negotiation, like where the number of units for the amount of size of the land and all of that stuff. I mean, I just feel like it'd be good for everybody to understand that better.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah, maybe maybe we can lead off since it's a more general question. I'll plan to as 1 of the opening topics. For our next session, we can just check in with the 40 B consultant and have them provide a brief summary for the public about. kind of the board's consideration as part of the 40B process. Does that work for you?
[Unidentified]: Sure. OK, great. Another aspect to keep in mind is once these projects are complete, and I believe walk in court, is those are going to put ourselves at 10%. So we, fingers crossed, shouldn't see another 40B coming in, theoretically.
[Andre Leroux]: And I don't mind 40 Bs and I want to support housing. I just would like it to be- I want to see them at the 50% level myself. I'd love it if it was kind of a sensitively designed, and maybe instead of these mega blocks, we could have smaller buildings or different heights and things like that.
[Mike Caldera]: So I see Attorney Hunt wants to say, sorry, Director Hunt, wow, wants to say something. So in just a second, Director Hunt, I do want to just say we're towing a line. We're not talking about this specific project, but like we did already continue matters. So we really I'm recommending we don't go too deep into details here. But Director Hunt, what were you going to say?
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So in terms of getting another 40B application, because we have Safe Harbor for two years right now, We won't see one that's controversial like argumentative debatable. I will tell you that we are talking to other housing developers about how to bring projects to Medford and zoning and how things work. So what we could see would be a friendly 40B, but that would be a very different situation because they wouldn't have the right to bring it to us and jam it through. They would have the ability to bring it to us and go through the 40B process as instead of zoning variances. right, because we agree to let them go through the 40B process because we are interested in the 20% affordable housing or 25% or 20% more deeply affordable, that is something that we could, and I will say it is something that we have discussed potentially with some housing developers, And it is an interesting question for them as to will that amount of affordable housing raise their costs too much to make the specific project they're thinking about not affordable versus applying for variances, which you might decide to grant, but they would have legal tests and. they could be challenged, right, could be appealed more easily than a friendly 40B. So I just wanted to give you some context there. It would be a very different situation. I believe that the third 40B, it's unclear to me that they can just come back or what their statute of limitations is because they had stayed that case pending the outcome of the HLC. And they have not come back to us in the last six, it's about five or six months since that case was settled. So that's actually a legal question we should probably get answered. So I just wanted you to have that context as you're thinking about these things. What Andre is raising is a long-term question. It's not something that's gonna happen in the next six months or year.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's right. My understanding is Safe Harbor just dramatically increases the types of reasons that the appeals court would accept for denying a project. So it just changes the power dynamics. But in principle, someone could bring a 4 dB Safe Harbor. With Safe Harbor, there's a typically they're friendly because the board could reject it for a wide variety of reasons. Yeah, anyway. So chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn. Second.
[Mike Caldera]: Second, OK. We're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye.
[Yvette Velez]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, we are now adjourned.