The project’s architect, Michael Monroe, presented plans and visual aids, including 3D renderings and photographs, to illustrate how the new building would integrate into the existing streetscape. Monroe emphasized that the design aimed to harmonize with the character of the area, detailing modifications made in response to feedback from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. These changes included reducing the overall massing of the building and incorporating a two-story appearance with a colonnade to enhance public space and interaction.

One of the primary concerns discussed was the potential loss of affordable housing due to the demolition of two existing buildings. Monroe addressed this by stating that the project would still provide two affordable ownership units, offering generational opportunities for future homeowners. Additionally, he assured that the new building would include ample parking, with a structure designed to limit access to tenants and employees only.

Privacy issues were another major topic, particularly regarding a lower courtyard near existing residential properties. The board discussed various measures to enhance privacy, such as screening the courtyard. Monroe reiterated that the building’s design aimed to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, emphasizing aesthetic considerations and landscaping to create a welcoming environment for residents and visitors.

Parking provisions were thoroughly examined, with the project initially proposing 30 parking spots for residents and 16 additional spots for employees of the planned coffee shop. The board debated the implications of reducing parking spaces to increase green space and enhance the visual appeal of the area. Some members suggested incorporating bike racks and electric vehicle charging stations to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The inclusion of barrier-free spaces and mechanical equipment screening was also coordinated with the TNM review.

During the public comment section, a resident named Anthony Sato expressed appreciation for the planning efforts but raised concerns about the impact on the view from his family’s property and the potential for unsightly signage. He also thanked the board for addressing privacy concerns related to second-floor balconies.

The discussion also touched on waste management, with plans for two four-yard dumpsters for recycling and general trash pick-up, to be managed by a private service and included in the homeowners’ association bylaws. Board members inquired about the durability of the screening devices and the architectural approach to landscaping, with one expressing concern about the effectiveness of the proposed screening due to the building’s height above the parking area.

Further technical discussions ensued regarding the number of parking spaces provided. It was suggested that there could be a reduction in parking spaces due to underutilization in the area and a potential shared parking agreement. The conversation included references to offsite improvements related to parking meter locations and the need for compliance with ADA requirements, necessitating the addition of an ADA-compliant parking space.

Safety measures for parking areas were debated, particularly the need for a safety island at the entrance of the garage. There was a suggestion to either adjust the island to meet the ordinance or seek a waiver. The board discussed whether to prioritize maximizing parking spaces or ensuring safety and compliance with regulations, with a consensus forming around restricting public access to the garage to prevent potential mismanagement.

Public comments reflected concerns about the parking situation in the vicinity, with residents questioning the assumptions of available parking. One resident noted that the local train station lot is often full, challenging the perceived surplus of parking. Another resident argued that developers should be responsible for providing sufficient visitor parking, emphasizing the lack of public parking options.

The board also explored the possibility of modifying the design in the future to create additional parking if needed, with one member suggesting that developers could return with a proposal to reallocate green space for parking. Concerns were raised about the willingness of property owners to support such changes.