Planning Board approves Boylston Properties 12‑story apartment at 745 Concord Avenue

Cambridge Planning Board members voted unanimously April 15 to grant special permits for a 12‑story residential project at 745 Concord Avenue proposed by Boylston Properties.

The project team told the board the building would contain 236 residential units, include 248 long‑term bicycle parking spaces and 15 short‑term vehicle spaces, and create roughly 13,100 square feet of new open space—about 6,500 square feet of it publicly accessible. The developer also described an aggressive transportation demand management program (TDM) that includes Bluebikes memberships, an on‑site micro‑mobility fleet, incentives for MBTA use and a two‑vehicle EV car‑share for residents.

Why it matters: This is the first residential project to come before the board under the recently adopted Alewife Overlay Quadrangle zoning and the city’s multifamily zoning changes. The board’s action permits the developer to proceed with project review special permits and related waivers that are intended to manage the built form in the Alewife district while advancing housing production.

Project basics and developer presentation Andrew Capalotti, principal with Boylston Properties, said the team proposes a 12‑story building and described the proposal as the first new residential project under the Alewife overlay. "We're excited to present the first new residential project that utilizes the recently adopted Alewife overlay zoning. This project is a testament to that zoning and the feedback and guidance we've received from the talented team at CDD," Capalotti said.

The project team reported 236 units in total; the team said 47 of those units would be income‑restricted affordable units and that 89 were market‑rate units as stated in the presentation (the presentation did not specify how the remaining units would be categorized). The design team called for 13,100 square feet of on‑site open space (6,500 square feet publicly accessible), 248 bicycle parking spaces and 15 short‑term vehicle spaces at the rear of the property.

Zoning, permits and waivers sought City and project counsel outlined the set of approvals the board was asked to grant: a project review special permit under section 19.2(o) of the Cambridge zoning ordinance, special permits associated with the Alewife overlay, a waiver to reduce an intermediate side yard setback from 15 to 10 feet along one property line, authority to locate five at‑grade parking spaces within five feet of the rear property line under section 6.44.0.1(b) (a parking setback modification), and a prospective exemption from green‑roof area requirements under section 22.35 should rooftop mechanical needs prevent the project from meeting the required green‑roof percentage (in that event the applicant said it would make the ordinance’s unit‑price contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust).

Transportation and neighborhood concerns Scott Thornton of Vanasse & Associates summarized the project's Transportation Impact Study (TIS). The TIS, certified by the city's Traffic, Parking & Transportation staff on Dec. 19, conservatively estimated about 46 morning peak hour and 53 evening peak hour vehicle trips generated by the building. Thornton said the study identified eight special‑permit indicators that currently exceed city thresholds, but that those exceedances reflect existing conditions rather than project impacts.

Adam Shulman, a planner from the city's Transportation Department, explained that the TIS cannot incorporate trip estimates from projects that have not yet submitted their own traffic studies. "Generally, when there's projects being scoped for a TIS, they're required to incorporate traffic expected from other projects that have already been approved or proposed. Because the Healthpeak project hasn't officially submitted an application, ... we can't ask this project to incorporate data that doesn't exist," Shulman said.

Public commentators focused on parking, traffic and environmental impacts. Anne Tennis, a Highland neighborhood resident, told the board: "Boylston Property proposes a 12 story apartment building at 745 Concord Avenue, but it will only have 15 parking spaces on‑site. This is a nightmare for many reasons." Other comments raised concerns about potential overflow parking in nearby residential streets, light and sound impacts, combined sewer overflow into Alewife Brook, and demand for family‑sized units.

Project mitigation The developer emphasized a broad TDM program to reduce single‑occupant vehicle use and planning for car‑free living, including: - Membership in the Alewife TMA shuttle; subsidized MBTA passes (two months at 100% subsidy was noted for residents as an initial measure); - Bluebikes memberships and a private e‑mobility fleet for residents; - On‑site bike room with repair stations and e‑bike charging; - An EV car‑sharing program with two vehicles reserved for residents; - Work with local property owners to arrange shared parking in existing commercial lots if needed.

Board action After questions and deliberation the board voted to grant the requested special permits with conditions tied to staff memos from the Community Development Department, TP&T, and the Department of Public Works and to the board's comments about design, landscaping and transportation monitoring. Tom Sinevich moved the motion; Diego Macias seconded. The roll call on the motion was: Mary Liedecker (yes), Diego Macias (yes), Tom Sinevich (yes), Ashley Tan (yes), Joy Jackson (yes), Mary Flynn (yes). Jeff Roberts, staff, read the tally: "That's all 6 members acting on this case voting in favor." The motion carried.

What the board asked for next During deliberations the board and staff asked the applicant to provide further detail in follow‑up items before final permits are issued: refined landscape and streetscape details (including tree species and soil volumes), final TDM monitoring and reporting commitments (including surveys of resident travel behavior and follow‑up review of Alewife TMA/shuttle service needs), clarification and commitments related to any off‑site shared parking agreements, and final rooftop mechanical and green‑roof details (or, if the green‑roof requirement cannot be met, the ordinance‑required financial contribution calculation).

Where the record is: excerpts from the hearing are part of the official transcript and written submittals from the applicant and city staff. The Planning Board vote authorizes staff to move the project into the subsequent permitting and design‑review steps under the conditions described above.

Ending: The project team thanked the board and staff; the developer indicated it will continue refining plans and work with city staff on the conditions the board attached to its approval.