Developers present plan for 120‑unit, mixed‑use project at Park Street; board schedules planning‑board review

Developers and their design team introduced plans for a 120‑unit residential building with ground‑floor retail at 105–115 Park Street and related parcels. The Zoning Board did not act on the application and scheduled the matter for the planning board review and a follow‑up zoning hearing.

Attorney Anthony Ross introduced the petitioner and said the project would demolish two structures and build a new podium structure with five stories of residential over enclosed parking and retail at the ground floor. Architect David Choi described the irregular site and said strict adherence to a 20‑foot rear‑yard requirement would produce awkward, unusable geometry on a corner parcel; the team therefore requested limited relief for a small rear‑yard encroachment and a one‑foot bump‑out on upper floors identified during design review. Ross and David Choi told the board the project otherwise meets height limits and most dimensional standards for the district.

The development team described the project program as 120 residential units: 95 one‑bedroom units, 15 two‑bedrooms and 10 three‑bedrooms (total 120). They said there would be 50 enclosed parking spaces across multiple levels of the podium garage accessed from Essex and Ellsworth streets, and that parking would be assigned to units and leased with parking fees. The team also said 18 units would be offered as affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary housing requirements and that the project would provide rooftop and interior open spaces, secure bicycle parking and private trash pickup. The team said mechanical equipment would be located and screened on the roof, and that the structure would be fully sprinklered and built under current codes.

John (Planning Department) and board members pressed the team on parking and traffic. The applicant said residential sticker parking would not be available to occupants of the building under the city’s parking ordinance; the applicant therefore expects parking demand to be concentrated among two‑ and three‑bedroom households and to be managed through assigned spaces and fees. Ross said the applicant will complete a traffic study for the site‑plan record; the team indicated they had engaged a traffic consultant and expected to provide the study before the planning‑board/site‑plan review.

Several board members and members of the public raised concerns about the project’s scale, retail parking for customers, pedestrian safety on the busy Broadway/Park Street corridor and the project’s effect on local traffic, particularly near a nearby school. The city manager’s office provided a letter included in the board packet noting the corridor is slated for a redesign in 2027; the applicant also said they coordinated design work with city staff during their pre‑application meetings.

The board did not vote on the project. Planning staff and the applicant agreed the case will go to the planning board (as stated in the hearing record, “you'll go before the planning board on the 25th, and you're back here on the March 11”). The record shows the board expects a traffic study, engineering and site‑plan materials at the planning‑board stage and will review parking and delivery/trash operations at that time.

Key project details on the record: 120 dwelling units (95 one‑bed, 15 two‑bed, 10 three‑bed), 50 enclosed parking spaces, 7 retail bays on the ground floor (configurable into larger bays), 18 affordable units, rooftop and courtyard open space, and enclosed back‑of‑house delivery/trash space. The applicant said parking will be assigned and leased, and that residential sticker eligibility will be restricted under the municipal parking ordinance. The board opened but did not close public comment; the applicant will return after planning‑board review for site plan and zoning hearings.