Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. It is the June 4th, 2026 meeting of the Summer War Planning Board. I am Mike Capuano. I am the Chairman of the Planning Board. With me tonight is our Vice Chair Amelia Aboff, our Clerk Jahan Habib, our members Lynn Richards, Michael McNeely, and Luke Schuster. We have a quorum. For the purpose of the record, we also have, at least on video, um you know two members of our uh udc who will be joining us for a point of discussion later this evening i believe they um do currently or will soon have a quorum so uh we can deal with that agenda item when it comes up but pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 this meeting of the planning board is being conducted via remote participation the video recording the proceedings will be available on the city's meetings and events page or by emailing planningboard at SomervilleMA.gov. This meeting is being recorded. The first item on the planning board's agenda is the meeting minutes draft of May 7th, 2026. Does anybody have any suggested revisions, comments, amendments to the draft meeting minutes of May 7th? Okay. Seeing none, the chair moves to adopt the draft meeting minutes of May 7 as the final minutes of the planning board. Alvaro, please call the roll. Yohan Jabil.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster. Aye. Michael McNeely.

Aye.

Amelia Aboff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano. We have meeting minutes.

Next up, we have a number of items on our public hearings agenda. 222 Broadway has previously been continued to July 16, 2026. The next item we have on our agenda is 1 McGrath Highway. I don't believe that has actually been read into the record yet. Has it? Alvaro, can you confirm? It has been read into the record. However, they were continued for tonight.

Yep. Yep.

It's continued tonight. They have requested a further continuance to June 18, 2026. Chair moves to continue that agenda item to June 18, seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please. Jehan Habib. Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster.

Aye.

Michael McNeely. Aye. I mean, yeah, but Michael kept 1.

Right agenda items continued the next is 1, 20, Middlesex Avenue. I do not believe this has yet been read in. Can you confirm.

I know it was read into the record last meeting continue to this meeting and now another continues requested. Apologies it was a meeting.

Okay. The chain was good. Continue the continuance to June 18, 2026. Seconded by Amelia Rogel. Johan Habib. Aye. Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster.

Aye.

Coralie Cooper. Oh, sorry. Michael Magnilli. Aye. Take me a long way. Amelia Abel.

Aye.

Michael Capuano. Aye. That's continued.

next item on our agenda is 32 webster avenue which has previously been opened um it is the discretion of the chair to uh modify the the the agenda this will be held until after we go through our other business our other business because we have members of our udc with us as well as maybe sarah knows Sorry to discuss with the UDC who may or may not have a quorum and I would like to welcome them aboard our urban design framework. So, what I'd like to do now is to have Sarah say hello. and to have any and all members of our UDC introduce themselves to the purpose of the public and also the purpose of the planning board, because we've received reports from you all, but have not always met all of you. So it's a really nice kind of collaboration between the two boards to have a discussion and a presentation by Sarah. So if I could please ask the members of the UDC to

to introduce themselves and we can all uh contrarily introduce ourselves as well uh mr chair if you're willing to let me go first i will just say i am hoping that the uh udc and the planning board um can have their discussion and i am here to take notes and provide additional information this evening rather than do a full presentation, but I am here should any of you need me.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I know that part of our packet for tonight included the presentation that I believe you gave quite a while ago. And I don't know if that's been amended since we last discussed it, but if there is an amendment to that that you'd like to address, we're happy to take that up. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to just have a general discussion by and between members of this board and the UDC.

Yeah, there has not been an update to either the document. We just wanted to make sure that before we made any changes that the planning board and the UDC were comfortable with the path forward.

I appreciate it very much, Sarah, and stay on cycle in case we have some questions.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Could I please, as the chairman running this particular meeting, ask for the chairperson of the UDC to introduce themselves and their committee members, and please go around the room. We'd love to meet you all.

So the Somerville zoning ordinance designates the chair as Sarah and the head of PSAF. So we do not have a chair of our own membership.

But I can start. Can I ask you to take lead after that?

Yeah, absolutely. So my name is Andrew Arbaugh. I have been a member of the Urban Design Commission since it was established in 2020. Before that, I was a member of the Design Review Committee as well. I'm a principal landscape architect at Copley Wolfe, a landscape architecture firm in Boston, and have lived in Somerville for about 20 years.

Yelling at somebody, Andrew. Who's next? Go for it, Tim.

Well, thank you for having us. It's a pleasure to be here. Look forward to the discussion. I'm Tim Talon, joined the Urban Design Commission, I think in 2021, in its most recent iteration. And I've also lived in Somerville about 20 years. I'm a vice president and architect with Elkiss Manfredi Architects in Boston.

And I think I'm the last one here to introduce myself. I'm Deborah Fenwick. I am a resident of Davis Square. I have been on the UDC since its inception earlier, I guess this decade. And I've been on the Urban Design Review since, boy, Assembly Square. So I was involved with the planning of Assembly Square. So I go way back. And yes, and continuous involvement from that period of time. I have my own practice, Fennec McCready Architecture, an architecture group in Boston.

Thank you very much for joining us and welcome. I'm going to start just because we've had some questions. Kind of Venn diagram connections, but we haven't having a meeting like this. So I will start. I'm Mike Capuano. I'm the chairman of the planning board here. I have been a resident of the city of Somerville since October 6, 1980 on the day that I was born. I left for four years to go to college in Cambridge. And then I came right back. And so I have been a member of the planning board since 2008, the year after I graduated from law school. And I have kind of worked my way through the ranks and seeing Deborah, as you know, Union Square, Assembly Square, and kind of all the way through where we are today. And I have a... healthy respect for all of your expertise collectively, because I am just a lawyer. My primary job is Deputy General Counsel at the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. So I do not do this professionally. I do this as a labor of love. And so it's something that I've learned about over the last almost 20 years. And it's something that brings me back to the table day in and day out because I love this city and I love what we're doing with it. And I want to make sure that we continue for the next 20 to 40 to 100 years to make sure that this is a place that people want to be. And so that is kind of how I fashion myself. I would like to kick it off then to Amelia to just introduce herself as the vice chair.

Thanks, Mike. I am the vice chair. of the planning board and have been here for 10 years and on the board for, I think, almost seven. So many fewer years than Mike, but nonetheless, getting up there. And I've met a couple of you, I think, in private practice, but wonderful to be connected in this way and appreciate the opportunity for the discussion. John?

Thank you so much. My name is Jahan Habib. I'm the clerk of the planning board. I have been a Somerville resident for about 12 years. Been on the planning board since 2020, I believe. I live close to the Porter Square Spring Hill area. My background in terms of work is in accounting and finance, mostly higher ed, not for institutions. Michael McNeely, please.

Sure. Michael, I'm just a boring old regular member of the planning board. I've been on the board for about three years now.

I think Sarah will have to double check me on that.

And I live over in Davis Square as well. It's really great to meet you all. And I really appreciate the fact that you guys joined for an extra meeting on top of your regular meetings that you guys already have. So thank you. I'll pass it over to Luke.

Thanks, Michael. Michael, you moved to Davis. I didn't realize that. I did. You haven't seen me around as much, I know. That explains it, yeah. So Michael and I started the same cycle roughly three years ago. I lived in Magoon Square. Good to meet folks. It's cool that we're doing this meeting. I... My day job, I do public policy research. I lead a small think tank called Boston Indicators. We do a wide range of public interest research, but more and more on housing as the housing affordability crisis has gotten worse. I'll leave it at that and pass it to Lynn.

Thanks, Luke. So, Michael, you moved to Davis Square, which is why I've been seeing you all over.

That's right. That's right.

So I'm Linda. I spent the last I'm hold on. I the newest resident to Somerville. I moved here almost three years ago, two years and 11 months. George and Sarah both pinged me as soon as I moved here and said, now you've got to get involved. So I've been part of the planning board for. Almost almost two years by profession. I've spent the last twenty five years working with federal, state and local governments on how to create more walkable, livable, sustainable communities. Most recently, I was the president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism. So for you architect folks, I will say I'm form agnostic or design agnostic. It's how the building meets the street. So don't peg me as a traditionalist. I think that's it. I think we've done it all and Coralie's not here.

She's not, but she may be soon. Okay. I want to start off, so we do have members of the public, I believe, who are here. This is not between the boards and the public. This is an internal discussion between the planning board and the UDC on not taking any votes tonight on how the, Sarah, I'm hoping you might be able to clarify exactly what the purpose is outside of discussing the plan that was put forward. for the arts and entertainment. That's not wrong. The district.

Innovation. Arts and innovation. Yes, thank you. So there were the UDC reviewed the draft pretty extensively and had made some comments to recommendations that were presented to the planning board in two memos. Some of them where the initial memo was sort of fairly broad with such comments as the district boundary should be tightened up to reflect the same boundary as the zoning district and the key areas of the district. arts and innovation sub area of the master plan district sorry i know that was a mouthful um i'm trying not to speak in acronyms um my entire life is acronyms and i don't understand what half of me oh i don't know if i wasn't stepping on pieces of paper um So that was sort of one of the bigger broad brush comments. And then they dug into the architectural design and the integration. Obviously, an urban design commission is very, very focused on the public realm. So with details about the architectural guidelines and how the building should meet the street. And so the second memo went into a lot of bullet points of their recommendations to changes and clarifications there. So a lot of those were ads or edits that were quite specific. So I think it's how we want to go forward with this conversation. I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you, how we sort of tailor this discussion.

So, Sarah, I'm going to start off. Having reviewed some of the materials that UDC has presented to us, my initial question is, why is it that the boundaries don't align?

Originally, it was looking at a potential... bigger area for the arts and innovation.

That is not something that came to fruition.

No, the likelihood of that happening with some of the smaller property owners is sort of a little bit slim, but understanding how the master plan works district interacts with his neighbors was one of the initial thoughts that we had had when drafting the urban design framework um but to the udc's point into sort of there's not enough language or actual um detail about how those pieces would interact with the district to make it really effective. So that was the recommendation of shrinking the boundary.

Yeah, because seeing that, Amelia, I do recognize your hand. I'm going to call you in just one second. I just want to have one follow-up. How is it then, Sarah? By the way, I would like to welcome to our meeting Coralie Cooper, who is one of our members of the planning board. we did a little round-robin of introduction. And, Sarah, before I offer my follow-up question on that, I do want to just have Carly introduce herself really quickly to members of the UDC, just who you are, what your deal is, and how you bring yourself to us tonight.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, and good to meet everybody. I'm relatively new to the planning board. I started in March. And I have a master's degree in city planning from MIT. And I worked for many years as a regional planner on issues around air pollution, but also safety, bike safety, pedestrian safety. So in a nutshell, that's my background.

Thank you, Carly. I know you had to join us a little bit later, but what we're talking about is the UDC's memoranda to the planning board and staff about some of the arts and innovation districts that we had looked at. My follow-up question to Sarah is, based on what you just said, is there a plan to further tailor the plan to some of what UDC has suggested, which in my simple mind makes sense.

Absolutely. I think if the planning board in general is on board with changing the boundary, I believe staff is supportive of that. We completely understood the point that was made and agree. Okay.

So, you know, I ask questions like a lawyer, is there a reason not to agree with that? Is there a reason that staff put forward that UDC might not have identified that would have supported the position that you put on paper?

Yeah.

If the answer is no, the answer is no.

No, I think the answer is no. It was sort of, I think it was just staff would have liked to have examined the larger area, but as we've all discussed before, the process for this district sort of happened in a backwards fashion.

We are where we are, and maybe at some point in the future, we can have a broader reexamination of the larger area. But it doesn't seem like that's where we are today. And that's okay. You know, looking at Union Square, looking just at the people who were on my Zoom here, we've had discussions on rezoning of Union Square at least three times that I'm aware of. So we can revisit things. So that was the initial question that I had, and I appreciate your kind of engaging with us on that one, Sarah. Amelia, you had your hand up a minute ago. Do you still have a question, or did I ask what you were going to ask?

I don't know if others would benefit from this, so it's mostly a question. Would it be useful for Sarah to – refresh us on sort of the the enforceability and the function of this document as we as we discuss changes to it i can't recall if coralie was here yet at the time that we last touched on that topic point yeah let's let's talk about what it is that we are talking about and what it means and what it does and who has say and how it can be modified and how binding it is um thank you um

So an urban design framework in the simplest terms is a neighborhood plan light. It is a document that's adopted in a situation where there isn't a full neighborhood plan in place. And it is to provide the planning board and the urban design commission a set of parameters um, for reviewing projects that might, that come forward in the designated area. Um, so that would be for the urban design commission. Obviously it's the public realm. It is the civic spaces. It is, um, to some degree architectural design, and it is a document that is adopted by the planning board. Um, as I said, to guide those development projects as they come forward. So is that a good overview? Thank you.

Here's how I'm going to work this. This is interesting. I haven't had a joint meeting like this. So I see Tim's hand. I see Lynn's hand. And by the way, Tim, I don't know if you're familiar with the policies and practices of the planning board. I prefer your little Simpson's hand because it makes it a little easier for me to see on the side. But I also see Lynn. So let me do this. Let me call on you first, Tim, because I saw you first. This is an open discussion between all of us. So there is kind of no format and no structure. But I would love your way in and anything else that you'd like to say. And then, Lynn, we can have you after that.

Sure. So just to add to Sarah's comments, my understanding as well is that the design guidelines and the kind of specific guidelines that are in this document are what a proposed master plan special permit would be evaluated against. Is that right, Sarah? And that's how it's intended to apply?

Through the chair. It's not just a master plan special permit. It is also any individual buildings. So it is all of that. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. And then I think just one other thing that we talked about is an urban design commission. It's a way of conveying information to the design team that will eventually be putting together that master plan special permit application and coming up with the actual physical design of the district and then future buildings to convey what we as a city really care about and want them to focus on and address.

Thank you. Tim, thank you very much. And so what I'll do after I kind of get everybody's questions and comments in is I would love to get the weigh-in of the UDC on any aspects of those memoranda that we might not have addressed tonight that you all think is particularly important for us to look at that we haven't discussed. So let's go to Lynn next for her insight questions and things like that.

Michael, it's an add on to what you were discussing about the boundary changing. So the question that I have is around that primary residential block that is just north of the district. And if it was a neighborhood plan, I would be less concerned about it because a lot of the a lot of Somerville neighborhoods are very complimentary. But this is an arts and innovation district. And so maybe this is rendered moot because we are now talking about expanding the boundary. But, you know, Sarah, do you know what residential I don't have a map in front of me. You've got the school on one side, but there are a bunch of houses in there. So let's go forward five years and somebody sells a house and somebody wants to move in and wants to have a mixed use, something that corresponds and complements the Arts and Innovation District. It is technically outside of the district, but it's adjacent. And I think of the same thing as the CVS that's on the other side of the, I think, Park Street, right? So properties that are adjacent, right? Like almost immediately adjacent seems to me that even if you don't extend the, like even if they're outside of this new boundary because it's the Arts and Innovation District and they're adjacent, we're not talking near, we're talking adjacent, that maybe you can add language to the report that talks about adjacent properties that as they come up if they want to follow the design guidelines associated with the with the arts and like i'm not sure how you would do it but i just think that there are a number of redevelopment opportunities and this arts and innovation district is primarily around near as i can tell one particular developer and if it's successful it's going to keep growing a little bit and are we going to come back and keep and modifying this and so why not give ourselves a give our future selves a gift and talk about adjacent properties and how they might be served by these guidelines not required, but something. I mean, it's already pretty fuzzy language. Like these aren't required. It's not a regulation. This is to provide guidance to the design, guidance to the planning. So gift to future selves, how might we address adjacent properties that want to be part of this district? I don't know. Something like that. That's my question.

Yeah, through the chair. It's an interesting... it's an interesting approach. And I think we can add language to encourage what I would call voluntary compliance or adoption or inclusion. We can't, knowing that, I mean, anybody at any time could, you know, sort of an immediate abutter can apply to the city council and say hey I want to be included in the arts and innovation master plan district and then would automatically apply but I think sort of encouraging voluntary um inclusion is is something that we can certainly add language to

Yeah, there could be, I would imagine, a section at the very end that talks about adjacent or budding properties and how voluntary compliance would be welcomed. I mean, you choose the words, but something along those lines. Yeah. If the, I don't know if it's a CVS or Walgreens, but you know, that drugstore right there. Absolutely. Or some of the residential, I don't think the school's going anywhere nor should it, but you know, places evolve and, and we, to me, the document would have greater longevity if it extended beyond just this one particular development, even though it's multiple phases and it's really large, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah.

Okay. No, I think that's a, I don't see a problem with that. We'll look into that and talk about it. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, of course.

I don't want to step on any further questions you have, but can we move on to the next person? Do you have more?

Oh, me? Yeah, move on. I might have another question later on, but that was the one that I wrote down while you were talking.

Yeah, no, for sure. As you guys know, for these types of discussions, people often have multiple questions. I don't want to make sure that I move on from somebody and be like, wait, now there's more. But wait, there's more. So I do see Coralie's Simpsons hand, so I will absolutely recognize you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question going back to our discussion about the trying to separate truck traffic from pedestrian and cyclists and people using the space generally like a music way. In the UDC discussion, I listened in on your discussion. You talked a bit about the need to give a little bit of direction to the developers so that they wouldn't just go and put a loading dock at the end of or wherever was most convenient. So I wanted to ask, and forgive me, this is a dumb question. Could we, is it possible to ask that the, I know that it's very difficult to get the road extended along the railroad tracks because the footprint of one or two of the buildings is too close to the tracks to allow that. But is it possible to ask that the footprint be changed so that the road could go along the back? It just seems that there might, you know, there might be quite a bit of truck traffic and settling that issue might be important for the space in the end.

Through you, Mr. Chair, as I understand it, there are a couple of challenges. So for example, the parcel that's number one in the master plan district is very, very narrow. So to be able to redevelop that with an efficient floor plate, it is difficult to get an alley back there because of the depth of that floor plate. Now, whether that can be done as part of the building and sort of incorporated so it's only compromising the first and second floors or given the floor-to-floor heights that were initially discussed that are super tall, I think those would accommodate trucks anyway. I'm not sure, but that is something that would happen at the master plan special permit level, not necessarily at the urban design framework. We can, however, on the deeper block that is, as you mentioned, sort of where Music Alley is, that does have enough depth to have a rear alley that could be accessed off Dane Street, basically where the current parking deck comes off of Dane Street to the back of the sort of where Greentown Labs is. That is that I think is possible, let me have I would like to circle back with the mobility team. To make sure that in a sort of what we're specific specifically. recommending or including as guidelines for access points. So if there is a way to get the truck access points from Park Street into the complex or Dane Street into the complex, I'll talk to them and see what we can do there. I do know that, like I said, that block number one that's so thin and sort of landlocked is the challenging one. But that is something that, you know, sort of could be solved at the master plan special permit level. And what we propose is the urban design framework can have those, might be able to have the points of access recommended.

Okay, great. Thank you. And it sounds like then we get to the master plan stage, we can talk about it again. Absolutely. Thank you.

See Michael first and Amelia, I'll let you ask your follow up after that. How's that?

Quickest drop. um well first just want to make an administrative point i do have a conflict at 7 00 p.m so if i just suddenly call off it's not because i'm offended by the conversation it's just i've got a conflict um second is uh you're done my intro was that uh i actually am an infrastructure developer namely focused on power infrastructure and so when when we get applications in for new buildings, I spend a lot of time looking at your comments when we get your memos. And so I really appreciate that you brought up some questions around massing scale in particular and I want to just invite the UDC to provide a little more color on what type of guidance you might be looking for from from staff and from you know others involved in the project and Also invite staff to maybe give an update if there has been any more on the massing scale guidance in a way that they can make really good judgment and suggestions such that it makes our life easier at a later stage in the process as well.

I think I suggest the ADC maybe start and then, yeah. Tim or Deborah, as the architects, you guys want to take this one and I'll...

Okay. Sorry, yeah, Tim, please.

Sure. So I think one of the things, just to start, that we identified was that as the document's currently written, it's difficult to make recommendations related to massing and scale because The overall scale of the buildings isn't represented three-dimensionally within it. And that's not to say that the documents intended to be prescriptive about overall form. What's eventually proposed in a master plan special permit could differ from what's allowed by zoning. But neighborhood plans, Union Square neighborhood plan, Gilman Square neighborhood plan, all included some three-dimensional representation of potential building forms. And then that allowed for specific recommendations about building massing and public space around it to be developed.

Did we just talk or I don't really know how this works. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Cool. And the question was not about. Civic spaces, but I'll jump in as the landscape architect. Um, the summer of zoning ordinance is pretty prescriptive in terms of what it wants from civic spaces and street scapes. Um, and 1 of the places where this document is a little bit challenged, I approach it as from the perspective of somebody who would be into this and then be asked to design that park or that street scape. Um. it's starting to give sort of a vision or what it wants to be. And that part is really important for the documentation. But the Somerville zoning ordinance is so prescriptive that some of the language that is in here is not specific enough to tell me why you want me to change it off of the ordinance in the first place. So it's a weird document because it kind of needs to do both. It needs to give me a vision, but then it also needs to tell me where I can vary from the very perspective of code that I'm working with in any way. And it doesn't quite do that second part at all. It says things like, I want wide sidewalks, but what is a wide sidewalk? It's a meaningless designation, stuff like that.

Andrew, can I ask you a follow-up on kind of your critique of what was presented? Do you think that your... recommendation to us and your memo to us addresses that issue in specificity to the point where you would feel comfortable with that? Or do you want to make some further recommendations on how we can view that specific criteria?

Yeah, I mean, I would think that there would need to be some amount of dimensionality actually baked into it. So if you want a wide sidewalk, you need to tell me that that is a 15-foot sidewalk compared to the 12-foot that the SEO says. Things like that, like the places where you want us to vary from the SEO should be called out really specifically. And the other part that I was kind of challenged with in this documentation is that it doesn't reference the SEO at all. It kind of nods towards the native plant ordinance, but amalgamating what all the other documents that you guys want us to reference as part of this would be incredibly helpful um within this document as a guideline itself because otherwise you just can't kind of cherry pick all of these documents and try to come up with the thing that that you guys want us to theoretically design towards i appreciate that and and sarah what i'd like to do um for this document and in the future is

You know, particularly with the issue that's being kind of raised now is where Andrew is a landscape architect and looks at these things. One of my concerns is always has been, you know, opening green space in the city and how we use it and how we maximize it. And if there is a better way to articulate that in our zoning process. I certainly would welcome some of those very specific recommendations for somebody who might have to do this for a living and follow what we say. So if the concern is what we're saying isn't specific enough and doesn't point people in the direction that they need to be pointed in, maybe we should look at trying to fix that, both for this and going forward. Is that something that maybe I'm not understanding in the most appropriate way is what what he's saying seems to make quite a bit of sense to me.

Um, there are some, um. We have, we being PPC, are aware that PSAF, Public Space and Urban Forestry Division, wants to revisit parts of the green score requirements. I personally don't know what the schedule is on that at the moment, but that is something that is on our list of amendments. to be looked at. And I think that is probably something that we can sort of vet with Andrew and others as we get into that project. The other thing that I want to point out is that we are coming up on, I know for those of us who went through the process, Summer Vision 2040 feels fairly recent, but we are coming to the point that we need to think about Summer Vision 2050. So within the next couple of years, we'll be updating, doing a rewrite of the comprehensive plan. And so from a city-wide perspective, to your point about open space and tree cover, as well as plenty of other sustainability issues, that's going to be coming forward as a project in the next few years. I think it's realistically probably going to start at the end of 27 or maybe the beginning of uh, 2028.

Um, So my colleagues who I think would be really well suited to that. I was on 2020. Amelia was on 2030, I believe. So we can, we can do 20, 2050, 2040, whether it was in 2050. So, uh, one, one thing that I, as you bring it up, Sarah, now that I'm kind of thinking of it is I would love to have some sort of a, a summary and a report of when we came up with 20, as we were in 2026, as we came up with 2030. In 2026, where are we on some of those goals? You know, obviously things have changed, but we did have kind of markers in place and goals in place. And as it related to those goals that may or may not have changed or, you know, may have changed somewhat and expanded or retracted, Like, where are we now? This is not exactly what we're talking about tonight, but you brought it up, so I'm kind of curious.

That'll teach me.

Don't open the door, Counselor.

So when the process to move from 2030 to 2040 was done, there was a check at that point in time and a report. It can probably still be found on the city website somewhere. But obviously, that has changed since. So we will do something similar. once we kick off to understand where our, because the baseline moves, obviously, to understand where we are before we get into any of the full detail of, you know, updating the comp plan. So I can't answer that right now, but- I didn't anticipate you would be able to.

How dare you? Yeah. No, that's that's something that I kind of have in the back of my mind is kind of where are we based on where we want to do be 6 years ago 8 years ago.

Yeah.

Um, in context with where we've decided we would like to be. You know, in 15 years, so. That's that's that's fine. Um. And I, I appreciate the concern about some of some of the green open space. Discussions. The other question I have, I don't know how great of a mocker it is, but when was the last time we got Tree City, USA? I think it might have been a little while. We were getting a hand over fist in the 1990s. So that was, to me, a point of pride.

And I believe our planting program has actually increased since then. So that's a good question. Maybe everybody else stepped up their game and we are merely average now. So I am completely speculating right now.

I don't like being average because I'm looking around right now, I'm under a complete tree canopy and I love it. And we should have more of that in the city.

Anyway, so here's what I would ask of where we kind of are.

are with the existing agenda item. Who else on the planning board has questions? And if the answer is the planning board is good, let me do a quick assessment. Amelia, yeah, sure.

I was just wondering if we could spend a moment on the UDC's recommendations about the overall building typologies in this district. I feel like in my initial round of comments, I had discussed some incompatibility between, I think, our sustainability goals and the vision that we originally articulated. The UDC did a wonderful job in their memo, I think, putting better language to some of those same items. But overall, this is a document that I think, this is a place where I think the document struggles in that there are a set of conceptual plans out there. I think that they were taken into consideration when like reflecting back something in this document and then if you look at the document with fresh eyes, it's sort of different. Like there should be more variation. There should be this, there should be that. And we'd love to just spend a minute on discussion of how we are responding to the developer's intention for the buildings in this district while also incorporating the UDC's, I think, very mindful feedback on sort of variety and human scale and streetscape interaction. That was incredibly open ended for anyone to take. Sorry. There's not really a question in there.

Would like to take that because what I think Amelia is, is yours dovetails into the question that I had, which is also very open ended. Um. Is is there anything the planning board hasn't. really discuss that the UDC feels that their report has been other aspects that you really want to raise with us. I think Amelia's question is one of those, but you all had quite a detailed report back to us, and it involved more than what we talked about tonight. I want to make sure that we're having a robust discussion on both what we care about and also what you care about.

Yeah.

Oh. So let's go with Amelia's question first, if anybody has a direct response to her question. I think Deborah does.

Yeah, I don't know who is responding to right now. Actually, our feedback was pretty conceptual, you know, so, you know, like that was the next and that was the reasonable step. We were reacting to a document and felt that there were in some ways it was very prescriptive about things that sort of oriented more towards residential development than, you know, an innovation district. And we're trying to describe a way that this district would be unique in Somerville, that the quality of it didn't follow the prescription that you do, you know, you would, we do for housing in residential districts, that it would be something that would be very friendly to entrepreneurs, you know, so that it's very likely that the spaces that would get built would be large scale and accommodating to you know, people with money, you know, that can afford, you know, to, you know, join, you know, be a part of the project. But it was really important that those startups, you know, which the city has a history of seeing, and then what, how does that get translated into architectural expression? So, you know, there was the concept of uniform floor levels, which, you know, high floor levels. Maybe that doesn't make sense for the kind of entrepreneurialism that's happening or that will need to happen. So we were... So we were interested, so we put those, what do you call it, values forward that don't yet have a lot of description, prescription in them. But we felt that, so it's like we felt that was the next step for the document as we saw it. Does that make sense? Does that answer anybody's question?

That was a great elaboration. Thank you.

I also respect, Debra, your reflection of the fact that this is a generalized, theorized response to questions. You would be a great lawyer, too. I don't know about that. Let's... Let's make sure that everybody has had their opportunity to kind of weigh in here before we kind of conclude this, because this is. Well, I will say to the city staff here, I really appreciate the collaboration between these boards. We don't often get this. We get this sometimes with the land use committee when it's somebody else's. idea and we get to weigh in on occasion, but this, I think, has been really helpful and valuable in the way that I view what we're looking at. So to the extent that we can do more of these collaborations, both online and, you know, for a social hour or something, let's work on how to do that.

Sounds like a great idea. I'm down. Just two things. Yeah. Speaking of conceptual discussions, one of the things, just going back to our earlier conversation we talked a lot about was what is the vision for this district? And like Debra described, you know, what makes this unique in Somerville and unique throughout the country, a unique place? We talked about, you know, the word that's used to describe this, whether it's a campus or a district or a neighborhood. And I think we shied away from the use of the word campus because it really implies something that's separate from what's around it. And I think what ultimately we want this place to be is something that feels like it's integrated into what's around it, where the people that live around it feel welcome going there and they feel connected to it. So I think one of the things and maybe this is just a comment for staff, but would be helpful is more discussion within the document of, because the document's very focused on what would be built within this area itself, but the relationship between what gets built here and the surrounding properties, and also just the character of streets and streetscapes and how they feel continuous and connected and inviting.

Yeah, and bit on the civic space. The SEO says this is a neighborhood park. It does all of these things. What is the really awesome thing that this one needs to do while checking all of the other boxes is a little bit less amorphous, or more amorphous, sorry. So tell me really specifically, this is arts innovation. That means... we need to provide this thing and make it something that's special and that's not everywhere else in the city of Somerville. Because a lot of these parks are starting to look pretty similar. And it would be great to understand how this one is going to distinguish and differentiate itself.

So, anybody else before we take probably like a 5 minute recess and move on to the remainder of the planning boards agenda. Does anybody have anything to add? And Sarah, what I'll ask of you after you take your notes is what, what are you expecting out of the planning board in the coming weeks? Is this a, is this a vote to adopt? Is this just a general. vote of support for a particular plan, what is the planning board's deliberative here?

If the planning board is comfortable with us making the changes based on the urban design commission's recommendations, we'll need to take some time and modify and update the document, change all the diagrams for the boundaries. So that will take a little bit of time. But then the next step would be for us to bring you a updated document and then eventually take a vote to adopt.

So we're... We're not in the beginning part of the process. We're in the meat of the process. So we're not at a deadline where we need to take an action within, you know, two weeks, a month, two months. We need to look at how you might want to revisit the document that was presented to us based on this meeting. And we can take a look at it and vote to adopt it.

Exactly.

Okay. Because we don't see this too, too often. So I want to make sure we know what it is that we're looking at, what we need to do.

Yeah, it'll ultimately be adoption. And I think we need to, we've got to do some, obviously, some rewriting and rework based on the input that we've received so far.

First. Okay, let's move forward on that. And when you feel like you're ready to come back to us with some of these revisions based on the discussion that we had tonight, I'd love to have the UDC back as well to make sure that we're kind of generally aligned with these things. All right. So it's 7.02. We will have one more item on our agenda, but what I'm going to do first is thank the members of the UDC who took time out of their evening tonight to join us, and Sarah as well, out of her evening to join us. And I will put the planning board for right now into a quick five-minute recess. So we can kind of reset and come back to our last agenda item, which is a case that we previously opened and heard a few weeks ago on Webster Avenue. So thank you, everybody. The planning board will be in recess until 7.02. I'm going to say 7.07. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. And it was great to meet you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Be sure to watch.

Yet, who of you was giving me crap about drinking home springs early, but here's my polar. I brought it back super local. I went from Maine to Worcester. It's fine.

Man, it's all blurred.

Hey, what flavor is that?

What do you got?

You're on mute? You're on mute? black cherry i'm drinking the same thing i like black cherry there are a few flavors that i don't like i think they have a tangerine flavor i don't like it um it was on sale at costco what can i say oh dude you gotta buy your cans of water at costco it's a great deal

I use my SodaStream a lot for fizzy water, but there's just something about...

I looked at that a while ago, and I wasn't sure if I was going to like something like that. I felt it was... I don't know. You have to clean it, all that stuff.

It's 30... Well, I've never cleaned my bottles, so... Well, it's just water.

They collect things. Biology is a thing. I've never cleaned ours either.

Oh, excellent. I'm not alone.

All right.

But it's $0.35.

I will see you both at Mass General at some point.

Yeah. But I'm not sure. I mean, it is cheaper. It's $0.35 for 12 ounces or something like that. It's not ridiculously cheap because the canisters cost so much.

I do my cans of water from Costco and from the Ocean State job lot.

Okay.

Okay. I don't know. I think Michael said he had a drop at seven. So we have Luke. I think this is everybody that we're going to have. And Oliver, are you still there? Yes. Okay. Can we bring us back on the record, please?

Yes. We're back on the record.

Okay. Okay. Planning Board at 7.09 p.m. is back on the record, and we have one final case on our agenda, which is 32 Webster Avenue. It was previously opened, previously presented, previously through testimony. Planning Board had some comments, and sent the applicant back to come back with some response to the concerns that we had about this particular application. So I would welcome the applicant, their team, their representative, whomever it might be, to be unmuted and share their screen. And also, Alvaro, if you can give us a quick rundown based on the last meeting that we had, On some of what the planning board was looking for from a particular applicant, so that we can all be on the same page as to what we're looking for.

Yes, so for anybody else in the applicant team, they can raise their hands. I'll promote them to panelists. But just to be on the same page, the hearing was open on the 21st, and I believe that there was comments from the planning board regarding the bedroom count and mix in bicycle parking. And so the applicant has submitted updated plans, which were shared last Friday. And he lost her, who is the planner of the case. If she has anything to add, I'll pass it on to her.

Hi, thanks, Alvaro. I think you had also requested, the planning board had also requested the additional design options that the applicant had originally presented to the Urban Design Commission.

who may or may not still be in residence. They may have logged off for those. It doesn't look like they're here anymore, but they were here. Okay, wonderful. So thank you all for that kind of background, both for the planning board and for members of the public as to where we were on this. As I recall, this case was opened at around 9.30 at night a few weeks ago, and we're all a little bit, you know, A little bit tight, a little bit punchy, but at the same time, I think we had a positive discussion. I do see Luke's hand before we commence this aspect of the planning board meeting.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just want to be quick. I missed the meeting, but watch the full video of this case and everything else that was on the agenda and submitted my affidavit stating so, so I can participate now. Thanks.

Thank you, Luke, for bringing us up to speed on that one. So what I'd like to do is invite the applicant team to kind of address some of the concerns that the planning board had at the last meeting and see kind of where we're sitting on it now a few weeks later at a much more agreeable time of the night.

Great.

Hello, everyone. Ryan Wittig, 32 Webster Holdings, part of Canvara Capital. I didn't mention this in our last meeting, but our offices are at 667 Somerville Ave in Somerville. So we go into work every day in Somerville. We've done a few projects in Somerville over the years. You'll be seeing some more of us on some other projects in the very near future. So just as a little background, we're located in Somerville. We've lived in Somerville. We've been doing business in Somerville for quite some time. In the last meeting, we heard your feedback on three points. Number one being that You want to see some more design ideas and concepts from us, which were prepared to discuss. You had some concerns about our bike parking, which we've we've redesigned as well and prepared to discuss that as well. And you also want to have a discussion around incorporating three bedrooms into our into our mix, which we will also discuss. So with that being said, I'll let Phil Seema, our architect from Balance Architects, kick things off. And our goal for tonight is to take this from a hated it to at least two snaps.

Very much appreciated.

Maybe we can get a twist, and I don't know if we'll get a kiss, but I will take two snaps.

Yeah, very much appreciate you guys working with us for sure. This is, as you've been before us before and will be before us again, this is kind of how we work, is a project that doesn't necessarily meet what we're expecting, a kind of a collaborative process to get to a place where we can truly be. We and the neighborhood can be supportive of what you're presenting, because I don't, as one member, want to vote no on everything. I voted no very infrequently. I like to vote yes. I like to bring things forward. I think our members and my colleagues feel generally the same way, but it has to be something that we collectively feel good about. So, thank you. Let's see where we're at.

Great. Well, thanks everyone. Bill Sima from Balance Architects. Just to reorient, we're on the corner of Webster and Newton. So pretty prominent corner up there. First thing I'll go over is the bike and trash room that was modified. So we have, I'll just zoom in a little bit. So now combine the bike storage and the trash room using wheeler bins. And we have 34 spots now. It made the space a lot more efficient. when we got rid of that wall and that kind of extra door and clearances that you needed. And also there were comments prior we had, there was just a little, there's kind of life safety things about the stairs being connected and needing a vestibule and people are saying, oh, it's going to be hard. with like a cargo bike or bag. So really having that direct entry onto the street allows for larger size bicycles and can kind of keep the trash nice and manageable. So, you know, obviously 29 bikes are required. There's probably more people than 29 bikes or, you know, in the building. So we're really trying to get that as high as we can. Working within the confines of the Somerville dimensional requirements for bike spots, which are quite large, you know, like three by eight. So it should be very hefty. Sometimes things look very small in plans, but I'm sure you could fit 40 bikes in here if you weren't, if you know, people weren't following the exact rule of the dimensional regulations. So that's the major update on that area in the plan. And then we want to share with you not only our UDC design options, but I think we had a couple of meetings with them in the design evolved, but then trying to kind of Interpret what we think is maybe something that is more agreeable, but obviously the board will have to kind of let us know on that We'd also just included some images of kind of things going up in the neighborhood For reference two of these are ours. So maybe those aren't the best to include but again, you know It's really a hodgepodge of architectural elements or super modern stuff from the 60s, you know stuff from the turn of century so This was the first thing that we presented to the UDC and actually to the community neighbors, our neighborhood meeting. And this is where that comment came up from one of the neighbors was like, I'm sick of you architects only doing black and white. So, you know, we kind of took that and started to introduce some of that pastel scheme and some of the other versions, but Again, this is a very long building, so the requirement is to break it up. And we obviously want to break up that mass so it feels a little bit more human scale or neighborhood scale. We had introduced a lot of wood paneling on the back towards that residential side just to kind of soften it. We didn't properly rendering all of the screening that would be there. But again, just to give a look and feel of what we had earlier presented to UDC. And this was the corner. um the big comments before was like this is a bold corner you need to do something bold with it and so that uh as the project evolved uh so did the corner in some schemes although we presented three schemes at first so this option was really trying to use some of the more traditional materials some traditional materials that you might see in somerville so clapboard siding is what we're seeing here the charcoal color, the white color, and then introducing, you know, it's not a commercial brown floor, but a base that differentiates it from the floors above. So you're kind of seeing that with the wood paneling. We still feel like the entry is really strong. That really hasn't changed much in terms of, I mean, Not its location, but always a differentiation of material at that to kind of break up those masses. It was very similar to the back. Again, we didn't change that wood look. But you can kind of see here, you could imagine this is kind of more typical of what you might see in terms of the materiality of it. But lots of bays, lots of balconies to just kind of break up the mass of it. And then the third option we had was similar to what we presented last week, but it's where we start to make this a more colorful building. Like it's hard for actionized architects to do anything other than black and white. It's kind of our default. But again, introducing some slight color modifications to really distinguish the bays versus the rest of the material. So again, that's what you're seeing in this, breaking up the mass, two different color schemes. In the back, we tried to make it a lot more light with still integrating those wood natural elements that face that residential side. from the corner, it's quite bland. And then I won't go into much detail about what we did last week, but this is where we introduced that corner feature that we think makes it really unique, makes it really pop, something different from buildings that people will hopefully remember when they might not know the address, but they might say, oh yeah, place with those funky balconies on the corner. That's where I want to meet you. And so it kind of is quite different than the other schemes. So Akshit and I then work to kind of, we love that geometry, but maybe introducing some different type of approach to the materials. So this is a new design option that the UDC didn't see. And this is new to everyone here. But we're introducing more of a traditional clapboard siding on that left side over here. We still do have some panelized materials here. wood and then again that right side is a little bit longer so trying to break it up that full color over there with the introduction of the wood between the bays and then this is a standing seam metal siding so kind of very clean very elegant you can kind of see that that penthouse relates in form to that material but it's slightly lighter on the top still keeping those balconies again that kind of the kind of angled up approach but introducing wood wherever we're doing that cutback over there. Kind of see it on the side. So you're seeing again, some of that standing seam metal material. And then finally, we have one other option, which kind of takes it a step further and really everywhere is fiber, you know, clapboard siding, some board and batten siding. We're really trying to achieve that top feeling slightly different and really kind of feel like different buildings. We have window trims that are what you might see in a more traditional building. You know, a cornice up here that's It's not as clean as the other ones, but again, it gives it a little prominence and then bringing that datum on the second floor to again help establish the base level as something different. What this looks like on the corner, we've kind of strayed away from the angled approach. Still really interesting geometry that's just created by the corner, but they're no longer dipping down. And then you can kind of see what that looks like on the side with some of the fiber cement siding and the trim, et cetera. So that's where we're at with the design.

And if we want to take a pause to talk about bikes and design before we segue into some other discussion, into the last topic.

Yeah. So, so, so. Yeah, I'm split on whether the board wants to talk about the design variations that were presented today or if we want to continue on. I'm happy to talk about the design options that you all presented tonight. But if my – I see Kit's hand. I'm sorry. Kit, what's going on?

Hi. I just want to have a point of clarification. The bike room that was presented tonight looks slightly different than what was uploaded online or on CitizenServe. So I just want to make it known that Mobility hasn't reviewed this exact plan, I believe, unless I might be wrong.

No, that's correct. There was a... Trash cans blocking the door in the plan. So we, we made a revision so that it actually worked.

Okay, I just wanted to note that for the board.

Yeah, so obviously, if if the, if the revised bike space is something the board is is. Receptive to, I just obviously would like to include a condition that signed off on. by the appropriate city staff. I would be surprised that if what you presented is, you know, it's more than what you did before and generally people like more and not less, but that would be a condition is just because we like it doesn't mean it's going to necessarily pass that particular municipal review. So yeah, no, of course. So let's do this actually. They don't mind. Ryan, let me ask you this. How would you like to proceed? Do you want us to talk about everything all at once, or do you want us to go kind of silo by silo?

Maybe silo by silo. I mean, ultimately, my dream for tonight is to have an exhaustive discussion to where we can hopefully get everything out in the open and be in a position to move forward tonight, unless there's a showstopper.

Okay, sounds good. Let's start with the design. And I'm going to go first. I generally don't, but I'm going to go first. Leaps, in my estimation, leaps and bounds better than what was presented last time, with particularly the last two revisions. I think it's a really well done concept of the way that this building can look. I think you guys kind of reimagined what this space could look like from the street. And I kind of either design, you know, I think it was four and five, right? I think both of them are just substantially better in my estimation than what was presented before. And I appreciate you kind of listening to the concerns of me and some of my colleagues about what this could look like. As one member, I think I tend to prefer number five to number four, but either I think I just, like I said, a substantial step forward from where we were. So I would like to hear from my colleagues is about their estimation of where we stand now. The first I saw was Lynn's. I'm going to call Lynn first.

A question for you, Michael. You like the white clapboard?

I do. It's different, but it's also somewhat more traditional.

Well, this is a hill that I will not die on. But I saw design option five and I went.

Let's talk.

I mean, there are some times when I'm I'm it's purely I liked the green. I liked what they presented last time. I do like some of the different design features here. It's. I it's purely a design taste difference between us. I don't, I don't think it's, but but I like the clapboard least, but, you know, I think it was design option three. Can you guys go to design option three? No, no, no. Go. This is like what it or You know what the UDC so important with these big buildings is to convey that it looks as though it's a bunch of townhomes next to each other. They're not and anyone who looks carefully, but maybe it was anyway, so

Lynn, one of the things that I liked about both of the last two was the inclusion of kind of like the wood features for those balconies. I thought that added quite a bit. Yeah, so we're on what? Design 4, right? So I'm looking at that bottom left graphic and I think that's beautiful as one person. I really like that and I know that there's Other features that, you know, and the wood siding on top right. I think that's a really nice looking building, inclusive of the white clad, but that's just, yeah, that's just me, I think.

I agree with you on the wood. And I really liked. Yeah. And, and that corner, I think is just fabulous. Yeah. That was just great kind of innovation when, you know, when we saw where they started with that kind of plain front to a balcony like that, that, that was spot on. No, it's just the white clap clapboard. And again, not, it was supposed to be a quick, would you be happier if the clapboard just became a white clapboard? And you're like, yes, I do. And I was like, Oh, Yeah, that's fine.

It's very, it's very sumable. Would you prefer it if the clabber was wood? Cause I, you know, the same similar to the middle panel there. Cause I'd be happy with that too.

Let's, let's hear what Amelia and Luke have to say. All right.

Hey, we're not the UDC. We don't have to dig too, too deep. Let's, let's, let's go with, I just happened to see Luke's hand first.

Oh, Thanks, Mr. Chair. A couple quick thoughts. And again, I missed the last meeting, so this is a little bit of perspective from scratch also on the designs. I really like the pointy balconies. It seems like people generally like that, so I just thought that was a cool design feature, so thumbs up for that. For what it's worth, these discussions make me realize my taste maybe is kind of basic, but they all look kind of good to me, and I end up Even in this back and forth right now, I'm frantically scrolling across my PDF to try and track which one you're each referencing. And I just think any of them built, you know, would look like a cool new multifamily building to me. So I'll go with anything we pick, honestly. The question I have for the team is just, One i'd be curious what your preferences, it is your preference, the one that was presented last week it seemed like maybe not, and that was more going with what the udc was recommending i'll ask a few questions together because they're related and then curious for response so i'm. Like this is the domain, where I really would lean towards deferring to your design expertise so i'm curious what your preferences. On one, and this is about this project, but also others i've always wondered and i've never just asked this like. Is there ever a material cost difference between the choices you're making here? Or is it always marginal enough that that's not a big factor in this decision? And then I guess related to all that is like, even if you have a preference, are you just saying, we'll literally, you know, we won't put up a fight with anything that the board says, as long as you approve it tonight.

I'll take the first part and then I'll let Phil take the last part. So in terms of the design, we are not particularly married to any of these designs, frankly. We think they all, well, we like the pointy balconies. We think that those are definitely a defining feature of the building and really like a statement piece. So as long as we have the pointy balconies, we think that makes a statement. We got steered to what we presented to you by the UDC, and I'll just leave it at that. We're not married to any of those designs to us. We want what the board in general is most favorable to. And in terms of the cladding, there definitely are expense trade-offs. especially when you get into a building of this size, when you get into some of the paneling. The fiber cement siding is probably one of the less expensive components of the building. When you start getting into some of the paneling and the wood and particularly, which we're not presenting masonry, we kind of have PTSD from masonry and other projects. There's definitely, you can start getting into more expensive materials and I'm starting to veer off of my track in terms of cost differences between the materials. Maybe Phil can highlight that a little bit better.

You all might be opposed if I suggested you made it You know, clattered with marble and gilt with my name on it?

Yes, we'd have a problem with that. Yeah, if you wanted the building to be 100%, you know, brick, that would be really, really problematic. It takes longer. It's much more expensive, way more coordination in the construction for buildings this size.

I think you know this board's position on full-course bricks, so we'll...

Yeah, I mean, obviously it's substantially different. And for this type of building, right, wood frame, materials matter a lot, right? You can't really hang heavy terracotta. So that's kind of the reason why a lot of these projects look similar. Balance Architects is a firm we really pride ourselves on like, okay, there is a constraint, like maybe that constraint might be fiber cement to make the numbers pencil, but we really try and approach it in a way that it looks substantially different, substantially, you know, less cookie cutter than what you might see, you know, not just AZEK, which is PVC trim everywhere. And so this is like a fiber cement approach, that's similar materials, but looks substantially different than, say, the clapboard signing over there. So that's kind of the material standpoint. I will happily put up a little bit of a fight. It's very rare that we get to see buildings that actually have color and it kind of resonated with me when that neighbor made that comment. You know, most of the stuff that we do, actually those examples that were shown down the street, many of these kind of end up looking, you know, kind of black and white and a little bit of metal, a little bit of wood. So there's, when you do color, It's really hard to do color. There are some buildings in Union Square which are very colorful and maybe are a little bit controversial. So when we do it, we try and do it in a really simple way, where it's clean, it's elegant, it's not variations and stripes. It's extremely hard to pull off and have it pull off well. So my preference is obviously this, but we also love those two options. So that's where I stand.

Helpful, thanks. Mr. Chair, I had a question slash quick thought on the bike parking side of things. Do we want to do that? Is that all part of this right now? Or...

So let's do the... Ordinarily, Luke, I would say let's do everything. I kind of asked Ryan how we wanted to proceed on the discussion. And we kind of talked about the side lug discussion just to make sure. All good. All good. Yeah. Which is fine by me. So let's pause that discussion for the time being and just talk about design so we can at least figure out, is the design something that we're comfortable moving forward with? And then we can talk about bikes, and then we can talk about unit mix, unit size mix. So did you have anything else that you wanted to raise on the design aspect of it? OK. Next person I saw was was Amelia.

I just wanted to say thank you to the applicant team for the time and effort to bring us these additional options. I am always sensitive to when the board sort of goes too far into a design critique, but I really think that these are much more sophisticated options and really appreciate that sort of additional time to think through them. So, thank you.

Lee and then John.

Thank you, as well, to the design team.

Appreciate your work on this. I'm kind of in Luke's camp where I think pretty much I like aspects of all of them. I did like the wood facing the residential houses. I thought it was a nice touch. And I have a question for the design team and also my colleagues. I like number five, but do you think that it would be quite dark? I guess it's my only concern that it's a lot of dark. It's very striking, but just a question.

I, yeah, I mean, I think it's important to kind of distinguish those buildings, you know, and there's some beautiful buildings that are done with really tasteful dark colors. There's one on Cambridge and, yeah. I think on Cambridge Street and Inman Square right across the street from the, I think that Broadway bicycle school. It just, it can be done very elegantly. I think when we turn the corner, certainly don't want it to be black all around, just a small wrap going from Newton. And then we transitioned to kind of the lighter white colors like we're showing right here. And then I think it really lightens it up. So it has to be done well, but I think it can be achieved.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. First of all, I want to start off by commending the applicant team and and the design options that are presented here. I would say that between options four and five, I'm also a bit torn. I actually like a lot of the wood, and I would love to see more clapper, but I know that's not what we're discussing here. The question that I do have here- John, we're in someone.

We can do a whole building full of white plastic clapper. We're fine. Home Depot will thank us.

I'm not sure how the applicant team will feel about that, but I do have my preferences. But I do have a question for the applicant team, and this is looking ahead five years, ten years down the road. I agree and I appreciate the color. Having color, it's very striking. In your experience, what has been the aging process of the exteriors with color? I mean, are we talking about any concerns around fading or tinting or other areas that you would like to discuss or mention here?

Well, one of the conditions by the UDC for the materials that we are going to use is that they had to be through color. So that means like, you know, all the way, basically it's fully impregnated with color. So, I mean, these things do fade in the sun sometimes, right? When the sun's hitting it for years, but they have warranties, you know, 20 year warranties that are associated with it. There have been bad panels in the past, but because this is the majority of what people are using in the U.S. to build multifamily, they've gotten a lot better over time. So I'm not very concerned with that.

OK, that helps answer the question. Thank you so much for that. And thank you, Mr. Chair, as well.

Yes, I think I think. Collectively, we're down to options 4 and 5 kind of split. And with that, I'm kind of of the opinion that unless anybody's got an opposition in so far as the design, it would be kind of my recommendation to leave either 4 or 5 up to the discretion of planning staff as they discuss with the applicant, which is something that we've done. historically in the past when there have been a number of design options that, you know, we're not 100% sold on or not. So if that's something that the board seems to be aligned with, I would like to incorporate that as part of our conditions that four or five be left up to staff because I'm not going to hold us to really pin them down on either one of these because I think both of them are meritorious. So anybody have any objection to that? Okay. Let's talk about bikes next. Luke, I think you were, yep, I see your hand now. I know you had

kind of dope questions about the revised bike space so let's let's hear from you on that one I'm just curious if planning staff has any sense we talked about this a couple months ago with the bike storage for the project near Porter Square and just curious and understand if it's hard to answer on the fly but what the experience has been in recent years and if I hope I'm getting this right, that it's one bike's parking spot internal per unit is the requirement for new multifamily projects. And what's the actual usage looking like? Many of us are cyclists in the city. We certainly see a lot of cyclists. And from my vantage point, I truly can't guess. Am I imagining that those are all packed to the gills because so many people are biking in Somerville now? Or is it actually in practice? pretty far from one per unit today. Anyhow, just would be helpful for this and for future projects if we have any sense.

This is Kit. Through the chair, I don't think that I have an answer to that, but I could definitely check in with mobility so we have that information for future projects.

I can speak to it anecdotally of someone who lived in a multi-unit condo building on Elm Street in Somerville near Porter Square. I lived in around a 30-unit building. And I mean, this was a few years ago. This was like probably about 12, 15 years ago. But the bike room... I ride bikes. I had three bikes in the bike room and I was an anomaly there. There was a lot of abandoned bikes. I took a couple of bikes with me when I left that had been abandoned for probably five, 10 years. A lot of bikes gathering dust. So I don't know. I think everybody puts their own perspective on bike usage. the requirement is one bike unit a bike space per unit um and i think i think that's probably um sufficient but we're we're happy to have more than more than you know what's required to be future ready should uh biking become a more preferred modality um but i i i would i would be curious to see the the data as well on uh bike utilization in uh in buildings but like i said we're happy to be uh we're happy to be uh future ready should uh it's better to have more bike spaces than not enough so uh we're we're fine to uh make those accommodations here yeah i appreciate that and um i do think that being future ready perspective is an important one especially in a location like this um my quick anecdotal thing is i bike to an office building downtown that has a bunch of bike parking spaces and

in good weather on a Tuesday, which is like the peak day for people going into the office now, the sides of the bike racks are really tough to get because everybody's got bigger e-bikes now that don't fit into the slots. So that's where the traffic jams are. And then there's a bunch of like empty spots for the, you know, skinnier, regular, regular ones. So anyhow, actually the final thought is just, I'm appreciating the spikes for the larger cargo and e-bikes and anything we can do to shift for more of those. I suspect where being future ready will be most important.

Amelia, I see your hand up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to riff on Luke's question for a moment, if I may, which is if we're thinking about bike utilization, I'm very grateful for the applicant's efforts to sort of enhance the bike room situation here. And I think that it is good and forward thinking to do so. I wonder, as we think more broadly about this topic, if there's a distinction between a project like this that is so proximate to so much transit infrastructure and and a project, like a project that was going forward with a minimum of parking, but which was three quarters of a mile from the nearest rail station, I would feel much more strongly that sort of pushing for cargo bike capacity was like a high priority for the board's review. So I wonder if we think about utilization, how much there is sort of a breakdown there, because I think of cargo bikes as a trade-off for cars as opposed to a trade-off, like, anyway. So just going on your whole thing. Thank you. I have no comments on the improvements. These are great.

As somebody who is a mile from both of my closest T stops, my bike is in the basement of another house, not in the city. So it just doesn't suit my needs. But I will defer to my colleagues who do bike in and around the city and it seems like what you've done kind of mirrors what people are looking for and I'm happy with the changes if other people are right this is not my area particularly of expertise or experience so I see Lynn's hand who is also a biker yeah biker thank you to the applicant team for

adding additional space for bikes makes my heart swell. I saw that in preparing for today's meeting and I was really happy about it. Just a small antidote, my son who just graduated from college, he's 23, is living at home this summer and I was telling him about the meeting we had and what my comment was and I was ranting to him. And he thought that I was way out of line because, again, target demographic, like moving in, right? He and his friends are getting job offers with obscene amount of money so they could potentially be moving into these one bedroom or studios or whatnot. And he says none of them bike. And he thinks I'm an anomaly thinking that everybody's going to be biking all the time, except Luke and Michael do as well. So I'm not that much of an anomaly. So I'm really glad you got 34 spots. And yeah, but just giving you comments from the, you know, peanut gallery.

Well, that's interesting to hear because, frankly, your son and his generation, I think, is our target market for this building or one of the target markets. It's very close proximity to public transit, very close to Union Square, which is a very cool and hip place to be. And we see this building appealing to young people. young urban professionals and maybe also people downsizing from their larger homes in Somerville and giving way to larger families to expand into those larger homes that the downsizers no longer need. And maybe they bike, maybe they don't, but maybe there'll be a few zealots in there who want to have their three bikes like me and they'll have extra space.

Yeah, I mean, my son bikes. There's no way that he could be my offspring and not bike, but he doesn't love it the way that I do, and he views it more utilitarian. And, you know, his friends were mostly like, oh, it's three-quarters of a mile to campus, and none of them have any plans to keep going. But you never know. You never know. But I do think it's forward looking. I do think that having more bike storage in a multifamily is going to be better than not having it. I also appreciate the comments on the size requirements. that Somerville has. And I think that in practice, after the building is built, et cetera, et cetera, that more bikes may be able to fit in here. Like, you know, the little itty bitty bikes that kids have, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm really happy with this and ready to move off. But I had to convey the conversation that I had with my son.

This is going to transition into our next line of discussion, but I will say, Ryan, you raised the issue of people downsizing. My parents are going to be among those people, and they are in their mid-70s. There is no way, shape, or form that they are biking around anywhere. The last time I think I went on a bike ride with my parents was 1996, and that was the last time that they sat on a bike. So I'm not necessarily convinced that the downsizing population from larger units in Seoul are going to be among the population that will be on the biking population. I don't know if that Venn diagram is very tight, but let's have a discussion on item number three. Going into my John McLaughlin group here, issue three, unit size. you know, back in PBS days, back when we actually funded them. So let's talk about Unimax.

Sure. Yeah. So I think this picture that Phil has on the screen right now is actually helpful. As we mentioned before, this is a just under 9,000 square foot lot. So it's a, I would say, smaller on the smaller side of the urban infill lots. And it's got a very unique shape to it. It's being narrow on the front or narrow to the rear as opposed as opposed to long and deep it's it's a slender and uh long on the front and then it's got that angle on the side so you know we're trying to maximize for livable livability and habitability here and the unit mix that we have is could Could we do more ones in studios? Probably. But if we incorporate three bedrooms into this footprint, it essentially requires us to combine units, squish some things around. Given the design of the windows and the fenestration, it becomes a real challenge for us, as well as we'd have stacking. So essentially, it's very hard to just do one three bedroom or two three bedrooms. They need to be stacked. So now we're getting into having to eliminate units to accommodate three bedrooms. We're a 29-unit project, which under the ordinance does not require three-bedroom mix. If we go over that, then we are. But we're purposely up to that line because going above 30 units would change the total layout of the building and make us essentially have to combine units. So we're back again below the 29-unit threshold. So we've been very conscientious throughout this process to comply with the ordinance in terms of all dimensional requirements, all setbacks, all sizing, all heights, and unit mixes. And we looked at initially incorporating three bedrooms, and it didn't make sense from a layout perspective. Like I said, we're trying to maximize for habitability, usability, marketability. livability ultimately, and incorporating three bedrooms into this lot design isn't feasible for us. And for that reason, we stuck with the no three bedroom into the mix.

I'm going to push back a little bit on this just because I'm not sure how much of that is something that's translating to me, right? So we've had locations, you're close enough to the T-stop, you're well and good within the transit zone. We just had a building basically next door to the Porter Square T-stop that said, we're gonna put in three bedrooms. We have pushed back on other developments that are reasonably close, maybe not quite as close as you are, but close enough to other green line stops. Pretty closely in the Ball Square area and pretty close in the Balloon Square area. We've said, put in one or two, make it work. This is what the city has needed and this is what we want. And they've worked with us. They haven't given us 100% three bedrooms. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking for some reasonable discussion on how we can get to one, two, you know, however you're going to make it. So we have had positive discussions and negotiations with other people building buildings of similar sizes within similar distances and closer distances to transit stops than you are, who have been willing to work with this board on what the cities wanted. The thing that concerns me a little bit is kind of how you started off this presentation is we looked at exactly what the zoning required and we did absolutely nothing to put us above the line that would have required us to do X as a lawyer. That makes me say, you're not acting in good faith when it comes to that part of the discussion. Okay. That's not what this board has ever expected of developers. We have always asked for you to work with us in looking what the city wants for development. What the city has wanted and needed with development is bigger family-sized housing. I had a discussion offline with somebody else the other week on why are some of the housing prices still going up when someone is doing all this work. to build additional housing, affordable housing and things like that. And the response that I had to this particular individual, again, offline, not part of this discussion, was in my estimation, it's not that you can't find a studio or a one bedroom or a one bedroom plus den in some way. That's all we're building. The housing stock that's going up and staying up Are those housing stock in unit mixes that are two-bedroom above? Because you cannot find them. There's a reason the house next to my parents just sold for cash for $2.5 million. Okay? That is not a satisfactory response to this board member. I cannot believe that you cannot put in one of them. And the way that you ouched it is I know what the zoning required and we did everything we possibly effing could to not get above the line to make sure that we had to do it. That's what I heard from you and that's not satisfactory to me. So I'm not satisfied with that particular response. if that's how you meant it, because that's how it came across to me. And I would like to have the opportunity to have you correct my understanding of what you said, but that is what I heard.

Okay. Yeah. No, please let me, that is not how I meant to be heard. And that is not what I meant to say, if that's how it came across. My point with the going up to the 29 units was if we go above 29 units to 30 units, then we are required to have 20% three bedrooms. And that completely, that was my statement on going above the 30 unit threshold. That threw everything out the window for us. So that not going up to 29 units and not being physically impossible to add a three bedroom somewhere in the building. I'm not, I mean, I'm not gonna say that Phil's architects not create, creative enough to find one three bedroom. If that was the requirement from the board and if that's the statement that's being made is that we need to incorporate one three bedroom into our building, I'm sure we could find a way to incorporate one three bedroom. It's a matter of once you get above that, probably in the basement or the garden level, I could say, we could probably reconfigure things in the garden level to where it's not stackable. It's where we get into the first floor and then now we're stacking above that. It's a little hard to just shoehorn one three-bedroom. And I don't want to speak out of turn in terms of architecture, but shoehorning one three-bedroom on the ground level with the stacking of the plumbing and everything, it becomes problematic. And also from a design fenestration as well with how the other units above it are laid out with the windows and the fenestration of the windows, that definitely becomes a challenge. So it's kind of hard to shoehorn on the first, second, and third floor, any of those floors just throw in a one three-bedroom unit. So that was my statement. It's a little hard to just add one three-bedroom. And then if we're adding four three-bedrooms or three three-bedrooms, now we're reconfiguring the whole building, squeezing units, eliminating units, and that does have a feasibility impact to the project that makes it not feasible for us.

I will also say this, you are not the 1st person that I've said this to you not the 1st development team that this board has said that to. And yet somehow miraculously things have worked out. So, I'm going to leave it at that for right now with my comments and I'd like to recognize Amelia and then Lynn, who are the 2 people that I saw.

Thank you Mr. chair. Please, I apologize even if I say this because I'm going to undermine you and I'm sorry for that. When I think about the projects that we have permitted that we have gotten the developers to add additional three bedroom units, in trying to go through that mental list of them, I can't think of that many that are under construction. And I'm starting to feel like we are, we have permitted a lot of mid-size residential buildings that have not broken ground and I'm I know we always want to optimize across as many criteria as possible, but I don't think that that will necessarily be this draw that breaks the camel's back here. But if I'd like to just think of this from the lens of like, if this development team thinks that they have a financeable project at this moment in time, speaking as a developer, like that, that is a rarity right now. And I'm starting to feel like the tide hasn't turned in a long time and I'm I certainly don't want to back down from our commitment to articulating the needs of our long-term planning strategies. But I also don't want to make perfect the enemy of good here. So I just want to raise that as a point for consideration or for discussion from other board members. I do think that... I will also, while we're saying things we've said before, I will again put forward my alternatives that I often suggest when we're hearing that things are really tight and that a third bedroom unit is difficult to manage, which is the city also has a great deal of need for accessible, affordable units. And I would welcome us to consider if we're hearing that a third bedroom unit is not possible, whether making at least one of the designated affordable units a group two accessible unit is something that would be architecturally more feasible. Perhaps two of them, if that felt feasible. I know that that has a small added cost margin, but perhaps less so than sort of a full redesign of other units. So, I don't know how other board members feel about that as a trade off. But I think it creates a different set of dimensional challenges that depending on the layout may or may not be easier. So, thank you for your consideration.

Never apologize for. Putting forward your position here, I will also respectfully point out. We have permitted. This is actually going to be a discussion point. Hopefully at next meeting. I know offer. I was listening as to how many lab buildings we've permitted that are currently. So, I think there's a point to be made about we can permit as much as we want. It doesn't. Doesn't mean that that's going to happen. I do see Lynn and then Jahan.

And you're on mute.

Thank you, Michael and Amelia, for your perspectives. I'm going to offer a slightly different one, and one in, I think, January I wanted to kind of bring to the board. But I might suggest that we look at the actual data as a board the next time we get together and there's time for an administrative bit. I saw in my property tax bill that they had, the city had analysis on how many one-bedroom multifamily, et cetera, et cetera, for us to kind of look at what the existing stock is and what we think, and maybe perhaps get some information from if there's any marketing data on what the demand is. Because as a person who just moved here almost three years ago, I wanted a two bedroom. I could only find a three bedroom. My downstairs neighbor, found a four bedroom and needs two bedrooms. And I, I, I, And again, the college set that just graduated, they're all looking for one bedrooms. If you follow online, all the housing, Facebook groups looking for housing, it's people who have three bedrooms that are looking to find somebody to fill another. It doesn't feel like families. Families kind of want their single family homes, which is why, Michael, the home next to you went for so much. So I would really like for us to see some data on this on Somerville, that there are families who can't find a place to live and that are turning away. And I liked Amelia's compromise here because I know I'm going to be a minority voter. voice on this and Amelia's compromise of like well if you can't do three bedroom because of you know lining up the plumbing etc etc makes perfect sense is there something else that you could do either on affordability or or accessibility so Michael if I may it suggests that that at some point in the next month or two we try to see what data is available and for us to Kind of go, because this issue comes up a lot for us as a board, but if we can kind of understand where the city is and where the demand is, I think if we can be grounded on numbers a little bit versus. Our feelings, it might it might serve service all a little bit better.

So, and I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you on looking at what the actual data looks like today. 1 of the things that I kind of referenced it a minute ago. One of the things that I asked Alvaro to do some research on and get us some feedback on is how many of these lab buildings that we've permitted are actually now tenanted because we've got a couple of lab buildings that have come up before us. And I think this comes right within that same vein. It's like, okay, fine, we have zoning that allows X, But what is it that we want and what is actually happening with what we're permitting? So I think that's a valuable piece of data to move forward on. I think Amelia's suggestion and potential compromise is something that's valuable to discuss. I'm not certain that as one member I'm going to be on board necessarily with that, but we will see. where it is when we come out, probably in a few weeks, based on the nature of this discussion tonight, because we are not in a place, in my estimation, to take a vote on this particular application this evening. Lynn, did you have anything else that you wanted to add before I move along? I don't want to cut you off.

Oh, no, not at all. Thank you very much.

The next person that I saw was Jahan, and then I see Michael.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, the unmute button escaped me for a moment. So I definitely appreciate all the thoughts shared here. The advantage of going a little bit later is to be able to absorb the sentiments of the fellow board members. I do think that when it comes to unit mix, you know, I am mindful of the constrained capital markets conditions at this time. However, I do want to see what's feasible. I mean, I do want us to be able to at least have a conversation around the feasibility of a three bedroom unit. I know I know the. the applicant team had mentioned that there is a possibility of that. And I do want to see it through if that fails or if that's highly challenged. Um, then I agree with, um, certainly agree with Madam, uh, vice chair's, uh, suggestions of, uh, expanding out at least affordability accessibility, because from my vantage point, either the unit mix has to accommodate three bedrooms, which would be a more diverse unit mix, or progressing the accessibility or affordability goals. So I share your sentiments, Mr. Chair, that this project should not be voted on until the APCA team has had ample time to review and see what's feasible for their project, because ultimately we do want the project to succeed and also ensure that there is housing built with components of the diverse unit mix, affordable housing, and accessibility. So that's all I have to say. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jahan. The next question And last person I see right now is Michael, so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had one statement and then one question. So first, as I also wanted to weigh in here on the affordability unit mix combination. So obviously, I really appreciate Vice Chair Aboff's comments about accessibility and affordability kind of overlapping. You recall during my last couple of questions at the last meeting, I was interested in seeing some more support on accessibility here. Mr cherry you know i've always been a big pusher for you know multifamily or multi bedroom projects, I think, increasingly i'm worried about affordability, not necessarily the same unit mix like I was you know. You know, a couple months ago, just based on some of the feedback from. neighborhood meetings that we've seen based on feedback from people coming to meetings and talking about their concerns around projects. There's a lot of questions around affordability. So I think I would double down on Amelia's ask here. I would say like not only should we be looking for two, group two affordable units, but like I would even want to review if there's additional affordability that could be brought into the building as well. And if that means that we've got to give on some other relief to do that, I think I'd love to see just kind of the push and take here a little bit. I think the more we can find a way to not build luxury units, the better from my perspective, because I think we do have a surplus of units. Again, we'd love to see data on this, but anything we can do to support portability here I think is an important highlight. um so my one question was uh also during the last meeting i asked a little bit more about the electrical transformers and i do see that there's a permanent condition uh that electrical transformers are not allowed above ground but i also had a question to just follow up with staff on whether or not that this would trigger a material modification if they did come back with a request to bring the equipment above ground i was wondering if anyone on staff had kind of chased that down and just confirmed that the current permit condition is sufficient to trigger a new review with this board.

This is Kit. I think that it typically is fairly case by case. So if the board did want to make a more specific condition, maybe a bit more in line with the other condition about... kind of streamlining any changes straight to the board. I think that would make sense if that was something that the board wanted just to clear the air or clear any confusion in the future.

Yep. Yep. Appreciate that. And I think I don't want to like, you know, mess with standard things that are met by staff review. That's definitely not my intent for this project. But this one issue in particular, I think is material enough that I as one member would love to see it come back to us if it were invalid.

Yeah, I think the planning board has had some recent cases where those have come back and in some have even needed to also go to the zoning board if a variance was needed. But I think the majority of cases where a transformer would then need to be, the location of a transformer changes, they do come back to the planning board in my experience.

Okay. Well, I mean, again, it doesn't sound like we're going to vote on this tonight. So if we got to take another round of looking at it, that's okay. We just want to make sure we're clear about it.

Thank you. Can I chime in on the transformer very quickly?

Go ahead.

Yeah, you know, this is a big issue in Somerville. It was huge during COVID where there was availability of manhole transformers and having to transfer. Part of that notch in the building that's there was just like a worst case scenario. So obviously we come back to the board, but We've had these worst-case scenarios, and we want to make sure that it wouldn't materially ruin our building should something awful with Eversource happen. So we appreciate that concerning comment, and we don't want transformers messing up buildings.

Thank you, and I apologize. Well, actually, I don't apologize. I sympathize with how painful it is not to know this information up front, so I do appreciate that this isn't something you can control.

In regards to accessibility, I mean, conceptually, I think as a development team, we're open to the discussion around making the affordable units group two accessible. I have no idea what that means from an architectural standpoint. And yeah, I think we can figure that out. I think we can figure that out. So I think as a development team, that's something that we're very open and a minimal to is as a I guess the word compromise we don't view that as a big compromise to in terms of making the affordable units also accessible on group two level that's that's something that we'd be more than happy to go above and beyond to I don't want to say gain the favor of the board but to to as a way to Go above and beyond, because you said we're doing the minimum, and this is one area where we can go above and beyond. So we're completely open to opening up a few more of the affordable units and making them Group 2 accessible.

Seeing no other questions by members of the planning board, I think, Ryan, you and the team have a little bit of work to do in the next couple of weeks to come back to us with maybe some creative revisions of both the unit mix, kind of Avenue A, Avenue B, Amelia's proposed compromise. and some ideas on transformer issues or further clarification that Michael might need. So I think we've got a number, I think we've significantly narrowed down the points that the board is looking to have some clarification on. And I think we're getting closer to a finish line without promising that one is immediately in the future. Just welcome you all to come back and see where we land. Before I stop, I do want to thank you already on the substantial work that you and the team have done. in addressing some of our other and earlier concerns as well. I think we've all seen that you have been willing and excited to work kind of with where our collective minds are on making this a project that we're happy to support.

Great. Just so I'd like to make sure I understand the I guess the ask or the just to be completely clear so that hopefully the next time we come back here, we tweak the right buttons and hit the right mark and get something that the board can be behind. Is it is it sounds like the unit mix is the final remaining thing. The largest remaining component here to be considered, is it the position of the board that in order to be approved that we need to have 3 bedrooms in our mix here?

I don't I don't so. I haven't read the comments of my colleagues for that to be dispositive. Um, I think that is something that has been identified as a concern by by me and some of my colleagues. I know that Amelia has put forward. A potential alternative that is something that the board can consider and I think we'd like to see. Your read on that proposed alternative as well. So I think we're looking at a couple of different ways that we can revise. How the units in this building operate, whether it's by size or by accessibility availability. Does the board think that I have. Appropriately kind of like, summarized where our concerns lay and Michael is your concern in the transformer kind of addressed or do you want some more. Insight into that.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything from the applicant team on that topic. I think it's just clarification from staff. It sounds like the applicant team is on board with everything.

I do see, is that, Oliver, are you raising your hand over there?

Yes. Before the board continues, I just wanted to note that for the current agenda of June 18th, we do have a variety of topics that are already in the agenda. So I just want to warn that of capacity and also know that Kit would not be present. She's going to be out that week. So just know that the case planner, if this item is continued to June 18th, the case planner will not be present for that.

Is it the case plan to be present? And also, I am cognizant of the fact that the planning board doesn't take up more than a certain number of agenda items on a particular evening. And we've already got a number of others. So this may need to be pushed to the meeting thereafter.

So a month and a half from now?

It might be a month. It might be four weeks. So I think the next meeting is the 18th. I think the meeting after that is like the 3rd or something. Is that right?

No, it will be July 16th. There's no meeting during the July 4th week.

And I don't believe I'll be present during that meeting. Coralie, though.

Yeah, and thank you for taking the late question, Mr. Chair. It occurred to me, I wanted to ask about the decision not to go above the threshold where you would be required to do a number of three-bedroom units. And my question is, is that a decision because the three-bedroom units are less marketable, or is it the economics of building the building with that configuration or some combination of those things?

It's a combination of both those things. I really wanted to avoid getting into the discussion about three bedrooms and condo buildings, frankly. But since we're going there, I'll just go ahead and go there. I'll give you our, we're very active in the development committee and we've built buildings that have one, twos and three bedroom units. We just finished a six unit project in Central Square in Cambridge, which I think is fairly comparable to this demographic in Union Square. The one and two bedroom units sold during construction without sight unseen before the sheetrock went up. The three bedroom units all waited until they went out, until they were completely finished, staged. And then they sat for 30 to 60 days and they were sold to a variety of different people. But none of them had kids, surprisingly. None of them had kids. So this narrative around family units for market rate, three bedroom condominiums, I think is not an accurate argument. narrative in the market. And I think if you talk to other people who are building buildings like this, that's what you would find. The three bedroom units market, the market rate three bedrooms. I understand that the affordable three bedroom units are very desirable for that market. But the market rate units are not going, you know, if you look at this building, a three bedroom unit isn't going to a family with kids. They want the townhouse where they have their own private space. They want the single family homes. So that's part one, marketability. And then number two, just back to the actual layout of this building, specifically this building, not even worrying about marketability. It changes, if we go above 30 units, It changes the whole mix of the building, the fenestration. We can't go above 30 units and have three bedrooms at the same time and have what we believe are the most desirable livable units. It makes the units less livable, more cramped. We have to lose some units. For this lot size, cramming some three bedrooms in there isn't It just isn't feasible. If it's the board's requirement to show that, let us show you that just from a form standpoint, we can do that. But we're jamming a square peg into a round hole trying to get three-bedroom units into this footprint of a building. And so it's two things. It's the marketability, which I don't, it detracts from the marketability and the financeability of the project because those three bedrooms are harder to sell. And it's a burden on the project from a form standpoint.

Thank you.

Place where we know kind of where the discussion is going to be in a few weeks. Ask all of you to come back and give us some options. And we can continue the discussion at that point. Right now, what I'd like to do is, at least for the purpose of this discussion, move to continue this agenda item to the 18th of June, just in case other people also continue and we end up having more flexibility on our calendar than we anticipate. But it may be at the necessity of will this be continued further at that point. But right now, we're going to continue to the 18th, seconded by Amelia in our world, we have a roll call, please.

Jahan Habib.

Aye.

Lynn Richards.

Aye.

Luke Schuster.

Aye.

Carly Cooper.

Aye.

Michael McNeely.

I abstain.

Amelia Abuff.

Aye.

Michael Capuano. Aye. This agenda item is continued. Thank you all very much. See you at some point in the near future.

Looking forward to it.

Thank you all. I do not believe there is any other business before the planning board this evening as we round 830. Does anybody else have something they would like to raise for the good of the meeting before we adjourn and have some supper? Okay. I will say we have both NHL and NBA playoffs going on tonight. I really don't want to have to root for either of the teams in the NBA finals. Not tonight. Not tonight.

I thought it was tonight. I thought it was 8.30. You got a night off from worrying about the Knicks winning the finals, yeah.

Oh, gross. I thought it was tonight. Okay, well, at least I don't have to worry about NHL then. Okay, fine. Okay, cool. Uh, who wants to adjourn? John, stop smiling. You and Nick's guy, please tell me you're not Nick's guy. I know you are. I know you are.

I'm a Celtics. I actually have season tickets with my friends for the last 10 years. Huge Celtics fan. Wow. Why are we not better friends? No one asked.

Awesome. All right. Uh, 827, the chair moves to adjourn, seconded by Amelia. Roll call, please. Nathan Habib?

Aye.

Lynn Richards?

Aye.

Luke Schuster?

Aye.

Carly Cooper?

Aye.

Michael McNeely?

Aye.

Amelia Aboff?

Aye.

Michael Capuano?

Aye. Thank you all very much.

See you in a couple of weeks. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you.

Good night.