Alexander Development Group gave a design presentation to the local review board on a proposed 21‑story residential tower at 140 East Prospect Avenue, describing a podium with retail, three levels of parking and a tall residential tower above. The project team said the building would include ground‑floor retail (described in the presentation as about 6,000 square feet), three floors of parking and a collection of rooftop resident amenities; the presentation emphasized streetscape improvements, new street trees, directional and recessed canopy lighting, and a plaza notion at the corner facing the train station.

Board members and staff pressed the project team for follow‑up details on public‑realm and technical items. Questions centered on burying or reconfiguring existing overhead power lines, the durability and attachment of metal panel and porcelain panel systems on the tower base, the proposed street‑tree species, how wayfinding would link the site to the train station and nearby commercial blocks, and the building’s parking supply and loading/valet arrangements. The project team said they are in conversations with Con Edison about burying lines “if costs and coordination are reasonable” and described a sustainability approach that they said includes high‑efficiency systems, LED lighting, water‑efficient plumbing fixtures and an interest in Passive House / high‑performance building strategies; they also said the building would be all‑electric.

The presentation team described façade goals that use traditional materials—brick at the podium, metal panels and glazed residential bays at upper levels—and showed diagrams of setbacks and stepped massing intended to create plazas, recesses and a pedestrian corridor toward the station. The landscape architect said the design proposes additional in‑street trees and expanded sidewalks on Portugal and Prospect and that planting selections would be native or adaptive species to limit watering needs. The team said they are considering stormwater/rainwater capture as a potential option and referenced previous public art competitions run by the developer on other projects as a precedent for an on‑site art feature.

Board members raised concerns and suggestions: confirm engineered attachment and long‑term finish warranties for metal panels, provide more detail on proposed plant species and irrigation strategy, provide a final parking count and clarify how deliveries and ride‑hail/Instacart activity would be handled so they do not impact curbside circulation. One member asked for wayfinding elements to better connect the plaza and train station to Prospect’s commercial corridors. The project team estimated parking in broad terms during Q&A (a figure in the presentation alternatives was cited in discussion as roughly “206–226” spaces) but did not present a single final parking tally to the board during the meeting.

No formal vote or board action was taken; the item was presented and discussed, with the board requesting supplemental documentation and refined materials to return at a future meeting. Next steps described by the project team included continuing coordination with Con Edison and city engineering on utilities, providing detailed material samples, lighting cut sheets and engineered attachment details for metal panels, and finalizing planting and stormwater strategies for subsequent submissions.