By Adam Swift
A proposed multi-family housing development on Parker Hill Avenue has raised concerns from residents about the density of the project, the potential for more student housing, and the overall impacts of development on parking and traffic in the neighborhood.
There were also concerns raised that the project should be moving forward under the large project review process, and not the small project review application that was filed in February.
The Boston Planning Department sponsored a public meeting on Monday, the second on the Parker Hill Avenue project.
Savage Properties, a Boston development company, is proposing the development at 85 Parker Hill Ave., along with additional residential developments at 11-11A and 36 Parker Hill Ave.
The property was once a dormitory for nurses at New England Baptist Hospital, and then senior housing before its sale to Jason Savage last year.
At the meeting, the development team said the project scope will be dropping from 114 units, as originally proposed, to 103. The project will also include more larger units, with eight three-bedrooms, and one additional parking space, raising the total from 10 to 11.
The project also includes an indoor bike parking space for each unit, and 24 exterior bike spaces.
“That’s the biggest change, we basically reduced a bunch of the smaller apartments and combined them to make more larger apartments,” said project architect Patrick Mixdorf. “So of the 103 total apartments, there are eight three-bedroom apartments, and all of those fall under the inclusionary (zoning) requirements for the city, so all of the large apartments we have created fall under those guidelines.”
Longtime Mission Hill resident and former Mission Hill Planning Commission President Mitch Hilton said the residents understand the need for new housing and welcome new residents.
“I feel this is the wrong development for this location,” said Hilton. “I asked the city staff to come up and examine, take the trolley, walk up the equivalent from Huntington Avenue. I would estimate it is the equivalent of about six blocks straight uphill … it is at the top of a very steep hill.”
Hilton said the location is surrounded by narrow streets with effectively no parking.
“The proposal is at 103 units; it’s a beautiful old building,” he said. “The developer, Mr. Savage, has developed housing on the Hill, and he’s developed it well in some instances.”
The development of the former Boston Clutchworks site on Tremont Street by Savage was an example of a project by Savage that is convenient to public transportation, Hilton said.
“You can bill this as being close to the Green Line, but I refer again to the steepness of that hill,” said Hilton. “To suggest 103 units in a beautiful old building where a much, much smaller number would have been appropriate, saleable … Mr. Savage can make money on the project … but 103 units tucked away in this quiet corner of Mission Hill, up on the top of a hill surrounded by narrow streets is the wrong project for the wrong place.”
Fisher Avenue resident Richard Giordano said he also opposes the project as presented, but did thank the developer for reducing the number of units and including more three-bedroom units and studios in the latest version of the proposal.
“The project is just too dense and unsupportable with the number of spaces,” he said. “I think it would be a much better project if the internal courtyard proposal was completely removed and there was no new building put in.”
Giordano also referred to his original letter of opposition to the project, where he noted that the developer has already gained approval for two other residential projects on Parker Hill Avenue.
“Those two projects are being built on existing parking lots,” said Giordano, noting that some residents in abutting buildings use those lots for parking.
Looking at the three Parker Hill Ave. projects combined, Giordano said there will be approximately 210 units with a total of 36 parking spaces. He said he is concerned that the city’s planning department has not looked at the multiple projects holistically and taken into account the impact it will have on the neighborhood.
Giordano also raised concerns about the units being rented to undergraduate students, asking that the developer sign an agreement that the units not be leased to undergrads at all.
“He’s done that in the past, and we ask him to do that again,” he said.
Jack Gilman of the city’s planning department noted that the past uses of the Fisher Hill Avenue site were also high density.
“The structure of the building is not changing much besides the (courtyard) addition; it is really sticking mostly to its previous density use, but I understand,” said Gilman.
Giordano countered that the addition of the units within the courtyard means the project is increasing the density on the site.
Pat Flaherty, the executive director of Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services, said the organization supports housing and development that is appropriate to the neighborhood.
“We support housing that is helping us to have a stabilized, family-friendly neighborhood versus student and undergraduate student housing,” said Flaherty. “This is denser than its previous use, and that is disconcerting; as we said in our previous letter, we believe the planning department erred when it determined that this was small project review versus large project review.”
Flaherty said the change of use should have triggered the large project review, and that the large project review provides for a more detailed review of the proposal.
Flaherty said that while she was grateful for the larger inclusionary zoning units for families, she noted that the family units could well be within a larger development that will be housing for students.
“I think it is against the mayor’s efforts to move students back to campus and build family-friendly housing,” said Flaherty. “This developer could still make a return if this was not being marketed to undergraduates. We have worked with this developer in the past to come to an appropriately contextual development that was restricted from undergraduate student housing, and I think we could get to a project – this could be a jewel in the neighborhood.”
Planning department officials noted that the project remains under review and that staff will continue to provide feedback on the project.
The project could be before the Boston Planning and Development Agency board in July, depending on the resolution of staff comments on the project, according to planning department staff.