Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Uncle Sams Redevelopment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developers present sketch plan for 195-unit apartment over parking garage at former Uncle Sam's site; board accepts comments, no action taken

5771959 · August 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Developers showed a sketch-plan for a 195-unit apartment development over a first-floor parking garage at the former Uncle Sam's lot; the planning board accepted comments on design, ground-floor activation, sidewalk-column impacts and utility/easement issues but took no action.

Developers presented a sketch-plan concept to redevelop the former Uncle Sam's parking-lot site with a multistory residential building above a first-floor parking garage. Joe Danable of Environmental Design Partnership introduced the project team and concept: a one-level parking garage at street level with four floors of residential units above, about 195 units and 237 parking spaces, and a central second-level courtyard/amenity deck with landscaping, dog park and outdoor recreation space.

Architect Steve McKenzie described facade massing choices and measures to break the building into smaller visual elements using setbacks, balconies and material changes to avoid a monolithic appearance. The design includes colonnades/columns that encroach into the sidewalk zone in places; staff advised the applicant to review underground utilities and easement needs before finalizing column locations. The board and members of the public urged the applicant to provide more ground-floor activation (retail or publicly accessible amenities) rather than a fully enclosed garage, to improve pedestrian interest, and to present traffic/circulation analyses for peak AM/PM impacts and for garage queuing so cars would not back onto Fourth or Third Street.

Developers indicated they had held an earlier public workshop with city staff and would produce additional materials: detailed traffic analysis, utility mapping, engineered plans on curb/column locations and a list of required agency reviews. The board made no decision — this was a sketch-plan review only — and asked the applicant to return with engineering-level drawings, traffic studies and HRC (historic) coordination before seeking formal site-plan approvals.