Providence City Plan Commission, April 15, 2025 meeting
Roll Call and Approval of Minutes
The meeting was called to order with a roll call of the commissioners and staff present. The commission then reviewed and unanimously approved the minutes from the March 18 meeting.
Director's Report
Planning staff provided an update on the codification of the first phase of zoning changes from the comprehensive plan. They also noted ongoing work on draft regulations regarding parking, student housing, and design guidelines.
Referral 3592: Tolling of Variances for Downtown Surface Parking Lots
The commission discussed a request to extend the validity of zoning variances for downtown surface parking lots until December 31, 2029. After hearing public testimony and discussing the timeline, the commission voted to recommend approval with a condition encouraging a pre-application submission within three years.
Referral 3593: Rezoning of 14 Brahman Street
The applicant requested a zone change from R-3 to C-2 to facilitate the development of an outdoor play area for a proposed preschool. The commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council with a condition limiting the lot's dimensional regulations to the R-3 zone.
Case 25013MI: 327 Elmwood Avenue Minor Land Development
The commission reviewed a proposal to construct a five-story, 44-unit affordable housing development with ground-floor commercial space. The commission approved the requested dimensional adjustments for height, granted a design waiver for recessed entrances, and approved the preliminary land development plan.
Adjournment
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The commission voted unanimously in favor, and the meeting was adjourned.
Speaker 0
-
And we'll start with a roll call. Start with you, Noah.
Speaker 1
-
Noel. Samson. Dave Caldwell. Miguel Casado.
Speaker 2
-
Alright. Megan.
Speaker 3
-
Megan Desanto, legal counsel.
Speaker 4
-
Robert Azar, planning staff.
Speaker 0
-
And Charlotte Lipschert, vice chair, standing in as chair tonight. I believe.
Speaker 4
-
Here, but he had to step out just for
Speaker 1
-
a minute.
Speaker 2
-
The door. Yep.
Speaker 0
-
Alright. So we will move into the approval of the minutes from the March 18 meeting. I believe you guys have all received them and had a chance to review. So are there any questions, or should we have the motion to approve?
Speaker 2
-
Move to accept the minutes. Second.
Speaker 0
-
K. We'll do a voice vote. All in favor, say aye.
Speaker 2
-
Aye. K. So the minutes are approved.
Speaker 0
-
Any nays? Any abstentions? No. We're good. So moving into the director's report.
Speaker 4
-
Okay. Just a a little update about zoning changes. So I think gosh. I'm trying to remember when we were here last. The zoning changes, the first phase of zoning changes coming out of the comprehensive plan were approved.
Speaker 4
-
They were signed by the mayor. They have been fully codified into the zoning ordinance. So, if you go online to to, the city zoning page, you'll find the new, text of the ordinance. You'll find the PDFs of the zoning maps and also the interactive GIS map has been updated. Thanks very much to left Simon for doing all of that work with a lot, and, and he he did a great job of it.
Speaker 4
-
So that and and we are already, seeing applications come in to take advantage of a lot of these new regulations. So we have now started working on the next phase, and, we've got some draft documents that we've been working on, specifically with respect to, parking to student housing, and, design regulations. So, we'll be vetting those, internally and with, the mayor's office and with the city council over probably the next month, it's possible that we'll have something to talk to you in in May about that, but, I don't wanna make any promises yet.
Speaker 0
-
Okay. So moving into agenda item number one, this is referral number 3592, the towing of variances for downtown service parking lots. Go ahead.
Speaker 5
-
Sure. Thanks, ma'am Chow. Let's give
Speaker 2
-
a quick introduction. Turn your mic up before that. Yeah.
Speaker 5
-
So thanks. This is, so this is a request to amend the ordinance, particularly article six zero four dot g dot 4 dot dot h of the ordinance, and this would pertain to downtown parking lots that are operating through variances granted by the zoning board of review. So this amendment would toll the validity of those variances until 12/31/2029. They were previously in effect till 12/31/2024, and the applicant wishes to extend that validity up till the 12/31/2029. And so the applicant's here, they can tell us more about
Speaker 1
-
the change. Okay. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. John Meencine, I'm an attorney with offices at 56 Pine Street, and I represent the applicant this evening or this afternoon, specifically PRI fourteen LLP. And this is an ordinance that was initially proposed by this applicant and several other applicants back in early part of twenty twenty and was passed in the height of the COVID.
Speaker 1
-
And the purpose of the ordinance was to extend certain parcels of real estate within the town within the city that are currently used for parking but are used as parking because of variances. In other words, they're not permitted by right under the zoning code. So as a result, these parking lots are either recognized by way of a variance or their or their existing in contravention of the zoning ordinance. And at that time, we felt that because of the market, if you will, with regards to opens to office space and and the kind of uncertainty that was going on, we wanted to memorialize by way of an ordinance the ability for these property owners to have more time, if you will, to find development proposals or find ways to either bring their property into compliance or develop them in lieu of using those properties as parking spaces. The ordinance was to well, did expire on 12/31/2024.
Speaker 1
-
And the applicant here, the petitioner is the property owner for property which is located on Fountain Street and specifically at the corner of Fountain And Broadway.
Speaker 2
-
It was
Speaker 1
-
and as we, Rhode Islanders, are familiar with, we talk about things that were in the past. This is the parcel that used to be the whole Providence police station. And this developer has a agreement with PRA to develop this parcel, but to develop specifically for the purpose of office space. The developer and PRA and the city have always believed that this parcel is a very unique parcel because of where it's situated. And the goal has been to essentially make it a gateway into Providence coming from the the western section of the of the city.
Speaker 1
-
The developer, unfortunately, has not been able to obtain a proposal or to develop an office building that would be worthy enough for the use of this parcel. So since that time, since it's acquired the parcel and since it's reached an agreement with PRA, it's used it primarily for parking. And the park parking is incidental to an an accessory use for not only not only the amp, but the Hilton hotel as well as other users. So it's not a parking that exists. It's not a parking lot exclusive to any property that's specifically and particularly owned by this petitioner, but one that's utilized as parking in general.
Speaker 1
-
And what the petitioner is is asking is for the existing tolling statute to be essentially reignited to allow it another period of of five years from commencing 12/31/2024 to 12/31/2029 to allow for an opportunity to further develop it. Also, keep in mind, this developer has been responsible. The developer has maintained continuous contact with the with the city, with PRA, giving them information and informing them as to what some of the anticipated proposals have been. We they've looked at this partial force development to alert new businesses to town, to the city, and also to maintain some existing tenants. One of which they've been actively engaging and trying to utilize for this parcel, but it just hasn't come to fruition.
Speaker 1
-
So, again, we're we're just simply asking for another opportunity to continue to utilize the parcel as parking, into, in the meantime to continue the development process.
Speaker 4
-
Madam chair.
Speaker 0
-
Madam commissioners, do you have any questions? Alright.
Speaker 4
-
Madam chair, I I can I can give a little bit more context on this? So the this is this is kind of an interesting provision of an ordinance because it relates to variances that that had been granted. And you should know that this is not the only parking lot that falls into this category. We know of at least two others, one on Waybossett Street, one on Pine Street. It used to be a practice of the zoning board of review to grant use variances for parking lots in downtown.
Speaker 4
-
And when they did this, they would often put a a time fuse on the variances, and this had been a practice that had had gone on for a number of years. But in recent years, the zoning board has,
Speaker 2
-
I I believe I believe I've got
Speaker 4
-
I can't say exactly why, but they've stopped granting these types of variances, and, they've stopped granting variances that have that have, time limits on them. So the only recourse for these property owners is to actually get something into the into the zoning ordinance, and that's that's why they're here. If if any of you were thinking, well, why didn't why don't they just go back to the zoning board and ask for a variance? That path is foreclosed.
Speaker 6
-
So is the intent to allow time for a different kind of development? Or well, the the closing of that to kind of
Speaker 2
-
push them to develop it differently. I think that
Speaker 4
-
was the idea that that these these I think the original intent of the original zoning variance variances was that, you know, perhaps, there there aren't beneficial uses for these properties at the moment. But in the case that there may be some time in the future, they wanted to to kind of keep the the property owners on a bit of a short leash, and not just give them an open ended variance. And that was that was the intent behind this more recent ordinance amendment. It has it has exactly the same effect, which is to allow them to use these properties as parking lots for a a period of time that that comes to an end. And and the hope is that there will be a beneficial use that that materializes.
Speaker 6
-
And I think you had said that you had made some presentations to the PRA.
Speaker 1
-
Yeah. We we did. Not not so much presentations to the PRA, but what we've done is yeah. We've we've kept them informed. So this is a parcel that is of of interest to the PRA.
Speaker 1
-
We've received it from the PRA. The the agreement with the PRA is to develop it for office space. I think both parties, the the petitioner, the owner of the property, PRA, the city, has concluded that this is a great spot or this is a conducive spot for office, and they wanna use it for office. There just hasn't been the proposal that they were looking for, the type of magnitude that would be necessary to develop a large scale office building on this site.
Speaker 6
-
And does the PRA have any jurisdiction or may be able to change that?
Speaker 4
-
So the the PRA definitely has the ability to to to have an effect on on what can be built there. And I will say that that, I don't I don't know if if this particular property owner has and maybe we could ask if they've approached the PRA and and asked for more flexibility in in how the property could be used for, let's say, for residential, for example. I have a sense that if they did, the PRA would be amenable to to that. I don't think this certainly, zoning doesn't restrict that parcel to to just office. And while office might be theoretically the best use for that, I don't I don't think that that residential would be out of the question for any vacant parcels in in downtown.
Speaker 4
-
Maybe that's a question for the applicant. Is is residential any more feasible than office for this Yeah.
Speaker 1
-
Site? And then that's a good question. So the from the developer's perspective, we don't think that this parcel lends itself to residential. I think it's more of a of a of a office building. Can we do residential on the parcel?
Speaker 1
-
Yes. Is the is residential consistent with the surrounding area and part of the fabric of that section of of of Providence? Yes. But this developer is focused on maintaining it as an office building, and that's that's been the goal. And that's been the primary discussion it's had with PRA.
Speaker 1
-
We haven't approached PRA with the the proposal of a residential, a 100% residential, but we would be open minded to a a mixed use, a a type of residential with office with retail. But, again, the the driving factor is the office part of it. And so it's it's we don't wanna make this the tail wagging the dog where it's residential built for purposes of hoping that office comes. We want it to be the opposite where it's office with with residential being a small component of it, but the residential wouldn't be enough to to drive the development because this would and this
Speaker 2
-
is gonna be a large scale development. And this is
Speaker 1
-
the developer that has that has already done hotels and has done other residential downtown. So it's not like it's not something they that they don't don't can't do or don't want to do. It's just something that doesn't fit the fabric of what they wanna do for that spot.
Speaker 0
-
Bob, maybe you can talk a little bit because I think this affects three parking lots in terms of setting a precedent, but we're really only talking about one here. So