Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the September 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Cambridge planning board. My name is Mary Flynn and I am the vice chair acting as chair for this evening's meeting. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 adopted by the Massachusetts general court and approved by the governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge planning board. All board members, applicants, and members of the public will state their names before speaking, and all votes will be taken by roll call. Members of the public will be kept on mute until it is time for public comment. I will give instructions for public comment at that time, and you can also find instructions on the city's webpage for remote planning board meetings. This meeting is being video and audio recorded and is being streamed live on the City of Cambridge online meeting portal and on cable television channel 22 within Cambridge. There will also be a transcript of the proceedings. I'll start by asking staff to take board member attendance and verify that all members are audible. Jeff.

Thank you. This is Jeff Roberts from Community Development. H. Theodore Cohen, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you? Present, visible, and audible. Thank you, Ted. Mary Leydecker, are you present, and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Mary. Diego Macias, are you present, and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Diego. Ashley Tan, are you present, and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Ashley. Carolyn Zern, are you present, and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Carolyn. Dan Anderson, associate member, are you present? Is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Hi, Jeff. Yes, present, visible, and audible.

Thank you, Dan. Tom Senevich, the chair is absent as noted. And so we have six planning board members present and, oh, I'm sorry. And Mary, can you just, Mary Flynn, can you just confirm that the meeting is visible and audible to you?

It is both visible and audible, yes.

Thank you, Mary. Just to confirm that. So that means we have six planning board members present plus one associate member.

Okay, thank you, Jeff. The first item on tonight's agenda is an update from the Community Development Department. I'm going to turn that back over to Jeff. And Jeff, if you would just introduce any staff who are present with you at the meeting, please.

Yes, absolutely. My name is Jeff Roberts. I'm the Director of Zoning and Development. for the community development department and with me on the zoning and development team are Swathi Joseph and Mason Wells. That's all the staff we have currently. Just for some quick updates, looking at the calendar, not much has changed from the last time. We do have a public hearing on the schedule. We'll be talking about that in a second. And we have a couple of general business items coming up, which we may get to sooner than expected. But we'll get there. The next meeting we have scheduled is October 6th. That means there's no meeting next week on the 29th. October 6th, we have a continued public hearing on a case at 9 and 25 Birch Street and 30 to 36 Bay State Road, a residential project review special permit proposal. And we have a review scheduled of the signage plan at the Cambridge side PUD development, which is one of their design review related conditions on that project. That's all we have on the calendar at this point. I don't believe there's any updates from last week. It was, as some of us were talking about, it was certainly nice to have an in-person meeting last week. Unfortunately, we'll be back to remote for a little bit as we still try to work out some of the technical issues in our normal room, but we're hopeful that we'll be back in person for more meetings in the future.

Great. Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? Seeing none, then let's move on to agenda item number one, which is a public hearing on a zoning petition by Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. to amend Article 13 and the zoning map with the intent of establishing the Technology Square Transfer Receiving District. and amending section 13.59.42 to allow for the transfer of 250,000 square feet of gross floor area to that receiving district in exchange for the conversion of the existing brick and beam structure at 161 First Street into affordable housing. And I'm gonna turn this right back over to Jeff who will update us on the status of the hearing.

Thanks. So this is a new zoning petition. But before we get into it, I should note that we did receive a letter from the petitioners team requesting a continuation of the hearing. So I thought that before we get into it, we should start with that request. We have James Rafferty from representing the petitioner who's available if there's any questions.

Okay, do board members have any questions for Attorney Rafferty or for the staff? Okay, and we don't have a specific date that we're extending this to, correct?

Not at this time, but there is plenty of time. It's a zoning petition, so it's a little bit more open-ended. There isn't really a hard decision deadline like a special permit, so we can be somewhat flexible.

Okay, great. Thank you. Ted, did you have a question?

I was just wondering, is there a rationale or a reason for the request?

Mr. Rafferty, do you want to answer that or Jeff?

I can let the representative speak to it, but really I think it characterizes a procedural issue that has come up that we need to make sure gets resolved just to make sure that this petition is on the right track. This is something that happens from time to time and causes us to kind of look back and just

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thanks. Thank you for that. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none then, we need to take a motion then. This is a motion for full board members only. Could I have a motion to continue the hearing?

This is Diego. So moved.

Thank you, Diego. Is there a second, please?

Ted, second.

Thank you, Ted. And Jeff, may we have a roll call vote, please?

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lidecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

And Mary Flynn?

Yes.

That's all six members present voting in favor.

Very good. All right. Thank you. And Mr. Rafferty, we will see you in the future.

I'll look forward to that.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is a request for an extension of time to apply for a building permit on Plenty Board case PB 390, which is located at 57 JFK Street. CDD staff are going to provide an update on this. And for that, we're going back once again to Jeff.

Thank you. So this is a special permit that was granted by the planning board on October 25th, 2022. It authorizes a residential addition to currently a commercial building, which has been known as the Crimson Galleria in Harvard Square. and the decision requires the permittee to obtain a building permit within two years of the special permit being granted an extension has already been granted a two-year extension granted in 2024 and the permittee has provided a letter requesting an additional four-year extension of that time until October 25th 2030. Roshna Balakrishna is the representative of the permittee, if the board has any questions.

Okay, thank you, Jeff. Do board members have questions? Ted.

Yes, I think probably a question for Jeff, for staff. I don't recall ever giving a four year extension in the past. Have we done that? It seems to me they've usually been one or two years at most, which I mean, I remember the application and the permit and given the pandemic and the economic conditions, I don't have any objection. to an extension, but four years seems to be too long and I would prefer one or two years.

I know. Thank you. Sorry, Mary, if I can go ahead and answer that.

Yes, go ahead.

It's a good question. I also don't recall granting a four-year extension. We did look into the state statute on this just to ground ourselves after we got this request. And the state statute says that... a period of time can be specified after which a special permit will lapse except for good cause so it doesn't really specify what the um allowable extension of time is but i think as a matter of practice um we have kept it to two or or one years again since the idea is to extend it for cause you know there there may be some you know foreseeable issues that require another year or two to obtain a building permit but um you know it may be more difficult to determine um you know cause you know that if we're looking that far out that's typically a bit further than would be to kind of move to a building permit phase. The zoning statute does provide that cities can allow that time to lapse to be up to three years, but it doesn't say anything about extensions, but we would probably recommend um you know something more like a one or two year extension as was granted before and and probably no more than three years given that the um even though the state statute doesn't say it an extension can't be more than three years it does say a special permit lapse can't be more than three years so I would consider that kind of a guideline of kind of a maximum um time frame

Okay, any other questions, Ted?

No, thank you. Okay. Can I speak to that?

No, not just yet. We're just doing planning board questions, Mr. Donovan. Any other questions from board members? Okay, let me... Do we have questions for the applicant?

All right, Mr. Donda, you may speak, but please keep it to a short history of this project is that in 2022, we were, we had actually begun to do the, uh, preliminary versions of the construction and Hingham Savings Bank pulled a fast one on us and they basically prevented us from not only going forward, but going forward for significant length of time. At this moment, I can tell you the following. Our mortgage with them expires in 2019. And at that point, we would be totally free to move forward with this project. It will be a magnificent project and with the current zoning changes, We probably will be able to add one more floor in between. I've spoken to Sarah Birx, I've spoken to everybody or several people in the planning department. And that's what we intend to do. It's honestly not our doing. It's the bank's doing. And if we were to move forward, they would default us on a very, very, very attractive. 10-year mortgage that expires in, I believe it's 29. So my thought is that perhaps by 28, early 29, we will start to do all the prep work. and the minute the mortgage expires, or we make a deal with them and we move on and they move on maybe a little sooner. This, let me show you this. This will be a most spectacular addition of housing for the Harvard Square community. Really, I don't know if there's a better one. And with the zoning change that has already happened, I spoke to Sarah and to... and we will be able to add even one more floor which will be wonderful for frankly the community and and us so i would really ask i would ask for the requests we've made If we are denied that much time, I understand that's a lot of time. We'll just come back again. I would ask that. Thank you.

We understand the request. Yeah, I appreciate the background. That's very helpful to know the situation with the bank. Do board members have thoughts or comments that they would like to make? All right, well, Ted.

Well, I understand what Mr. Donda is saying, but I am hesitant to change our policy from the past and to start a new precedent. I think to your extension is in keeping with what we've generally done. And as he says, if the situation is the same in two years, he could come back and there would be good cause for a further extension. And as we've seen, zoning has changed quite a bit in the past couple of years. And who knows what city council might do in the intervening, I'd say, two years. So I would opt for a two year extension rather than anything longer.

OK, thank you, Ashley.

I was also going to say the same. I think a two year is appropriate. I noticed that the last time we had granted an extension readiness project was two years and you know that matches what the state has allowed, you know, through the Permit Extension Act. So that's what I'm comfortable with. Okay.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with that also because we do have that precedent and we don't have any examples of going further than that. So as you did state, Mr. Donda, you can always come back in two years because many, many things can change between now and then. Do any planning board members have other thoughts or concerns about a two-year plan? extension. Okay, seeing none, then I would like someone to make a motion to agree to a two year extension of time on this case PB 390.

Ted, so moved.

Thank you, Ted. Could I have a second please? This is Carolyn second. Thank you very much. And Jeff, now a roll call vote, please.

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lidecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan?

Yes.

Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

Mary Flynn?

Yes.

That's all six members voting in favor. I suppose... I probably should have done this before the roll call, but since this is a special permit action, it may be appropriate to appoint associate member to vote to create a full board.

Oh, okay. Sure. All right. Well, I will appoint Dan then to be a voting member on this special permit.

Thank you. Okay. So then we'll, before I call it, so then Dan Anderson.

I approve.

Okay, so that is then all seven members voting in favor.

Great. May I make a final comment?

Yes.

I assure you, you will not be disappointed when this addition happens. It'll be a very gorgeous addition. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We look forward to seeing you in another two years, Mr. Vedanta, if not sooner. All right, then moving on. to item number three, which is review of a Board of Zoning appeal case to be heard by the BZA on September 24th, 2026. This is a matter of general business and our action is to decide whether or not to make any recommendations to the Board of Zoning appeal on these cases. The case under discussion is BZA case 1225403, a variance request to reduce the front yard setbacks along Mount Auburn and Story Streets and to increase the commercial side setbacks on the first, second and third floor of the building at 127 Mount Auburn Street. CDD is going to provide some background on this. We do also have a memo from them, but I'm sure. And then Pat Barrett is here also as the petitioner. So let me turn it first over to Jeff for a summary.

Thank you, Mary. And as you noted, we did something we don't normally do for BZA cases, which we provided a brief memo and it was all just focused on the procedural aspects of this case because it's a little bit different than what we normally see when we're doing BZA case review with the planning board. Usually it's a case that's just coming to the BZA and the planning board gives comment. This is a little different. It's actually subject to several different jurisdictions it's it's subject to historical commission jurisdiction which is explained a little bit in the memo and in addition to the bza variances it is subject to planning board review um and we we as we're expecting that it will be under the the new planning board advisory consultation procedures So as the planning board looks at this case, and of course the planning board could decide to send a recommendation to the BZA or not, we wanted to make sure it was clear to the planning board what procedures applied. So we're happy to answer any more questions about that. And as you mentioned, Patrick Barrett is here representing the applicant.

All right, let me start off by asking the board if you have any questions for staff on the memo or the procedures. There is quite a bit of review that will be attached to this project. Ted. You're muted, Ted.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that memo. I apologize for that. I was wondering if staff could just explain a little more about the procedures that's going to be followed. My question was whether it was going to come back to the planning board at some time, and I'm glad to hear that it is. But procedurally, where does it stand now, and if the BCA does grant the variances, what would the next steps be?

So to kind of summarize it as briefly as I can, it's subject to, so the relief that's being sought is dimensional relief. having to do with setbacks, that is relief that at this time under the zoning can only be granted by a variance. There's no special permit provision for it that would send it to the BZA or to the planning board under the special permit provisions. it is also assuming that the the project is um above 50 000 square feet in gross floor area but but does not trigger uh the threshold for a project review special permit then it would be subject to a planning board advisory consultation and that's the process where it's in some ways similar to a special permit review there's submission requirements plans it's focused on urban design there's no tis requirement no transit transportation impact study requirement but there's you know plans that need to be submitted it comes to the planning board for an initial review for comments to the developer and the design team and then the developer gets a report of those and then comes back to present any changes that were made as part of the the planning board's input So it's entirely an advisory process, and the BZA process is a variance process. So it's a decision that has to be issued to grant the relief that's requested. At this time, we don't have a, and we have met with the applicant on a number of occasions as part of the preliminary sort of work for a planning board advisory consultation. It's also subject to several administrative requirements. it's required to have a staff advisory review. So we did meet recently with the applicant to review the plans and discuss comments that the urban design team has and other comments related to the standards that the project has to meet. Because we don't have the plaintiff or advisory consultation materials and the BZA hearing is upcoming, you know, we wouldn't have that hearing until after the BZA at least, you know, opens the hearing process. Thank you.

Yes, my other question is, at some point, does it go back to the Historical Commission or have they signed off on what they've seen so far?

My understanding and Mr. Barrett can give the applicant's representation of that because I haven't been directly involved in all the Historical Commission review. But as it's been explained to me, it has received a kind of conceptual approval and will need to return to the Historical Commission for a more detailed review. I think I believe that's a condition of the approval they received.

Okay.

And that I would assume would be after the planning board. But Mr. Barrett, why don't you go next? Maybe you can explain this complicated process a little bit more to us and maybe just quickly summarize the relief that you're seeking.

Yes, ma'am. So we received a certificate of appropriateness for this project in October of last year. It did have conditions on it. We will be working with Charlie and the Historical Commission throughout. This project was very contentious. It was one of the first larger projects to make use of the multifamily housing zoning. It's also a mixed-use project. It also carries with it on the site a very important historical building that has been at least approved for landmark, the Harriet Jacobs House. Um, part of the issue that we faced in designing this project is we're at a corner and the multifamily housing zoning did not really address that issue in terms of, um, contextual setback, which was more rigid in terms of its, uh, application. We were required to have 10 foot setbacks on side facing streets, um, which had the effect of pushing the building further into the neighborhood. Um, one of the conditions in our. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS, AND WE MADE THIS PRETTY CLEAR TO THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL, THAT WE WOULD TRY TO IN SOME WAY ALLEVIATE THE FIVE-FOOT, EIGHT-FOOT, AND FIVE-FOOT SETBACK. JUST IMAGINE A FIVE-SIDED LOT ON THE SIDES TO ALLEVIATE THAT PRESSURE ON THEIR PROPERTIES IF POSSIBLE. There's no legal vehicle for that other than a traditional variance, which under the old standard, I didn't feel comfortable bringing that to the board, even though I think we might actually fit the old standard. The appeal process is arduous and you know all the details of that. So in July of this year, the state legislature changed what it means to get a variance. and lowered the threshold for what a variance is statewide. It actually has far reaching applications to it. We don't really know exactly what it all means, but it went from a substantial hardship standard to now a practical difficulty standard. and i convinced my client who very graciously agreed to allow me to apply for this variance to move the building into the um residential setback if you will the front setbacks so the idea the variance really is moving the building further away from the neighbors um we're able to achieve on our diagram about a five foot to seven foot additional setback to what was already applied, which moves it further away from two 80 foot tall pine trees that inexplicably were able to grow in Harvard Square, as well as trying to make good on a promise to the neighbors that we would tried to ameliorate the condition. If this was a fully residential building and didn't carry the Harriet Jacobs house, you know, and it wasn't at a corner, a lot of ifs, we would be able to make sure, make use of the contextual setback and probably put it closer to zero anyway and further away. But because that option is not available to us, it was really only until at the end of july this became an option um that in a nutshell is the relief that we're seeking we want to move the building further away we're not increasing the building and we're also as part of the second leg of that When they changed the residential zoning, they didn't change any of the commercial zoning. So there's very few districts where this applies. In fact, this site might be the only district in the Harvard Square overlay where there's a C2 district that allows for hotel use, but also carries with it a corner in the Harry Jacobs House. The commercial setback is still the formulaic H plus L divided by four or five. which would create a, I think, 24 to 34-foot cantilever, depending on the height and depth of the building, if we built it traditionally with stacked floors. So what we're asking is to lower the height of the hotel to three stories behind the Harry Jacobs house, normalize the setback at the residential setback on those floors, and move the building forward. And that, in a nutshell, is the relief.

Okay. So do you have a number for what the setback is then on Mount Auburn and Story?

So on Story Street, we're about 0.2. And on Mount Auburn Street, it depends. We're at 5.6 right now. And that is really being dictated by the Harry Jacobs House. The relief that we're asking for is allowing us to push it to the maximum. We think 13.8 is achievable on the Hilliard side. And if we're able to increase that, we will. We just sort of wanted to set where the pins were and then as we design the building, get it closer to the curb.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions? Mary.

I had a question on the Story Street side where you're looking to really pull it to the back of the curb. Basically, what would the sidewalk width be?

The sidewalk width is unchanged. It's currently about five feet and it's brick. We're gonna have to redo all these sidewalks anyway, which will include, you know, part of what gets frustrated in moving the building forward is we alter the calculation for our cool factor or green factor or whatever the factor, a cool score. So we'll have to look at street tree plantings But I also think it gives us a good opportunity in the back of the building to put a lot of trees. And even though we don't get the same one-to-one, a lot of vegetation can go back there now to add some more privacy for our neighbors. But the sidewalk width will remain the same. Right now, if you look at the Harry Jacobs House on Story Street, it has a little bit of an alcove vestibule in the front that's below grade, and it goes right to the curb, right to the side.

And so if that one's, say, five feet,

No, no, no, the Story Street will be about 0.2.

No, I'm sorry, the sidewalk. I'm kind of just trying to figure out, once you pull a building to the back of the sidewalk, the effective width of that kind of ped zone with a taller building is five feet. So it's just trying to identify what is that condition. Now, Mount Auburn is a wider sidewalk, right, today?

Do you know how wide that one is? It's about three feet right now. It'll be about 5.6 when we're done. And that's really dictated by the stairs of the Harriet Jacobs House.

Sorry, again, it's what's the public realm outside. That's what I'm kind of trying to figure out is how the setbacks you're requesting, which we'll talk about in discussion, but I'm definitely open to them. What's the sidewalk condition for a person, like in the public realm? So at your property line, it looks like there's like maybe a 10 to 12 foot sidewalk on Mount Auburn and maybe a five foot sidewalk on Story Street. Does that sound right?

It depends on where you are. So at the intersection of Mount Auburn, the corner there, it gets a little bit wider. As you go further up Mount Auburn Street, it gets more narrow. And the building that is being taken down on Mount Auburn is about three feet away from the curb there. Three feet away from the sidewalk.

But the sidewalk, maybe this is a city question, is what's your sidewalk width?

The sidewalk is no more than five feet at that side.

But Mount Auburn's a wider sidewalk, is it not?

Not in our drawing. I don't think it is. No? No, it's not where that building is.

So both sidewalks would remain five feet to the top. It's a five-foot sidewalk. And then the property line would either have five more, five plus, five foot ten inches or 0.2 feet. Okay.

Okay. Do you have any other follow-up right now, Mary, or should I move on? Nope, that's it. Okay, great, thanks. All right, Dan, let's go to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Attorney Barrett, what would the contextual setback be if one were to continue Story Street?

So, that's an interesting question. The way that it currently reads, it's... properties adjacent. So there's no adjacent property to a corner. So it'd be the street. If I was to look at the buildings that are actually on either side of the Mount Auburn or Story Street side, it ranges from about zero to about two or three feet, depending on which building you're looking at. And directly across the street from us is the post office, which is at zero. That's a loading docks.

All right, thank you. I guess my follow-up question, which I can reserve for a bit, would really be more to staff about trying to understand that because I'm curious from an urban design standpoint, the rationale makes corners a really peculiar condition and maybe raises some of the conditions for a significant difficulty for the variance. But I'll hold that for others to ask questions first.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions at this point? So just in terms of process, is there any particular reason for putting the bza at the beginning of the process as opposed to going through like the planning board review and then asking for the variance um because it just seems like you know we're going to lock ourselves into a condition before we actually get to reviewing the project so we felt because we are um

IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WE HAVE THE HISTORICAL PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE TO PRESERVE, AND THAT WILL BE GUIDED ENTIRELY BY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, THAT A LOT OF WHAT IS BEING DICTATED IN TERMS OF OUTWARD DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IS REALLY BEING CONTROLLED BY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. THIS PROJECT IS INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED, AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE IT SITS ON THE LOT, WE'RE KIND OF STUCK. SO IT IS UNUSUAL WE'RE DOING IT THIS WAY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE LAW WAS GOING TO CHANGE AT THE END OF JULY. I DIDN'T THINK THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I EXPLAINED THAT TO THE NEIGHBORS. SOME OF THEM ARE HAPPY. I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROJECT. BUT IT'S UNUSUAL. IT'S VERY UNUSUAL. BUT THAT'S HOW WE THOUGHT THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK. I THINK WE'RE ABLE TO ADJUST THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF PLANNING BOARD ADVISORY CONSULTATION AS MUCH AS THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WILL WEIGH ON IT. So I think some synergy between those two processes, but we don't, I don't think it forecloses a larger discussion. It just, I can't design it without knowing where it is.

Yeah. Okay. That's thank you for that. Any other questions? And if not, then we'll move to discussion or discussion. And so we need to decide whether we are going to make a recommendation to the BZA on this. And as you know, we don't have to, but if people feel, board members feel like they would like to, we can certainly consider that. So who would like to start on their suggestions for how we would proceed? Dan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure and don't want to dictate how we might respond to BZA at the moment, but I do have questions about sort of the urban design precedent and the way that staff are thinking about corner lots, because I know that I've addressed this and have run into similar issues. not to the extent of requiring variants. I mean, in this case, you know, there's significant improvement to the neighbors in the neighborhood by being able to give them a greater setback, which they would appreciate. But just sort of sort of thinking about the street wall, about the kind of public life, as Mary pointed out, in terms of widths of sidewalks and such. You know, we have probably more zero lot line setbacks in a lot of cases than we have setbacks. So I'm really kind of curious to hear from staff about the thinking behind maintaining that 10-foot baseline yard setback. Given that you can't really calculate a contextual setback, in my opinion, there's a lot of more contextual, closer to sidewalk and closer to zero setback corner conditions, particularly if you look at other, not only throughout Harvard Square, but historically East Cambridge. So I'm just trying to balance off what what we are tasked to kind of think about from an urban design standpoint, what buildings look like, compared to a practical difficulty of requesting a variance. So maybe hopefully that question is clear enough for staff to give a little bit of thinking about why why this condition kind of kicks in.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think we have anybody from urban design with us this evening, but Jeff, I don't know if you sat in on the department review and whether you feel comfortable answering that or not or trying to answer it.

Well, it sounds like the question is more about kind of backing up and explaining the zoning and how the zoning got to be where it is which i could talk a little bit about but maybe not too much because it's you know we might have that discussion you know if we're talking about any kind of future zoning amendments or with city council you know the we did spend a lot of time working on the zoning and it you know landed in a particular place um as a result of the the major reforms that were adopted last year and that did include there there was not in in most zoning districts there was not a contextual front setback provision in fact we had formula setback requirements which required pretty extensive setbacks on all sides especially in in districts like this one which is a kind of taller you know, higher density residential district. And so, you know, as part of that effort, contextual setbacks were introduced, but as I guess, as the representative discussed it, it only talks about buildings a bill something being built on a lot where there's two buildings on either side and and then the it could be averaged out so that was it was carried from that existed in some zoning districts before the multi-zoning reform and that was expanded to kind of include all zoning districts but it didn't didn't account for every scenario um it is something I think has to be just my own opinion you know has to be looked at carefully because there are lots of places where you know they're it's they're sort of might be competing interests you know trying to maintain the um the uh THE URBAN CONTEXT AS IT'S DEVELOPED HISTORICALLY IS ONE OF THE CITY'S MAIN URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND SO THAT SPEAKS TO HAVING FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME AND MAYBE SOME OF MARY LEIDECKER'S QUESTIONS GOT TO THIS. SOMETIMES THERE'S EXISTING CONDITIONS AROUND THE SIDEWALK THAT MAYBE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER WE DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN AND MAYBE THERE'S EVEN IF HISTORICALLY THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN THERE MIGHT BE REASONS WHY WE WOULD WANT A SETBACK IN SOME CASES. versus others I think at this point where we are is you know this is it's just the case that um setback requirements uh can't be changed except through a variance and you know variances and and then there's there's been changes to the standards for variances so we're we're in a bit of uncharted territory all of us and you know figuring out how to move forward and I think the um YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW DO WE ADAPT OUR ZONING IN THE FUTURE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY IS SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO GET INTO IN THE FUTURE. BUT FOR NOW, FOR THIS CASE, THIS IS WHERE THE ZONING STANDS. AND IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I WOULD SAY, ECHOING MARY, WE DON'T HAVE URBAN DESIGN HERE TO REVIEW IT. WE'VE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THIS PROJECT. THE LATEST ITERATION WE ONLY LOOKED AT RECENTLY. um would probably you know need more time to do a to do a thorough kind of write-up that the urban design team would often do for a project and again we don't we don't typically do that for the bza because the bza is typically applying a hardship test rather than applying urban design criteria to uh to a proposal so it's it's it's a it's a funny process and you know the planning board does get an opportunity to do the urban design review it just is in an advisory capacity rather than than the kind of binding review that the BCA has to do.

Thanks, Jeff. I guess just a follow-on question, maybe this is a topic for future zoning discussions, but is there a precedent for, let's say, allowing a corner condition instead of being governed necessarily by setbacks and a variance, but instead be a special permit process that would give more consideration to the particular considerations? Because again, I run into this professionally in lots of cases and had to have chased variances for things that urban design staff have strongly supported and successfully. But are there other mechanisms in terms of a particular setback that could be addressed more through a special permit process?

I mean, that would require an amendment to the zoning ordinance, so it could be done by the city council. I don't really want to get too freewheeling at this time into discussions about what possible zoning amendments might be contemplated as a result of this, but if the zoning allowed for a special permit, then...

That would be an allowable zoning amendment if it were made. So there wouldn't be a prohibition about having a special permit in regard to a particular setback.

I don't think so. I mean, of course, we would have to study and review and have the law department look at it. But I think in principle, if something, if there were dimensional relief that were made available for us through a special permit, I mean, there are instances already in the zoning where some relief for things like, you know, related to parking, for example, can be granted by special permit. Thanks. I don't have any further questions.

Okay. So Mary has a question. Mr. Barrett, did you want to clarify something in this last?

I don't want to prolong the discussion, and thank you, Madam Chair, but I wanted just to point out that when Cambridge Street was redone and Mass Ave was redone, there is a provision via special permit to do this, to change some element of the zoning. Also, that the new language for the variants I haven't analyzed it and looked at with other attorneys. I think it's actually a lower threshold than a special permit is now. So it's unclear to me, you know, it's, it's very wide open.

Yeah. Uncharted territory. We seem to have a lot of that these days. Okay. Thank you. Mary, what is your question? Thank you. So it's not a question. I'm thinking this is the discussion portion.

Okay. So I thought the materials that were provided through the BDA were very extensive and that was super helpful. I think it benefited the 2025 document you did for the Historical Commission because it gives a clear idea of what you're trying to do. Pages 16 and 17, I think, are the most helpful to me, at least, from others here, if you look at that, in order to evaluate what I think we're here today to talk about. And Jeff, you correct me if I'm wrong, but right now we're trying to decide, is this setback variance? What's our thoughts on that to let the PZA make a decision? And I appreciate that the applicant is trying to not you know, try to do something and get so far down the design lane and then find out that this basic thing is not even allowed, right? So when I go to 1617, and I'm going to help you out, your Mount Auburn Street sidewalk is 10 feet wide. That is a wider sidewalk. Your Story Street sidewalk is five feet. So on Mount Auburn, the existing building that you're taking down, I think it's close to that property line. It's closer than, you know, your previous... version of this that had a 10 foot off. And I think it's quite appropriate to pull that building closer than the 10 feet, especially because the hotel is what I would describe as a sort of an active use, right? We hope that that is street, on the street energy, people coming and going, things like that. So that one, I would say, in my opinion, I would recommend to BZA as they think about this, that that one seems more straightforward to me, right? Is a 10-foot sidewalk. You have the building slightly closer. You also have that hotel. You only have a small piece of the taller building that close. Story Street is a little bit harder because it's only a five foot sidewalk. And if you look in street view, it's pretty narrow. And I think to Dan's point, as you move along the street, the buildings step back. Now, either fortunately or unfortunately, the building across the street from you, as you know, is really like a zero lot line building. So if you do it on this side, That's, I think, when I start to have the question mark about how do those neighbors feel about that zero lot line? I'm not sure. They seem to have snuck in street trees. Are they going to do well? I don't know. It's very narrow. So that's the one where I almost feel like collectively I'm either... know i'd almost i'd rather see what the design is for that edge before i could make a pro a recommendation to allow for that zero lot line if only because it's pinching the sidewalk to always be five feet right the the setback um you know part of that purpose is to give kind of the the vibe of more space, even if you planted it or it's not accessible, it's just the vibe of more air and space. The other thing I would maybe pass along from planning board relative to this topic is you talked about how pulling away from the adjacent residences and buildings came out of a process, right? Where they really asked for that. So certainly I would hope the BZA you know, that public, they can come to that kind of a hearing, right? I would recommend that they really listen to what that feedback was, right? How the community feels about that. Because if I were one of those property owners and felt very strongly about it, this move that you've done, especially to Mount Auburn, if it's giving the, you know, the single lots, the 13 foot eight, Sure, I could buy that. So that's kind of my take on it and holding it really strictly to the request to think about the setbacks, nothing else about the design, which will eventually come back to us as a review.

Okay. Diego.

I agree a lot with what Mary just said. I kind of just reiterate the fact that they're moving closer to Story Street to give more setback is just something that I've been hearing a lot that people appreciate. So I think that's a great thing to do. And then I also vaguely remember from the urban design guidelines, that having a building closer to the street is good. I'm not talking about like zero lot line, but I do remember seeing something like that. And if I think about the width or the length that zero lot line is happening, right? And I think we've seen sort of massing for projects, for like residential projects that you have to break it up at like 40 feet or something and you have to have a recess. So I think that that length is good. kind of in that realm. It's not the entire length of the Story Street elevation that is zero lot line. So just from that initial perspective, it doesn't offend me so much from a design perspective and a massing perspective. um it's also really hard to do this without like a formal design review because i think um some of the elevations show that there might be like uh ventilation at the street level where the zero lot line is which you know if that happens you know that's another thing to consider but yeah it's a complicated project but that's just my take on that zero lot line aspect okay thank you other thoughts

Okay. Mr. Barrett, let's go back to you.

Thank you, Madam chair. And I, I apologize to board members, Diego and Mary. I understand how you guys are used to seeing things. And I understand that generally speaking, you want to see a more fleshed out plan. Part of the problem is, is I'm a five-sided corner lot. And I have a project that by right, I can be at five feet to eight feet. We just gave to the neighbors as a gesture of kindness and another five feet. That's no, if we don't get the variance, the building goes right back to where it was. And that project is we'll go through design review. That's advisory. And we will take as much information from you as we can and try to implement the project, but those setbacks will not change. So my only comment is where my client is taking an enormous risk. AND TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT I THINK MOST DEVELOPERS WOULD NOT DO. THEY WOULD TAKE THE BY-RIGHT PROJECT, THEY WOULD NOT SEEK A VARIANCE UNDER ANY CONDITION, NOR LISTEN TO THEIR ATTORNEY ADVISE THEM TO DO SO. I UNDERSTAND THE STREET IS TIGHT, BUT ON STORY STREET, IF YOU WERE TO WALK DOWN STORY STREET AND LEAN AGAINST THE RAILING WHERE THE HARRY JACOBS HOUSE STICKS OUT TO, YOU'D FALL INTO A 10-FOOT PIT WHERE THERE'S CURRENTLY TABLES AND CHAIRS AND I THINK A FEW PEOPLE KIND OF JUST HANG OUT DURING THE DAY AT. IT DOES GO TO THE STREET LINE. NOW, TIM MANSFIELD FROM CAMBRIDGE 7, WHO'S THE ARCHITECT, IS A VERY ACCOMPLISHED ARCHITECT, AND I THINK THE DESIGN THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE COMMISSION KIND OF SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. The new standard for variances so it's an odd one it's a balancing test between benefit to us a benefit to the neighbors. And while I understand pinching the street as story shoot for about you know, but half the length of that that story should facing side is tight, the other condition. if we were not to get the variance, we're now eight feet away from the property land. We're five feet away from 10 foot tall pine, 80 foot tall pine trees that most certainly have a root system that go through into our property. So there's, there is a public realm piece to this that's not facing the street. It's actually in the back and these two inexplicable giant trees that are, you know, we're doing our best to protect. We're also looking potentially at cantilevering underneath the foundation, which I don't, We can only do that for a couple of feet, so it's not really a practical solution unless we can get it further away. So again, I do understand the trepidation, but we'll come back with the design review piece. The ventilation things that you're seeing right now, you're seeing a loading zone, and you're seeing probably where a transformer would normally go. If we can move the building forward, we will still have a loading zone, but the transformer will now go on the Mount Auburn sackback because we now have enough width to put it in a vault underground. which is a huge, I think, a huge benefit to the project. But again, like all things, we have our load letter out to Eversource. This is part of the process. And I don't like things to be this messy, but this is one of the messiest projects I've been on board, you know, in trying to piece all these things together and, you know, address all these social issues that people seem to have interest in. That being said, I do believe we meet the new standard for our variants. I think we meet the old standard. And I'm not asking you guys to bless this project. This project is tall. It's got some other things we need to talk about. But I am asking you, though, is to bless. giving the neighbors the relief that they've been asking us to give them. And that's really the crux of this. I didn't expect to give a presentation, so I'm sorry. I talked to Swathi this morning. This was just an informal conversation, so I don't mean to be ill-prepared. I'm sorry about Mary. I did not mean to misrepresent the width of the sidewalk. I was looking online. I was like, dang it. That is the crux of the project. That's all we're asking the BCA to look at. And I understand all the trepidation you guys have, but if we're not able to do this, I just, I mean, I, we have a letter of support from Charlie and we have a letter of support from the Harvard square advisory committee. And I know those are different than your purview and it may be, you know, design guidelines are guidelines. There's we hit some notes. We don't have some imperfect process, but we're doing our best weekend. I think this is the best option for this project and the best option for the neighbors. Sorry to go on Mary, but thank you.

No, that's fine. Okay. All right. Carolyn, Or Ted, do you have anything you want to add to this?

I had a question, but it was asked and answered. Okay, okay. Yeah, I generally agree with the points that were made from Dan and Mary.

Okay. Okay, Ted?

I guess I'll say that I was fairly convinced that weighing the benefits and the detriments, getting the variance was a greater benefit. um i do have some design issues and i'm glad to hear that it will come back to the planning board for design uh it even though there it's only advisory it will come back for design review by this board um but i reasonably comfortable with saying that this is a better solution than not getting the variance. Whether the board wants to send a recommendation endorsing it or whether it wants to take no position, I'm fairly agnostic on that issue. I WOULD THINK I WOULD OPPOSE A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FROM THIS BOARD, BUT, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND IT, BUT IF THE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL STRONGLY OTHERWISE, THEN I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD JUST TAKE NO POSITION.

OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. DAN.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one minor comment as I was kind of flipping back and forth between these that wasn't really talked about, but it was prompted by Mary's comment about the public realm. There's some considerably larger building separation that happens between the Harry Jacobs House and the proposed plan in this revised scheme that I think is beneficial to the existing historic structure. There's a kind of greater building separation. The previous scheme really kind of squishes the Harriet Jake's house on the corner. And this allows some greater light and air around that and is an attractive feature. So not to take a decision one way or another, but again, from a kind of benefit standpoint, the reconfiguration does some nice things for that proposed hotel renovation.

So my thoughts are that the benefits to the neighbors do really kind of offset the negatives. And I'm comfortable with Mount Auburn Street. I think Story is a different situation. it's not a great situation now walking down there. So I don't know that we're going to make it any worse. But I guess, you know, my preference would be that we, we send a, kind of like a mini report to the BZA, just saying that we've talked about it. We can see the advantages to the neighborhood of shifting the building closer to the street edges of the property line. We're a bit more comfortable with the way that Mount Auburn Street can be handled. We're a bit concerned about the narrowness of Story Street, but we do realize we're going to have the opportunity to take a look at this later on. And I think just generally promote the good pieces of it, but highlight the fact that we do want to focus on that edge, realizing that it's going to be narrow and it's going to need to be handled very thoughtfully. Mary, what are your thoughts?

I would recommend also that, and for the applicant, I don't think it's like either the neighbors get it or the sidewalk gets it. That side setback went from 10 to zero. So I think another fair recommendation to BZA, as you're describing, it sounds like the Harvard Historic District, they've all reviewed it. We haven't done it in that way. So I think it would also be fair to say we're almost deferring on that piece. to some of the feedback that they seem to have already provided to give some guidance there. But it might be that they consider that it's not 0.2, but maybe it's 2 feet, 3 feet, who knows, right? So maybe it's a little bit of, we don't know yet. We haven't reviewed anything. And I think, Mary, you framed it. There are some questions about it. Anyone would acknowledge that's a narrow sidewalk condition. And so saying without that information that we're not exactly agnostic, but we're certainly... I would say pivot to those other groups that have had a more thorough review of the application and really understand the context of this area in particular.

Yeah, you summarize that beautifully. Jeff, does that make sense to you that we just kind of talk generally about the positives and concerns and but as mary said defer to you know neighbors or others that have had more opportunity to take a look at this yes it is uh perfectly appropriate for the planning board to just send comments to the bza that's that's fairly routine um yeah i think the

I've got them written down and I think it generally makes sense. Would the board, one of the things that we might be interested in doing is having our communication also provided just so the VCA is on the same page as the planning board with the review process and what would be required for this. If that was a question, if the board would be... I was asking, but maybe more suggesting, if the board would attach the CDD memo that just explains the process so that the BZA also has the same information about that.

Got it. Yeah, I think that would be totally appropriate. Okay, so I think then that... unless somebody objects to moving in that direction, that we would go with a motion to send comments, as have been discussed tonight, highlighting the urban design and public realm concerns along the way. story at Mount Auburn, but also realizing that there are benefits to the broader community and taking their opinions into account since, as Mary said, we haven't even seen this project yet other than what we've seen tonight. And then we would attach the CDD memo as well. So if people are comfortable with that, then I would ask for someone to make a motion that we send our comments as they were described. I will note that Ashley has left the meeting. She needed to recuse herself from this particular project. So just for the record, I just wanted to state that. If everybody's comfortable with that, could I have a motion to send the comments and the CDD memo as described and discussed this evening to the BZA?

This is Ted, so moved. Okay.

Is there a second, please?

This is Diego, second.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Any other thoughts or questions before we do the roll call? I'm seeing some people looking a little uncomfortable. Ted, would you like more clarity?

No, I'm fine.

Okay.

I made the motion.

I know you did, I know, but I'm just thinking in terms of the legal notes.

I'm fine with the way you and Mary have framed it.

Okay, thank you. All right. Jeff, then, can we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lidecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes. Ashley Tan is absent. Carolyn Zern?

Yes.

And Mary Flynn? Yes.

Yes.

So that's all five full board members present voting in favor.

Great. Okay. Well, Mr. Barrett, good luck at the VCA. And we look forward to seeing the project further down the road. It has a lot of, it does have a lot of public benefits. So it's, and it is a complicated project. So I wish you well. So that concludes the business on our agenda. Any additional comments from staff?

Yes, I actually have one. This is Jeff, and it was something I forgot to note in the update. I mentioned last week that there is a posting up for planning board for interest in joining the planning board for applicants or people who want to be on the board, and that has been extended to SWAT. Oh, I got a message. October 12th. So I think that posting was set to expire sometime this week, and it's been extended. So if anyone's still tuned in, you still have time to apply to be on the planning board. Beautiful.

Great. Thank you for noting that.

Madam Chair, I just have a question. Where would I find the staff memo about this Mount Auburn project?

Ted, I can resend that to you today.

Thank you. Sure.

Okay. If there's nothing else, then I would say that we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time and attention, and we'll see you next time. Good night, everybody.

Thanks. Good night. See you in two weeks.