Howe Street Project Lauded, Shrunk To 44 Units

At a time when new downtown apartment building proposals invariably spark controversy, one plan has met with an outpouring of neighborhood support, and only a touch of leeriness.

That unusual moment unfolded Tuesday night at the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).

It had a lot to do with familiarity with the principals engaged in the project as well as a consensus that one of any development’s bugaboos, parking, seemed not to be an issue at this particular location

The project in question was a proposal to construct a six-story building, consisting of 44 market-rate apartments on the currently under-utilized parking lot at 104 Howe St., on the northern side of thoroughfare quite close to the corner of Elm.

Speaking on behalf of the owner of the lot, Nicholas Falker, and the District’s Eric O’Brien and his Urbane New Haven design firm, attorney Ben Trachten said the project needs no relief except permission to provide 22 on-site parking spaces where 40 are required, and along with that permission forego providing a required loading space.

At Wednesday night’s City Plan Commission meeting, where commissioners voted unanimously in support of the requested parking relief, Trachten explained that the developer originally envisioned this project be significantly larger with at least 60 apartments. But that level of density would have required a zone change, which alders and local historic preservationists, he said, were reluctant to support.

Twelve people spoke enthusiastically on behalf of the project on Tuesday. Thirteen letters of support and a petition were submitted. Only one young man, a Yale undergraduate, opposed. No vote was taken because the BZA first discharges all proposals pertaining to parking to the City Plan Commission for a hearing. Now that that latter hearing has taken place, the proposal will return for a final vote up or down at BZA next month.

Terming the lot ​“probably the only large undeveloped parcel in this part of town,” Trachten asserted the lot is significantly under-utilized with only 15 to 20 cars in it daily, even after the recent return of Yale students, faculty, and other staff.

Trachten argued that the enormous amount of public transit available, and many on-street parking spots that are very often free, and the fact that graduate students and people moving downtown to an area such as 104 Howe St., do so precisely to live their days as much as possible unencumbered by an automobile.

“The surface parking lots are supposed to be used for infill according to our [that is, the city’s] comprehensive plan,” he concluded.

He said the project has the support of many local organizations, including the community management team, the Chapel West Special Services District. District business director Brian McGrath formally represented that group’s enthusiasm. ​“We’re very pleased with the project. We only hoped it might be 60 units, not just 44,” McGrath said.

Realtors, local business people, and some neighbors loyally trooped to the microphone and underscored the points Trachten had made, especially about parking not being a concern.

Some cautionary points of concern were expressed by Olivia Martson and Florita Gillespie of the Dwight Community Management Team, with a call for even less parking.

The street level of the proposed building in the plans thus far is designated for covered parking and ​“a common amenity space.” With even fewer cars to house, that space might be better used for office or commercial space along Howe Street, Martson suggested.

Both she and Gillespie said their continuing support for the project is contingent on 104 Howe’s principals bringing their evolving plans to the management team especially as concerns the look of the facade and the quality of materials. The latter need to be ​“lasting and a complement to the neighborhood,” said Martson .

Only one truly negative voice was raised. It belonged to Yale College junior Rasmus Schlutter. He called the units to be developed inappropriate in a neighborhood that statistically has much poverty. ​“It’s totally inaccessible to the working class residents,” he declared. ​“Developers are interested in profits, not the needs of residents.”

Another neighbor said that while she in principal supports the project she is concerned that it calls for borrowing the loading zone in front of the adjacent Seabury Co-ops at the corner of Elm. ​“There are a lot of bicyclists and pedestrians,” she said, and sight lines might be compromised with large trucks regularly parked at the corner.

“We’ll go to City Plan for loading zone, and, of course, also for bicycle racks,” said Trachten.

After the BZA takes its vote on the requested parking relief next month, the project will also have to come back to the City Plan Commission for site plan review.

Thomas Breen contributed to this report.