[Mike Caldera]: Good evening, folks, and welcome to this special meeting of the Medford County Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call, and then we'll get started. Jamie Thompson? Present. Jim Tirani? Present. Andre LaRue? Present. Yvette Velez? Present. Mike Caldera? Present. All right, we have quorum. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Typically, 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 is not making any substantive changes to the open meeting law, other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you. Can you read the 1st matter? 4000, Mississippi Parkway case number 40 B dash 2022-01 continued from May 24th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of a petition of MVP mystic LLC and affiliated military residential trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 40 B. for multifamily 8 story apartment development, consisting of 2 buildings located in approximately 3 acres of land at 4000 parkway property ID 7 dash 0, 2 dash 10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building containing a mix of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low- or moderate-income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Dennis. All right, folks, so this is a long-running hearing. We've had a number of prior sessions to review this project. see an iteration on the plan packet. We've heard peer reviewer comments. And so the hearing is in the process of wrapping up. There's a few important items when it comes to the decision that we haven't had a chance to fully review and align on. And so for this meeting in particular, there are two There are two focal documents that we're going to be reviewing. So one is there is a updated waiver list for the comprehensive permit, which the board received prior to the meeting. And so I anticipate there'll be a desire to talk through and summarize some elements of that. And then additionally, the board has a 40B consultant and has been working with the city's legal representation to basically capture what is being discussed throughout this hearing and reflect that into some draft. So typically, with one of these comprehensive permits, the board may choose to impose some conditions on the permit. And so we have a draft version of that, which I've been told was sent recently to the applicant. I presume they've had little, if any, time to review it. And so, yeah, the plan for today is we will kind of walk through, at least at a high level, each of these documents. We do not anticipate the board voting on closure of the hearing tonight. I wanna make sure there's an opportunity for everybody to fully process and iterate if needed upon the documents we see tonight. And then we have another meeting on the books for next Monday, which is the expected date of closure of the hearing, so. With that having been said, I see we have some representatives for the applicant. Mr. Alexander, is that consistent with your understanding of what we should be discussing today? Anything you'd like to add?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you Mister chair evening. No I think that that sounds right to us and agree with what you said in terms of documents and just getting them what we've been trying to get a quick review but to your point I think a more wholesome review will be required over the course of the next couple of days.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful sounds good. So in that case. Yeah, what would you like to lead off. Just with an update on the the requested waiver list.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: So I can, just a brief overview and then if I can pass it to Chris and Louise who are closer to the details or the actual drafting. So the initial waiver list that was submitted, you know, at the very beginning of the submission and opening of the hearing, has been revised to reflect both some feedback and some discussions that we've had with city staff and others. And I think most notably has been revised to clarify a number of the waivers. So it's very clear now what a waiver is, what and why a waiver is being sought. Generally, they tie to some very specific items within the zoning ordinance. But that's the general overview. Would you like the Goulston team to provide any more detail or what? I don't know if the board or the city has had a chance to really dig in.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I think it would be great if the Golsan team could give an overview and draw our attention to any items that they'd like us to focus on. I have a chance to review. I definitely appreciate the work done to make these requests specific, which was probably the primary theme when we were reviewing this before as a known area that needed updates. So appreciate the hard work that went into this. But yeah, I'd love to hear from the Golsan team if they'd like to draw our attention to specific elements of the revised waiver list.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Chris Rainier from Goulston, and have with me my colleague, Louise Giannakas, who is the mad scientist behind the waiver list. So maybe we'll tag team it a little bit here. I'm not sure you've heard from Louise, but as you can see from the waiver list, the zoning ordinance is fairly detailed and We did try and go through it with a fine-tooth comb with the benefit of our consultants. Unfortunately, Tony Donato couldn't be here today. So in broad strokes, and Louise, at any time, feel free to jump in, but in broad strokes, what we did is it's organized with the zoning ordinance first. And I should say that early on, we had listed or tagged The waivers to the prior edition of the zoning ordinance, but following some the request by the building commissioner and others, this now references the currently in effect zoning ordinance so. What we've gone through is really, and the only way to do this is to start at the beginning of the zoning ordinance and go to the end and see what may not make sense for a project. For example, a prohibition against more than two buildings on a property. So we've got that in there for a waiver. So that is the waiver we did. And you can see on this flipping pages here, to look for the solar. Yeah, it's on page 9. We did benefit from a conversation with Ms. Hunt about the solar waiver where we clarified we're not seeking a full waiver from the solar ordinance. Rather, we're just seeking a waiver from the timing because some of the details in respect of how to do the solar assessment and provide that backup I'm not sure if I've missed anything other than that that you wanted to mention is that we have overview, but if there's any question, maybe the best thing to do is just see if there's questions from the board. We can go through them.
[Nicole Morell]: I'll just add what we have submitted to you here. We attempted to do sort of a manual red line so you could see the reductions that we attempted to make, the clarifications we tried to make. And I think it's fair to say we expected somewhat of a reconciliation process here. You know, we, as Chris mentioned, sort of started at the very beginning of the zoning code and flipped through every single ordinance, certainly not wanting to miss any waivers, but also, you know, sharing a mutual interest in having We are trying to make sure that we have as few as amount of waivers as possible. Hopefully, this manual red line of sorts is helpful to see where we have clarified and where we have tried to narrow things a little bit as we go.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I'll just say that I haven't had time to go through them.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I'm looking at them now. So if there's anything that you guys want to call out, that would be helpful.
[Nicole Morell]: I'll just add sort of categorically, you'll see that there are a few notes in there that some of these waivers we're calling sort of technical waivers. And the idea there is that where we've already, for example, requested dimensional relief for a setback or otherwise, we of course requested that specific waiver with respect to that provision of the zoning ordinance, but there are also definitional sections, other sections that are, technically tripped by, you know, seeking a setback relief. So while it might be three or four waivers that relate to setback, it's really that we're asking for, you know, X feet in setback relief.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, and Andre, just so having had the opportunity to review this, not with a fine tooth comb, of course, but broadly speaking, I would characterize the non-technical waivers on the first one, two, three, four, five, five pages as waivers to various dimensional requirements that are already reflected in the plan packet. So we'll have an opportunity, we'll make sure that the city's legal team has a chance to review it and double check that there aren't any accidental omissions or oversights there. But broadly speaking, I think it would be fair to classify it as dimensional requirements already reflected in the plan. Let's see, and then moving on from there, So there were some waivers that were previously requested that have been deleted. So there was a waiver for parking, the number of parking spaces, which has been deleted. And that's because the waiver is no longer required. Parking provided will be in compliance with the revised ordinance as shown in the site plan. That was actually the first one I wanted to double check on. So my understanding is the parking ratio is on the order of 1.1. And so this does have, I believe this, use is subject to 1.5 spaces by default, and then affordable spaces get a parking reduction incentive, and those only count one against the amount. There's also reductions for being close to high-frequency transit, but I just wanted to double-check. You definitely don't need a parking waiver for the number of spaces, is that right?
[Nicole Morell]: That's correct. And part of the background there was that in connection with the revised zoning ordinance that recently passed in Medford, these incentives were added to greatly reduce the parking numbers. So while previously we did require a waiver under the old ordinance, these new incentives and reduction in parking ratios, we actually have more than the required parking under the zoning ordinance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that's all I have.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. helpful when looking at some of these numbers, at least for me, to have the tabular zoning analysis and the zoning
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And I'll- Go ahead, Chris, sorry. Sorry, just what I wanted just to add in there is this is something that didn't jump out right away when we initially were looking at this. And actually, as I'm looking, Louise, I'm actually having trouble finding those two footnotes. But what we try to do, Mr. Chair, is in the zoning requirements table on the zoning site plan includes some details about how parking was calculated in respect of both that there's a lower ratio for affordably restricted units and then there's a another lower ratio for projects within I think it's 0.8 miles of high transit and we are within 0.8 miles of a bus stop. And so that by putting that on the plans and being very clear about how we calculated our parking ratio is why we feel we do not need that parking waiver anymore because we're now compliant as to parking.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, awesome. Thanks for that update. So yeah, that was one of the changes I noted. Then there was also, again, there were some dimensional... waivers being requested with respect to the dimensions of parking spaces and garage access among other things. These are all reflected in the plans we've been reviewing again. There were some waivers deleted just because after a careful review of the ordinance, it seems they didn't actually apply to this project. And then, The... So, like was mentioned in the update, the waiver requested from the solar energy systems portion was made more narrow to clarify that it was with respect to some of the timing elements. Linkage, the update we received is that discussions concerning linkage waivers are still in progress. So that seems to be an open item. And I do want to come back to that in a moment. Then those were the ones that stand out to me. So there were a few approvals by various city departments where there was a broad request previously that has been made more narrow just to clarify that the waiver is requested from some procedural requirements. The request for a waiver from fees pertaining to the building permit, plumbing gas permit, and reuse charges, that has been deleted. And then the blanket waiver at the end has been deleted as requested. So that's my high-level summary. I don't know if the Goulston team feels I've misrepresented anything or wants to add to that. That was kind of my takeaway from a read-through of the document.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: I thought that was excellent. Nothing to add.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. So with that being said, questions from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I don't have any questions. I think it looks good. The only thing is the open issue around the linkage. I'm curious to know what's the status there exactly.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, is that something you'd like to share an update on? I did hear, I think it's referenced in the document and I did hear that there were some discussions and that there's still some items being sorted out, but anything you'd like to share in terms of an update on those discussions?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Well, Ms. Hunt, would you like to provide an update or would you like me to go? Who's on first?
[Alicia Hunt]: I am willing to speak to that if you want. But I am going to ask Dennis to try not to make me laugh while I'm speaking. Sorry, that's why I giggled when you said that it was his fault. So we talked about the linkage. As everybody is aware, sorry, it's been a long day. The CD board would automatically waive linkage for all affordable housing units. So linkage is designed, it's set up as trust funds for police, fire, water, sewer, parks, and roads. And usually the money that goes in there is used by the city for projects that are off site that the idea being that every new unit and every new building adds to the burden on all of these departments. And you can't just make the last one that comes in, pay for the new thing that you need, but rather that they accumulate. By having everybody put some money in, it spreads the load around. Medford is the only community in Massachusetts that has this form of linkage. Some other communities have affordable housing linkage. None of this money actually goes towards affordable housing in Medford. That's another story, conversation for another time. So the applicant asks for that. And then one of the things that we do do is that sometimes applicants will ask for, will do things that are above and beyond what's being required of them, sort of voluntarily. Sometimes it's cheaper for them to do work because they're already out there and mobilized than it is to just kind of check. And so they will ask for credit for certain items. I will say that the applicant maintains that they shouldn't have to pay linkage because all of their units will go on the SHI, the Sustainable Housing Inventory. The city maintains that that is not what's the benefit to the city. Having the units on the inventory, that actually decreases from the amount of units the city is kind of forced to accept in affordable housing and that the idea is that we waive the ones that go on that are affordable because there's a less of a profit on those units than there is for the market rate units. The applicant provided us with a list of things that they're doing as part of this project that they asked for credits for. Over the weekend, I shared that list. Some of them are things that I can speak to. They're my areas of expertise. For example, asking for the pocket park that's on their corner. of their property to get credit for that rather than paying into the parks bucket. But some of the others were stormwater related and were traffic related. So I sent that over to City Engineer and DPW Commissioner and Traffic Director to get their take on are these things that they would give linkage waivers for. The answer that came back to me this morning was that they did not see these as being things they would give linkage waivers for because these are things On the stormwater side that are required, the I&I work is actually required by state law. And so that's work that the applicant has to do anyhow. If they were to say, do the I&I work and then do additional I&I work, this is inflow and infiltration into stormwater thing. while they were out there above and beyond what is required by the state law, then that part of the work could be given a credit, but that the work that was being required by the state law would not be. And on the traffic side, the idea that this is work that is directly mitigating the new pedestrians and vehicles at the site. So like things that are right at their location, their crosswalk, they don't see that as being something that they would give a waiver for. They would expect that of any new building that's there on site. If they were to say like, while we're out there painting crosswalks, we're going to add more up commercial street. We're going to do this additional work that's above and beyond what we would normally do. That's where they would see the credits coming. The example with the pocket park is one where we would say, we would never be able to use the linkage funds on private property. We can use linkage funds. We're actually using linkage funds right now. to pay for the designer for Carr Park and the designer for Gillis Park. If they were doing work in a different park of the city, that's where that would. If they said, hey, we're building a playground on ours, let's do a playground over there in that other park at the same time because we're going to have these experts out there, that would be the thing that we would give a credit for. That's where things stood on that today was the feedback that I got from there. I actually sent an e-mail to the applicant probably at six o'clock tonight, so I don't know if they had a chance to see that. That was the general gist of the feedback. With that kind of input, we could discuss that further. that's where we kind of came out on that was, they gave me a list of things, I sent it to our experts, our experts weren't really, our department heads prepared to accept the items that they had sent us as being above and beyond for that, so.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, well, thank you for that update, Director Hunt. Anything that you'd like to say as well, Mr. Reunier?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. And Alicia, thank you for your email. It did come in kind of late, so I wasn't able to respond through email. I'll start with, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion about how the exemption that's in the zoning ordinance should apply to 40B projects. A 40B is providing substantially more income-restricted housing to the city than a 40A project. We, at the time of initial conversations on this project, had explored a 40A option. We're now going back in history a little bit, but that was not an option as had historically been done in the city to entitle a project like this through a 40A and variances where we would have ended up at 10 or 15% income restricted units and would have paid linkage on the remainder. And I'll note that in a 40A project, as a rental project, there's no multiplier effect. So a substantial benefit to the city of Medford of this project is all 350 units will count on the subsidized housing inventory. And the way that a 40B really works is that there are no state funds. This is not a low-income housing tax credit project. There's no financial grants. The market rate units are internally subsidizing the affordable units. So we did, you know, so there's a difference of opinion clearly as to whether the market rate units in a 40B are entitled to a waiver. What we did do after our conversation with Ms. Hunt and the city solicitor is we were asked, in the spirit of working to be good partners with the city, we explored the request to look at the credit system under the ordinance, as Ms. Hunt had detailed, of things that are voluntary improvements or were performed as required under section 6.4. And so we did look at what are we doing that doesn't just benefit this project but will benefit the city and other projects as well. And some of that gets to a related concept in 40B of really a fair share contribution, where if a 40B project is going to exacerbate maybe problems at an intersection, it could make a fair share contribution towards resolving those existing deficiencies, but it's not supposed to resolve all of them. So as we were thinking about, for example, the improvements we'll make to the Mystic Valley Parkway and Commercial Street intersection. These are substantial pedestrian, bicycle accessibility and safety improvements to get people from the north side of Mystic Valley Parkway over to McDonald Park or vice versa. And we really see these as having benefits. Obviously, our future tenants will benefit from this. But as will the condominium unit owners down Mystic Valley Parkway, as will the Cambridge Courthouse visitors, or perhaps even employees that want to walk across the street and enjoy lunch. or tenants and employees of the future rise lab project, which is one property over from us with the courthouse in between. So, we think that there is a real benefit in a voluntariliness to the extent of the intersection improvements there. For INI, Tim and the team has worked with city staff to look at a really substantial We've been asked by the city of Toronto to provide the city with a camera and metering and, if necessary, relining project of about 1500 linear feet of city sewer. If we encounter existing I&I and that relining takes care of that, it will obviously have quite a benefit to the city above and beyond this project. to install some streetlights along commercial street. Not just, you know, we'll have obviously our building will be lit and our entrances will be lit, but we've asked to install streetlights in commercial street. I'm not sure a number has been settled on. We tried to guesstimate, you know, maybe that would be, you know, three or five along our project frontage and our side of the road. but those are things that we've been asked to do voluntarily, although that's in respective I&I and the intersection work, that's clearly a smaller ticket item. Then we were also asked by members of the board to think about and incorporate art, murals, a public parklet, on our project site. This would be a parklet that would allow people, not just our project residents, but people traveling east-west along Mystic Valley Parkway to have a moment of respite, a moment to step away from Mystic Valley Parkway as they're waiting for the upgraded pedestrian signal to take them back and forth across the street. So I think it's, I don't know how The department heads looked at that information, and if they could appreciate the context of a 40B project and where there is language that talks about subsidized housing, having an exemption, in the spirit of working cooperatively, and at the request of Director Hunt, we did that, and we pivoted. to talk about what work we're doing that in the context of a 40B project, I think is something that the board could find as a credit or an offset against some of these linkage payments. If we need any sort of blessing of that, that could certainly be a credit in the form of a waiver. to allow that credit against the linkage payments. But I just wanted the board aware that there was quite a bit of work that went into that proposal and was presented in the spirit of trying to get to yes on a project that does bear a very substantial affordable housing percentage, more so than any 40-A project in the city.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for that update. Yeah, so just a few items I'd like to speak to. So first of all, I do hear from each of the updates provided signs that the parties are engaging in good faith and trying to identify what would be appropriate for this project. So thank you for the effort you're putting into this. I think it will help the board I just want to. Help give the board confidence as to right what the right decision you know at the time where. clarify and remind, especially for those who haven't been following the hearing. So acknowledging the difference in interpretations of the ordinance itself, the board did weigh in on this very issue at our last hearing, or last session of this hearing, and found that under the zoning ordinance, The affordable units, the actually subsidized units are exempted. The retail space is exempted. I found that in a buy-write development, the remaining units would not be exempted from linkage. At that time, there was not we're going to be looking at. Details as we weigh in the avenues. You know for for credits. But that's where we left and so so irrespective of the interpretations from a procedural the essentially waiver requests with respect to that remaining market rate housing, not with respect, so it is not the board's finding that all of the units would be exempted. And I will just say, even though the board, I didn't specifically speak to this in the last meeting. The word affordable is defined in the Medford zoning ordinance, and it doesn't reference the SHI. It's really based on whether the units are or aren't subsidized. So I do want to just also I just want to reiterate that the board hasn't opined on the reasonableness or lack thereof of the request. my what I'm prepared to do unless we get feedback from the board requesting we diverge from this plan is at our next meeting when we're evaluating this or I should rather it's when we vote on the waivers themselves. We're going to there's there's one scenario where these conversations have converged and there's alignment as to what. what a appropriate linkage fee would be. That could be zero, that could be the full amount, it could be anything in between under 40B. Part of the reason why the board has the power to grant these waivers to begin with is to be flexible. So there's a bunch of different scenarios the board will consider. I am of the opinion that if we head into that meeting with alignment, It's a simple decision for the board. If there's not that alignment, then it's the chair's expectation that we would hear insufficient detail, essentially what the applicant believes is the reasonable waiver amount, which again could be the full You can you can say whatever you'd like. But, but, you know, and then we would also want to check back in with the city for any updates on what they shared. So, you know, there's a scenario where alignment is achieved in the in the week between now and our next meeting. which makes the board's calculus a bit more simple. Otherwise, it's the chair's expectation that we would have a discussion of any points of disagreement so that the board is able to evaluate the appropriate waivers when we're voting on those. I see member LaRue has his hand raised, so please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Mike. I miss it. I'd really like to see the proposal that was submitted the city for the credits just so we can kind of. Really see what those items are and what the numbers are. So if we don't have if we haven't received that yet could we get that. I think it's reasonable to consider. the credits for work that the proponent is is doing. I'm not an expert on That's why I'd like to see the detailed list itself so that we can make a determination on that. Some things that have public benefit like the parklet and the public art, we want to make sure that those are high quality, that there's a good investment in there. I certainly don't have trouble providing credit for those kinds of things so that we get a good outcome and evaluating the others in the same way.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Andre. Yeah, so my proposal, if the applicant's amenable, is I would still like that discussion to, for the time being, be had offline in between meetings, see if we can find some common ground. I don't want to fixate yet on the particular proposal that was put together unless the applicant has basically reached a point where they don't think progress could be made with additional discussion. So it is my intention for us to review the specific items that were identified as valid sources for credits in our next meeting, if there isn't that alignment already. I also do wanna just emphasize that This exercise really, as I interpret it, is intended to form a starting point for those discussions. So just because a department head would or wouldn't grant a credit for a certain thing in a by right development doesn't necessarily mean the board has to accept that interpretation for this development. So yes, I fully intend for us as a board to review whatever the update is at the next meeting. But I think it would be perhaps helpful and give additional flexibility to the applicant in the city if there was some space for additional discussion before we hone in on a specific proposal.
[Andre Leroux]: Just kind of a follow-up on that. I understand that. I just want to make sure whether it's this current proposal or revised proposal that we see it in advance of the next meeting because I want to look at it and have some time to really think about what I think about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Yeah, I think that's a great suggestion. So I do want to check back in with the applicant for their thoughts on on what the director had to do. Do you have something?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I got just sort of a summary email from the DPW commissioner with like his and I think that if the board wants to look at each of their I think the applicants proposal was relatively thorough. With information, although I will say that I do believe that we would ask for actual. Estimates in quotes like not just like in text $400,000 but like what's the backup for pricing for things if we were doing this? But I would like to ask them to go through. So for example, the idea that INI is required by state law. That was a follow up conversation that I had verbally with the DPW commissioner this evening. And so I would like to ask them to sort of put in like why each one of these would or would not because maybe there are things that can be addressed. Maybe there's a misunderstanding. It might be that the DPW commissioner is thinking, oh, this is just required INI and the applicant is like, no, no, no. The first hundred thousand is required and the second, The rest of it is above and beyond. And so I would like to clarify, like have that more detailed information to send back to the applicant and to the board. But I'm perfectly happy to send it to the applicant first, so they could see if they disagree with any of that. But I need to ask them for that in writing rather than me just convey what they said to me.
[Andre Leroux]: And yeah, and that's all fine and well, but I think ultimately we as a board are on the hook for making a value judgment about this. And so I think it's important for us to see what both sides are saying and to be able to have a reasonable and hopefully wise decision about it.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I'll check in with the applicant, anything you'd like to to add or suggest in terms of the next steps?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. I think that does make sense. I'm hearing and that that is, you know, we look at the proposal that we put together, which was detailed and did include for two of the larger line items, some backup cost data that Tim had gotten from his construction folks. And we could I think about adding some detail to that. And then hopefully, you know, the department chairs or staff will receive and review that and may be informed by the contacts that this is a 40B project. It's a little bit different in respect of its affordable obligations. So we can I'm Alicia take another stab at updating that those that those materials I get that to you and see if that helps. With your review of that information and then maybe it's one more pass. Mister chair and Mister the room and then that's the e-mail that goes to you with that backup data.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'm amenable to that plan. So the main thing I just want to emphasize is that the sort of exercise in refining of estimates and sort of discussing what should and shouldn't be included is helpful, and I think that's a really great you know, anchor point and due diligence for this. As Andre mentioned, you know, the board is ultimately going to make a holistic value judgment. And so I just want to emphasize it's okay if the parties to this discussion come to the board with a recommendation specific to this project. It doesn't have to be grounded entirely in this exercise of cost estimates and what wouldn't customarily be granted credits. So I think that's a good foundation. I'm a data guy. I like the diligence going into this. I think, you know, the board will certainly strongly consider any data-backed information that's provided, but let's, you know, I encourage the parties that be to just think about the project holistically, think about the flexibility afforded in the 40B process, and see if we can arrive at a reasonable proposal. Like I said, I think the board will make a value judgment, but it's a very different exercise for us if we come into the next meeting and the news is, hey, We talked it through and we think this is the the right plan versus uh, you know when there's still a disconnect the board's prepared to you know weigh in either way, um, but but um, yeah, I just want to Emphasize there is an opportunity here to you know, hopefully uh drive some alignment which will You know aid the board in its decision making um down the road Thank you All right other comments from the board on this topic. Okay, I'm getting head shakes. So I do intend to share, screen share a draft of some of the conditions and just draw attention to some focal items. Broadly speaking, the, so this was an exercise conducted by City Legal and our, our zoning consultant, and really they've been trying to codify the various proposed conditions that we've encountered over the course of this hearing. So it's a fairly long document, 16 pages, lettered and numbered all the way up through J, and so I certainly don't intend to I know go through it line by line, but I do plan to just draw attention to some focal conditions. So a lot of these conditions are, I'll call them customary or procedural, the things that would be included in you know, any comprehensive permit, as I understand it, we're going to gloss over those because the parties that be able to have a week to review those and, you know, call out any inconsistencies. But I do want to just draw public attention to some of the kind of specific items that were identified during the board's review and the peer review process and just sort of what the what the current proposed conditions are. Not expecting the applicant to weigh in on him unless they'd like to, but I do just want to get the process started. So that in our next meeting, we can. essentially get the update on the linkage discussions and then any feedback from the applicant on these proposed conditions. I think if we have those two things, the board has the info it needs to close the hearing and begin the process of drafting the decision and voting on the waivers and the conditions. So that's my intention, I just wanna check in with the applicant, if they are on board with that plan, or if there's anything they'd like to discuss before we get into the draft condition list.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That sounds fine to me.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. All right, so I'm going to screen share. Just give me a moment. And this is actually a slightly different version than was shared earlier today that reflects some comments from the building commissioner. We're going to make sure to send you that. So this is, and also if we discuss and make any live edits, we can go ahead and update this document as well. But broadly speaking, there's this 16-page document. I'm actually going to scroll to the end for some focal information. There is a key at the end which does a mapping to some of the items in the comment letters just to aid folks in identifying where the various conditions live. I also It was on my mobile phone, so I probably would have chosen a slightly different wording, but it just provided some some rough notes on other things we had we had talked about. So yeah, so we're going to mainly go through the the ones that are focal to to what we've reviewed and discussed as a board. And so there is proposed language B6 on a local preference condition. So to be clear to the public, the board has not weighed in on any of these. The intention here is for this to be the full list of anything that was considered or talked about or proposed, and then the board will intend to vote on these. So essentially, this condition, if adopted, would state that local preference for the initial roundup of the project may be established subject to and solely in accordance with the requirements of the subsidizing agency and applicable law. So if this condition was there, that would, subject to the subsidizing agency and law, And then, what else? The sort of language for the parking spaces, you know, to allow for a range of parking spaces. We'll have to review whether that condition is actually required at this point in light of the waiver. not no longer being required for parking so so we'll we'll go back and review whether any condition would be required to provide that flexibility or or if that would just be allowed by right then there's this one the building commissioner did draft up some language it hasn't been fully vetted but so the regarding the phase occupancy d12 So essentially, so there was discussion in an earlier hearing about some of the fire risks posed by wood frame high rises, such as this building, and some some bad fires that have occurred in the past. and some provisions that aren't in the zoning code but that are being discussed, sorry, in the building code that are being discussed for potential future included in the building code regarding the phased implementation of a sprinkler system. The building commissioner provided an update in a prior meeting that he has had a chance to discuss with the applicants and they've identified a strategy for phased occupancy. And then furthermore, I clarified in a prior meeting that the opinion we received from the city's legal representation is that we should not be imposing conditions in excess of the state building code. So the draft language here, I'm not going to read it verbatim, but essentially, it just reinforces that the a building commissioner has the authority to issue partial or temporary certificates of occupancy with the approval of the fire chief, and requires a phased occupancy plan to be submitted with the building permit application, and reinforces that the building commissioner may allow portions of the building to be occupied once the life safety systems, including sprinkler system, are operational. So this is largely reinforcing what was already discussed and aligned on. Applicant will have a chance to review this language and provide feedback, but I did just want to draw attention to that. Then D14 is electric, heat, and hot water. So this was a proposed condition. Again, the board will decide what is and isn't appropriate, but this one's pretty straightforward. This condition would just state that all buildings shall utilize electric utilities, including but not limited to heat and hot water. What else? The flexible play equipment, J5. And then J6 was on that list too. So this one states, and I think we got feedback from the applicant requesting not to use this specific language, so this might need a little bit of iteration, but as written it states, the North Courtyard shall be designated as active play space for younger children. The applicant shall install and maintain flexible play equipment within the proposed North Courtyard. I'm not sure if that's the case. I might need to iterate on my understanding from a prior hearing is that the wanted to emphasize that this condition be crafted in a manner where it does limit the use of you know, to essentially reinforce that this already planned and articulated a vision that the North Courtyard have this amenity available to children. We discussed as a board e-bike charging in apartments. There's a condition drafted just formalizing that the rental agreement should have language to prohibit e-bike charging in apartments. What else?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Snow removal. A11. Oh, gosh. Where are we? I'm lost.
[Mike Caldera]: of the site designated in the final plans should not be stored anywhere on the interior access ways or wetland resource areas. Any snow accumulated in walkways, loading areas, access ways or roads presumably shall be removed from the site within 24 hours. Final plans shall include a snow management plan approved by the board. then we're going to not really look at the language on the linkage fees. That's still an open question, but I've asked that there be language drafted in the event that the board wants to, as the applicant mentioned earlier, waive the And then there is, we may need to circle surrounding offsite improvements. This may also get angled up in the linkage discussion. But yeah, those are some focal things to draw attention to. And then the last thing I'll just emphasize, which I'm happy to pull up specific language, especially if either of our peer reviewers or a member of the board or the applicant wants to see something, but just want to mainly draw attention to this table. There is a one-to-one mapping between all of the proposed conditions in the updated peer review letters and this document. So in the case of the Tetra Tech letter, there was some language that was already in legal form that has either been copied over or slightly modified. And then the Davis Square letter, like we were informed, it had some themes, but wasn't written in legal form. And so those have been converted into you know, appropriately worded legal condition. So, yeah, that's my update. I'm happy to kind of hone in on any specific areas. I guess I'll first just check in with the board. Was there anything you were curious about that you'd like to see in this document that I haven't spoken to? And since I'm screen sharing, I can't see everybody, so please verbalize if there's... Mike, I just had a quick question.
[Unidentified]: Do you want feedback on these items now, or are we just discussing inclusion, exclusion of anything?
[Mike Caldera]: So it's my intention that the actual deliberation about which conditions to include and not include will be done separate from this. But if you see language that seems inadequate, or if you see gaps, things where you were expecting a draft condition that's not present, please do speak up, and that would be a good time.
[Unidentified]: For example, on the use of electric for gas and hot water, I'm assuming the intention there is to limit the use of, I'm sorry, heat and hot water, limit the use of natural gas. Correct. And if so, I would recommend adjusting the language there.
[Mike Caldera]: So, yeah, so this condition was one of the proposals in the Davis Square Architects peer review letter. And so, yeah, my suggestion is if there's recommended changes to the language that they I don't want to create a situation where the board is deliberating. Offline. Yeah, maybe uh Two paths, um, you can either and I fully expect you know members of the board to review this document, uh offline You can If you see language you'd like to change you can email dennis and just dennis, uh to let him know and then he'll pass that along to the applicant or If you'd like it reflected in the updated version that I send to the applicant right after this, which is almost what they received already. It just has the building commissioners edits. You could share the proposed language now. So D14 is right here. So as currently written, it states, all buildings shall utilize electric utilities, including but not limited to heat and hot water. What would you like to do, Jamie?
[Unidentified]: The intent there, as I'm reading that, comes across as limiting the use of natural gas. I think we should call that out more directly as a intention.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Because it's not precluded. OK, I see. Well, actually my reading of the current language is that it requires the use of electric utilities. Heat and hot water are the examples. Other utilities would also be required to utilize electric. So I don't think it actually allows for the use of natural gas as currently worded. That's my interpretation. But we could, I could make a note, you know, add language to reinforce the prohibition. And again, the board hasn't weighed in on this. It's merely a condition that was proposed. So would that addition alleviate your concern, Jamie? Great.
[Unidentified]: Other... And then, for me, the only other item, the clause about the e-bikes, if we could use less specific language, either personal transportation devices, personal transportation vehicles, for example, e-bikes.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. That's J6. So as it currently reads, there shall be no e-bike charging in apartments. Such prohibition shall be specifically listed in each rental agreement. And I'm just going to make a note. Generalize language to include, would it be, all electronic vehicles or would it be like electronic vehicles with lithium ion batteries? I don't know what would be like a blank.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, it's a personal transportation device or personal transportation vehicle is what they're inclusively referred to currently.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so electric personal transportation vehicles? Yeah. Yeah, and so again, everyone will have a chance.
[Unidentified]: Scooters, single wheel devices, hoverboard, all those types of devices that are lithium ion based. Although I don't know if the, I don't think the applicant would want somebody storing gas based devices in their room ceiling. Sure, yeah, noted.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, cool. Anything else, Jamie? Other comments or thoughts from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: you. Mister chair under here I have a few odds and ends if I could. Now and obviously I haven't read through this absolutely with a fine-tooth comb so instead there may be some of these One building on what Jamie was just saying, people will need to have a safe place to charge those things. So I think we should also include maybe a condition that there will be charging stations located in the bike storage areas in the garage. I think there is a condition that says something to that effect.
[Mike Caldera]: Let's double check.
[Andre Leroux]: HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator, Studio 5.: Oh, should the. HAB-Danny Teodoru, Moderator, Studio 5.: Prohibiting it in the rooms, we should just have on there should be like a sign well designated area for it. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator, Studio 5.: yeah okay um.
[Mike Caldera]: HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator, Studio 5.: I want to check in with the applicant on that one, specifically, is there, I don't recall in the current. I'm bike storage plans it it reflects the intended number of. The intended charging capacity of the bike room is there in the plans as it. Indicate. How much electric personal transportation vehicle charging you have.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I was there. It's a good question so I don't believe that the bike storage plan. delineate areas of, you know, charging stations. Certainly the intent to have electricity and outlets within that, within those bike storage rooms. But I don't think it's, you know, fully defined. So I think, you know, the idea of there being, you know, basically having those rooms be powered so there can be charging is, we're amenable to that. I'm sure the board knows it can get a little tricky as we try to work together on decision
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: the observation that Mill Creek is building a project in a competitive environment. It wants to build a very competitive apartment home community where it's going to be in the marketplace trying to attract tenants. And so it has every market incentive to provide adequate and sufficient and easy to use charging in the bike charging rooms. And so I think my point is to not be overly prescriptive about the number of chargers or anything like that, but merely the general comment to note that there will be chargers in the bike storage room. And over time, as these vehicles become more prevalent, or maybe they plateau, I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think Mill Creek will react because it is going to be competing for tenants with other projects. I just want to make the point that there are market forces that will
[Mike Caldera]: All right, I made a note of that as well, Andrea.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and agreed just the idea not to be prescriptive or micromanaging. But I think there should be we should be clear about what we're trying to accomplish here, that we're trying to prevent fires in the rooms. And so there should be, you know, well designated areas for fire safe and where charging can happen in the garages. However, you guys want to do that, want to propose language, that's great to me. I just want to make sure that that's the outcome. One other thing that I've, you know, I've asked about a number of times that I don't see in here is just the security system in the rear along the woodlands and the fire public safety police area. I don't see anything about that. I think there was a proponent mentioned that, you know, you're more inclined to do cameras and things like that, but I just don't see anything about it. So I'm wondering
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I didn't see here either on Andre. So I'm just looking for the appropriate section. So the one thing just to keep in mind is that this was drafted based on legal kind of interpretation and recollection of the hearings as well as my own. And so it may just be an accidental omission. So I think, I don't know the right section.
[Andre Leroux]: I think it's F. All right, so yeah, that was. At least that would be my interpretation. And again, I'm not trying to be prescriptive here, but I do, you know, I've raised this question several times and I don't, I would like to know. I'm fine with whatever the answer, you know, maybe that's adequate, but I just would like to know I had proposed originally you know, call the box of some kind, some kind of emergency. Facility, but. that the proponent would like to do there. And I think, you know, even if it's cameras, that's fine. I just wanna know, is there somebody gonna be monitoring those cameras? I just think that that's an area in the back that I think we just wanna make sure that it's a safe place. I think that's a good point. Mister Alexander raises hand.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mister chair, if I might totally agree with. Remember the rule on that the concept there and I think our prior discussion around security cameras and signage to the to that effect as well. That you know I think we've all seen that the sort of you
[Adam Hurtubise]: would be appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, just an aside related to this. So we did discuss this. The applicant did present a proposed solution here. I just want to emphasize so the board can consider whichever conditions it would like it's a different discussion if we're um drafting a condition that reinforces the the plan um that was presented versus a condition that would be in congress with the plan that's presented so i think if uh if I would just like a clarification, Andre. Are you satisfied with the sufficiency of the plan that was presented, or are you asking the applicant to review this area and propose an alternative? I'd like to avoid passing a condition that
[Andre Leroux]: the applicant doesn't have a... Well, again, I don't want to tell them exactly what it has to look like at this stage, but I don't believe the plans include, you know, cameras and signage. So, I think that I just want to see a condition that speaks to that effect.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so what I'm hearing is you'd like the plans to include this information that you're
[Andre Leroux]: Well, again, I mean, cameras can be relocated. They're very mobile right now. So I don't necessarily want to say they have to be in exactly these locations. I mean, I'm happy to provide the flexibility, but as long as we know that it's in writing, that that's gonna be addressed, then I'm fine with that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think that's a great example of the fact that. The plan don't have that level of detail yet or should they but then down the road when we do get that level of details appropriate to say that the North side of
[Andre Leroux]: Right. And really, I mean, for these kinds of things that, you know, these odds and ends are there. They're small and totally receptive to the proponents suggesting language on them. Okay, thank you. Thanks. What else Andre. So one thing that I don't think is in here that I brought up when I was first proposing this around the public art and talking about the historical material around the parklet is my suggestion had been to have that material address the First Nations history of Medford in the the mystic river area. I want to suggest that, again, I don't know if there's been any further exploration of that, but I don't know of any place in Medford that does commemorate that history, and I think it's an appropriate location for it, fronting on the Mystic River. And landscape, while it's not historic, is more historic than other parts of the city that have been built on. And I would love to see a condition in there that just says the public art and the historical material will be done in collaboration with the Medford Historical Society, as well as with appropriate First Nations entities.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. We'll add that here.
[Andre Leroux]: And again, you know, I hate to try to be prescriptive on that. Like I'm not, there's so much that could be done. It's like a very big history, but there's, you know, I think that there are other, for example, it's always easy, the fallback, the historical fallback always seems to be on the shipbuilding and luck to see something different if possible that addresses a different facet of our history that's not been told.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so this is an area where you've made this proposal. As a board, we didn't really discuss it in great depth. I certainly understand the intention here. And so my inclination is that I'm going to ask for the specific language you're proposing, and then as a board, we can certainly review. So essentially it would be in consultation with the Medford Historical Society and then, so the First Nation part I got, Andre, but is it that it would reflect?
[Andre Leroux]: I guess the way that I would phrase it, Mike, would be historical material and public art components of the project. would be done in consultation with Medford Historical Society, First Nations entities as appropriate and other local organizations. Appropriate local organizations. I'm gonna delete the part that's duplicated.
[Unidentified]: First First Nations as appropriate and
[Andre Leroux]: other local. Yeah, relevant, you know, local cultural organizations, I would say local cultural organizations like that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, I'll delete the duplicates. Sure. Sounds good. So we will have City legal take a crack at that. The applicants certainly welcome to as well. For now, I'm just reflecting it in the dock we're going to send over.
[Andre Leroux]: What else? This may already be in there, but I just like it called out that the landscape will be done with native plantings. I think that's in the landscape plan, is that? I would not be surprised, but just I'm not an expert on that.
[Mike Caldera]: I think it's worth, I'll also check in with city legal on that one. It might still be advisable to have a condition, even though my you know, early read, you can come back with more detailed comments with any concerns with language reinforcing the desire for the landscaping to use local varietals.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I certainly understand the concept, Mr. Chair and Mr. LaRue. I think probably the key is in the drafting to make sure that it doesn't preclude know, the term that I hear often is biodiverse landscape plan. So, and obviously, that, I think that largely includes sort of native, you know, species. Let me double check, we can probably get similar language from our landscape design team on what they've seen in other, other permits or other I just I guess the only concern is I we don't want to put any language in there that that narrows down what what we're able to do that might otherwise really benefit the landscape.
[Mike Caldera]: So yes yeah I'll be cautious about it. We're aligned on that yep sounds good.
[Andre Leroux]: And then the final look uh I see Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: You know we're going to say something Dennis go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: Um yeah just when this project is going to go before the ComCom and ComCom basically has you know discussions with all applicants basically of what plantings are appropriate for that region. So between both the CONCOMM membership and also our tree warden we basically kind of go over a lot of that during those meetings so.
[Mike Caldera]: Perfect that's fine then. Dennis just to clarify even so I understand that CONCOMM considers topics that are regulated under state law so even in light of this being a comprehensive permit Yeah, exactly.
[Denis MacDougall]: That would still be consideration. Basically, the only thing we can't really, you know, our, our city. Ordinance, but the actual well, and protection act, which is, which is still going to be followed here gives us latitude to basically discuss plantings and what is right. What is proper for the area and what will thrive and what won't thrive. Is even like, just an area like this, it's, you know. It's reclaimed land closer to the river right next to a wetland. That's much that's a difference. You know, you might have a different. Sort of mix that you would use there as opposed to, you know, something, you know. Up in the up in the shelves near, you know. That area, so it's. Okay, thanks Dennis.
[Andre Leroux]: The final thing was something that I feel like has kind of fallen by the wayside, but I just want to raise it one final time, which is a blue bike station. And, you know, it's something that. Seems like it would be a good location for it, especially with 350 units there. People who don't have bikes could then use it to get to Wellington or other areas very easily. They're not in the site plan or anything, but that's, for example, the thing that I would definitely want to give the proponent credit for doing if they were to do something like that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah. Do you recall, Andre, if the proposal was for that to be an on-site or an off-site improvement?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, I've just raised it a couple of times and kind of asked the... I was under the impression that maybe the city was having conversations with the proponent about that, so maybe Director Hunt could speak to it, but, you know, never came up specifically about where the location would be.
[Mike Caldera]: Director Hunt, is that something you wanted to speak to?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just can tell you that all of those conversations go through Todd, our Director of Traffic and Transportation, and I actually have no idea what conversations they've had on this. I can certainly ask him, but the applicant may know.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, anything that you'd like to add?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I don't have any specific update on Blue Bikes, other than to say, I recall in the prior hearings, The concept, again, something we're very open to, and if the, if the condition is to is for the applicants to. You know, coordinate with the city and or blue and or blue bike to. I've done this in other communities, whether it's Blue Bike or they did it with ride sharing as well, Zipcar, and at times it comes down to whether the Blue Bike or the Zipcar, whoever the provider is, deems it an appropriate location, what their other nearby map and and if they deem it appropriate, we'll jump all over it. I just, I think the condition should be to seek that out and coordinate with the city and Blue Bike.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That would be great. Yeah, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for Ms.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Hunt. Where I just don't know off the top of my head whether blue bike stations in Medford. have been installed within the public way. I know in other communities that's very common where you might take a parking space along a road or a couple parking spaces. I think a common size I often see is like a 19 dock station. I don't know if that's because that's how big they come, but oftentimes I see those in the public way. And so I just didn't know if we had any intel as to how these stations have been located at other projects or other areas in Bedford?
[Alicia Hunt]: The ones off the top of my head are not. They're on the sidewalk in Medford Square. They're on the edge of a park on Main Street. They're in Stations Landing and they're in Wellington Station. I know there was a press release about three more that are possibly recently installed or in the process of being installed, but I don't remember where those are exactly.
[Unidentified]: Same case, there's one in the main square that's on the sidewalk as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. There's the conflict between sidewalks or bike lanes, parking spots, things like this, right? Our roads are narrow. If you're asking about Mystic Valley Parkway, that's a DCR issue. If you're asking about Commercial Street, is it really wide enough for both?
[Andre Leroux]: Right well that's my my question what I mean there may not be an appropriate location right on the site, especially since we're at this stage. But, you know, whether it could be around the corner on commercial street, or whether it could be in a nearby location perhaps and that the, you know,
[Alicia Hunt]: What could work is something that I understand communities that are more advanced with their blue bike stations are doing is asking for either the paying for the station and the installation of it. But all of these come with annual fees. So if it's on your site, then you then maintain it annually. But I think that we may be considering putting together a fund for for for supporting the ones that are being installed publicly. Fairly close to this location is one that has gone in at Hormel Stadium. And so like putting money into the fund to help pay the fees for the for the first few years, I don't think people realize that the person who installs the station also has to pay annual fees to have the station there. In addition to above and beyond what people pay to rent the bikes. So it may be it is installing a station or put paying some the equivalent into a fund to maintain, you know, an existing station on municipal land. Because I do know there's one right up the not right up the street, but Carmel Stadium.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Yeah, Andre, any additional?
[Andre Leroux]: No, I'm just, I guess I'm just wondering who's, you know, or that ball is in to maybe draft some language.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so I think the language surrounding coordinating with the city, that should be well within the capabilities of both legal teams. Going beyond that and being a little bit more specific or contemplating a contribution to a fund, I think that would, I think the ball is likely in a discussion between the city and the applicant happening between meetings court.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't know if the city and applicant can just at least touch on that, see what's an appropriate condition before next time. Mr. Bowman, please go ahead.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Just adding a bit to Andre's comments, something I've seen and I don't think I saw it in these conditions, but I've seen in many is prior to issuance of a building permit, that a final transportation demand management plan would be submitted. And I think that's where you'd find language about exploring feasibility of a bike station, MBTA monitoring screens in lobbies, subsidy, two month subsidy to MBTA passes, whatever it is. That's a pretty common condition prior to permitting to see a final TDMP submitted.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't remember whether the, I mean, was that in the department's comment letter? That would have been early on, I think. I don't remember.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: I don't remember either, but it's a pretty common ask, and it benefits everybody. It benefits residents. makes the apartments more rentable.
[Unidentified]: Andre, it's in our comment.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Okay, sure, I was just gonna mention too, if I might, that our transportation assessment includes scope for TDM, just as Mr. Bowmer was describing.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, that's pretty common. And I think that, Andre, I think that's where that would land.
[Andre Leroux]: So is that here in the conditions somewhere?
[Mike Caldera]: I don't see it, so I'm going to make a note of it. No, it's not now. I'm going to put it in section D. I don't actually know the section.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: My only comment is it may already be included by way of the list of plans and reports that would include the transportation assessment.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Right. That's exactly right. But usually what, that's right, Tim. And what I see is the, because all that's on the record and then, but prior to issuance of the building permit, you'd want to see a final plan that would reflect any thinking that's been done since those initial submissions.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Brummer. Okay. I'm not hearing any.
[Unidentified]: I know it was one of the last items that we were talking about with the traffic flow between the buildings. We talked about ways to have that traffic line, a lineup and how to maneuver, how to traffic come. We talked about one of the last items we talked about last week, I believe. Andre had brought up using a traffic coming mural or painting on the ground as well. maybe tie that in if that's an opportunity. I know the applicant was open to looking at it. I don't want to put it as a requirement or condition, but just I believe the language for that traffic calming. I don't know. I've tried to go through everything. I hadn't seen it, but it might be in there somewhere.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I don't believe it's in this document. I do recall we did receive an update on that and there was there were some technical concerns with the particular proposal, but I honestly don't recall where the applicant landed on this one. Is that, like, has the, the line, I guess, like the lining or the organization of this drive, this one-way drive in, has that converged to address the high-level technical concern? I believe there was some pushback on the specific mural idea, but yeah, I don't recall where you landed on that.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, my recollection, two distinct things. One was to make sure that that striping on the central drive was cleaned up to make sure the alignment was proper. And I think there is a condition drafted regarding that item. To Mr. Thompson's point, the idea, my recollection is when we discussed the idea of a more, you know, artful element, for that area. There was, yeah, we were open to it. I think that, again, that's probably devil's in the details. And there was some concern, I can't remember who stated it, or some knowledge that certainly that would have to be reviewed by and in accordance with the city's transportation standards. And I don't think we've gotten any further along on that at this point. But the idea of exploring that and seeing if that could be an artful element while still in accordance with the city's transportation standards and requirements, that feels appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, I was looking for it. I'm thinking maybe referring to E6. So the one-way approach is not aligned with the westbound traveling and partially overlaps with the approaching eastbound vehicles. Therefore, the applicant shall show a safe travelway transition on the final site plans, including any additional favorite markings or signage to be reviewed and approved by the board's consultants. So the language might need to change here a little bit, but essentially what I'm hearing is add language for applicant to explore idea of what was it referred to traffic common mural.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Cool. All right. Other
[Andre Leroux]: And just to be clear like mural doesn't have to be like a complicated pictorial thing could just be an abstract design, you know, it doesn't have to be expensive. The abstract.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you for clarifying.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Other comments from the board. I'm not seeing any. I don't want to put the applicant or the peer review consultants on the spot given the recency with which this draft list was provided. However, I will open the floor if anyone would like to speak to specific items if you haven't already addressed. Otherwise, if it's my intention for us to I will work with the city legal representation to modify the language based on this feedback and then we will discuss all of that feedback as well as any callouts on conditions that the applicant may not be aligned with at our next meeting.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: and not to be too nerdy, but I did take a little time to run through these, and I can look at any revised versions as well. But I want to just point out a couple of things. I do look forward to looking at the language, and I appreciate the proponents' resistance to overly restrict the use of that North Courtyard, so I understand the reaction to that? I think the main point I was making in my comments, and I appreciate the language towards that, was just making sure that space would always be available. So if there were an adult yoga class in there that it didn't preclude the use of the space for somebody who really needed to get their child out into the open easily. So I appreciate them not wanting to overly restrict it. Another point I didn't see was any review the board retains for use of the commercial space. And
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I don't believe there's a condition in there right now for that. So can you just clarify what you're, what you.
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I think in the most generic sense, I don't think the board would want to see a commercial space that would have any measurable negative impact. Sometimes you see, I'm sorry, I'm working on a cold here. Sometimes you would see a, a restriction on not installing a commercial kitchen, because often with a commercial kitchen, there comes a lot more traffic or smells or whatever. I don't have specific language, but in the most generic sense, I think the board would want to maintain some purview over the impact of proposed commercial spaces, whether it's increased traffic flow or other issues that, again, I think maybe you wanna be more generic. The comments that I've heard tonight about the electric heating and hot water, The way that a lot of communities do express that is no fossil fuels, and with the exception of backup generators, emergency generators, that would usually be either propane or diesel. That's a pretty, I think, easy way to cover that one. I think the discussion about being able to expand or not having the, The personal transportation device is stored in units. I think that's the right language. You might expand that to just say that any of those should be stored in the type one construction, which is the parking garage part of the building. So it should be in fire rated enclosures in that part of the building. Chris brought up tonight The fact that the developer has discussed providing street lighting on commercial street, I didn't see that as a condition. I think it's a terrific, terrific thing to do, but maybe a condition that acknowledges that the developer is providing that, but they coordinate it with the city, the placement and design of any street lighting on commercial I did see the condition about the language about parking spaces versus bike spaces. I think at least what I was trying to express is not that the board, mainly that the board identify a minimum number of parking spaces that would allow the expansion of bicycle spaces. I don't think it quite read that way in the condition. I confess I did read them pretty quickly. Finally, I think there's a couple more. I would add to the construction management plan because you had a list. items that would be in the CMP, I would include the NFPA 241 plan. One other comment I made, and this is just me, I didn't consult a traffic person on this one, but it was in my last letter about The number of short-term parking spaces, it didn't seem to me that one short-term parking space was sufficient. I'm not an expert. If the town maybe wants to consult with our own people on that one, I thought there should be more. The short-term space is limited, which of course lowers the spaces available for residents. And I did hear that tonight, that clarification, I didn't see it in the conditions that I read, but the clarification about the roof area, that being more about timing, the reserving roof area for solar panels. And that sounds right to me that they need to flesh that out a bit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What else?
[MCM00000653_SPEAKER_06]: That's about it. I did see that you did include the condition about screening, cleaning of mechanical equipment that covered my concern. And that was about it in my reading today of those.
[Mike Caldera]: I'll thank you for those detailed comments, Mr. Bomer. I did attempt and I believe I was successful at capturing rough notes for all the things you called out. I'm not convinced I put everything in the right lettered category, but it was a record. And so I'm happy to work with the city legal representation and the zoning consultant to add these updates. I'm thinking just in the interest of time, because we do only have one week between today's hearing and next week's hearing. My plan will be after we adjourn this meeting, I will send the drafty version that I've just been live editing here over for the applicant's review. Applicants can feel free to draft any language they so choose, especially for the stuff that's not in proper condition form. Ultimately, as I previously conveyed, the primary focus of our next meeting, which is our final planned meeting prior to the closure of the hearing, is to collect feedback and propose changes on this list of conditions. I anticipate that's where we'll spend the lion's share of our time next week. Any progress we make along the way in between, I'm sure the city legal will be happy to send an updated version whenever they've had a chance to to take a crack at some of these. Other comments?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Mr. Chair, if I might, just a couple of quick thoughts on Mr. Bowmer's comment. The first on the retail space, and I think I recall this from a prior conversation as well, a prior hearing, we were in agreement that, you know, commercial kitchen that involved an underground grease trap or a black iron vent that went up through the building, you know, that's not shown on the current plans, either civil or architecture. So I think, you know, hopefully the board already has enough detail there to know that, you know, that wouldn't be part of the project. That said, I'd be concerned, and, you know, again, we'll look at the language, but just want to make sure that we're not going to put in language that would limit the other types of users who could, and retail, you know, commercial users who could be a part of the community and the project. Just want to make sure that, you know, obviously the space is as marketable and, you know, sort of flexible as possible. So that was one thing. The second, well, on the bike storage, we talked about this too last hearing and appreciate the concept of, you know, longer term, right? Maybe we're, you know, years into the future, the potential for vehicular spaces to be converted to bike storage, but we also have, I think, additional bike parking. That is a solution that if more bike parking is needed in the future, aside from converting vehicle spaces, there can be designated spots on the third floor of the garage for additional bike parking. That may be another way around this that doesn't necessarily You know, we're still going through the document, of course, but one item that caught my eye as I was just looking at it that I think is a bit different from what we talked about at a prior hearing was in section C, C1, and then a lot of the letters and numbers below. of the board receiving a final set of plans for review and comment. And I think, you know, this may be, and I don't want to speak for the drafters, but this may be, you know, for lack of a better term, boilerplate language from another comprehensive permit in which a detailed peer review process was not undertaken. A lot of times, and I've seen this in prior projects where a final set of plans might be three or four sheets long, might have significant change towards the end, but is not totally captured on the plans. And so that does require a sort of a secondary review. My sense here is that, and I think we talked about this, maybe it was a discussion I had with Mr. Reardon, that a final set of plans certainly will be submitted, but that would be submitted to the building commissioner for his review of permit. And I believe, and somebody can correct me or confirm, there is a review process you know, there can be or already is a review for the building commissioner to have jurisdiction over any substantive change or alteration from the plans that are attached to this permit to the plans that are submitted for building permit. So that one struck me as probably an extra step given the level of review that we've got already undertaken that may not be required. So I just wanted to flag that and we can certainly talk further about that offline.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, thank you for flagging those. So I've made a note, and I'll get feedback from City Legal as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, awesome. Well, the floor is still open. Other things we should talk about before I stop sharing this one. All right, so I'm not seeing anything, so I'm going to stop screen sharing. Yeah, and so in terms of I was planning for us to cover today. We've gotten through everything. So we'll make sure that this drafty version of the conditions is sent to the applicant. I'll send an updated version to Dennis and the city so they have it for the records. We'll send it to the peer reviewers. everyone can feel free to contemplate and iterate in the intervening week and then we'll to review next week. My read of the board's feedback on the requested waivers, I think we've adequately discussed those. The board has not had a chance to review it in detail, so members may review and come to our next meeting with additional questions, but it sounds like the big open item is the Is the link is the ongoing linkage discussion which which like I mentioned, I do want to give the applicant in the city an opportunity to discuss a little bit further. I echo Andre's request that the. This one being pretty impactful, we would like to receive an update enough in advance of the meeting. I would say certainly by end of this week and I would say end of day Thursday would be better possible just on the outcome of those discussions so the board can weigh in advance of the meeting. the meeting, some of the holistic elements of the value here, and so you're not wasting too much time in the meeting itself talking back and forth on that particular item. So yeah, I want to go over a few procedural elements just to make sure everybody's aligned, but I'll pause and I'll just double check. Anything else we should be discussing? Okay, I'm not seeing anything. So one thing I want to clarify, which... we hadn't really discussed previously. So the extension that was granted is through June 12th, which is the date of our next scheduled meeting. This is to close the hearing. The statutory timeline allows for 40 days after the closure of the hearing for the drafting of the decision. My intention is for the board to reconvene in deliberation after the hearing closes to review a draft decision and to do the actual voting on the waivers. and the conditions at that time. So I do not intend for the board to vote on waivers and conditions a week from today. It's a little hard to do that without looking holistically at the draft decision. So that is a yet to be scheduled meeting. My intention is for us to coordinate with the relevant parties offline to schedule that. But so essentially that would need to occur some time between the 12th and late July. So we'll need all members present. I presume the applicant will want to be present. So yeah, that's the intention. We'll take a vote whether to close the hearing at our next meeting on Monday. after reviewing this updated feedback, but the actual vote on the waivers and conditions would occur once there is a draft decision sometime in that 40-day period after the closure. So just wanted to put that out there, make sure everybody's on the same page. If anyone would like to speak on this matter, please feel free. Okay, not seeing anyone. Okay, great. Well, that's everything on the docket for today. So, Chair awaits a motion to continue this hearing to Monday, June 12th.
[Andre Leroux]: Motion to continue the hearing to Monday, June 12th. Do I have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Beth? Aye. Mike?
[Mike Caldera]: Aye. All right, the hearing is continued to next Monday. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second. All right, all in favor? Bye. Bye. Great. Thanks, everybody. Good night. Bye, everybody. Thanks. Good night, everyone.
|
total time: 1.92 minutes total words: 177 |
|||