Design review board defers decision on 1920 Alton Road mixed‑use project after hours of neighbor objections

The Design Review Board on Feb. 7 continued the application for a proposed five‑story, mixed‑use building at 1920 Alton Road to the DRB's April 4 meeting after lengthy public comment and follow‑up architectural discussion.

The applicant team — represented by Carter McDowell of Builders and Sonberg and architect Shamim Ahmed Zaliga — presented revisions the team said slimmed and lightened the building and added a full green roof. Mr. Zaliga said the design moves "to a more horizontal scale" by recessing the top floor and simplifying exterior details. "We really tried to create a more elegant, thin and light material and also scale," he told the board.

Neighbors and neighborhood representatives urged the board to deny added height. Sarah De Los Reyes, president of the Sunset Harbor Neighborhood Association, asked the board to keep the building below 70 feet and to honor the neighborhood vision the association worked with the city to prepare. "What we're asking for is that the additional 3 feet be denied so that we could at least keep this to under 70 feet," she said. Other residents and building owners described concerns about views, a canyoning effect on nearby streets, parking and construction impacts.

Applicant counsel Carter McDowell told the board the project responds to new city resiliency rules that require higher finished floor elevations for nonresidential ground floors, and to program needs for Class A office ceiling heights. Architect Shamim Zaliga told the board the three‑foot height ask supports typical Class A office floor‑to‑floor heights and internal loading and mechanical requirements. "Floor‑to‑floor heights for a Class A office building typically in this market are at a 14‑foot minimum," he said, arguing the additional height supports marketable office space.

Board members and several residents debated tradeoffs between neighborhood context and the applicant's resiliency and market arguments. Multiple board members said the revised design was a visual improvement over earlier versions but asked for additional refinements — including pulling back or removing a continuous rooftop eyebrow element, softening long vertical edges and adjusting material choices — to reduce perceived massing. Staff recommended approval of the design subject to modifications and noted the planning board has already approved a conditional use permit on the project for large‑scale office and restaurants.

After discussion the board voted to continue the application to April 4 to give the applicant time to revise the design in response to the board's comments and to provide clearer materials and dimensioned drawings for the board and the public.

The board asked the applicant to return with a clearer materials sample, revised roofline and simplified façade vocabulary and to coordinate with staff on parking, loading and public‑realm details.