Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer previews 42‑unit mixed‑use plan for 874 Main Street; trustees press parking and historic-fit concerns
Summary
Architects presented a three-story, 42-unit mixed-use concept for the former village hall site at 874 Main St.; developers said the project would provide 11 on-site parking spaces and rely on 59 spaces in the village lot. Trustees asked for alternate renderings, lower density options and parking solutions.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the committee-of-the-whole session the board reviewed a conceptual proposal for a mixed-use building at 874 Main Street.
Anders Rustin, representing the project team, described a three-story masonry-front building with retail and a corner restaurant on the ground floor and residential units on the second and third floors. The developers said the concept includes about 42 units with amenities for tenants and 11 on-site parking spaces; they said they would need to use roughly 59 spaces in the village parking lot across the street to meet code-level parking expectations.
During public comment, several downtown business owners and residents — including Jason Smith, who identified himself as manager of Station 51 — expressed support for bringing residents and foot traffic to the downtown district. Multiple trustees raised concerns about parking, the height and the design’s compatibility with the historic downtown fabric. Trustee Martinez and others urged the developers to consult the Historic Preservation Commission and the Lakes Region Historical Society before returning with revised plans.
Trustee Peterson asked whether the project could reduce density from the proposed 42 units, citing insufficient demonstrated parking and the difficulty of supporting that many apartments without additional parking capacity. Trustees suggested possible alternatives including reduced unit counts, structured parking or rooftop parking concepts, and directed the developer to provide additional renderings and parking options for further review.
No formal zoning or land‑use decision was made; the presentation was preliminary and the board asked staff and the applicant to return with more detailed plans and parking analyses at a future meeting.

