Developers present revised design for 215 College Ave; board questions extra story and lot coverage variances

Developers presented a preliminary design for a mixed residential project at 215 College Avenue and requested feedback on multiple variance issues tied to zoning and grade-plane calculations across MU-1 and CR-4 zoning areas.

The applicant team (identified in the hearing as Nick Roberts and Jack, with Charlie participating) described a through-block project with 91 units and what the team stated as "52 beds"; they explained the site spans two zoning districts (MU-1 and CR-4) and varies roughly 15 to 18 feet in grade between College Avenue and Linden. The team said the project is intended as market-rate, student-oriented housing and that the existing building on the site will be demolished; they reported asbestos surveys and plans to evaluate salvage reuse of materials prior to demolition.

The variance requests described by the team include a story/height variance for the CR-4 portion (the applicant said the CR-4 portion would be 1 story and 4 inches taller than the zoning definition allows when the entire through-block grade plane is applied) and two minor lot-coverage variances: about 5.67% over on the CR-4 portion and about 3.59% over on the MU-1 portion. The team said much of the measured lot-coverage overage derives from terraces, projection allowances such as balconies and roof projections and that ground-level experience would not feel overcrowded.

Board members focused on the height/story variance and the project’s visual impacts on an adjacent historic building. One member asked specifically whether the adjacent structure was a designated historic building and whether the Historic Preservation Board would issue an advisory review; staff (Megan) said she would check and that preservation comments typically go to the planning board for advisory review. Another member raised shading and material concerns, noting a dark façade facing the adjacent historic building and asked for a shade study. Several members requested a clearer narrative explaining why the extra story is required, and whether alternatives exist that would not require the variance.

On market and demolition questions, the applicant said the units would be market-rate student housing and that the existing structure would be demolished in the fall; they reported having performed asbestos surveys and exploring material salvage. Board members asked for more details on how the zoning change the common council was considering would affect the design and for economics that show how a denial of the variance would change the project’s rents or feasibility.

No formal vote was taken. The board requested follow-up materials: a shade study, a stronger written justification for the CR-4 story variance tied to grade-plane math, clearer lot-coverage calculations, documentation of any advisory review from the Historic Preservation Board or planning board, and an explanation of the project’s change in response to an upcoming common council vote. One member also asked for more economic context on the project’s sensitivity to denied variances.

Why this matters

Height and lot-coverage variances on through-block sites with large grade changes can materially affect building massing, views to adjacent historic structures and the number of permitted stories under local zoning and state building-code interpretations of grade plane.

Next steps

The applicant will return with the requested shadow analysis, revised diagrams and a written narrative on the grade-plane/height calculation; staff will verify whether the adjacent structure has a historic designation and whether the Historic Preservation Board will provide advice to the planning board.