Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Residential Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues 124–126 Pearl Street project, asks developer to revise design and unit mix
Summary
The board continued a proposal to add three stories and 12 residential units at 124–126 Pearl Street and asked the petitioner to redesign the plan to show context, consider a central corridor layout, increase two‑ and three‑bedroom units and clarify roof and trash access; a design review and historical commission comments were recommended.
The Chelsea Planning Board continued the hearing for a large proposed redevelopment at 124–126 Pearl Street after members raised questions about unit size, massing, street context and rooftop design and asked the developer to return with revised drawings.
Attorney David Mindlin represented the owners, who propose adding three stories of residential space above an existing one‑story commercial building to create 12 units (one studio and three one‑bedroom units per floor, totaling 12) with two affordable units and no on‑site parking. Mindlin said the property is transit‑oriented and cited comparable projects his clients have completed elsewhere in Chelsea.
Several board members said the proposed units were too small — one studio at roughly 360 square feet drew particular concern — and urged the petitioner to return with options that included two‑bedroom units or a reconfigured layout that could reclaim interior circulation space. One board member recommended the developer consider relocating the ground‑floor residential entrance to a central corridor between two commercial spaces to regain interior square footage for apartments and to improve balance on the facade.
Board members also requested clearer site context in the plans, including accurate depiction of the building’s non‑rectangular footprint, alley and passageway widths, neighboring building heights and the proposed roof layout (condensers, green space, access points). The historical commission and design review were identified as next steps; staff advised the petitioner of the historical commission meeting on Oct. 7.
The board continued the case to the October meeting and asked the applicant to submit revised drawings showing the requested changes, roof‑level plans for condensers/landscaping, and clarified trash and alley access arrangements. The petitioner agreed to return in October.
