Thomas MacMillan Photo
The developer of a controversial 136-unit Chapel West apartment building agreed to postpone his planned project by a couple of months. He agreed to add add some more brick to the facade and put awnings on the first floor.
But he’s not budging on the amount of parking, or on his plans to take down a historic house.
Randy Salvatore (pictured) made those positions clear at a meeting of the Dwight Community Management Team meeting Tuesday evening. He showed up to pitch his plan to build a large new apartment building at the corner of Chapel and Howe streets.
On a 53,000-square-foot lot made up of what is now three separate properties, Salvatore hopes to build a five-story apartment building with a retail space on part of the first floor. He’d finance the project privately, with no public money or tax breaks, he said.
The area now comprises a parking lot (pictured) and three historic houses, two of which Salvatore proposes to renovate. The other house, at 1249 Chapel St., would be torn down.
Salvatore first pitched his plan to the general public last month at a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), where he put in a request for 10 different zoning variances. The BZA is scheduled to vote on that next week.
Salvatore had some strong support at the BZA meeting. He also faced some stiff neighborhood opposition from neighbors concerned about too much or too little parking, among other objections. The opposition followed the proposal to its next public airing at the City Plan Commission a week later, where the tenants of 1249 Chapel testified against the plan.
On Tuesday night, Salvatore addressed some of the concerns that have been raised about his proposal, but made it clear that he’s not going to change some key components.
Most notably, Salvatore volunteered to delay submitting a site plan for review by the City Plan Commission by two months so that he can sit down with neighbors and work on addressing their concerns.
Dwight Alderman Frank Douglass is also pushing for a public hearing on the plan. He has submitted a proposal to that effect to the Board of Aldermen.
Several dozen people braved pouring rain to hear Salvatore’s pitch Tuesday evening, delivered in the gym of the Amistad school on Edgewood Avenue.
Salvatore said he’s trying to balance community needs with “economic feasibility.” He said he’s confident he can get bank financing — with his own equity — behind the plan as it is. That includes demolishing 1249 Chapel (pictured), he said. If the house stays where it is, “we couldn’t build the project.”
Salvatore said he tried to buy the property on the other side of 1249 Chapel but was outbid. He said he’s heard “through the grapevine” that the people who did buy have not been able to finance the construction they were looking to do.
“If I can acquire that property, I’ll relocate the house over there,” he said. “I can’t let it stay where it is if this project is to go forward.”
He said if anyone wants to move the house, he’d donate the money he was going to pay for demolition towards the cost of relocation.
Salvatore said he’s changed the plan for the first floor of his building so that the facade would better conceal the parking there. He said he’d put up “canopies” to make it look more like retail space. There would be lit windows, possibly with photos in them, he said.
If it turns out after construction that the planned 90 parking spaces is more than is needed, the first-floor space could easily be converted into retail, Salvatore said.
He showed off some new renderings depicting added brick on the building’s corners, which he said was a request of some neighbors.
He promised to sit down with a group of people who are still concerned, not to meet all their demands, but at least to tell them why he can’t.
“I’d love to become an active part of this community,” he said. “I have no desire to be an adversary to anyone.”
During a question-and-answer period, 1249 Chapel tenant Akimi Palitz (pictured) asked Salvatore why he can’t build taller and narrower, thus sparing her home.
Salvatore replied that it wouldn’t be economically feasible. If the building were any taller, it would need to be made entirely of steel and concrete, increasing his construction costs by 50 percent, he said.
Susan Bradford, who owns the apartment building next door on Howe Street, asked if Salvatore would retain ownership of his building after it’s up.
“It’s not my intention to sell,” Salvatore replied. He said that “at certain times you exit” when “markets dictate,” but that he has no plans to do so.
Neighbor Olivia Martson (pictured) raised concerns about a “dead zone” on the street, where there would be no retail, only parking on the first floor.
“I can’t have less than 90 spaces,” Salvatore said. The bank won’t finance the project with fewer spaces, he said. “My opinion on that is not going to change.”
The alternative is to have the parking lot sit there for another 35 years, Salvatore said.
Florita Gillespie (pictured), chair of the management team and a champion of the new building, volunteered to set up a meeting between Martson and Salvatore and others. “Let us move forward,” she said. “We want to make our community a livable nice place to live and work.”
What about the BZA vote next week? Martson asked.
Carolyn Kone, Salvatore’s lawyer, said that can’t change. The BZA has already heard all the public testimony it will hear and will go forward with the vote.
“We want you here,” Martson told Salvatore as the meeting ended. “It’s not like we don’t want you here.”
Celeste Greer, who lives in 1249 Chapel, said she found the meeting frustrating. Palitz, her housemate, agreed. She said Salvatore is refusing to make needed changes to his plan, while using the threat of walking away and leaving the neighborhood with a parking lot as leverage to force his vision through.
Bradford said she’s still hoping the BZA will vote to deny the variance requests. If the board doesn’t, she’ll probably appeal the decision, she said.
“Nothing is going to make everyone happy,” Salvatore said. “Unfortunately some people just don’t like change.”
Let me just say it (because it's the kind of thing people don't write in comments): this is good news.
I have trouble believing the bank would not agree to give up a few parking spots though if the developer pushed for it.