Zoning Board of Review

[jencoleslaw]

Did you compare these alleys to Cathedral Square with a straight face?

not that straight, but my point, i think, still stands. If streets are still useful then they shouldn't be abandoned, and the idea that without these abandonments this project will simply whither away is silly. the city council abandons paper streets, wacky dead-ends and streets no has traveled on in years all the time. But city streets that are still in use shouldn't be abandoned for a private development project, especially one that hasn't even yet gone before zoning to get the seemingly endless string of variances it needs. Development projects have to make it work in many cities around the country, there's no reason why developments in Providence should be any different, should there?

[Garris]

At Wayland:

...with 3 units on the 4th floor, instead of the 4 that were first requested. It allows sunlight to enter the northern windows of the building to the south of the project. Pushing for 3 stories rather than 4 is nuts, but I think that asking for setbacks and taking into account neighbors is reasonable.

First of all, I live in that "building to the south of the project" and I have absolutely zero idea what my neighbors were talking about with "sunlight to enter the northern windows." It's a northern exposure. That building could be 1/4 stories tall or 400 stories tall, and it won't influence sunlight there. I know because I have a bedroom that looks smack at that property...

That said, do I think that was worth an uglier building with a setback? No... At least with its full 4 stories, the building's architecture was cohesive and made some type of sense in a neo-New England fashion. Now, the proposal looks busier and "fiddled with." Even if I knew nothing of the history of the project, I'd look at the top floor and say, "what's up with that?" and figure it was some type of arcane zoning rule that forced it.

This discussion too is somewhat academic since, last I heard, this building still needs a zillion variances to happen even in its most conservative incarnation. I haven't heard anything of a timetable for knocking down the Gibbs building, let alone starting a new one, as yet.

Thankfully, I have the gorgeous and respectful condo conversion of the victorian apartment house across the street to drool at while the fate of the Gibbs Building gets worked out...

- Garris

[lld]

This discussion too is somewhat academic since, last I heard, this building still needs a zillion variances to happen even in its most conservative incarnation. I haven't heard anything of a timetable for knocking down the Gibbs building, let alone starting a new one, as yet.

it's a good project, has all of the approvals it needs, and should get rolling this spring, as i understand it.

[DavidSegal]

INCLUSIONARY ZONING FORUMS, ON THURSDAY

http://rifuture.org/blog/?p=1565

This Thursday there will be two presentations of a proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance for Providence.

Inclusionary Zoning

[Cotuit]

INCLUSIONARY ZONING FORUMS, ON THURSDAY

It's on the calendar.

[ruchele]

I couldn't make it to the IZ hearings. I'd love to hear the take of anyone who did.

[jencoleslaw]

i was dismayed that only a handful of city council members (luna, aponte, lombardi, williams, segal) were there, even though i know some of the others were in the building. It was a good presentation even though the sound is horrific in the city council chambers. I wonder if the zoning board of the review and the CPC and some of the other boards should either get the same presentation or at least a hand out explaining what it is and the benefits. What would have made this a more compelling presentation would have been pictures, i think, of developments in other city in which IZ had been used so show that it isn't any different looking than anything else. The powerpoint presentation was very wordy...

ymmv

[DavidSegal]

i was dismayed that only a handful of city council members (luna, aponte, lombardi, williams, segal) were there, even though i know some of the others were in the building. It was a good presentation even though the sound is horrific in the city council chambers. I wonder if the zoning board of the review and the CPC and some of the other boards should either get the same presentation or at least a hand out explaining what it is and the benefits. What would have made this a more compelling presentation would have been pictures, i think, of developments in other city in which IZ had been used so show that it isn't any different looking than anything else. The powerpoint presentation was very wordy...

ymmv

Kalima's report will be up on the web pretty soon, and I'll pass it along as soon as it is.

BTW- the overnight parking pilot is finally finally getting going -- there's a neighborhood meeting on the south side coming up next week.

[DavidSegal]

One of the more striking details of the report is that if we'd implemented the proposed IZ plan 5 years ago, we'd have about 500 additional units of affordable housing in Providence today. Hopefully the boom's not too far behind us...

[oak]

The April Providence ZBR hearings were advertised today. The 3 cases below will be of interest to people on UP.

jencoleslaw, is the Brown & Ives case appearing before CPC too?

Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Review will be in session in the Probate Court Room, fifth floor City Hall, on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 5:00 P.M. and 6:30 P.M.

52 VALLEY STREET, LLC, OWNER AND THE ARMORY REVIVAL COMPANY, APPLICANT: 52 Valley Street, Lot 573 on the Tax Assessor

[Garris]

Thanks for the zoning updates!!

52 VALLEY STREET

I don't know this area well enough to comment...

STORAGE CENTER PROVIDENCE, 125 Poe Street

I'm against this! Anything we can do to make life as miserable as possible for these billboard owners and the blight they create is OK with me...

BROWN & IVES LAND COMPANY, 21 East River Street,

proposed construction of an eight-story multi-family residential building containing 74 dwelling units with structured parking. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance and seeks relief from regulations governing the maximum height restriction, which is three-stories at 45 feet, the applicant proposes eight-stories at 106 feet; regulations governing roof structures, whereby, the proposed roof structures would not exceed 50 percent of the roof area, regulations limit roof structures to cover not more than 33 percent of the roof area; and the lot coverage restriction, which is 40 percent, the new structure would occupy no more than 55 percent of the lot. The lot is question contains approximately 88,973 square feet of land area.

Now this is really, really rediculous. For those of you for whom the address doesn't ring a bell, this tower is proposed for the Richmond Square blocks of Wayland Square. The East Side NIMVOP's will come out in force against this one, and in this particular case, they'll be right on the money. I had heard at the last Wayland Sq meeting that perhaps the neighborhood there was making some progress with developers in potentially reducing height and introducing some neighborhood-defining retail, but this suggests very much the opposite. If so, the neighbors will feel angry and betrayed, and rightfully so...

- Garris

PS: What does an area have to have to be defined as a "Square?" I've been looking at the squares in Cambridge, Somerville, and Wayland Sq and Richmond Sq here, and I don't see any organizational similarities at all...

[jencoleslaw]

i think that East River thing came before the CPC last month, but i missed the meeting because i had/have a broken foot and couldn't get around easily then. I suspect, that if it is now before the ZBR that it got master plan approval. My beef was that the parking lot went Right Down To The River. I do not believe that in any scenario, urban, suburban or rural should there be parking lots ON THE RIVER.

I am curious to know what the Planning department's recommendations are for this thing and if Thom doesnt' post i'll see if i can find out.

[basachs]

52 Valley St

I don't know this area well enough to comment...

This is the building right next to The Plant project. If you go down Valley street now, it seems as if The Plant also encompasses this building, but it is really two seperate projects. Both projects are being done in coordination with Streuver however. The project is listed on the Armory Revival's website. www.armoryrevival.com, under Current Projects.

Overall, a good project that contributes to the rapidly changing Valley St.

[brick]

i think that East River thing came before the CPC last month, but i missed the meeting because i had/have a broken foot and couldn't get around easily then. I suspect, that if it is now before the ZBR that it got master plan approval. My beef was that the parking lot went Right Down To The River. I do not believe that in any scenario, urban, suburban or rural should there be parking lots ON THE RIVER.

I am curious to know what the Planning department's recommendations are for this thing and if Thom doesnt' post i'll see if i can find out.

So this will be another one where the only leg anyone has to stand on is height.

I think 8 stories wouldn't be bad there if done correctly. I really don't think it would be too intrusive. The problem is that these guys don't want to do it correctly. As it stands, this is a gated community with no attachment to the rest of the city, nevermind neighborhood.

the Parking lot that already abuts the river there is kind of a travesty. I can't believe someone wants to pave over more.

[jencoleslaw]

This is the building right next to The Plant project. If you go down Valley street now, it seems as if The Plant also encompasses this building, but it is really two seperate projects. Both projects are being done in coordination with Streuver however. The project is listed on the Armory Revival's website. www.armoryrevival.com, under Current Projects.

Overall, a good project that contributes to the rapidly changing Valley St.

if i remember correctly the problem with this is that the plant basically took their parking to satisfy their zoning requirement, and now this new project needs a major parking variance to go forward as a result.

[basachs]

yeah, I am curious as to how they will handle that. 14 spaces for 25 lofts and 2000 feet of commercial space? There is nowhere to park there. Isnt there a vacant lot right next to the building? They have blocked it up since construction began on The Plant, but it looks like it can hold more than 14 spots. Wonder who owns that?

[Thom]

Staff has not completed their review of these three requests and I like to see their thoughts before I comment, however, since Jen asked I will give a few comments.

52 Valley is not subject to Land Development review, however, it is tied closely with the development at 50 and 60 Valley. The developers are working to resolve the parking problems for all three developments. As for increased density it is a department policy that any one who asks for more units must make 65% of the increased density affordable. They want 4 more units, so we will recommend approval subject to 3 being affordable.

I hate billboards.

21 East River was approved by the CPC over staff objection. Staff will most likely reiterate its objections to the ZBR.

[eltron]

As for increased density it is a department policy that any one who asks for more units must make 65% of the increased density affordable. They want 4 more units, so we will recommend approval subject to 3 being affordable.

But this is just planning dept. recommendation, correct? The ZBR can and is granting variances without affordable housing units attached.

I like the policy, though...

[jencoleslaw]

Staff has not completed their review of these three requests and I like to see their thoughts before I comment, however, since Jen asked I will give a few comments.

21 East River was approved by the CPC over staff objection. Staff will most likely reiterate its objections to the ZBR.

Grrrrrrrrr. i hate missing meetings.

[JimmyGreaves]

Unfortunately, we have no power under the exisitng zoning to require that the building be built to the street edge.

The issue regarding the Charles Street Hotel setback could be solved by only changing the section of the zoning ordinance so that developers are required to build to the property line regardless of zoning type. This was done a couple of years ago when a developer who built the property housing Aspara on Hope Street designed the structure with a setback allowing off-street parking in front of the building. Thanks to that change in the ordinance, all Main Street type overlay developments must be built to the property line. In the case of developments similar to the Charles Street Hotel, there would be enough curb cutouts for cars entering and exiting the hotel parking area in the rear, plus provisions for loading docks if necessary. I think the public would support this change as their concern with the zoning ordinance change revolved around height and density. I think all City of Providence planners feel that developments with setbacks with parking in front detract from a building, and this would be a simple way of solving that.

[JimmyGreaves]

MAYOR, COUNCIL ANNOUNCE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS FOR SHAPING THE FUTURE OF PROVIDENCE NEIGHBORHOODS

Yeeeeeeessssss!!! Let the games begin. Finally, we have the opportunity to shape the development of Providence for the next 20 years.

[damus]

MAYOR, COUNCIL ANNOUNCE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS FOR SHAPING THE FUTURE OF PROVIDENCE NEIGHBORHOODS

Yeeeeeeessssss!!! Let the games begin. Finally, we have the opportunity to shape the development of Providence for the next 20 years.

I hope the people of Providence are willing to encourage medium density (i.e. 3-6 stories) mixed use developments along all the major roads cutting through the city's neighborhoods (i.e. Broadway, N. Main, Allens, Valley, Chalkstone, Smith).

[Baines]

I hope the people of Providence are willing to encourage medium density (i.e. 3-6 stories) mixed use developments along all the major roads cutting through the city's neighborhoods (i.e. Broadway, N. Main, Allens, Valley, Chalkstone, Smith).

Absolutely agree. It is so crutial to both creating and maintaining a logical movement of increased density from the city's neighborhoods to the downcity via the major transportation routes. It provides population growth, vibrant sidewalk activity, developer interest and investment, and economic health.

All with the caveat that the city provide the infrastructure support capability...police-good, fire-excellent, public works-fair/good, education-fair, etc. So with the opportunity comes the challenge.

[JimmyGreaves]

August 22nd and 29th Zoning Board of Review Agenda

http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffi.../2006/28635.pdf

http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffi.../2006/28799.pdf

[JimmyGreaves]

There's a ZBR meeting on the 29th. Anybody planning on going? I heard Garris has so much fun there on the 22nd he's camping out starting tonight so he can get a front row seat.