By Michael Coughlin Jr.
Last week, the Planning Department hosted a meeting in which the proponents of a project at 920 Centre Street described their plans to build senior rental units and new condominiums on the site.
As part of the proposal brought forth by Sixteen Penny Company, Inc., which is owned by John Holland, who has been an architect for 30 years in Massachusetts and Vermont, a four-story L-shaped building would be constructed behind the existing Poor Clare Nuns Monastery at the site, which is slated to be preserved and reused.
Additionally, the project proposes to create 123 units—38 of which would be senior rental units in the monastery as part of the adaptive reuse, and the remaining 85 would be for-sale condos. There are also plans to include 118 parking spaces.
Moreover, 25 of the 38 senior rental units would be income-restricted. Seventeen of these units would be offered at 60% AMI (area median income), and eight would be offered at a combination of 80% and 100% AMI.
As part of the presentation given to those in attendance, David Hacin of Hacin + Associates, the design architect, outlined how the proposal has changed.
Hacin explained that previous designs for the site included a building at five stories. However, he said, “In conversations with the city and with some of our neighbors, we decided to revisit that and came up with what we’re going to show you tonight, which is a four-story scheme.”
He also explained that there were plans to add dormers and accessible entrances to the monastery and that a central courtyard would be created between the back of the monastery and the new building.
Hacin also mentioned that the existing site wall would be retained and that the new building’s massing would be broken up by spaces resembling a “series of brick pavilions.”
Hacin also discussed the proposal related to the Arnold Arboretum, which is adjacent to the project site.
For example, he detailed a shadow study and said, “Most of the shadows are cast on our property.”
He later added, “There are, however, two periods of time that there’s some shadow impact into the arboretum at the end of the day roughly from 4:30 to 6:00 at the end of the day in certain periods late in summer.”
Eventually, Hacin turned the floor over to Bryan Chou of Mikyoung Kim Design, the project’s landscape designer.
Chou walked through some of the landscape and public realm plans, such as bus stop improvements, plans for 19 blue bikes, garden areas, flexible gathering and amenity spaces, and more.
He also discussed the site’s tree plans, which include adding 172 trees. However, according to the presentation, 30 are slated to be removed.
“Knowing that we are adjacent to the Arnold Arboretum, we wanted to fit within that context of the arboretum and extend a similar plant language through our site,” said Chou, who indicated that proposed plantings would contain evergreen trees and magnolia.
Eventually, the presentation ended, and attendees were free to comment and ask questions. One of the main topics attendees raised at the meeting was how the proposal would impact the Arnold Arboretum.
Specifically, William (Ned) Friedman, director of the Arnold Arboretum, made a statement. “John Holland and his team have been in communication with us; they have shared their data with us, they have been thoroughly professional and respectful and transparent with us. It will just come out that we see the impacts of this proposed project differently,” he said.
Friedman outlined that the arboretum has concerns with any project abutting it regarding how development could impact public views and the health of its approximately 16,000 trees.
He noted that on the southern side of the project, part of the proposed development would be set back only 18 feet from the arboretum property line when zoning regulations require a 50-foot setback. However, it should be mentioned that Hacin indicated that only 25% of the rear portion of the proposal would have that 18-foot setback.
“This is something that will loom over our living collections,” said Friedman. He also raised concerns about trees behind the building being removed and said that out of the 172 new trees proposed by the project, only eight would be behind the proposed structure.
Friedman also indicated that they have hired a consulting firm to examine shadows and are concerned about potential new shadows being cast on plants the arboretum is trying to grow.
After further discussing the arboretum’s concerns, Friedman hoped for a design solution that would consider massing alternatives to address problems related to public views and tree health.
In response, Hacin mentioned that they understood the concerns and were committed to working with the arboretum to address them while achieving the project’s goals.
It should also be noted that another arboretum representative, Todd Washburn, chief of staff and director of administration, requested that the public comment period, which was slated to close on March 12th, be extended so that they could conduct their own analysis of view sheds and shadows.
He also emphasized, “We are not as the arboretum reflexively opposed to development along our perimeter, and we would not object to a proposal that didn’t cast new shadows or was mostly invisible from what is, as Ned said, really the arboretum’s most popular and expansive view shed.”
As the discussion continued with attendees, many residents raised concerns about traffic and safety. The site borders Centre Street and the Murray Circle Arborway intersection, which could see changes as part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Arborway Parkways improvement project.
In terms of the projected impact on traffic, an analysis of traffic in the presentation indicated that the proposal would generate 30 morning peak hour vehicle trips and 34 evening peak hour vehicle trips and that the level of service or a measure of average vehicle delay at intersections in the project area would not change.
Additionally, some attendees commented that they would like to see the proposed building be shorter, and others raised concerns about the number of units, considering it exceeds the maximum units per acre under zoning.
While a vast majority of attendees raised concerns, a few voiced their support for the proposal, citing, among other things, their liking of the design and contribution of housing.
To learn more about this project, visit https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/920-centre-street. The site also includes a recording and presentation from this and other meetings.
