Paul Bass Photo
A host of downtown leaders came out publicly for Yale’s request for zoning help to erect a new six-story building on a parking lot — but their words never got into the record.
Their support came in the form of letters submitted for a hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The hearing was scheduled Tuesday night to consider Yale’s request for permission to build the 51,777 square-foot, 73-foot-tall mix of stores and student apartments on the lot at 272 Elm St. in the Broadway retail district
But the hearing never took place.
Before the meeting, Thomas Talbot, the city’s deputy director of zoning, wrote a surprise staff report shooting down all of Yale’s arguments for why it needs the zoning relief. Talbot recommended that the zoning board deny Yale’s request unless the university comes up with more evidence to support its case. Talbot recommended that Yale use its “ideal position” as a “significant presence in the Broadway business area” to submit proposed changes to the city’s zoning map or ordinance rather than seek a special exception and variance to existing rules.
That came as a surprise because until now the overall concept for Yale’s project had met with a “generally positive” initial reaction from City Plan Director Karyn Gilvarg and won praise from sometimes-critics like the Urban Design League’s Anstress Farwell, who said the proposal “sets a good example” for the city by “eliminating surface parking and zeroing out parking.” The city said the plan would also add to the tax base. (Some local landlords dissented, arguing that Yale should have students rent in the neighborhoods instead of in tax-exempt university housing. Read about that here and here.)
But, as Gilvarg noted in her previous remarks, the decision comes down to the details of zoning laws, including the need to prove hardship.
On Monday, upon the release of Talbot’s report, Yale’s attorney in this case, Joseph L. Hammer of the Day Pitney law firm, wrote the zoning board asking to postpone the public hearing one month. “The reason for this request is to afford the applicant sufficient time to address staff and other comments,” Hammer wrote.
2 Views On Parking, Competition
At issue is whether Yale needs to build a larger building than zoning laws permit, and how the plan would impact nearby businesses and parking.
Yale is asking for:
• A special exception to allow zero parking spaces on a lot that would require 145 spaces under the zoning code, 101 for the two retail floors, 44 spaces for the Trailblazer store and Maison-Mathis restaurant on the first floor of a building it owns next door on the same lot as well as for a restaurant on the first floor of another building it owns at 316 Elm St.
• A variance allowing a total floor area ratio of 2.984 rather than 2.0; and allowing the rear yard to run 16.4 at its narrowest point, rather than the 24.34 feet required under zoning law. Some of the yard will actually run 32 feet. Yale’s working with an irregularly shaped lot, which creates a hardship, Yale Associate Vice-President for Facilities John Bollier wrote in his original filing to the zoning board.
“The proposed project will bring additional retail to the area, which is essential to increase the retail density that the Broadway area needs to compete with other regional centers,” Broadway Merchants Association President Michael Iannuzzi (pictured), owner of next-door Tyco Printing, wrote to the zoning board. “I believe there is ample parking in the area to support the retail space in the new building.”
Trailblazer owner Christopher Howe, Maison-Mathis waffle impresario Omer Ipek, and Ivy Noodle owner Corren Guo wrote similar letters. Vincent Romei wrote that the Chapel West Special Services District, of which he is the president, voted on Jan. 29 in favor of the project because it “will positively impact our broader business community.”
In his advisory staff report, Talbot took the opposite view. He argued that Yale could pursue “reasonable” development without a need to exceed limits set by zoning law.
Markeshia Ricks Photo
Talbot (at right in photo with Gilvarg at a recent community meeting) also took a shot at the design: “[B]eyond the issue of hardship or difficulty in developing the parameters of the zoning ordinance it is also clear that a six-story structure on a block with structures of no more than four stories is not in character with the existing Broadway business area.” In his earlier filing, Yale’s Bollier wrote that “building facades will consist primarily of brick and glass with areas of metal accent panels.” The first and second floors, while devoted largely to retail, will also have a lobby and common area for the graduate-student tenants.
Talbot also wrote that Yale should prove that the area can “successfully accommodate” an “increase in parking demand and vehicle trips along with a reduction in available parking.” Yale’s Bollier stated in his filing that the university already has space in its overall campus parking plan for cars owned by the graduate students who’d live in the building. He added that “ample parking is available in the area to support the existing and proposed retail and restaurant uses on the Consolidated Lot as well as the restaurant at 316 Elm Street, including both on-street spaces and parking lots available to the public. In addition, a substantial portion of the patrons of the retail uses on the Consolidated Lot are and will continue to be persons who are already in the area and parked, whether shopping, dining or attending theater performances or athletic events, and these persons will not be generating new car trips or parking demand. The site is also well served by public transportation with a Yale Shuttle and a Connecticut Transit bus stop directly in front. Significant levels of pedestrian access to the site are expected form students, area residents, and visitors already in the area.”
In another letter to the zoning board, Virginia Kozlowski, CEO of the Economic Development Corporation, sided with Yale on the parking question as a matter of public policy.
“As a general point, the Downtown has benefited from infill development that replaces surface parking, which tends to detract from the vibrancy of our central business district,” Kozlowski wrote. “There have been many recent studies on this subject and the research strongly favors infill/mixed development at appropriate densities.”
Aliyya Swaby contributed reporting.