A proposal to replace a former commercial property along Revere Beach Parkway with housing has cleared an important step in Chelsea's development review process.

On October 27, the Planning Board approved the major site plan for a 60-apartment building at 320 Revere Beach Parkway, near Garfield Avenue, and recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the required special permit.

The project would redevelop the former Russo Tux and Limo property. Yet the Planning Board's action is not final construction authorization; additional zoning decisions remain ahead.

A Smaller Building

An earlier version proposed 67 apartments in six stories. The revised proposal contains 60 units across five stories, reducing both height and apartment count after discussions about density, parking and surrounding properties.

One important detail remains unclear. At the October 27 hearing, property owner Peter Piantidosi described the units as one-bedroom apartments, but architectural plans earlier submitted to the Zoning Board described studios averaging roughly 475 square feet.

Those descriptions differ, and the reviewed records do not establish whether new architectural drawings have reconciled them. The final unit mix should be clarified as the application moves through review.

The revised design also includes bicycle storage, a package room, a management office, maintenance space and an enlarged trash room. Landscaping, access and the building's appearance have also received attention.

Parking and Adams Street

The current proposal includes 16 on-site parking spaces, far fewer than the 90 required under the applicable zoning calculation. That shortfall is among the reasons the project needs zoning relief.

Piantidosi discussed making Adams Street one-way between Garfield Avenue and Revere Beach Parkway, potentially allowing different parking arrangements. However, changing the direction of a public street requires separate review by Chelsea's Traffic and Parking Commission.

Planning Director William Cecio explained that the Planning Board could require the applicant to pursue that review but could not guarantee its outcome. The October 27 meeting report details the board's conditions.

Affordable Housing and Design

Cecio explained that the developer could provide six income-restricted homes, three for households at 50% of area median income and three at 80%. An alternative would provide three homes for households at 30%, a deeper level of affordability.

Piantidosi said the team was strongly considering the second option, but a final selection has not been established. Board members also questioned pedestrian access, deliveries, landscaping, building maintenance and whether one elevator would adequately serve 60 apartments.

These questions matter at a site bordering a busy roadway and established neighborhood streets. A large residential building could add needed homes, but its parking and transportation arrangements remain central to the review.

The Next Decision

The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to consider the project again Tuesday, November 10. Requested relief involves parking, density, setbacks, lot dimensions and other zoning requirements.

Residents can review the earlier application coverage and the Planning Board transcript for details.

The October 27 approval was a meaningful milestone, but unresolved zoning questions mean the project is still a proposal rather than authorized construction.