South Kingstown narrows South Road School options to mid‑density cottage/townhouse plans

South Kingstown officials and consultants on Thursday reviewed three concept schemes for the municipally owned portion of the former South Road School site and signaled support for a mid‑density option that mixes small detached cottages and short townhouse strings.

The discussion focused on roughly 7–8 acres of a larger 50‑acre park parcel; the town’s planning team and consultant Union Studio presented three illustrations ranging from one large multifamily building (Option A) to a cottage community (Option B) and a hybrid of cottages plus small attached townhouses (Option C). Jeremy Lake, a principal at Union Studio, told the council the concepts were “meant to illustrate ideas, some principles, to get something on the wall to throw darts at” and to help shape a later request for proposals to select a development partner.

The hybrid option drew the broadest positive feedback from council members and advisory committees. Lake noted Option C would produce about 57 units in the study area (roughly 30 cottages and 27 townhouses) and sit between Option A (94 multifamily units; about 118 bedrooms) and Option B (46 cottages, about 138 bedrooms if built as three‑bedroom cottages). Committees that returned ranked feedback generally ranked Option A lowest and Option C or B highest; a Union Studio summary shown to councilors indicated most commissions preferred the scheme that includes a mix of unit types and a walkable, neighborhood fabric.

Council members and the public repeatedly urged preserving public access and recreation. Jamie Grama, the town’s planning director, and Jeremy Lake emphasized that the larger parcel will remain a park and that any housing concept should preserve access to the sledding hill, playground and portions of the disc‑golf layout. “Whatever we propose, make sure it still feels like it’s publicly accessible,” Lake said during the presentation. Residents at the meeting urged that new homes be pulled back from South Road and that trees and greenspace be retained as buffers between the new buildings and the roadway.

Traffic and parking were recurring concerns. Lake advised that a full traffic study and mitigation analysis would be required later in the process; councilors and neighbors said they expect higher vehicle activity on South Road and asked staff to consider traffic calming and where visitor or public parking would be placed for sledding and disc‑golf users. Union Studio used two spaces per unit as a starting metric for several schemes and noted that parking requirements materially affect feasibility and unit yield.

Council members discussed ownership models and subsidy mechanisms but did not make binding policy choices. Jim Manny, the town manager, reminded the council the project is an early visioning step toward an RFP and that the town’s next steps would include refining preferred schemes, asking the finance/developer advisor (Peregrine Group’s Eric Bush, absent from the meeting) to model costs and possible subsidy scenarios, and returning to the council with a tightened set of options. Several councilors suggested the town consider nonprofit partners or long leases (for example, 99‑year ground leases) as ways to preserve affordability.

Public comment reflected the same priorities raised during the presentation: neighbors asked that the sledding hill and disc‑golf convergence remain usable and that trees and greenspace screen new buildings. A resident identified at the podium as Kathy said she was “very glad that you ruled out A” — the single large multifamily option — and urged the council to protect recreational access as designs move forward.

Lake and town staff said they will: (1) take the council’s preference (a mid‑density mixed plan) into account; (2) work with Peregrine Group to test financial feasibility under different affordability mixes and land/infra assumptions; and (3) return with revised plans and cost outlines to guide an eventual RFP to select a development partner. No formal vote or contract award occurred at the session.

The council instructed staff to consolidate feedback and present refined alternatives that reduce perceived impacts on the adjacent neighborhood while preserving units aimed at workforce/attainable price bands. Next steps spelled out at the meeting were additional financial modeling, more detailed drawings for revised scheme(s), and another workshop for the council that will include the developer advisor’s feasibility work.