Central to the meeting was the application by APW Redeveloper, with future plans for a sale to Hovnanian, which proposed various changes in response to prior feedback from the board. Jennifer Phillips Smith, representing the redeveloper, presented modifications that included decorative updates to the building’s trapezoid area, address signage, and entrance enhancements. These changes were supplemented by adjustments to the planting beds and metal garage door designs, with emphasis on taller plantings along the building’s sides.

Robert Curley, a civil engineer, provided insights into the technical aspects of the proposal, particularly focusing on the roof drainage system. His testimony detailed how rainwater would be directed through gutters into a stormwater management system. The integration of these elements into the building’s design was a point of interest, with color coordination of the gutters yet to be finalized. Curley also addressed the absence of leaf guards due to a lack of nearby trees.

Attention shifted to the design’s accessibility features, where adjustments were made to ADA parking spaces and loading areas to align with crosswalks and sidewalks. Lighting modifications were discussed, with Curley indicating that further details would be elaborated upon by another expert, Mr. Barry. The board’s scrutiny ensured that all design elements met their expectations, particularly regarding aesthetics and functionality.

The board expressed concerns about potential water runoff issues and the need for additional gutters in certain areas, which was met with clarifications about directing water to the foundation level and into planters.

The meeting also covered the main entrance redesign, which now featured a visible address and a planter area, with updates to site plans made a condition of approval. The conversation included inquiries about the landscape design, ADA space alignment, and the integration of a key fob system for building access. Additionally, questions about visitor entry and the potential use of intercom or app systems were raised, though definitive answers were deferred.

Further discussions delved into lighting plan discrepancies, particularly concerning the model used for light analysis. A procedural concern about the revision dates of lighting plans highlighted the need for accurate documentation. The board emphasized the importance of maintaining correct dates on all submissions to avoid future confusion.

The conversation progressed to the construction mitigation plan, focusing on dust reduction and soil erosion controls. The placement of utility meters, the finish of retaining walls, and the addition of street trees were also discussed, each aspect addressing both aesthetic and regulatory concerns.

The architectural details of the project were scrutinized, including the proposal for masonry balconies with metal railings, metal-framed doors, and mesh garage doors. The board weighed these design choices against the waterfront redevelopment plan’s standards, ultimately granting waivers based on practical considerations and the overall functionality of the site.

Concerns about the integration of private and public spaces were also a topic of interest, particularly regarding the development’s alignment with the neighborhood’s character. A discussion ensued about the plaza area’s potential as a public seating space, with emphasis on maintaining a consistent streetscape for pedestrian experience.

As the meeting concluded, the board approved the project with conditions. The approval was met with expressions of satisfaction from some members, who appreciated the aesthetic contributions and improvements in design. The board also discussed future meeting schedules.