Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Oriented Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers preview 16‑unit Main Street project; board endorses density but asks for refinements
Summary
Applicant previewed a 16‑unit mixed-use project near the train station at 33 Main Street; planners supported the location for transit‑oriented housing while asking the team to refine massing, the rear retaining wall and the steep site treatment.
Architect Greg Sharp and his team presented a proposal for a mixed-use building at 33 Main Street that would add 16 residential units plus one commercial space near the train station. The Jan. 9 presentation emphasized proximity to transit and downtown amenities, and included a proposed configuration of 15 off‑street parking spaces, bicycle parking and EV chargers.
Board members and staff said they support additional housing near the train station but asked the applicant to refine the project’s response to a steep rear slope and the proposed retaining wall. The applicant proposed either a built retaining wall or a column-supported structure that would allow planting to reduce the appearance of a heavy wall; several board members said a stepped planter or terraced solution would be preferable to a sheer wall.
Key points and requests - Site slope and retaining-wall design: The board urged the design team to consider terracing or planters to avoid a large, visually dominant wall and asked the applicant to study irrigation and planting viability given shade and exposure conditions. The board also asked for detailed stormwater measures for the rear collection area. - Massing and neighborhood context: The board asked the applicant to reduce visible bulk where the building rises from Main Street to the lower rail elevation and recommended further facade articulation. - Program and access: The design shows a residential lobby, off‑street parking under the building and a dedicated service corridor; a ramp provides access to the lower parking area and the applicant showed how the design would maintain a corridor and view toward the river.
Next steps: Board members recommended a joint workshop with the Board of Trustees to gather trustee input before the applicant proceeds further; the applicant agreed to submit revised materials and participate in a joint session. Planning staff advised the team to coordinate stormwater and retaining‑wall details with the village engineer before that workshop.
Why it matters: The site is transit‑oriented and proposals like this are central to the village’s downtown housing goals. The board signaled willingness to support increased downtown density but asked for design refinements to reduce the visual impact of the rear retaining features and to clarify stormwater routing.
