Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

July 22, 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

Meeting Minutes: Pembridge Planning Board

Meeting Date: July 22nd, 2025 Governing Body: Pembridge Planning Board Type of Meeting: General Business Meeting

Attendees:

  • Tom Sieniewicz (Vice Chair, Acting Chair)
  • Mary Lydecker
  • Diego Macias
  • Ashley Tan
  • Carolyn Zern
  • Dan Anderson (Associate Member, remote)
  • Joy Jackson (Associate Member, remote)

Absent:

  • H. Theodore Cullen
  • Mary Flynn

Staff Present:

  • Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department)
  • Drew Cain (Senior City Planner, Community Planning and Design Division)
  • Evan Spatrini (Community Planning and Design Division)
  • Swati Joseph
  • Annie Shawn (Communications Director)
  • Eric Torkelson (Community Planning Design Team, Urban Design)
  • Daniel Mesclay (Director of Planning and Design, remote)

Executive Summary

The Pembridge Planning Board convened for a general business meeting on July 22nd, 2025. Key discussions included a review of Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) cases, for which the Board provided recommendations of approval or no comment. The primary agenda item was an update from the Community Development Department on planning and zoning recommendations for Cambridge Street and Mass Ave, stemming from the "Envision Cambridge" initiative. Staff presented proposed zoning changes aimed at incentivizing housing production and active ground-floor uses, while also outlining future public hearings for upcoming zoning petitions and design reviews.

I. Community Development Department Update

  • Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, provided an update on upcoming meetings and pending City Council actions.
    • The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for August 5th, featuring:
      • A public hearing on a zoning petition related to the short-term rentals ordinance.
      • A design review for an affordable housing overlay development proposed at 28-30 Wendell Street.
    • The subsequent meeting on August 19th will include:
      • A public hearing on a proposed amendment to a special permit at 88 Ames Street.
      • Minor amendments to the Infill Development Contact Plan, specifically concerning bicycle parking for the Kendall Square complex.
      • An update on the design of the central plaza and connector roads in the Kendall Square development.
    • The City Council's summer meeting is on August 4th.
    • Two zoning petitions remain pending before the City Council:
      • One concerning the 320 Charles Street site and Biomed Realty's proposal.
      • One related to religious uses.

II. Review of Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) Cases (July 31st, 2025 Hearing)

The Board reviewed three BZA cases and provided recommendations.

A. BZA Case 1169571: 100 Cambridgeside Place – Signage Variance

  • Proposal: Install two wall signs on the building facade in excess of permitted sign height.
  • Background: The building is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project, which received a special permit in 2021 under Planning Board 364.
  • Discussion:
    • Board members noted that the signs, while exceeding height limits, appeared discreet and well-suited to the building's context as a large retail establishment within a shopping mall.
    • The signs were deemed necessary for public notification given the internal focus of the mall.
  • Motion: To send a message to the BZA stating that the proposal is well-suited to the site and makes sense given the nature of the building and its location within a shopping mall.
  • Vote:
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
    • Outcome: Motion passed (5-0).

B. BZA Case 1170611: 100 Cambridgeside Place – Signage Variance

  • Proposal: Install two wall signs on the building facade in excess of permitted sign height.
  • Background: The building is part of a project that received a special permit in 2022 under Planning Board 387.
  • Discussion:
    • Jeff Roberts clarified that these cases are brought to the Planning Board to ensure awareness, but the Board is not always expected to have a strong opinion if the BZA can handle the matter.
    • Board members indicated no specific concerns.
  • Motion: To send a message to the BZA stating that the Board has no significant comments and believes the BZA can address the issues.
  • Vote:
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
    • Outcome: Motion passed (5-0).

C. BZA Case 1170612: 100 Cambridgeside Place – Freestanding Silos

  • Proposal: Install eight freestanding silos in an area that allows for them, under the same special permit (Planning Board 387).
  • Discussion:
    • No specific concerns were raised by Board members.
  • Motion: To send a message to the BZA stating that the Board has no significant comments.
  • Vote:
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Tom Sieniewicz: Yes
    • Outcome: Motion passed (5-0).

III. Update on Planning and Zoning Recommendations for Cambridge Street and Mass Ave

Drew Cain and Evan Spatrini from the Community Development Department presented an update on the planning studies for Cambridge Street and Mass Ave, and the resulting zoning recommendations.

  • Overview of Planning Studies:

    • Goals: The studies aim to meet "Envision Cambridge" goals, including housing affordability, sustainable growth, supporting local retail, improving public realm, climate resiliency, and multimodal streets.
    • Housing Target: Envision Cambridge set a target of 12,000 new housing units by 2030, which is unlikely to be met, but these studies contribute to increasing housing potential.
    • Study Areas:
      • Cambridge Street: Lechmere to Inman Square.
      • Mass Ave: North Mass Ave (Porter Square to Alewife Parkway) and South Mass Ave (Porter Square to Cambridge Common).
    • Ground Floor Uses: Analysis showed a healthy mix of business types on Cambridge Street. Mass Ave also has a mix, with restaurants being dominant, particularly south of Porter Square.
    • Community Engagement: Extensive outreach included neighborhood pop-ups, focus groups (e.g., 14-member working group for Mass Ave), in-person surveys, tabling, and stakeholder interviews (30 for Mass Ave, 20+ for Cambridge Street).
    • Key Themes:
      • Cambridge Street: Inviting, Local, Affordable, Accessible, Resilient (finished Winter 2023).
      • Mass Ave: More of a Neighborhood and a Destination, More Inviting, Easier to Get Around, More Housing Options (finished April/May 2025).

  • Guiding Principles for Zoning Recommendations (Good Main Streets):

    • Mixed-Use Buildings: Primarily mixed-use with community-oriented, active ground-floor uses and housing above. Commercial-only buildings allowed at lower density.
    • Active Uses: Broad definition including retail, restaurants, cultural spaces, and some services (e.g., dentist's office) that encourage foot traffic.
    • Urban Design:
      • One-to-one ratio of street wall height to roadway width (e.g., 100 ft wide Mass Ave, 100 ft street wall height/8 stories).
      • Additional height accommodated with upper story setbacks.
      • Front setbacks used to extend public realm (wider sidewalks, spillover space).
      • Minimal side setbacks for continuous street wall.
      • Rear setbacks for transition to neighborhoods.
      • Pocket parks and plazas.
      • Private open spaces (balconies, roof decks) above ground story.
    • Building Design: Taller first floors for active uses, good window-to-wall ratio, multiple entrances for larger buildings, varied facades.

  • Key Zoning Recommendations:

    • Allow taller heights for housing while maintaining existing non-residential density limits.
    • Encourage active ground-floor uses through residential height bonuses.
    • Implement building and site design standards for active streetscapes.
    • Allow greater development potential in Porter Square and other key areas in exchange for community benefits.
    • Keep current development review thresholds the same.

  • Recommendations for Both Corridors:

    • Prioritize Housing: Greater heights for housing, with more residential height tied to active ground-floor uses.
    • Non-Residential Uses: Commercial-only buildings regulated at prevailing height and density (FAR of 1.0, 35-45 ft height).
    • Setback Alignment: Align residential and non-residential setback requirements to avoid awkward outcomes.
    • Baseline Residential Height: Six stories/75 feet (some Mass Ave parts up to seven stories) due to recent multi-family zoning. Proposal aims to go beyond this.
    • Design Standards: Minimum standards for facade transparency, ground-floor heights, etc., to be developed with the urban design team.
    • Development Review Thresholds:
      • As-of-right projects with advisory review:
        • Staff level for smaller projects.
        • Public advisory consultation at 2,000 sq ft (residential and non-residential).
        • Planning Board advisory consultation for residential projects between 50,000-75,000 sq ft.
        • Project review special permit for residential projects >75,000 sq ft and non-residential projects >20,000 sq ft.

  • Recommendations for Mass Ave:

    • Unified District: One unified district along the corridor, with a special PUD district in Porter Square.
    • Base Standards (Residential): Up to eight stories (one-to-one street wall height to roadway width ratio).
      • No upper story setbacks on the corridor-facing side.
      • 10-foot setback above six stories adjacent to surrounding neighborhoods.
      • Buildings set back 55 feet from the street centerline (front setbacks used to expand sidewalks).
      • No side setback requirements.
      • No open space requirements under base scenario.
    • Bonus Height (Residential): Additional height (initially 11 stories, now considering 12 stories based on Council feedback) for providing active ground-floor uses.
      • Requires additional design standards: 10-foot setback for floors above eight stories, 15% open space requirement.
    • Porter Square PUD District:
      • Relaxed dimensional regulations in exchange for public benefits.
      • Housing up to 18 stories in certain areas.
      • Requires significant public open space, shared parking, and maintenance of Porter Square as a retail destination.

  • Recommendations for Cambridge Street:

    • Unified District: One unified district from Lechmere to Inman Square.
    • Webster-Windsor Sub-district: Identified for additional height due to proximity to Union Square T station and Boynton Yards development.
    • Changes from 2023 Plan: Initial recommendation was six-story buildings with a setback above five stories. Current proposal aligns with new multi-family zoning (six stories baseline).
    • Base Standards (Residential): Six stories (one-to-one principle for narrower street).
      • Setback and open space requirements similar to Mass Ave.
      • Centerline setback of 37 feet.
    • Bonus Height (Residential): Additional two residential stories for active ground-floor uses.
      • Upper story setbacks apply to seventh and eighth floors.
      • 15% open space requirement.
    • Webster-Windsor Sub-district: Residential uses up to 12 stories.
      • Upper story setbacks at six stories.
      • 15% open space requirement.
      • Council feedback requested consideration of other areas along the corridor for additional height.

  • Housing Goals Contribution:

    • By 2030, zoning changes could produce almost 1,000 more housing units on these two streets than current zoning.
    • By 2040, roughly 2,800 more units are projected under this proposal.
    • These changes are not expected to meet the 12,500 unit target by 2030.

  • Next Steps:

    • Refine zoning proposal and draft petitions.
    • Present final petitions to City Council in September.
    • Public hearings throughout the fall.
    • Council could adopt zoning by end of year.

  • Board Discussion and Feedback:

    • Community Space Incentives: Board members inquired if community spaces would be incentivized as active ground-floor uses. Staff confirmed that a broad definition of active uses would include community spaces, but specific incentives beyond general active ground-floor uses are not currently singled out.
    • Height Limitations: A Board member asked about community objection to heights above 12 stories. Drew Cain explained that 12 stories was generally comfortable for the length of the Mass Ave corridor, with Porter Square being an exception due to its redevelopment potential and transit access, where higher heights (up to 18 stories) were more accepted in exchange for public benefits.
    • North Mass Ave Opportunities: Daniel Mesclay asked if other locations along North Mass Ave, beyond Porter Square (e.g., Rindge intersection, pocket park), were considered for slightly higher development. Staff confirmed they stuck with the 8-11 story range for the rest of the corridor, acknowledging differing opinions on height.
    • Street Widths and Sidewalks: Daniel Mesclay questioned how the proposed 13-foot minimum sidewalk width would be achieved given existing 12-foot sidewalks and no curb changes in the DPW project. Evan Spatrini explained that the zoning proposes using front yard setback space (55 ft from centerline on Mass Ave, 37 ft on Cambridge Street) to expand sidewalks, aligning with citywide design guidelines for 13-19 ft wide commercial corridor sidewalks.
    • Central Square Plan: A Board member inquired about the status of the Central Square plan. Staff indicated that City Council reprioritized Cambridge Street and Mass Ave, and Central Square planning would resume in the new year.
    • Webster-Windsor Sub-district (Cambridge Street): A Board member asked why this was a sub-district and not a PUD. Jeff Roberts explained that PUDs are typically for complex areas with multiple needs (e.g., retail, transit, open space) that require flexible development, which Porter Square exemplifies. Webster-Windsor is seen more as a site for increased housing density.
    • Cambridge Street Setbacks: A Board member asked about the current setback on Cambridge Street and the impact of the proposed 37-foot centerline setback on street wall consistency. Staff noted the current narrow sidewalks (approx. 8 ft) and the goal of achieving a 12 ft minimum for healthier streetscapes, prioritizing sidewalk width over a perfectly uniform street wall.
    • Neighborhood-Scale Retail: Board members discussed how to encourage neighborhood-scale retail and active pedestrian experiences through zoning. Staff acknowledged the challenge of balancing market realities with desired uses. They are working with the Economic Opportunity and Development Division to ensure feasibility and are considering relaxing maximum square footage requirements for retail spaces, which have sometimes hindered leasing. The concept of "master lease scenarios" for smaller retailers was also mentioned.
    • Public Realm Investment: Board members emphasized the importance of public investment in streetscapes and public spaces (e.g., shade canopy, complete streets) to catalyze private development, treating Mass Ave as a significant public space akin to a park. Staff agreed on the value of long-term planning studies in guiding city departments and ensuring alignment of initiatives (e.g., urban forestry, infrastructure changes).
    • Non-Residential Height (Cambridge Street): A Board member questioned the 35-foot height limit for non-residential uses on Cambridge Street, suggesting it might be too restrictive for buildings with tall first floors. Staff clarified that the 35-foot limit applies to commercial-only buildings, while mixed-use buildings with residential above can exceed this, incentivizing residential development.
    • Granularity of "Active Uses": A Board member asked about the level of detail in defining "active uses" (e.g., amenity space for employees, banks, ATMs). Staff confirmed they are working with economic development experts to define this granularly, balancing desired activity with avoiding overly restrictive requirements.
    • Special Permit Requirement: Tom Sieniewicz proposed that all projects on these "Main Streets" should require a special permit due to their importance, allowing for more scrutiny and community discussion on design and active uses. Daniel Mesclay supported this, suggesting it would be better than writing overly detailed guidelines.
    • Nighttime Activity: Daniel Mesclay encouraged staff to consider how zoning can contribute to nighttime activity, transportation alternatives, and lighting to enhance the 24-hour life of the corridors.

  • Public Comment:

    • Ruth Riles (President, Porter Square Neighbors Association, 100 Mass Ave): Suggested that the very north end of Mass Ave (beyond Porter Square) could benefit from more commercial development and even extra height to serve the northern Mass Ave population, which currently lacks sufficient stores.
    • Heather Hoffman (213 Hurley Street): Expressed concern about the one-to-one height-to-width ratio for main streets, noting that residential streets like Hurley Street (40 ft wide) are subject to 74 ft buildings (nearly two-to-one), which she finds overwhelming. She questioned why good urban design principles (like one-to-one ratio) are "jettisoned so quickly" for main streets, and why green spaces are discussed while proposing tall buildings that would cast shadows and hinder plant growth.
    • Helen Walker (43 Linnien Street): Asked about provisions for a developer interested in three stories of innovation lab space with five stories of housing above, and how such a blend of uses would be accommodated under the proposed zoning. Staff responded that the current FAR of 1.0 for non-residential uses would likely make such a commercial-heavy building with a large footprint unfeasible, as the zoning incentivizes residential uses.

The meeting was adjourned.

Last updated: Oct 6, 2025

Back to Meetings