Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

Meeting Date: December 16, 2025 Governing Body: Cambridge Planning Board Type of Meeting: Planning Board Meeting Attendees:

• Mary Flynn (Chair)
• H. Theodore Cohen
• Mary Lydecker
• Diego Macias
• Ashley Tan
• Carolyn Zern
• Dan Anderson (Associate Member)
• Joy Jackson (Associate Member)

Staff Present:

• Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department)
• Swathi Joseph (Community Development Department)
• Becca Moburi (Associate Zoning Planner, Community Development Department)
• Eric Thorkelson (Urban Design Team)
• Cassie Arnault (Housing Department)

Executive Summary: The Cambridge Planning Board convened on December 16, 2025, for its 23rd meeting of the year. The primary agenda item was an advisory design consultation for Case AHO 10, an affordable housing overlay project proposed by Corcoran Park Phase 1 LLC. The project involves constructing a four-story and a three-story building to create 67 rental units, 36 off-street parking spaces, and 50 bicycle parking spaces at 8-12 Main Street and 53 Lawn Street. The Board provided advisory comments on the design, emphasizing concerns regarding parking lot configuration, potential for increased density, and the integration of open spaces, while acknowledging the project's commitment to affordability and resiliency. The applicant will return for a second advisory design review with an updated design.

• H. Theodore Cohen: Present, visible, and audible.
• Mary Lydecker: Present, visible, and audible.
• Diego Macias: Present, visible, and audible.
• Tom Sieniewicz: Absent.
• Ashley Tan: Present, visible, and audible.
• Carolyn Zern: Present, visible, and audible.
• Dan Anderson (Associate Member): Present, visible, and audible.
• Joy Jackson (Associate Member): Present, visible, and audible.
• Mary Flynn (Chair): Present, visible, and audible.
• Outcome: Six Planning Board members and two Associate members were present, establishing a quorum.

• Jeff Roberts provided an update on upcoming meetings and City Council actions.
• January 6, 2026: First meeting of the new year, including the election of the new Planning Board Chair.
• January 13, 2026: Advisory design review for 16 Porter Street is likely to be postponed again.
• January 27, 2026: Tentative hearing for a City Council zoning petition regarding institutional uses, aiming for consistency with state law.
• February 3, 2026: Annual Town-Gown meeting, featuring presentations from Cambridge educational institutions on their town-gown reports.
• City Council Zoning Petitions: The Cambridge Street and Mass Ave zoning petitions have passed to a second reading and are scheduled for potential ordination on or after December 22nd, extending into January.
• Board Member Questions: No questions from Board members regarding the update.

• Project Description: Proposed construction of a four-story building (Building A) and a three-story building (Building B) to create 67 rental units and amenities, 36 off-street parking spaces, and 42 long-term and 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces, with a total gross floor area of 82,407 square feet.
• Location: 8-12 Main Street and 53 Lawn Street.
• Purpose: This is the first of two required Planning Board advisory consultation sessions for an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) development. The Board provides advisory comments on design conformance with urban design objectives and guidelines; it does not grant or deny a permit.
• Presenter: Matt Zajac (Deputy Director for Planning, Cambridge Housing Authority) and Gabriela Shelburne (Principal, Studio G Architects).

• Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA): Owner, developer, and property manager. Celebrating 90 years of affordable housing. Since 2010, CHA has preserved/rehabilitated 2,300 homes and produced 200 new affordable units.
• Corcoran Park: Currently 153 deeply affordable units in 25 buildings, built in the 1950s. Requires comprehensive redevelopment due to major capital needs.
• Site Conditions:
  • Located in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood, bounded by Main Street, Lawn Street, and Belmont Cemetery.
  • Lot 1 (focus of this presentation) has 29 dwelling units in four two-story buildings, 14 parking spaces, and 24 existing trees.
  • Site built on a former pond, leading to unsuitable soils, inadequate stormwater infrastructure, and susceptibility to floods and sinkholes.
  • Existing conditions assessment in 2018 revealed issues not resolvable through renovation.
• Community Engagement: Multi-year process with residents and neighbors, including in-person meetings, poster sessions, and community meetings. Consensus built around redevelopment maintaining open space and increasing parking ratio.
• Core Goals:
  1. Maintain Corcoran Park's unique and welcoming character.
  2. Replace existing buildings with new affordable housing meeting current standards (size, accessibility, health, comfort).
  3. Address flooding/sinkholes and enhance resilience to severe weather.
  4. Increase the number of affordable dwelling units.
• Neighborhood Context: Mostly dense residential blocks (two-and-a-half to three-story buildings, 5-44 units/acre), with some taller buildings (24-86 units/acre). Served by three bus lines (two with 15-minute frequency).
• Flood Resilience: Updated flood viewer requires finished floor elevation at 43.3 feet minimum, 4.6 feet higher than existing public sidewalk.

• Building A: Four-story elevator building with a walk-out basement, 46 units (14 one-bedroom, 32 two-bedroom).
  • Basement: Long-term bike parking, community room, four at-grade units with private patios and direct courtyard access.
  • First Floor: Nine units, four with private patios on the northern side. Main entry on northeast corner.
  • Levels 2 & 3: 11 units each.
  • Level 4: Varies in plan, massing recedes on east and west ends.
  • Roof: HVAC equipment with screen enclosure, solar-ready.
  • Design: Massing steps down at ends, sloping roofline relates to neighborhood gable typology. Fiber cement siding in varying sizes, colors, and patterns.
• Building B: Three-story walk-up, 21 units (6 two-bedroom, 15 three-bedroom), including flats and duplexes.
  • First Floor: Seven flats at grade with private entries and patios.
  • Second Floor: Living areas of five duplexes and two corner flats. Private decks for half of upper floor units.
  • Third Floor: Bedrooms of duplexes and two corner flats.
  • Roof: Designed to relate to gable typology, maximizing southern exposure for future PVs. No mechanical equipment on roof allows for lower roofline.
  • Design: Fiber cement siding in different patterns, textures, and colors.
• Site Layout:
  • Buildings A and B enclose a central courtyard.
  • Parking lot for 36 cars on the northern edge, utilizing existing curb cut on Vineyard Street. Planted and screened.
  • Western edge: Retaining walls and existing trees maintained as a densely planted buffer.
  • Open Space: 46% private open space, 39% permeable open space.
• Sustainability: FIAS and Enterprise Green Communities certified. High-performing building enclosure, central AC/heating with ventilation, solar-ready.
• Transportation: 42 long-term bike parking, 8 short-term bike parking, 19 Bluebike dock. Trash stored indoors.
• Landscape Design (Mark Klopfer, KMDG):
  • Paradigm: Major exterior space in the rear, front lawns, street access to covered porch entries.
  • Trees: 16 existing trees to remain, 8 to be removed (mostly within building footprints), 47 new trees to be planted.
  • Flood Resiliency: Accessible routes to homes via grouped entries and ramp connections.
  • Bike Facilities: Bike share station and visitor racks in southwest corner, additional racks on May Street at Building A.
  • Privacy: Six-foot perimeter fence for abutters to the west.
  • Eversource Transformer: Northwest corner, enclosed by solid wood fence.
  • Open Space Pattern: Follows neighborhood pattern of shared backyards, continuous landscape.
  • Central Courtyard: Primary activated landscape space with communal grill area, fixed seating, sculptural elements for informal play. Accessed from ground floor units and pedestrian paths.
  • Front Yards: Grade difference up to 4.6 feet. Accessible routes on May Street (two separated) and Lawn Street (all entries connected).
  • Facade Articulation: Inspired by context, Building A with angled bays and return walls, Building B with mid-block recesses and offset front walls.

• Sean Delaney (11th and Vala): Challenged the characterization of the neighborhood as "dense urban," stating it's primarily two-family and single-family homes with yards. Argued Building A overwhelms the intersection of May and Vineyard Street, and its four-story scale is uncharacteristic, except for Huron Towers. Believes the project is out of character for the neighborhood.
• Rob Van Dennebiel (40 Inman Street): Inquired about the tree canopy replacement plan, emphasizing the importance of specific measurements beyond just numbers of trees. Advocated for native tree species (preferably New England native) and a variety of species for resiliency against disease. Suggested more understory plantings, pollinator gardens, and reducing lawn areas for ecological value.
• Megan Church (27 Edward Sullivan Road): As a neighbor, expressed support for Corcoran Park residents. Countered the claim of only two-story homes, noting Erickson Street and Edward Sullivan Road are mostly three-family homes with small yards. Praised the proposed amount of trees, open space, and new walking paths.
• Katie Michaels (36 Lawn Street): Expressed concern about parking and traffic flow, given the doubling of population size. Asked if parking would be doubled across phases and if the impact on traffic would be addressed.
• Diane Dillon (Resident from the area): Expressed sadness at the old buildings being replaced. Inquired about accessibility for elderly and disabled individuals, specifically regarding elevators in the three and four-story buildings and handicapped accessibility for raised areas.

• Mary Flynn:
  • Praised the animation as a helpful alternative to physical models.
  • Stormwater Management: Asked about underground infiltration and pervious asphalt, specifically regarding potential issues with the water table.
  • Plantings: Inquired if there would be understory or perennial plantings beyond trees, shrubs, and lawn.
  • CHA Response:
    • Mark Klopfer (KMDG): Preliminary planting plan focuses on mostly shrubs, trees, and lawn for maintainability. Strategic screening for privacy and ample setbacks. Views showed a better rendition of landscape than model fly-through.
    • Sam Maloney (Studio G Architects): Parking lot paved with porous asphalt, cisterns below. Lot 1 system retains 17,000 cubic feet of stormwater runoff, meeting Cambridge's 25-to-2 stormwater requirements. Clarified that the historic Bird's Pond is part of Lot 2, not Lot 1.
• Ashley Tan:
  • Parking: Asked for clarification on parking plans – if spaces are solely for these two buildings or shared with future phases.
  • Transportation: Inquired about shuttle services, given bus stops are 5-10 minutes walk away.
  • CHA Response:
    • Matt Zajac: CHA typically does not do assigned parking but has resident parking. Future phases would share spaces. Phase 1 residents most likely to use the Lot 1 parking. CHA does not operate a shuttle. Encourages alternate transportation, highlighting strong bus lines (71, 73, 75) despite distance.
    • Matt Zajac: Phase 2 and 3 (Lot 2) expected in 2026. Goal is 0.75 to 0.8 spaces per unit, an enhancement over current Corcoran Park ratio.
• Dan Anderson:
  • Unit Density: Asked if CHA provided a target number of units to architects.
  • Typology: Questioned if greater density and mix could be achieved with different typologies, given the need for affordable housing.
  • Parking Lots: Expressed dislike for surface parking lots, especially given the site size, and wondered if a different typology could increase units and open space.
  • CHA Response:
    • Matt Zajac: CHA's goal for entire Corcoran Park was 290 units (from 153). Schematic design achieves this. No specific Lot 1 vs. Lot 2 goal. Parking placement and number were a result of long-term communication with residents and neighborhood.
    • Gabriela Shelburne: Other typologies could achieve higher density. Earlier designs with six-story buildings received pushback from residents and neighbors. Revised design aimed for same density with lower buildings, maintaining townhome typology desired by residents.
• Diego Macias:
  • Southeast Corner (May Street and Lawn Street): Inquired about the large radius and discussions to make it more pedestrian-friendly.
  • Balconies: Expressed concern about shared balconies and the triangular wall between units.
  • CHA Response:
    • Matt Zajac: CHA is open to discussions with DPW on public realm, including the corner radius.
    • Matt Zajac: Balcony design will be re-evaluated. Goal is to maximize semi-private and private open spaces, a strong feedback from residents.
    • Sam/Gabriela: Confirmed they will continue to study the corner balconies.
• Carolyn Zern:
  • Appreciated resiliency efforts and elevation above floodplain.
  • Parking Lot: Shared Dan's concern about the surface parking lot, especially losing healthy existing trees, assuming it's a cost/feasibility issue.
  • Solar Panels: Noted "solar-ready" but not installed day one. Asked what would trigger installation.
  • EV-Ready Parking: Similar question for EV-ready parking spaces.
  • Play Area: Asked Mark Klopfer about the play area design, referencing CDD memo comments.
  • CHA Response:
    • Matt Zajac: Under-building parking was considered but deemed financially infeasible (adding $50,000 per unit) and would result in a larger building, conflicting with desire for a neighborhood-fitting scale.
    • Matt Zajac: CHA finances and owns solar panel arrays separately to control electricity resource use for residents. Intention is to install solar roughly concurrently with the project.
    • Mark Klopfer: Play area is still in development, aiming for sculptural, multi-functional elements that are durable and aesthetically pleasing when not in use. Seating will be provided nearby. Larger play features are planned for Lot 2.
• Mary Flynn (Follow-up):
  • Accessibility: Confirmed both buildings will be accessible, with Building A having an elevator and Building B having access ramps. Five fully mobility accessible units (exceeding 5% minimum). All at-grade flats are accessible and visitable.
  • Tree Canopy: Requested caliper information for new trees and an estimate of current vs. proposed tree canopy coverage.
  • CHA Response:
    • Mark Klopfer: Full survey of existing trees (DBH/caliper size) available. Will provide calculation for new trees. Will consider native species and flood-tolerant species.
• Mary Flynn (Discussion):
  • Facade facing streets feels similar to existing, especially awnings. Suggested engaging front facades more, potentially with front porches, given the lifted plinth condition.
  • West side of building and central courtyard: Suggested larger areas of lawn for recreational use, rather than fragmented spaces.
  • Plantings: Beyond perennials, suggested low vines, groundcover for steep slopes, referencing Fresh Pond Place.
  • Interior Courtyard: Expressed concern about play equipment with rubber surfaces breaking up space and maintenance issues. Advocated for a lawn where kids can play.
  • Parking: Suggested exploring reducing parking and extending Building A into an L-shape to screen parking and improve street presence.
  • Colors: Disliked the tan color, suggesting more cohesive color palettes.
• Dan Anderson (Discussion):
  • Expressed difficulty criticizing design when it's less dense than what by-right zoning allows (6 stories). Believes a private developer would build denser.
  • Feels CHA is taking a "nostalgic" approach, missing an opportunity for higher density affordable housing.
  • Suggested a garden-style six-story building over parking as a reasonable alternative, saving trees and increasing open space.
  • Disappointed by missed opportunity for higher density, especially when demolishing existing buildings and cutting down mature trees for surface parking.
• Ted Cohen (Discussion):
  • Echoed Dan's concerns.
  • Parking Lot: Troubled by the surface parking lot, especially its prominence at the entrance to Building A, feeling it's a step backward.
  • Courtyard: Believes the courtyard is too small for the number of families.
  • Lot 2 Integration: Difficult to assess without knowing Lot 2 plans.
  • Suggested going up to six stories with underground parking for more open area and density.
  • Expressed concern that the Planning Board is brought in too late in the AHO design process, when major decisions are already set, limiting significant input.
• Mary Flynn (Chair - Response to Board Comments):
  • Acknowledged financial constraints for CHA.
  • Agreed that the parking lot makes Building A look suburban, not residential. Suggested more study on integrating parking and making the building feel more residential (e.g., L-shape, different entrance).
  • Questioned if the team is open to increasing units, as it would be a "game changer."
  • Asked if the Board is seeking "tweaks" or a "reinvention" of the vision.
• Dan Anderson (Clarification):
  • Suggested placing Building A over parking and adding a floor, creating a larger open space and potentially more townhomes. This would save canopy trees and hide surface parking.
  • Acknowledged the challenge of changing resident expectations but emphasized the missed opportunity for higher density.
• Ted Cohen (Clarification):
  • Reiterated concern about late involvement in AHO projects, suggesting earlier informational sessions with the Planning Board.
• Mary Flynn (Chair - Direction to Team):
  • Requested the team explore the option of placing Building A over parking, as suggested by Dan, to increase units, hide parking, and save trees.
  • Acknowledged the financial constraints of podium parking but suggested exploring alternatives like an L-shaped building to screen parking and improve residential feel.
• Matt Zajac (CHA Response):
  • Appreciated the direction and feedback.
  • Reiterated that podium parking was found financially infeasible in previous projects, adding $50,000 per unit.

• Motion: To conclude the design consultation session and submit an initial report with comments to the developer.
• Moved by: Ted Cohen
• Seconded by: Mary Lydecker
• Roll Call Vote:
  • Ted Cohen: Yes
  • Mary Lydecker: Yes
  • Diego Macias: Yes
  • Ashley Tan: Yes
  • Carolyn Zern: Yes
  • Mary Flynn: Yes
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

• Jeff Roberts thanked the Board for a productive year and wished happy holidays.
• Mary Flynn echoed Jeff's sentiments, thanking the Board for their work in moving the city's planning business forward.
• The meeting concluded.