Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

October 21, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Cambridge Planning Board Meeting Minutes - October 21, 2025

Governing Body: Cambridge Planning Board Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Meeting Date: October 21, 2025 Attendees:

  • Board Members: Mary Flynn (Chair), Theodore Cohen, Mary Lydecker, Diego Macias, Tom Sieniewicz, Ashley Tan, Carolyn Zern
  • Associate Members: Dan Anderson, Joy Jackson
  • City Staff: Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development, CDD), Swathi Joseph (CDD), Evan Spatrini (Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD), Daniel Mesplay (Director of Community Planning and Design, CDD), Eric Thorkelson (Urban Designer, CDD), Colin Larson (Intern, Zoning and Development Division, CDD), Brian Gregory (Urban Design Team, CDD), Melissa Peters (Assistant City Manager for Community Development, CDD)
  • Proponent Representative: Adam Weisenberg (representing proposed use at 20 Child Street)

Executive Summary

The Cambridge Planning Board held a public hearing to discuss two significant zoning petitions: one for the Massachusetts Avenue corridor and another for the Cambridge Street corridor. Both petitions aim to implement recommendations from respective planning studies, increase housing density, incentivize active ground-floor uses, and establish urban design standards. Following extensive presentations from City staff and public comment, the Board voted unanimously to recommend the adoption of both petitions to the City Council, with a summary of the evening's discussions and concerns. Additionally, the Board approved a use determination for a fitness center at 20 Child Street.

I. Community Development Department Update

  • Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, provided an update on upcoming agenda items and the process for the evening's public hearings.
  • Meeting Schedule:
    • Next meeting: October 28th, continued discussion of the Infill Development Concept Plan Amendment for the MXD zoning district in Kendall Square (joint meeting with Cambridge Redevelopment Authority), and a design revision for 75 Broadway (Volpe Parcel PUD).
    • Meetings canceled: November 4th (Election Day) and November 11th (Veterans Day holiday).
    • Next anticipated meeting: November 18th.
  • Zoning Petition Review Process:
    • The two zoning petitions discussed tonight will be heard by the Ordinance Committee on October 30th (presentation and public comment) and November 13th (continued deliberation).
    • The Planning Board's recommendations are advisory to the City Council.

II. Public Hearing: Zoning Petition to Amend the Cambridge Zoning Map and Ordinance for the Massachusetts Avenue Corridor

  • Petition Intent: To establish three new base zoning districts for the Massachusetts Avenue corridor to:
    1. Encourage development patterns consistent with the 2025 Mass Ave Planning Study.
    2. Allow up to 12 stories of residential uses along the corridor.
    3. Incentivize active non-residential uses on the ground floor.
    4. Establish building and site design standards.
    5. Create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district in Porter Square, allowing up to 18 stories of residential uses in exchange for increased open space and minimum retail density.
  • Presentation by Evan Spatrini (Senior Manager for Zoning and Development) and Daniel Mesplay (Director of Community Planning and Design):
    • Planning Context: Rooted in "Envision Cambridge" and the "Mass Ave Planning Study."
    • Community Engagement: 18-month process, 9 working group meetings, 6 public meetings, 3 community events, 7 focus groups, stakeholder interviews, walking tours, and online/print materials.
    • Community Themes:
      1. Make Mass Ave feel more like a neighborhood (amenities, gathering places, active storefronts).
      2. Make Mass Ave feel more inviting (streetscape, public realm, tree planting, public art).
      3. Make Mass Ave easier to get around (transportation, accessibility, public right-of-way).
      4. Provide more housing options (changing building rules, addressing affordable housing, design standards).
    • Housing Projections: Proposed zoning could increase housing units on Mass Ave from 1,230 (existing zoning) to 3,820 by 2040.
    • Zoning Principles: More housing, active ground floors, design standards.
    • Map Changes: Replaces six existing base zoning districts and an overlay district with three new districts (Mass 12, Mass 18, Mass 6) and a PUD overlay. Zoning boundaries generally follow a 100-foot offset from Mass Ave.
    • Uses: Most residential, institutional, office, and retail uses remain allowed as-of-right. Key additions include hotels, craft retail, and theaters (as-of-right).
    • Active Uses: Defined as uses encouraging pedestrian activity (e.g., restaurants, retail, daycares, libraries, dentist offices, some professional offices).
    • Height and Density:
      • Baseline residential height: 8 stories.
      • Mixed-use projects with active ground floors: up to 12 stories.
      • Existing zoning: 6-7 stories.
      • Non-residential uses: still limited by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and existing height limits.
    • Dimensional and Design Standards:
      • Front Yard Setback: 3 feet on Mass Ave (to expand public realm).
      • Side/Rear Yard Setbacks: 5 feet (adjacent to residential districts); no side yard setbacks along primary street.
      • Upper Story Setbacks: 13 feet above 8 stories (from property line); 15 feet above 6 stories and 25 feet above 8 stories (from residence district boundary).
      • Floor Plate Limits: 15,000 square feet above 8 stories.
      • Open Space:
        • 8 stories or less: no open space required.
        • Taller buildings: 15% of lot area required as open space (10% public/publicly beneficial).
      • Building Design: 20% clear glass (50% for ground story non-residential); 15-foot ground story height; direct street entrance for ground story uses; massing recesses for facades > 200 feet; projections allowed in setbacks; new street trees for buildings > 25,000 sq ft.
    • Porter Square PUD Overlay District:
      • Allows development beyond base zoning limits with additional PUD standards.
      • Requires a minimum of 25,000 sq ft of contiguous or non-contiguous parcels.
      • Goals: Concentrate housing near transit, preserve retail, provide public open space, improve pedestrian/bike connections.
      • Standards: Up to 18 stories of residential in Mass 18 districts (Mass 12 and Mass 6 portions remain 12 and 6 stories); minimum retail FAR of 0.5; required grocery store; 20% public/publicly beneficial open space; shared parking facilities.
    • Review Process: Project Review Special Permits for development > 75,000 sq ft (residential) or 20,000 sq ft (non-residential). Advisory consultations required for most other projects. Inclusionary housing, green building, green roof, and climate resilience standards apply.
  • Board Questions and Clarifications (Mass Ave Petition):
    • Height Tiers: Baseline 8 stories, 12 stories with active ground floor, 18 stories in Porter PUD (without PUD, 12 stories).
    • Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO): AHO allows up to 13 stories (15 in AHO Square districts). The petition redefines the AHO Square to align with the PUD overlay, expanding the area where AHO projects can go up to 15 stories.
    • Technical Questions (Ted Cohen):
      • Conflicting Section 3.11 Amendments: Staff acknowledged potential conflicts if both petitions are adopted and stated clarifying edits would be made.
      • Gas Stations: Staff to confirm if allowed.
      • Lot Line vs. Street Line: Staff to clarify measurement definitions.
      • Upper Story Floor Plates: Request for clarification on language.
      • Section 17.80.7.2 / 17.70.7.2 Reference: Concern about potential application to other special permits; staff to clarify.
    • Community Engagement (Tom Sieniewicz): Daniel Mesplay elaborated on the extensive 18-month planning process, including working groups, public meetings, focus groups, and stakeholder interviews.
    • Housing Production & Open Space (Dan Anderson):
      • Housing unit projections were based on 12-story development (11 stories of housing).
      • Consideration of higher PUD across Mass Ave in Porter Square was discussed but limited to specific areas based on community feedback and redevelopment opportunities.
    • Design Guidelines & Animal Services (Ashley Tan):
      • Daniel Mesplay stated that the citywide and multifamily design guidelines anticipated higher density and incorporated principles into the zoning. Documents are open for future tweaks.
      • Jeff Roberts explained that animal services typically require a special permit due to potential impacts and were not a focus of the current planning process.
    • Open Space & Streetscape (Carolyn Zern):
      • Evan Spatrini clarified that existing business districts have no open space requirements. Taller buildings have increasing requirements.
      • Melissa Peters explained the city's universal signage standards for privately owned public spaces (POPS) to ensure public access and awareness.
    • Height Changes from Planning Study: The planning study recommended 8-11 stories; the petition proposes up to 12 stories. This was a City Council request, and urban design analysis found it compatible with urban design goals. The front setback was adjusted from 5 feet to 3 feet to align with desired sidewalk widths and maximize building space.

III. Public Hearing: Zoning Petition to Amend the Cambridge Zoning Map and Ordinance for the Cambridge Street Corridor

  • Petition Intent: To establish four new base zoning districts for the Cambridge Street corridor to:
    1. Encourage development patterns consistent with the 2023 Our Cambridge Street Planning Study.
    2. Allow up to 8 stories of residential uses along the corridor.
    3. Incentivize active non-residential uses on the ground floor.
    4. Establish building and site design standards.
    5. Allow additional residential height of up to 10 stories in Inman Square, 12 stories in Webster Avenue/Windsor Street, and 15 stories in Lechmere.
  • Presentation by Evan Spatrini and Daniel Mesplay:
    • Planning Context: Also rooted in "Envision Cambridge" and the "Our Cambridge Street Study."
    • Residential Heights: Study initially recommended up to 6 stories. City Council requested incremental increase to 8 stories along the corridor, with taller heights in specific areas, to maintain a height gradient above surrounding neighborhoods.
    • Community Engagement: 16-month process with tabling events, focus groups, surveys, workshops, open houses, and public meetings.
    • Community Themes:
      1. Make Cambridge Street a destination for history and cultural diversity.
      2. Support and expand small business network.
      3. Improve affordability (commercial and residential).
      4. Improve streetscape (walkable, shaded, enjoyable).
    • Housing Projections: Proposed zoning could increase housing units on Cambridge Street from 520 (existing zoning) to 1,190 by 2040.
    • Zoning Principles: Similar to Mass Ave: more housing, active ground floors, design standards.
    • Map Changes: Replaces existing Business A, C2B, and C1 districts with four new districts (CAM 8, CAM 10, CAM 12, CAM 15).
    • Uses: Same as Mass Ave petition, consistent with existing mixed-use corridor character.
    • Height and Density:
      • Baseline residential height: 6 stories (under current zoning and proposed baseline).
      • Projects with active ground floors: up to 8 stories (CAM 8), 10 stories (CAM 10), 12 stories (CAM 12), 15 stories (CAM 15).
    • Dimensional and Design Standards:
      • Primary Streets: Cambridge Street, Hampshire Street, Prospect Street (Inman), North First Street, Monsignor O'Brien Highway (Lechmere).
      • Front Yard Setback: 4 feet (to achieve desired sidewalk widths on narrower Cambridge Street).
      • Upper Story Setbacks: Above 6 stories (rather than 8 on Mass Ave) to maintain 1:1 roadway-to-street wall ratio.
      • CAM 10 (Inman): 6 stories set back 4 feet; 7th-8th stories set back 14 feet; 9th-10th stories set back further.
      • CAM 12 (Webster-Windsor): Height gradient up to 12 stories towards Somerville.
      • CAM 15 (Lechmere): 6-8 stories on Cambridge Street; taller heights in middle of block and towards Monsignor O'Brien Highway (8-story street wall on O'Brien Highway due to wider roadway).
      • Floor Plate Limits: 15,000 square feet above 8 stories (applies in CAM 10, 12, 15 districts).
      • Open Space: Similar to Mass Ave, taller buildings have more required open space (some public/publicly beneficial).
      • Design Standards: Same as Mass Ave petition (e.g., clear glass, ground story height, massing recesses, street trees).
    • Review Process: Same as Mass Ave petition.
  • Board Questions and Clarifications (Cambridge Street Petition):
    • Post-Ordinance Committee Process (Mary Flynn): Jeff Roberts explained the process: Ordinance Committee makes a recommendation to the full City Council, which can adopt, amend, or vote down the petition within a 90-day window (21 days after Planning Board hearing). Amendments must be within the scope of the original advertisement. City Council typically passes to a second reading before final adoption.
    • Small Business & Retail Mix (Carolyn Zern):
      • Evan Spatrini noted that the petition does not include maximum retail space sizes, as previous limits were found to be too restrictive and did not effectively encourage small businesses.
      • Jeff Roberts added that changing use allowances was not a primary focus of this planning process, which built on the 2021 retail use section revamp.
    • Economic Feasibility & Height Limits (Joy Jackson):
      • Daniel Mesplay stated that height limits are based on planning vision, not solely current economic reality. Stakeholder engagement with developers indicated interest in taller heights. Building code changes (e.g., from low-rise to steel/concrete construction) are a factor.
    • Open Space, Lot Size, & Urban Design (Dan Anderson):
      • Concern about lack of open space requirement for 6-8 story buildings, especially for heat island effect and livability. Suggested requiring more than "none" and ensuring "publicly beneficial" means physically accessible.
      • Concern that the zoning preferences larger lots, potentially leading to monolithic buildings on smaller, more typical lots.
      • Questioned if the 8-story height on Cambridge Street is sufficient incentive to build above 6 stories, given construction cost increases for high-rise code.
      • Suggested more nuanced design standards for smaller lots and projects not triggering special permits.
      • Brian Gregory and Eric Thorkelson (Urban Design Team) discussed the 1:1 street width to building height ratio as a comfortable enclosure, with upper story setbacks for additional height. They noted that taller heights were considered for major intersections and areas adjacent to more intensely developed zones (e.g., Boynton Yards).

IV. Public Comment (Both Petitions)

  • Public Comment Protocol: Speakers limited to 2 minutes.
  • Summary of Key Public Comments:
    • Gordon Moore (9 Rutland Street): Objected to 2-minute limit. Felt misled by changes from initial planning study (e.g., 12 stories vs. 8 stories with 3 affordable housing bonus, changed setbacks). Called for another public meeting on the final proposal. Concerned about 25-foot penetration allowance from previous zoning and lack of side setbacks leading to 12-story planes facing homes.
    • Joshua Gerber (4 Union Street): Supported housing goals but raised two concerns:
      1. Active Use Definition: Office space (Section 17.70.3.3 / 17.80.3.3) should be removed from active use for height bonus, as it doesn't create desired pedestrian activity.
      2. Retail Size Limits: Relaxation of retail size limits will lead to large format retail/chains, undermining small local businesses. Recommended adding maximum size limits.
    • Young Kim (17 Norris Street): Questioned why full package wasn't available online earlier. Concerned that market-rate high-density will negate AHO advantage. CDD relies on outdated data. Petitions should be merged for clarity and integrated framework. Asked about mass timber construction guidelines for tall buildings. Concerned about lack of parking requirements.
    • Judith Aronson: Concerned about lack of parking requirements, leading to street parking overflow and negative impact on small businesses.
    • Helen Walker (43 Linnian Street): Questioned community engagement, stating public participation on zoning was "actively shut down." Cited community consensus for "stop at six stories" on Mass Ave and shock at 18 stories in Porter Square. Criticized 8 stories with no open space as inappropriate given existing 1-story buildings.
    • Pamela Winters: Questioned why proposal incentivizes pedestrian use but not cars. Cited businesses closing due to lack of parking. Asked about empty storefronts and traffic issues.
    • Jason Alves (East Cambridge Business Association): Expressed concern about combining Mass Ave and Cambridge Street petitions, as Cambridge Street deserves its own focus. Stressed need for commercial requirements on Cambridge Street. Suggested zoning tweaks for issues like bike parking. Questioned if Inman Square deserves a PUD like Porter Square to guide changes.
    • Suzanne Blea: Supported Dan Anderson's points on housing, local business, and open space. Concerned about heat island effect without green space. Suggested limiting ground floor space size for small stores and refining "active space" definition (e.g., excluding labs/banks). Questioned economic feasibility analysis for housing, citing NBER research on supply/price. Concerned about "pyramid scheme" of height increases (AHO vs. market rate). Criticized lack of unique character for each square/corridor.
    • George Harris (16 Leonard Avenue): Reiterated parking concerns. Questioned the planning process, suggesting a table of public comments and how they were addressed. Concerned about changing neighborhood character with 8-story buildings in historic areas. Asked how affordable housing would be ensured.
    • Mariette Murphy: Supported affordable housing but concerned about neighborhood character changes and lack of robust community representation. Criticized lack of parking consideration as "narcissistic."
    • Marilee Meyer (10 Dana Street): Applauded Dan Anderson. Concerned about developers buying multiple lots for monolithic buildings. Stressed need for neighborhood context, pattern of development, and history. Criticized arbitrary heights and lack of regulation leading to widespread demolition, eviction, and speculative investment. Questioned if zoning alone can solve affordable housing. Criticized lack of setbacks and open space compared to older 10-story towers.
    • Benjamin Johnson Staub (Inman Square): Counterbalanced previous comments, emphasizing deep need for housing. Supported lack of parking requirements as a benefit for non-car owners. Stated 13-story building in Inman Square is "totally fine." Agreed with Dan Anderson's concerns about vague aesthetic responses to setbacks and small lot sizes. Supported petitions as an improvement over status quo.
    • Tom Rawson (North Cambridge): Criticized underlying proposal as flawed despite professional design. Questioned analysis on housing costs, stating supply/demand doesn't work that way in Cambridge. Criticized community engagement, stating full picture of 12/18 stories was not presented. Noted Mass Ave is "transit oriented," not "transit only," and raised traffic concerns.
    • Heather Hoffman (213 Hurley Street): Questioned claims of affordable housing, stating million-dollar apartments are not affordable. Believed inclusionary housing zoning is unconstitutional. Argued current zoning produces "housing for rich people."
    • Justin Safe (259 Herland Street): Strongly supported rezoning for more homes, citing housing affordability as #1 issue. Urged Planning Board to prioritize housing and ignore "neighborhood defender dynamic." Expressed concern about not reaching housing projections due to limited parcels for taller heights and high costs. Stated Cambridge Street corridor has insufficient housing capacity given new Union T stop and Boynton Yards jobs. Suggested CDD provide details on challenging retail environment and need for subsidies.
    • James Williamson (Churchill Avenue): Requested transcripts of staff meetings with developers. Supported separating Mass Ave and Cambridge Street discussions. Objected to 2-minute public comment for long-term impact. Criticized the process as undemocratic. Questioned engineering for 18-story building over T tracks. Asked why not 6 stories along corridors.
    • James Zoll (Pemberton Street): Applauded city staff's outreach. Criticized public comments for being self-interested and contradictory (e.g., more parking, less traffic). Urged Board not to let "small number of noisy people derail a very difficult and potentially promising project."

V. Board Discussion and Votes

  • General Discussion:

    • Office Space as Active Use: Evan Spatrini clarified that "active office uses" include medical offices (physician, dentist), professional offices (accountant, attorney, real estate, insurance), which are intended to generate pedestrian activity, unlike general office buildings, banks, or lab spaces. Board members generally found this clarification acceptable.
    • AHO Impact: Jeff Roberts explained that while the proposed zoning creates more height equivalency, AHO still offers advantages like as-of-right permitting and no ground-floor commercial requirement. He noted that affordable housing relies on public resources and subsidies, and the city will continue to evaluate resource allocation.
    • Housing Production Monitoring: Jeff Roberts confirmed that the multifamily zoning includes an annual housing review, which will be shared with the Planning Board.
    • Planning Study Feedback: Mary Flynn suggested that proposed zoning changes be brought back to planning study groups for feedback before filing, given public concerns about changes from initial proposals.
    • Small Lots & Streetscape (Dan Anderson): Reiterated concerns about the impact of the zoning on typical smaller lots (50-80 feet wide). Feared that if 12-story construction is not economically viable, developers will build 6-story residential blocks without open space or ground-floor retail, leading to poor urban design. Advocated for more nuanced requirements for smaller lots and buildings under 8 stories to ensure open space and break up long facades.
    • Overall Support: Board members (Ted Cohen, Tom Sieniewicz, Ashley Tan, Carolyn Zern, Diego Macias, Joy Jackson) expressed broad support for both petitions as a necessary step to address Cambridge's housing crisis and promote community evolution. They acknowledged the complexity and trade-offs involved.
    • Evolution of Community: Tom Sieniewicz emphasized that the petitions allow for growth and evolution, supporting more retail, diversity, and housing for future generations.
    • Retail Challenges: Ted Cohen acknowledged the difficulty of retail in the age of online shopping but supported requiring ground-floor retail.
    • Regular Updates: Joy Jackson and Mary Lydecker appreciated the idea of regular updates on housing production and development to contextualize discussions.

  • Motion on Massachusetts Avenue Corridor Zoning Petition:

    • Motion: To recommend adoption of the petition, including a summary of the evening's discussion.
    • Moved by: Tom Sieniewicz
    • Seconded by: Theodore Cohen
    • Roll Call Vote:
      • Theodore Cohen: Yes
      • Mary Lydecker: Yes
      • Diego Macias: Yes
      • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
      • Ashley Tan: Yes
      • Carolyn Zern: Yes
      • Mary Flynn: Yes
    • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (7-0).

  • Motion on Cambridge Street Corridor Zoning Petition:

    • Motion: To recommend adoption of the petition, including a summary of the evening's discussion.
    • Moved by: Theodore Cohen
    • Seconded by: Tom Sieniewicz
    • Roll Call Vote:
      • Theodore Cohen: Yes
      • Mary Lydecker: Yes
      • Diego Macias: Yes
      • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
      • Ashley Tan: Yes
      • Carolyn Zern: Yes
      • Mary Flynn: Yes
    • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (7-0).

VI. Use Determination: 20 Child Street (North Point PUD)

  • Summary: Proposal to locate a fitness center at the ground floor of 20 Child Street (Parcel N of Cambridge Crossing PUD). The use was not explicitly authorized in the original zoning/special permit but was anticipated in the overall retail plan. The Planning Board can make a determination if the use is compatible with the Eastern Cambridge Plan and necessary to support predominant residential use.
  • Board Questions: None.
  • Motion: To make a determination that the proposed fitness center use is compatible with and advances the policy objectives of the Eastern Cambridge Plan and is necessary to support the predominant residential use in the PUD and the North Point Residence District.
  • Moved by: Tom Sieniewicz
  • Seconded by: Theodore Cohen
  • Roll Call Vote:
    • Theodore Cohen: Yes
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Mary Flynn: Yes
  • Outcome: Motion passed unanimously (7-0).

The meeting was adjourned.

Last updated: Oct 24, 2025

Back to Meetings