The City Planning Commission (CPC), a citizen board “charged with developing the city’s plans for preservation, revitalization, and growth of the city,” met on the evening of Oct. 15. The marathon of a meeting covered multiple topics, including two controversial development proposals — 400 Elmwood Avenue and 27 E. River Street. 400 Elmwood is a mixed-use proposal, originally including residential units, a restaurant, and an auto shop on the ground floor. 27 E. River is a large residential proposal, which garnered concern from community members for a lack of community outreach in addition to its size and a request for a lowered number of parking spaces.
Here are three takeaways from the meeting, for those who could not attend.
1. Approved the 400 Elmwood Proposal, but without the Auto Shop
The proposed development at 400 Elmwood was approved, but the special use permit for the auto shop on the ground floor was withdrawn.
The developer is Eli Ayoub, who owns an auto shop nearby and is looking for a bigger space for his business.
Multiple residents submitted written testimony or spoke at the meeting to convey their support for the added housing. The concern was almost solely about the vehicle repair shop on the ground floor, with residents and commissioners worrying about traffic, parking, and quality of life.
Those who testified mentioned that the auto shop would not be in line with the goals outlined in the draft Comprehensive Plan, which will soon be voted on by the City Council.
“The proponents [of the development] have not provided any Comp Plan language or Great Streets language for how this project advances the strategic initiatives of the city,” said Dylan Peacock at the meeting.
The CPC discussed the matter, and it became clear that they would not approve the special use permit for the car repair shop, but that they were in favor of the other components of the development. As a result, Ayoub withdrew the application for the permit for the auto shop — and the preliminary plan was approved.
“I am very pleased that this site is going to be redeveloped. It has been vacant, abandoned for a long time, and I do appreciate your effort to do that,” CPC Chair Michael Gazdacko said. “I had trouble reconciling the uses… I just didn’t think it was cohesive with this land development project.”
2. Residential Development at 27 E River Receives Conditional Approval for Variances, Details Still in Flux
The other most discussed development of the evening was 27 E. River Street, a proposed residential building on the East Side near Richmond Square and Wayland. The developers Dustin Dezube and Kevin Diamond were asking for some preliminary allowances on height and a parking reduction. Diamond is also an architect.
Previous uses of the site were a gas station and manufacturing plant, and it currently sits vacant. The parcel is on the waterfront, so the land is additionally regulated by Coastal Resources.
The building would have a smaller footprint than it would on a lot located elsewhere because it is pulled back from the waterfront — still, many residents objected to the size and scale of the structure.
Dezube and Diamond run Providence Architecture & Building, Co. and have proposed other developments that have received community pushback, such as 269 Wickenden and 64 Angell Street.
Dezube and Diamond asked the CPC to grant some allowances before the plan was fully fleshed out, with components like a traffic study, unit numbers, and parking plans still in flux. Diamond explained that the rough numbers were for a 90-ft. building with 326 units and 163 parking spots. “What we have in mind here we see to be an amazing activation for this neighborhood,” Diamond said.
Dezube and Diamond were requesting variances to add height and reduce the number of required parking spots by 50%. They added that they likely would end up with more than 163 parking spots, as some would be compact spots.
“What they’re asking for is for you to green-light the additional height and the reduction in parking so that they then have a degree of predictability about what they’re allowed to build,” Deputy Planning & Development Director Bob Azar said. “It’s almost the equivalent of doing a master [plan] and then a preliminary plan.” But because the proposal is a minor land development — it doesn’t have retail — there is not typically a master plan step in the approval process.
Azar added that the massing of the structure would be similar to Emblem 125 in the Jewelry District. “There’s a price to build a building of this size,” he said. “The question is, in this market, in Providence, can you do something like this without… a crazy subsidy?”
The CPC discussed the matter at length after hearing public testimony, grappling with how the early approval for variances was an unusual request.
“I’m kind of questioning why we changed the process in this one instance,” said Commissioner Charlotte Lipschitz. “I realize that there’s a desire for more development. This is a good development, a lot of housing, and I think all that’s great.”
“It just seems like a weird one-off,” she said.
The CPC ultimately granted the height and parking adjustments conditionally, meaning they won’t go into effect officially until the finalized development plan is submitted.
But members of the public expressed strong feelings, both for and against the development, before the CPC’s vote.
3. ‘I Don’t Think So, Honey’: The East Side Divide on Proposed River Street Design
Several community stakeholders submitted materials or testified in support or opposition of 27 E. River, with concerns including scale, parking, waterfront access, the nearby conservancy, and community engagement with the design and development process.
Some worried about waterfront access, which Diamond and Dezube stated would remain easily accessible for all Providence residents, with a kayak launch being part of their proposal.
With each successive testimony, a philosophical divide among East Siders became clear — some were urbanists eagerly encouraging more density and development, while others were concerned about changing the architectural and neighborhood character of the area, in addition to potential congestion and parking issues due to an increase in residents.
Miguel Youngs, deputy director of policy for the City Council, spoke on behalf of Ward 2 Councilor Helen Anthony. She had submitted written testimony before the meeting outlining concerns about height, environmental conditions, and parking.
“She wanted to especially emphasize her alarm that there has not been much community engagement,” Youngs said on Anthony’s behalf. “She lists several neighborhood organizations that do not feel as if they’ve been engaged with on the project, especially considering its size. She says she’d be happy to host the meeting.”
Jewelry District Association President Sharon Steele was also “disappointed that there’s been no outreach to any of the neighborhoods, and particularly the organizations who have spent so much time and energy on the 45-acre adjacent Woodland Park.”
The developers had previously been in touch with the Wayland Square Neighborhood Association, said Co-President Nina Tannenwald, but had not yet set up a meeting.
“This is a very large building squeezed into a very constrained lot with access by very small roads,” she said. “It feels like they are asking you to approve things before key issues have been fully vetted. It feels a little bit like steamrolling.”
Diamond added that they had spoken with Ward 1 Councilor John Goncalves, whose ward the development technically falls into — though it is near the Ward 2 border.
“While I’m aware of this site and have briefly spoken (not met) with the developer about this project, I actually do not support its current iteration (as laid out in my letter),” Goncalves wrote in his newsletter on Saturday, Oct. 19. “Earlier this week, I did not have a thorough opportunity to review and do my due diligence on this latest proposal presented to the CPC, which I also outlined in my letter and I have followed up with my thoughts.”
At the Wednesday night meeting, resident Jennifer Laurelli said that “citizens deserve and are entitled to a voice in what happens to their neighborhoods and to the character of their city,” stating her opposition to the project.
“Neighborhood organizations don’t necessarily have defined jurisdictions,” Diamond said. But with the Jewelry District and the Fox Point Neighborhood Associations, “I’m not really sure how a property owner in the Richmond square area … should be reaching out to [organizations] which are on the other side of the city.”
Johan Tejada additionally had issues with the scale of the project. “This applicant sounds a little cocky to me,” he said. “Fairly reasonable for them to ask for this? I don’t think so, honey.” Tejada repeated that refrain, “I don’t think so honey,” as he criticized the parking and height allowances. “Come with more concrete planning and also engage the current residents,” he said.
Matt Shelling voiced support for the development, saying it was well-placed and that it would allow more people to enjoy a beautiful part of the city.
Daniel Morris also supported the project. “As everyone in this room is fully aware, our city is currently in the midst of a humongous housing crisis, to the point where so many of our residents, myself included, at times, will sacrifice over half of our [monthly] income to rent,” he said.
“I would love to see something like this approved on the East Side,” Morris added. “My rent is too much every day, and the less we support projects like this, the more our residents will pay in housing costs.”
By Katy Pickens / Planning & Preservation Writer / kpickens@ppsri.org