Planning board asks DRB to weigh in after debate over height of Building 7 at JW Hemingway site plan

Matt Robson, an applicant representative with the LA Group, presented a site-plan application for the JW Hemingway development, a 1.86-acre proposal between Nelson Avenue and Frank Sullivan that would place 12 residential units and a multistory mixed-use structure near the racetrack. Robson described Buildings 16 as single-family homes, Building 7 as a multi-story building with four residential units and a small commercial space of up to 1,000 square feet, and on-site stormwater infiltration, porous pavers and gated entrances for residents.

The planning board immediately focused on how the project affects the racetracks historic settings and sightlines. "I was concerned about the height of Building 7," said a board member who reviewed the plan, "but after looking at the plan I think its appropriate," reflecting varied opinions around the table. Another member said the proposal sets a "dangerous precedent" if buildings are allowed as tall as the track and urged the board to preserve that landmarks visual prominence.

Staff reminded members that the city council, which acted as lead agency in a SECRA negative declaration, adopted the PUD with certain maximums and that the planning boards site-plan review must be grounded in site-specific evidence tied to the boards approval criteria. "Originally, the request was 65 and it was reduced to 55," staff said of the height request, noting the council adopted a reduced maximum but left the PUD language as a maximum rather than an absolute.

Board members said they lacked the comparative elevations and sightline drawings necessary to judge visual impact and compatibility. Several asked that the applicant provide the elevations recently submitted to staff, and the board voted to request a Design Review Board advisory opinion narrowly focused on massing, scale and context under the boards site-plan compatibility standard. The board also asked the applicant to provide: comparative elevation drawings against the 1863 building and the grandstand, landscaping renderings showing street-front conditions on Frank Sullivan and Nelson, materials and color samples, fence specifications and confirmation of sidewalk width (members suggested a 6-foot option for Frank Sullivan).

Robson said the detailed landscaping plan and some renderings are in the packet but acknowledged the elevation sheets had just been submitted and may not have been available to all members. Staff and the applicant agreed to provide the outstanding materials before the boards next meeting.

Next steps: the board will request the DRB advisory opinion, review the comparative elevation drawings and receive outstanding departmental comments before making a final site-plan decision.