Parking was the most pressing topic throughout the meeting, with board members expressing skepticism about the adequacy of the proposed parking solutions. The applicant’s representative, Joshua Kudrey, outlined the proposal, which necessitated offsite parking solutions due to the limited space available on the property itself. Expert witness Edward Deck, a civil engineer, detailed that the existing building footprint would remain unchanged, but the addition of a third floor and the intended renovations were important to the overall development plan. However, the parking spaces proposed were undersized, primarily intended for employees, and did not meet established requirements.

Board members were not convinced by the proposed reliance on off-site parking, emphasizing the need for a self-contained parking solution to avoid potential future complications. One board member criticized the proposal, stating, “I think you’re intensifying the use. You’re adding another residential structure. You’re under parking it.” This sentiment was echoed throughout the discussion, with concerns about the practicality of shared parking between the commercial and residential components of the development.

Further complicating the parking issue, the discussion addressed the possibility of future public parking spaces within a nearby redevelopment project. However, the board expressed doubt that these off-site solutions would meet the development’s needs, given historical parking challenges in the area.

The architectural design of the building was another focal point, with the board and the architect, Hikeen, engaging in a dialogue about the proposed changes. Hikeen, with a professional background including projects like the Bedford House, highlighted the second and third floors’ proposed residential units. The board expressed concerns about the building’s aesthetics and its ability to blend with the surrounding structures. Suggestions were made to adjust the design to better suit the streetscape, including altering the building’s height and façade to enhance its visual integration.

Concerns about the structural integrity of the existing building were raised by a representative from the Beyond Funeral Home. They expressed anxiety over debris and the building’s potential hazard, stating, “I mean, it looks like a strong wind could knock it down, honestly.” These safety concerns prompted a call for a clean-up and further examination of the building’s condition before the development could proceed.

Accessibility was also a key topic, with discussions about the proposed handicap-accessible walkway and compliance with local regulations. The architect assured the board that the design would meet code requirements, including the installation of a sprinkler system, yet board members sought further details to ensure complete compliance.

The board suggested that applicants provide comprehensive responses to expert letters and gather accurate measurements of adjacent property heights to facilitate a more informed redesign.