The proposed development at University Drive and Amity Street aims to convert an existing commercial space into an 85-unit residential complex with commercial elements, including parking and landscaping. Tom Rey, representing the applicant, detailed the revisions made to the proposal, which now features a single building design with two curb cuts, increasing the number of units from 77 to 78 while maintaining 225 beds. The project includes 160 surface parking spaces and requires an amendment to an existing variance from the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) to increase the building height from 57 feet to 59.5 feet, necessary for passive house construction and site conditions.

Rey emphasized the importance of the planning board approving the site plan contingent upon the ZBA’s approval of the height variance to avoid delays in the project timeline. The board engaged in discussions regarding the design elements, addressing aspects such as the building facade, signage, and landscape design. Specific features, such as a sidewalk connection and the inclusion of interior bike storage, were noted as responses to prior feedback. Discussions also touched on the need for clear lighting plans to prevent spillage into nearby wetlands and ensuring pedestrian safety through well-designed access points.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to debating the zoning amendment related to footnote M, which proposes changing the density requirement for new townhouse and apartment developments. A board member expressed concern that increasing density requirements from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit would slow housing development in high-demand areas near the university, counteracting efforts to increase housing availability. The member emphasized that proximity to the university allows students to rely less on cars, aligning with broader transportation initiatives. Another member argued that increased density could protect residential neighborhoods from being overtaken by student housing, preserving the community’s character.

The board voted to recommend the zoning amendment to the Town Council, with four members in favor and one opposed.

Additionally, the board reviewed various aspects of the mixed-use development project, including affordable housing components, landscaping, and site management plans. The project is required to provide a specific number of affordable units, with some set at 80% and others at 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The board debated the distribution of these units and the feasibility of including premium features like decks in affordable units, ultimately deciding against such requirements to maintain affordability.

The conversation also covered the management of the development, including conditions for trash pickup, snow removal, and the presence of an on-site manager. The board stressed the importance of having clear conditions to ensure compliance and effective management of the site.

Other discussions during the meeting included a proposal to create a database using new permit software to aid in reporting and planning, particularly for overlay districts or unit counts. A board member suggested that this tool could enhance discussions and decision-making processes.

Traffic issues in downtown areas were another topic of interest, with suggestions to recommend that the Transportation Advisory Committee consider traffic calming measures to enhance pedestrian safety. While some members preferred to focus on core planning matters, others argued that the planning board’s visibility could bring more attention to such concerns.