Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mid Rise Mixed Use Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions sunken courtyards, grade plane and lost height options at 215 College Avenue review
Summary
Designers for 215 College Avenue presented revised streetscape plans; the board praised the College Avenue public terrace changes but requested alternatives to sunken courtyard apartments on Linden Avenue and said the project must clarify grade-plane and variance implications for additional stories.
Designers for the 215 College Avenue redevelopment presented updated streetscape and façade concepts to the Planning Board on June 24 and received praise for improvements to the College Avenue terrace, while board members asked for alternatives to sunken lower-level apartments along Linden Avenue and sought clarity on grade-plane calculations and potential story variances.
The presentation showed a public-facing terrace on College Avenue that designers raised and softened with stepped planters and seating to create a more accessible, human-scaled zone. Project architect and team members said the terrace would be partially below sidewalk grade but now better tied to pedestrian flows with ramps and steps and would be activated by an interior amenity wall with glazed, two-level spaces overlooking the terrace.
On Linden Avenue, the design includes two shallow “window wells” that serve lower-level units. Several board members, notably Emily Petrino and Elizabeth Gaiden, questioned whether those below-grade units were appropriate and urged the team to explore moving units above grade — an alternative that would likely require a story/height variance because the site’s grade plane is measured across the whole building from College to Linden. The project team said zoning staff had cautioned against relying on additional height variances and said achieving an extra story might be a risky strategy.
Board members asked for a clear, simple comparison between the current plan and alternatives that would eliminate the below-grade units by introducing a modest retaining wall or adding a story, and for structural and zoning analysis that explains whether additional above-grade units could be achieved without an impermissible variance. The team also said they’d provide more detail on trash/bin screening and final Part 1 EAF (environmental assessment) fill-in items the board had flagged.
No vote was taken. The board generally supported the College Avenue treatment while asking the applicants to return with drawings that compare the current Linden approach to one or more alternatives (retaining wall, different distribution of units) and to supply any zoning or variance options and material samples for the next review.
