The centerpiece of the meeting was the proposal for a Mediterranean revival-style development, requiring numerous waivers from existing guidelines. This included requests for relief due to the architectural design choices, like the flush rather than recessed windows, and the use of sliding doors, which deviated from the guideline stipulating side-hinged doors. Additionally, the proposed balconies, designed to extend six feet but only protruding two feet from the façade, required clarification on whether they adhered to the intimate space definition in the redevelopment guidelines.

Concerns over the building’s solid to void ratio were also prominent. While the front elevation met the required 45% threshold, the side elevations only reached 29%, prompting questions about compliance with the 20% fenestration requirement. Issues with the building’s articulation further complicated matters, as the current design lacked visual techniques that acknowledge block corners and entrances, necessitating relief on this basis.

Parking and accessibility were points of contention. The project proposed 111 parking spaces, exceeding the required number under the waterfront redevelopment plan. However, concerns arose over the loss of three street parking spaces due to new driveways, sparking debate about whether the developer should compensate for these lost spaces. Additionally, the integration of electric vehicle charging stations was a positive note, with the development planning for 18 EV stalls, surpassing the required 17.

Accessibility features, particularly for handicapped individuals, were reviewed. The proposal to relocate a handicap parking stall closer to the access lane was discussed, alongside the potential introduction of a crosswalk, which could reduce parking capacity. This sparked a debate between maintaining parking capacity and ensuring accessibility.

The landscaping and aesthetic impact of the development were also critical areas of focus. The board scrutinized the project’s landscape architecture, querying the choice of plants and their immediate visual effect. Suggestions to utilize skip laurel for better initial visual appeal were considered, as well as the potential use of a green wall to cover a blank wall, despite skepticism about its viability due to past failures with similar features.

Further design elements like the stairwell’s proximity to the property line and potential shadow impacts on neighboring buildings, such as the Miramar, were debated. Residents expressed concern over increased shading during winter months and the intrusive nature of south-facing balconies. Questions about drainage and flood management were raised, with assurances that flood hazard compliance would be maintained through elevated garage floors and subsurface detention facilities.

Additionally, discussions touched on the project’s stormwater management, lighting compliance, and utility placement to ensure minimal disruption and adherence to environmental standards. While the project included plans for stormwater management and utility placement, the need for a cohesive approach to enhance the pedestrian experience along the building’s frontage was emphasized.