0:08The meeting unfolded with a detailed examination of a 7-Eleven application, spotlighting the parking requirements that had sparked considerable discussion. The applicant contested two expert reports from the board, arguing that the redevelopment plan should exempt them from the parking requirement based on historical assessments that classified the property differently. They referenced a 2009 amendment and pointed out a potential oversight that should allow them to be exempt from the parking obligation. However, the board’s planner clarified that a 2018 amendment addressed non-residential parking requirements, prompting a debate on whether the matter should be adjudicated by the zoning board rather than the planning board.

The board members expressed concerns about the legal implications and the financial impact of potential parking space contributions. The discussion ended with a consensus to seek legal counsel’s opinion and possibly refer the issue to the zoning board. This decision would determine if the applicant needed to contribute to the parking fund or seek relief from parking obligations.

16:05Simultaneously, the board reviewed the most recent revisions to the proposed building plans for the 7-Eleven site. The initial design included a parking garage, but the ground level was now revised to feature retail space, eliminating the driveway and allowing for a public sidewalk and a street tree. This change led to the removal of off-street parking, sparking discussions about incorporating bike parking instead. A proposal to install a bike rack on the street to utilize the additional space created by the driveway’s removal was considered.

The board also discussed the building’s design changes, including a five-foot rear yard setback, drainage adjustments, and plans for a green roof. The architect confirmed that the building would proceed as a single unit without phased development, coordinating with the city regarding street closures during construction. The revised plans maintained the ground floor retail space, now measuring 2,400 square feet, with reconfigured upper floors and new layouts aligned with the altered building footprint.

34:07Further discussions centered around the residential units above the retail space, including the presence of windowless bedrooms which required mechanical ventilation according to building codes. The board deliberated on the necessity of ensuring adequate ventilation and the legalities of window placement given the building’s setback. The board verified that the roof area would include a green roof for stormwater management and mechanical space, with a fixed ladder and hatch providing access.

49:29Additional architectural and design elements were also scrutinized, such as the building’s asymmetry, exterior lighting, and the integration of bicycle parking within the building. Concerns about the visual harmony of the building’s entrances and the potential encroachment of outward-swinging doors onto the sidewalk were raised. The board requested further clarification on these aspects in subsequent plan revisions.

1:05:10The meeting concluded with a detailed review of the proposed building’s architectural elements, including the use of red brick and the inclusion of a small mail room at the main entrance for deliveries. The board affirmed compliance with zoning regulations for signage above the retail door, while additional details regarding balcony dimensions and exterior mounted utility meters were discussed.