The 7-Eleven project on Bangs Avenue was presented by Andrew Harris, who outlined changes to the initial design. The revised proposal eliminated on-site parking to make room for additional commercial space, totaling approximately 250 square feet on the ground floor, beneath six residential apartments. This decision aimed to circumvent a previously required parking variance, a topic that sparked debate among board members. The project site, located in the CBD redevelopment area, underwent architectural modifications to address zoning compliance, including adjustments to setbacks and utility management.

Daphne Miller, an expert witness, testified about updates to the project’s grading, drainage, and utility elements. The plans were oriented with Bangs Avenue at the bottom and Main Street on the left. Structural changes included a setback of the building’s front to prevent right-of-way encroachment, space for a bike rack, and incorporation of a street tree. Additionally, architectural modifications ensured that front doors would not interfere with pedestrian pathways.

A line of sight study demonstrated compliance with visibility requirements from the street. The board scrutinized the materials and colors proposed for the facade, with a sample of “tricorn black” metal trim circulated among members. This trim would adorn the balcony and storefront areas, maintaining aesthetic consistency with black-clad windows and matching storefront systems.

The board’s discussion also addressed design elements such as the elevator overrun, green roof areas, and mechanical systems. The proposed penthouse complied with the CD redevelopment plan, featuring a 431 square foot area, well within the allowable 20% of the roof space. Concerns arose over the project’s alignment with surrounding building heights, as it surpassed the typical two-story structures in the area.

Parking requirements were a contentious topic. The elimination of on-site parking drew attention, as the current plan no longer necessitated a variance. However, questions persisted regarding the total number of spaces required, with historical interpretations of the 2002 redevelopment plan suggesting exemptions for new construction. The board opted to condition any necessary parking contributions on review by the city planner or attorney, acknowledging their limitations in determining these requirements.

Public comment included inquiries from residents, with Maryanne Bourke questioning material repurposing incentives, though it was deemed unrelated to the current application. The board proceeded with procedural motions, resolving that commercial space parking would adhere to city requirements, pending further clarification. They emphasized the importance of obtaining necessary approvals, particularly concerning street tree planting, and addressed technical aspects such as trash management and exterior lighting.

These matters were designated as civil and outside the board’s jurisdiction, requiring independent resolution by involved parties.