Board reviews Hive at 132 Cherry Street after FEMA-driven design changes; members favor shared-tree-lawn/parking compromise

Developers and architects presented substantial plan revisions to the approved Hive project at 132 Cherry Street after FEMA flood-map changes required moving portions of the buildings east and altering setbacks.

Craig Jensen of CJS Architects said the team sought to preserve the previously approved design where possible while responding to a wider floodway: "We're trying to modify the project as little as possible, because we felt like it was a good project and was previously approved," he said. The revision added increased setback on the west side, created additional green space along the inlet, revised commercial placements and eliminated a previously proposed pool to make the design compatible with affordable‑housing funding requirements.

Financing and unit mix: the team said the updated project would use 4% tax-exempt bonds and HCR funding and proposed a broad AMI range (30%–120% of AMI) with the majority of units between 30%–80%. The architects noted the project includes roughly 148 total units across two buildings (cited as 64 and 84 units in the presentation), and said they would supply exact unit breakdowns and revised landscape plans at a future meeting.

Parking and streetscape debate: the architects presented three streetscape/parking configurations (a contiguous tree lawn; a single bump-in for deliveries; and a series of parking recesses sharing the tree lawn). Multiple board members, including Max Pfeffer and Andy Roman, discussed the pros and cons and the board repeatedly returned to a hybrid of options B and C. Max said he favored the bump-in/parking-recess approach because it offers practical short-term parking and drop-off space while calming traffic; he described option C as something that could “calm that corridor” and improve the pedestrian experience.

Public access and private courtyard: developers said the courtyard between the two buildings is intended to be gated and reserved for residents, while the inlet-side green space that opened after moving the buildings east could be public and used for dog-walks and passive recreation. Board members requested clearer designs to distinguish public inlet access from private courtyards.

Materials and screening: designers showed examples of a perforated metal screen used successfully in another project and indicated they would supply real photos of the precedent. The team also said they will revisit transformer screening and bollard placement and will return with night-time renderings and lighting plans to demonstrate how the perforated screen and lighting will affect transparency and safety.

Next steps: the board asked the team to return with precise unit counts by AMI tier, updated landscape and lighting plans, daytime and nighttime renderings, transformer screening options and clearer retail programing scenarios that explore flexible community uses to activate a back-corner retail space.

Ending: the architects left the board with several follow-up items; members said they were optimistic about the project's potential to knit the waterfront and trail into the neighborhood if the public access and retail programming questions are addressed.