A proposed mixed‑use project at 240 Greenwich Avenue drew extensive design scrutiny and a demand from the Planning & Zoning Commission that the developer and Historic District Commission (HDC) refine the building’s façade, materials and streetscape treatment before returning for a final decision.

Applicant 240 GA LLC presented plans for a project that would add an HO (historic overlay) designation for the bank building at 240 Greenwich Ave and construct a new 12‑unit residential building with two levels of below‑grade parking and roughly 2,500 square feet of additional office space in the existing bank structure. The developer emphasized prior iterations and meetings with the Historic District Commission and neighbors; HDC provided a conceptual endorsement and asked the applicant to return with more detailed renderings and preservation easement language.

Commissioners and several members of the public raised consistent concerns: the new rear building’s brick massing and darker materials do not sufficiently reference the limestone and rounded fenestration of the historic bank façade, the West Elm streetscape needs more cohesive street‑tree and landscape planning, and the parking/traffic equation requires clearer documentation. Commissioners said they wanted more visible reference to the protected front building so the new building reads as part of the same campus rather than a separate modern object.

Traffic consultant Steve Cipolla of Hardesty presented trip‑generation estimates. He reported that the proposed 12 residential units would generate a small number of vehicle trips in a single commuter peak hour (roughly five peak‑hour trips after transit proximity credit) and that the project’s on‑site parking plus contract spaces would satisfy the commission’s parking calculation under CGBR rules for buildings over 15,000 square feet, but commissioners asked for a clearer parking table showing how spaces are allocated to residential and commercial uses and which off‑site spaces the developer will rely on.

Architect Kevin Molnar and the applicant’s team told commissioners they had worked with HDC on proportions and materials and had provided HDC with field visits and mockups. Commissioners asked for additional visuals, materials samples and three‑dimensional street sections showing how the new building aligns in height and rhythm with the bank and adjacent buildings on West Elm. Several commissioners asked staff to circulate a short written list of the commission’s design concerns to HDC and to the applicant before the next submittal so the applicant can respond directly.

Neighbors including the Harborview condominium association told the commission they had negotiated toward a settlement and expressed conditional support for the revised plan. Commissioners asked for clearer phasing, a parking allocation table, DPW and fire‑department sign‑offs, and additional detail on street trees and long‑term maintenance of landscape elements before the commission schedules a final vote.

The commission did not take a final vote and instructed applicant and HDC to refine design details, return with clearer parking documentation and provide requested engineering sign‑offs; staff agreed to gather prior commission decisions on the front/rear building line and FAR practice to inform the next review.