The most significant topic of the evening revolved around the severe parking shortfall associated with the proposed development. The site currently provides only three parking spaces, while the new addition would increase the demand to eleven. Efforts to secure additional parking permits from public lots were discussed, but no guarantees could be made. The applicant’s representative stated that parking for tenants would rely on public parking options nearby. The board members expressed apprehension about the impact of the added residential units on the already limited parking resources, with one member questioning the feasibility of securing designated permits.

Further complicating the parking issue was the requirement for ADA-compliant spaces. The board discussed the legality and practicality of placing an ADA space across the road, as the site itself could not accommodate such a spot. Concerns were raised about whether this arrangement would meet legal standards, with the planner noting that current commercial use does not require additional ADA spaces. The lack of on-site ADA parking brought into question the overall accessibility of the proposed development.

Architectural design and historical consistency were also at the forefront of discussions, particularly concerning the proposed fourth-floor addition. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) had raised concerns about the modern aesthetic of the new design, which includes differing window styles and materials not previously approved. The architect aimed to address these concerns by modifying the design to blend more naturally with the existing structure, though board members noted inconsistencies between the plans presented to them and those reviewed by the HPC.

The new addition’s height and density posed additional challenges, requiring variances for both. The proposed structure would exceed the allowable height limit, with the roof terrace access stairway reaching 50 feet. This necessitated a variance, as the height limit in the area is typically 40 feet. The board examined the visual impact of the increased height, particularly regarding neighboring buildings, and discussed whether the stair access should factor into the height calculation.

Density considerations were equally pressing. The proposed density of 44 dwelling units per acre exceeds the ordinance’s maximum of 25 per acre. The applicant’s planner argued that the mixed-use nature of the site justified the higher density. However, board members were concerned about how this density would affect the character of the neighborhood.

Ultimately, despite these multifaceted concerns, the board approved the proposal with conditions. These included the requirement for the applicant to engage with the HPC regarding the façade design and to comply with all zoning and engineering certifications. The applicant also needed to ensure that the air conditioning units would not obstruct rooftop access and to address ADA compliance issues as feasibly as possible.