Commission continues review of large mixed‑use 24 Belden Avenue proposal after TMP and DPW comments

Developers seeking to redevelop 24 Belden Avenue proposed two five‑story additions to an existing office/retail complex to add a 99-room hotel, 102 multifamily units, and new retail while retaining significant office and retail square footage.

Attorney Adam Blank introduced the IJ Group LLC application and outlined the mixed-use plan. He said the project would add roughly 2,300 square feet to the existing footprint, include about 45,000 square feet of office and similar retail area to remain, and create 10 workforce housing units on site. The hotel component increased from an earlier 96‑room proposal to a 99‑key hotel; the residential component increased to 102 units.

Engineering and design professionals presented technical work: Vince Hines (Redniss & Mead) reviewed impervious coverage, permeable pavers and green roof area and said the proposal stays below the 90% impervious coverage maximum for the zone and incorporates permeable paving and green roofs to meet DPW stormwater requirements. Ray Sullivan (Sullivan Architectural Group) reviewed internal reuse of the structure, loading and circulation; he said the team is repurposing an underused office/retail building and outlined the proposed retail entry, hotel canopy and shared loading. Brian Dempsey (traffic engineer, DTS) explained the traffic-impact study, citing trip-generation estimates (about 65 inbound morning trips, 55 outbound; evening roughly 52 inbound/72 outbound) and said TMP counts received the night before were similar or lower than the study’s assumptions; he recommended signal timing adjustments rather than new physical improvements.

BFJ Planning and Perkins review team members—Frank Fish and Jonathan Metz—noted improvements made since their first review and recommended conditions to clarify ground-floor entrances, handicap access, landscape continuity, loading and refuse operations and screening for rooftop equipment. BFJ provided a draft list of conditions and said they considered the proposal a “clear improvement” over the existing building and recommended approval with the listed conditions.

Developers and counsel raised objections to several DPW and Transportation, Mobility & Parking (TMP) comments that they said had arrived late. Attorney Blank asked the commission not to make certain TMP/DPW interpretive comments (noting easements that may expire) conditions of approval beyond a requirement that the applicant comply with lawful easement agreements. TMP raised concerns about parking demand and requested sidewalk/curb design clarifications; the applicants argued TMP lacked authority to impose parking requirements in some zones and said the neighborhood has significant evening capacity in nearby garages and private lots.

Given the late and substantial TMP/DPW comments, the commission agreed to continue the matter to allow the applicant and TMP to meet and attempt to resolve outstanding technical and procedural differences. A motion to continue was seconded and approved by hand vote; commissioners recorded the continuation without a final substantive decision. The applicants were asked to provide written traffic responses and to follow up with DPW/TMP for clarification before the next meeting.

If approved at a future meeting, the resolution likely will include conditions recommended by BFJ, DPW and TMP sign-offs and additional details on stormwater, landscaping, handicap access and loading operations.

No final vote was taken; the commission’s continuation preserves the hearing record and schedules the item for follow-up at an upcoming meeting.