Audio Version

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 obligated 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 such structures 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 and proposed zoning recommendations for Cambridge Street and Mass Ave.

• Overview of Planning Studies:

  • Purpose: To meet "Envision Cambridge" goals, including housing affordability, sustainable growth, retail support, public realm improvement, climate resiliency, and multimodal streets.
  • Housing Targets: Envision Cambridge set a target of 12,000 new housing units by 2030, which is unlikely to be met, but these studies aim to provide a framework for increased housing.
  • 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 both corridors, with restaurants being prominent.
  • Community Engagement: Extensive methods used, including neighborhood pop-ups, focus groups (e.g., 14-member working group for Mass Ave), in-person surveys, and stakeholder interviews (30 for Mass Ave, 20+ for Cambridge Street).
  • Key Themes (Cambridge Street): Inviting, Local, Affordable, Accessible, Resilient.
  • Key Themes (Mass Ave): More of a Neighborhood and a Destination, More Inviting, Easier to Get Around, More Housing Options.

• 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 proposed street wall height, ~8 stories).
    • Additional height accommodated with upper-story setbacks.
    • Front setbacks used to extend the public realm (wider sidewalks, outdoor dining).
    • Minimal side setbacks for continuous street wall.
    • Rear setbacks for transition to neighborhoods.
  • Open Space: 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 additional residential height tied to active ground-floor 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.
  • Baseline Residential Height: Six stories and 75 feet (some parts of Mass Ave up to seven stories) due to recent multi-family zoning.
  • Design Standards: Minimum standards for facade transparency, ground-floor heights.
  • 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 center line of the street (front setbacks for sidewalk expansion).
    • 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 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 Zone 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 of six-story buildings with a setback above five stories has been updated due to multi-family zoning.
  • Base Standards (Residential): Six stories (one-to-one principle for narrower street).
    • Setback and open space requirements similar to Mass Ave.
    • Center line 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 Projections:

  • By 2030: Zoning changes could produce almost 1,000 more housing units than current zoning.
  • By 2040: Roughly 2,800 more units than existing zoning.
  • 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 Questions:

  • 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 such spaces, but specific incentives for community space outside of general active ground-floor uses are not currently singled out.
  • Height Objections: A Board member asked about community objections to heights above 12 stories. Drew Cain explained that 12 stories was generally comfortable for the length of Mass Ave, with Porter Square being an exception due to its redevelopment potential and transit hub status, where higher heights were more accepted in exchange for benefits.
  • North Mass Ave Opportunities: Daniel Mesclay asked if other locations along North Mass Ave, beyond Porter Square (e.g., intersection of Rindge, pocket park/bike trail), were considered for slightly higher development. Staff confirmed that the 8-11 story limit was applied to the remainder of the corridor outside Porter Square, and specific pockets for additional height were not explored.
  • Street Widths and Sidewalks: Daniel Mesclay questioned how the proposed zoning aligns with current Mass Ave changes and sidewalk widths, noting a preferred 13-foot minimum but current 12-foot reality. Evan Spatrini explained that the DPW's partial construction project will not move curbs except at certain intersections. The proposed 55-foot setback from the street center line (or 37 feet for Cambridge Street) is intended to expand sidewalk space into front yard setbacks, aiming for the 13-19 foot range recommended by citywide urban design guidelines.
  • Central Square Plan: A Board member inquired about the status of the Central Square plan. Evan Spatrini stated that City Council reprioritized zoning efforts, placing Cambridge Street and Mass Ave first, with Central Square to be revisited in the new year.
  • Webster-Windsor Sub-district (PUD vs. Sub-district): A Board member asked why Webster-Windsor was a sub-district rather than a PUD. Jeff Roberts explained that PUDs are suitable for complex areas with multiple needs (e.g., retail, transit, open space) and larger sites, like Porter Square. Webster-Windsor was seen more as a site for greater housing density, though a PUD approach could be considered if other goals were identified.
  • Cambridge Street Setback: A Board member asked about the current setback on Cambridge Street and the impact of the proposed 37-foot center line setback on street wall consistency. Drew Cain noted that most of Cambridge Street is 60-66 feet wide, with narrow sidewalks (around 8 feet). The 37-foot setback aims for a 12-foot minimum sidewalk for healthier streetscapes, and a 4-foot difference is considered nominal compared to the benefit of wider sidewalks.
  • Neighborhood-Scale Retail: Board members asked how the city encourages neighborhood-scale retail, given market realities. Staff acknowledged the challenge and are working with the Economic Opportunity and Development Division. They are considering relaxing maximum square footage requirements for retail spaces, which have sometimes hindered leasing, and focusing on design standards that make spaces attractive for tenants while promoting activity. The idea of a "master lease scenario" for smaller retailers was also mentioned as a recommendation from the Cambridge Street plan.
  • 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 modern commercial spaces, especially with taller first floors. Evan Spatrini clarified that the 35-foot limit applies to commercial-only buildings, while mixed-use buildings with residential above can exceed this. The intent is to incentivize residential uses by limiting commercial-only development to existing standards.
  • Granularity of "Active Uses": A Board member asked about the level of granularity in defining "active uses" (e.g., amenity space for employees, banks, ATMs). Staff confirmed they are working with economic development experts to define this, balancing the need for activation with avoiding overly restrictive requirements that could lead to vacant spaces.
  • Public Realm Investment: Board members emphasized the importance of public realm investment, treating Mass Ave and Cambridge Street as significant public spaces akin to parks. They urged the city to lead in creating identity and ensuring equitable streetscapes, leveraging planning studies for implementation and inter-departmental coordination (e.g., DPW, Urban Forestry).
  • Special Permit Requirement: Tom Sieniewicz suggested that the importance of these corridors might warrant a special permit process for all projects to allow for more scrutiny and community discussion on design and active uses, rather than relying solely on detailed guidelines. Daniel Mesclay supported this, arguing that a special permit would allow for public comment and feedback on building volume and appropriate "give" to the city.

• 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 be more special, with more commercial uses and potentially extra height, to better serve the northern Mass Ave population.
  • Heather Hoffman (213 Hurley Street): Questioned 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-foot buildings (nearly two-to-one). She expressed concern that the proposed zoning prioritizes cramming buildings over good urban design and that the emphasis on green spaces is contradicted by building giant structures that cast shadows.
  • Helen Walker (43 Linnien Street): Asked about provisions for developers proposing three stories of innovation lab space with five stories of housing above, and how such a blend of uses would be accommodated. Evan Spatrini 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 aims to incentivize residential uses.

The Board concluded the discussion, acknowledging the valuable feedback received.

Motion: To adjourn the meeting. Vote: * Mary Lydecker: Yes * Diego Macias: Yes * Ashley Tan: Yes * Carolyn Zern: Yes * Tom Sieniewicz: Yes * Outcome: Motion passed (5-0).

The meeting was adjourned.