The City of Milton Design Review Board on Jan. 6 delivered detailed design feedback and a formal recommendation to staff on a courtesy review of the Deerfield Corporate Center, a proposed 25‑acre mixed‑use redevelopment near Webb Road, Morris Road and Deerfield Parkway.

Staff framed the proposal as an implementation of the Destination Deerfield subdistrict and described incentives intended to improve public amenities: an increase in usable open space from a baseline 10% up toward 20% for credits, trail and boardwalk connectivity, and a 2,500‑square‑foot civic shell that the applicant proposes to give the city "for a dollar a year," staff said. The site includes two existing six‑story office towers that are mostly vacant, staff added.

Developer representatives said the plan keeps much of the existing parking and landscape, preserves sewer easements and the lake on site, and adds mixed uses rather than a single corporate campus. Steve Rowe, a civil/site representative for the applicant, said the project would retain roughly 265,000 square feet of office and add "about 140 units of multifamily residential, another 10 loft units above some of the retail and restaurants," plus roughly 24,800 square feet of retail. He said open space in the proposal is about 24% of the site.

Architects described an inward‑facing retail and green space, with Building A and Building B framed as a Webb Road gateway and a civic building located on the site’s internal green. Adam Toll, the retail architect, said the design intentionally reduces visible back‑of‑house elements and adds outdoor dining that "lets the food and beverage kind of spill out" into the public space. Scott Fleming, lead on the residential design, said multifamily buildings are three stories along Morris Road with small four‑story wings where needed to reduce perceived scale and provide entrance moments.

Board members pressed the applicant on parking and circulation. Staff and the applicant said the design uses a shared‑parking analysis (ULI method) that counts office peak demand against residential off‑peak demand; the site’s baseline code calculation was cited as 1,302 required parking spaces. The applicant reported that the shared‑parking approach substantially reduces the number of new spaces needed and described an estimate of roughly 950–960 spaces in the applicant’s analysis, but board members asked the team to provide clearer, itemized calculations and options for some dedicated residential parking or time‑of‑day reserved spaces.

Other questions focused on stormwater and utilities. The applicant said stormwater currently discharges to the site's lake and a downstream master detention outlet at Morris Road that was modeled for the district; soils, hydrology and potential underground detention will be re‑analyzed under current code. The team also noted high‑pressure sewer easements crossing portions of the parking area that constrain building placement.

Design details were a major part of the discussion. Board members asked the architect to reduce any 'apartment' appearance of the multifamily buildings by revising balcony treatments, railing details and material transitions; asked for additional street‑level 'street view' renderings showing the existing mature tree canopy along Morris and Webb roads; and requested material and lighting samples, landscape‑planting lists and examples of proposed pavers at the next appearance.

Property owner Guido Baragallo told the board the owners plan lobby and corridor upgrades in the office buildings and expect the mixed uses to activate the site. During public comment, resident Liliana Medina of Villages of Devonshire asked the board and applicants to preserve tree habitat and buffers for wildlife, urged consideration of a turning signal at the Webb Road entrance for safety, and requested enclosed trash handling to avoid open dumpsters and odors near pedestrian paths.

After extended questions, public comment and applicant responses, a board member moved to forward the written recommendations produced during the review to staff; the motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Staff said it will include the board’s written recommendations in the action report and email them to the board for review before the application proceeds to council for the multifamily use‑permit and other hearings.

What happens next: the courtesy review comments will be incorporated into a written action report from staff. When the applicant files formal applications for the use permit and any variances (including the parking variance staff flagged), those materials will go to the Planning Commission and, if required, to City Council for final decision.