ARB continues Chase Bank proposal at 635 Mass Ave to Sept. 14 for design and bike‑parking details

The Arlington Redevelopment Board on July 20 continued public hearing docket 3907635, a special-permit application to convert the former Coldwell Banker space at 635 Mass Ave into a 4,426-square-foot Chase Bank branch, to Sept. 14 to allow applicants to provide additional design details and compliance materials.

Chair Ken Lau opened the hearing and asked planner Claire to introduce the application. Claire summarized the submission as an application by Joshua Klein of Stonefield Engineering and Design proposing exterior repairs, an ADA entrance and signage changes. Attorney John Leone, representing Chase, introduced the applicant team and described the project as a reuse of a long-vacant storefront into a bank branch. "They're hopefully gonna redo that," Leone said of the rear doorway and noted the applicants had submitted elevations, site plans and signage details.

Board members focused on three areas: long-term bicycle parking for employees, the details of masonry infill and storefront changes, and signage area. Steven Reverlach asked specifically about a long-term bicycle parking space the application referenced. Kevin Kelly of Core States Group said the building footprint and town-owned sidewalks limit options and that basement storage poses security concerns; he identified on-site short-term U‑rack parking. "There is currently bicycle parking on-site," Kelly said, but the board noted that short-term U racks do not meet the town’s long-term bicycle-storage standard.

Members asked for precise architectural drawings showing the extent of the masonry infill at the northwest corner, how the new storefront will be flashed and detailed, and a full drawing for the ADA transition and ramp. Chair Lau said the submitted civil note referencing "see actual drawings" was insufficient and asked for detail drawings that show exactly what will be removed and replaced. "Show me exactly what you're putting in, what you're gonna infill in the detail," Lau said.

On signage, board members raised concerns that the proposed third wall sign would push a tenant’s total wall signage well above the bylaw square‑footage limit. Leone said the proposed signs would be modest block lettering and not internally illuminated. The board suggested alternatives such as a blade sign or smaller wall signs if the applicant wished to retain visibility from multiple directions.

Two public commenters urged careful streetscape integration and protection for nearby street trees. Resident Steve Moore asked that lighting and facade changes be coordinated across the whole building so the new storefront reads as part of the larger structure.

After summarizing requested revisions — long-term bike parking options, masonry and ADA details, signage resized to meet square‑foot limits, and exploration of greenery or lighting in coordination with the landlord — member Steven Reverlach moved to continue the hearing to Sept. 14. The motion was seconded and carried by members present. The board said the absent member will review the hearing record and may participate in the final vote. The continuance is intended to give the applicant time to return with detailed drawings and documentation rather than to deny the proposal on its current record.

Next steps: the applicant is expected to provide cleaned-up architectural drawings for the masonry infill and storefront, a detailed ADA transition plan, options (or evidence of attempts) for secure long‑term employee bicycle parking, and revised signage graphics and sizes before the Sept. 14 continued hearing.