Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I now declare this meeting of the land use committee in order. Please note that pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting of the city council can committee will be conducted via remote participation. We'll post an audio recording, audio video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the city of some of our website and local cable access government channels. Now clerk, please call the roll.

This is roll call. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Saeed? Here. Councilor Wilson?

Present.

Councilor Euncampin?

Here.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

With all counselors present, we have quorum.

Alright. Thank you very much. We have a few items on the agenda today. We do have a request to take the 90 Washington Street items out of order. Mister Demers has a plan to catch, so we'll do that. But before that, I'd like to move to approve the minutes. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, please call the roll to approve the minutes.

Non acceptance of agenda item one twenty five dash one seven one zero. Approval of the minutes of the land use committee meeting of 11/06/2025. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Sate? Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Councilor Yankampin?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Those are accepted.

Alright. I'd like to move to take items seven, eight, and nine out of order. Seeing no discussion on that, please read those items.

And that brings us to agenda item seven, eight, and nine twenty five dash one five nine five requesting approval of an amendment to the memorandum of agreement between the city council and redevelopment authority regarding the redevelopment of 90 Washington. 25 dash one five nine six requesting approval of the development objectives for the redevelopment of 90 Washington Street. Twenty five dash one six zero five, executive director of the office of strategic planning and community development, conveying a summary of the 90 Washington process review and development objectives.

Excuse me.

And let's do item six as well. Forgot that one.

In agenda item six, twenty five dash one five nine four, requesting approval of the amended 90 Washington Street demonstration project plan.

Alright. So we got a presentation about this at the last meeting. We had a public hearing. Mister Demers is here to answer any questions. Do anyone does anyone on the council have any questions or comments right now?

Counsel, you and Kevin.

Thank you, mister Chair. Through you, just wanted to say, I I don't have any questions. I'm in support of these changes. I think they make sense based on where we are, and they'll they'll help us move forward.

Alright. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I agree. I would like to make a motion to approve. Let's see which items I guess we can just approve all four of them if there's no objection to that.

We would mark the agenda item nine, send for discussion as work completed, but six, seven, and eight can be.

Very good. So I'd like to move to approve item six, seven, eight, and mark item nine work complete. Please call the roll.

And on the oh.

Are you gonna say something?

Sorry. Did I just glitch out on you? Nope. Go ahead. Finish what you're saying. Paul

Nope. If you have no comments, please call the roll.

And on the approval of agenda items six, seven, and eight, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Sate? Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Councilor Euncampan?

Yes.

And councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Those items are recommended to be approved.

Alright. Thank you. Have a nice flight. Let's see. Let's go back to the regular order of business. So we have a few items here on the agenda. We had a public hearing. A lot of them we cannot vote on just yet because the planning board has not made their recommendations, but I'm gonna open them up for discussion. If anyone had any questions, I do believe in terms of the citizen petition, we might have the representative of that citizen's petition here for discussion. I'll just let's just go through the agenda. Could you read item number two?

Agenda item two twenty five dash one five five four, requesting ordainment of an amendment to multiple sections of the zoning ordinance to make pre submittal meeting meetings optional for most permits and to improve clarity and consistency.

Alright. Does anyone on the council have any questions or comments about this item? Seeing no. Councilor, you're Kevin.

Mister chair, just a procedural note, and I know you're aware of this. But, for things that the planning board hasn't yet, but we anticipate we'll soon offer something, something we've done in the past is we recommend them out of committee, and then they're just before the council. That way, we don't have to come back to committee to do You can also just discharge them. I'm in support of of this and the next one.

Yeah. I think we could do it either way. I was thinking to just liaison Yasmin.

Thank you, mister chair. For the record, Yasmin Rugosi, legislative liaison with IGA. My understanding is that because at the public hearing, the committee opted to keep public comment open until the twenty first, which is tomorrow, that we cannot take action and the clerks can correct me if I'm wrong, but we cannot take any action to recommend approval or any action until the public comment period has closed because technically the public hearing is still open. Please, if anyone wants to correct me, that was my understanding, though.

I think that's correct. And the other thing I was gonna say is if we approve it tonight, it'll come on the next city council meeting, and we won't be able to really vote on it until the December 11 meeting. So I would just leave it in committee, and then we can discharge it out at the December 11 full council meeting. But if no one has any questions, I'm gonna leave this one in committee. How do how about item number three? Does anyone have any questions or comments, or do people anticipate voting in favor of that? Leave that one in committee. Item number four. Please read that one.

And that brings us to agenda item four twenty five dash one five three nine. 12 registered voters requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district of 363 Highland Ave from mid Rise 4 to Mid Rise 5 and from MR 4 to Mid Rise 6 And 1 Telo excuse me. 110 Willow Avenue, MR 4 to MR 6.

So councilor Davis is raising his hand to recuse himself? Yep.

I'm recused from this item as I am a butter to the Highland Ave properties.

Alright. We have mister Adam Dash in attendance in the audience. If we could upgrade him to a panelist, if anyone has any questions or comments about this item. Council, you and Gammen.

Thank you, mister Share. Through you, I I was interested if the city staff has any feedback on this, any context, any thoughts.

Yes. Thank you. Mister Bartman is in attendance. Do you have any does the planning department have any comments on this item?

Yes, mister chair. Thank you, Dan for the record, Dan Bartman, the planning director of PPC. We do support the map change. We've also met with the applicant and talked about some urban design goals for the future development that might come from changing the zoning on these parcels. So generally speaking, we support the the map amendment. We are in contact with Eversource, the property owner of 110 Willow, and are awaiting feedback, from their real estate department to, find out if they would like to have their property up zoned or not.

And, mister Shared, through you, if I may, because, obviously, we're in a you know, the the ward counselors were accused, so I'm just kind of have basic questions here. But, I know that there's been a ton of work on a Davis Square overall plan. I I think we were also told at the public hearing that the incipient neighborhood council is supportive of this and that there have been a number of neighborhood meetings. I don't know. Does planning staff have any kind of context on the on those conversations, or is that just been between the developer and the neighborhood council?

Through you, mister chair, that that that's to my knowledge, that's been between the neighborhood council and the developer at this point. We have not met, with the neighborhood council yet ourselves. But we know generally that there's been support for the map change. And this is kinda like on the edge of the, you know, commercial core while some decisions are still pending related to the, you know, plan that we've been working on for some time now. So the I I would say the fate of the core is still a decision to be made in the in the near future, hopefully.

Okay. Thank you, mister Scheher. I mean, I'll just say we have not received any negative public feedback on this. It's been represented to us by the developer that there's neighborhood support, which, you know, take with a grain of salt, it's coming from the applicant. But I I I presume that that is accurately reflects the meetings they've had with the with the neighborhood council. So that all being said, I'm interested to hear what my colleagues have to say and await a recommendation from the playing board.

Any further questions or comments from the committee? Mister council Wilson.

Yeah. Thanks, chair. Yeah. This one seems like the sort of development that we generally hear from constituents we wanna see near transit. It seems like a much better use of land, than what we currently have there. I particularly appreciated, what we heard in terms of a willingness to main maintain I'll say improve upon the access to the community path that, we've seen in that site. That's been something I've heard a lot from constituents. So, yeah, it it to me, it seems like, this is the sort of development that people wanna see, in the city.

Any other comments? I'll just add that this is a plot of land that I have passed by most of my life, and it's been the same thing for many years. And what's being proposed now is definitely better than what it's been for the majority of my life. So I'd be willing to support it. I would like to wait for the planning board recommendation as well and might as well keep this in committee, and we can discharge it at the December 11 meeting. If there's no further discussion, council Syed.

Through the chair. I was just gonna add that I'll be in support of this as well, and we'll be waiting for the planning board's recommendation. I just had I guess this this one thing that was mentioned is that the Willow Ave owner, we have not yet heard from them if they're interested in upzoning. Is that what director Bartman just said?

I believe so, but I'll let him clarify.

Yeah. If you could clarify that. Like, how does that yeah. Like, what's the process from here?

Mister Bartman? Through you, mister chair, I make we are in regular contact with Eversource. We actually have monthly meetings with them in the engineering division. So I reached out to their that contact and explained the proposal to them and what the timeline was and what it meant for them and what their land use was. And they took that information and are now meeting with their legal and real estate department.

They know that there's a deadline for voting after closing the public hearing, and I expect to hear feedback from them in short order. Next week is Thanksgiving, so it might be the following week, but but I expect to hear back from them.

Yeah. Thank you for adding that director through the chair. Yeah. This is helpful just to make sure no votes are taken until we hear back from them. Thank you.

You. Seeing no further discussion, this item will be left in committee. And next item.

Brings us to agenda item five twenty five dash zero zero eight five of the director of planning preservation and zoning draft amendment to the zoning ordinances for transit oriented height and density bonuses for additional affordable housing and other enumerated community benefits.

Madam Clerk, this is the last item on the agenda. Right? Correct. Okay. We have Samantha Carr, land use analyst present. Miss Carr, did you have any updates for us?

Thank you, chair. Just had a couple of quick updates to the maps we shared at the last land use committee meeting based on feedback we received from a few committee members.

Alright. Take it away.

Hi, everyone. Hope you're doing well this evening. Just had a quick presentation, to go through a couple of map updates since our last discussion here. Next slide, please. So in terms of points of feedback we heard at the last land use committee session, kind of two pieces were being teased out.

One was talking about adding some urban residential parcels to contextually buffer or transition between existing neighborhood residential properties and parcels that are being proposed for mid rise up zoning, primarily off of the core streets of Medford and Pearl Street, as well as looking to expand the small business district overlay in the core of Gilman Square to ensure the area has a variety of sizes of commercial spaces to support small and independent businesses and enhance the pedestrian experience through the streetscape. I did have one slide here talking about small business district overlay just to provide a bit of additional context in terms of when that tool comes into activation. So the small business district overlay can be placed over any zoning district. However, its impact will be felt differently based on whether that parcel is designated neighborhood or urban residential versus mid rise. In the neighborhood and urban residential district, what this overlay district allows is it permits commercial spaces for small businesses, but it does not require them.

So this provides a bit more flexibility, for the owners of the parcel to consider using, their residential spaces to have small businesses, including home based ACE uses for arts and creative enterprise, as well as some small scale commercial spaces and fresh food services. When we think about the other zoning districts, this can be applied to in terms of mid rise and outside the context of Gilman Square, but high rise in commercial district as well. Once the overlay district is placed on any of these parcels, commercial spaces for small businesses will be required when any new principal building is constructed with the exception of the apartment building type, which is designated to not have any commercial uses within its typology. Once we get into this category, there's kind of two permutations of paths. So one is if the building width is less than a 100 feet, only one Ground Floor commercial space to a maximum of 35 feet of that width is permitted.

So in terms of activating the Overlay District, this comes into effect for buildings greater than a 100 feet in width. And after this threshold, 50% of the commercial spaces must be 20 feet or less to break up the the commercial spaces on the streetscape and provide smaller spaces for local and independent businesses to frequent. So I just wanted to highlight this for folks. We have updated the maps to include the Overlay District at a a larger scale across the core of the of Gilman Square, but wanted to add this as a point of clarification that it will be for buildings that are greater than that 100 foot width threshold and where it will be activated to start having these smaller commercial spaces come online.

Council Davis, you had a question?

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to miss Carr for this. I actually just wanted to add a little historical context and only because the the this question has come up to me from constituents. And so to the extent that might help clarify and and avoid confusion that folks are watching this, thinking about it, the the the small business overlay for folks who may be, you know, familiar with our old zoning or at least sort of the way things have always been, it was it it it was primarily sort of created to to account for the loss of what used to be called the neighborhood business zone, which was like, you know, think of three quarters of speed of Ward 6, up Highland Ave, up College, from Davis Square to to Powder House where there's lots of dentist's offices, right, or a real estate office. And so it was it was you know, when we got rid of the neighborhood business zone and those all became residential, it was a way to still allow those types of, you know, in how in home businesses or or small businesses along those along, you know, where where we we create.

So that's why it first came into place. It wasn't expanding, you know, the the it it wasn't really intended to expand commercial use or anything like that. It was just to sort you know, reflect what had had always previously been allowed. And with director Bartman's suggestion, we then also used it as as Gaur just noted to to require the, you know, the the variety of, you know, smaller small and medium sized commercial spaces in sort of you know, in core areas if we were to to to put it in place there. So that's the the sort of the the the history behind the, you know, the the two aspects of it.

The the one was just to map what what had already been there, and then the second was it was the most convenient and effective tool to ensure that when, when we have a new building in our in our urban cores, we don't have a big giant, you know, virtual space that takes up the entire thing and, you know, closes off the passenger experience. So I look forward to hearing folks' thoughts.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair. If we could advance to the next slide. Just wanted to share the four upzoning scenarios with a few updated features here on the maps, and I have included the four maps seen previously at our last meeting in the appendix for a point of reference for folks. And did just wanna reiterate that these are not formal proposals, and these are being used as tools to catalyze conversation within the committee at this point in time. Next slide, please.

So scenario one remains unchanged from last week. This is the scenario closest based to feedback received from the Gelman Square Neighborhood Council during initial conversations around an upzoning in Gelman Square. So this is really looking at a concentrated up zoning of mid rise mixed use development along the core streets of Medford and Pearl Street, directly adjacent to the train station. So no substantive updates have been made here, on this scenario since the last conversation, to preserve kind of existing conditions as closely as possible to the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council's proposal. If we go to the next slide.

So scenario two here is building upon that framework, and is also starting to take into consideration urban residential parcels within the quarter mile walk shed. So you can extend see those extending on the West Side of Medford Street, as well as along the Marshall And Stru School Street corridors within the quarter mile zone. The two changes that have been made here are expanding the small business district overlay in the central portion of Gilman Square. So you'll see the black overlay district on the maps here is extending from the West Side Of Medford Street to the East Side Of Pearl Street, up to the point where MR six parcels have been recommended, as well as a urban residential transition band of parcels have been added, on any lots that are falling between proposed mid rise properties and existing neighborhood residential parcels. And for the purposes of allowing this to create viability for new development, and those are often seen in blocks of two or three parcels together.

So, for example, if you see here on Pearl Street, on the East Side of Pearl Street, we've got five parcels proposed for M R six up zoning. The backing parcels of those, they'll see three UR parcels to the right side and two UR parcels to the left to allow a little bit of depth to those lots to be considered for consolidation and redevelopment under urban residential. So similar strategy was taken for any areas that now have this, quote, unquote, you are transition band. If we go to the next slide. So scenario three is building off scenario two.

It's extending the UR parcel designation slightly beyond the quarter mile walk shed up to the Broadway corridor along Marshall And School Street as well as slightly further on the East side of Pearl Street and the West side of Medford Street. Otherwise, the points of feedback received from the committee last session have been incorporated here in terms of expanding the small business district overlay on those two main corridor streets, as well as ensuring that any parcels that are designated as mid rise have those UR transition parcels backing behind them on the lots. And the last slide here for scenario four, the key difference here is the mid rise zone is extended slightly, along Medford And Pearl Streets. So, for example, on the West Side of Medford Street, you'll see continuation of M R 6 and then a few parcels of a M R 4 transition before we go back towards the UR parcel designation. This is also including the full scale of UR upzoning along School And Marshall Streets up to the Broadway Corridor, and otherwise, principles as scenarios two and three.

Small business district overlay has been expanded on any parcels that are being considered for upzoning along Medford And Pearl Street. And we are also preserving the principle of keeping that UR transition band of properties between proposed mid rise parcels and existing neighborhood residential parcels. So just wanted to share a quick update on those maps with folks, and I'm cognizant that we introduced these for the first time to folks during the last session as well. So happy to answer any questions folks have or or hear about, you know, if there's a particular scenario you're interested in exploring further.

And any questions or comments, professor? I'll thank you very much for the presentation. Do we have any questions or comments from the council? Seeing none. I am just curious. I know think we got a few people's time constraints tonight. I'm not sure if we're gonna have another land use committee meeting this year. So I would like to and I may or may not be the chair of this committee next year. I'd like to leave miss Carl with a little bit of guidance if anyone had any just general thoughts about, the proposal before us. I'll just say that I I appreciate all four scenarios.

I would say I like any scenario that the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council will get support for because that means we're more likely to get community support. And then I also think scenario three, takes that proposal and then also talks a little bit about what, Council Wilson's been talking about UI districts. So I just wanna put that out there. I it's not my ward anymore, so I definitely wanna make sure that the people whose ward it still is get some input. And no one has to speak either. So alright. No one wants to come come oh, sorry. Councilor Davis and councilor Huynh Cambro.

Thank you, mister chair. I paused for a moment. I thought long enough to allow a a a ward counselor or close to ward counselor to speak up, so I'm happy to defer to council you in Cabot first if, if you'd like to

go ahead. Counsel you in okay. Well, councilor Davis, everyone's being generous tonight. Alright. Fair

enough. My comment is more sort of a a general thought, and I actually can't remember if I mentioned this at the at the last meeting or if I was talking to miss Gar about this directly. But I this is great. I I and and I share your gratitude for for pulling all this together. You know, my my my current thinking I was gonna say my preference.

Preference. My current thinking, and I'm always willing to be convinced otherwise as with anything, but my current thought is that, you know, I I think I I would love to see sort of the next step be or or one of the very, you know, near steps next steps to be, you know, taking taking these, you know, these concepts, maybe not all of them, but, you know, you know, pick one or two or or or, you know, whatever makes sense to do and applying them to the other transit nodes. My my thought is that it is that it makes more sense for us to do this sort of city citywide rather than piecemeal one square at a time. If for no other reason that it's just gonna take forever to get through, you know, the public processes and everything else. And and but also because, you know, I I think it's helpful to think of this as sort of a a collective effort throughout the city to, you know, to move forward with up zoning around our transit nodes.

And I could be wrong, but I I I feel like that may, you know, shift the conversation a bit as we sort of go through the process. It it, you know, it it may prolong it in terms of you know, it's gonna take longer to to to pass something that affects all of the transit nodes than it would for, you know, the first one or the second one. But I think overall, it would be faster to get everything up zoned. I I think, you know, we'd we'd probably we'd we'd likely avoid sort of missing opportunities where, you know, like, as I mentioned at the last meeting, have a couple in Davis Square that are, you know, fairly modest developments based on the current zoning that, in my opinion, you know, could've could've been something more. And so I just wanna throw that out there sort of for for as as a thought, you know, get get folks input.

And then, you know, if if it does make sense to do that, and to be clear, you know, miss Cara, I I I don't think I'm asking for, you know, four different options for every square. That that feels like a lot, but maybe, you know, we we can think about it or I'd certainly value your input on, like, what's what's the best sort of jumping off point from here, like, to to start mapping these to the other squares as a as a starting point for the discussion. You know, I think it also it's likely that, you know, a different a different neighborhood might you know, one of these scenario two versus scenario three or three versus four, you know, might be appropriate for for this square, but not that one. And and so there might be some some variation there, but, I don't know. That's sort of all of the all of the various thoughts bouncing around in my head.

So I'll I'll leave it at that, just sort of for for discussion in terms of, you know, as the chair mentioned, you know, kind of guidance or or thoughts on next steps going forward in the next year.

And if I could just address that, Councilor Davis. So the reason we decided to focus on Gilman Square is because, the city is already doing the Broadway Corridor, which is gonna cover several of the transit nodes. So my logic was at least go for the one square that there's been a lot of public interest in upzoning while the city focuses on the Broadway Corridor. And then finally, we'll have Davis Square and a few other blocks left. But after that, we'll be have all the transit areas.

So I was hoping to get further into it than we have been, unfortunately, and that's just the way the process works sometimes. But I would like to leave something for, you know, the next term. We're gonna have a new mayor. We're gonna have new city council. It'd be great to have something to discuss right off the bat next year. But I see councilor Ewen Kempen has a common.

Thank you, mister Scheer. I I really appreciate both of those perspectives. I I think from my point of view, I absolutely wanna continue these conversations. And, you know, I think I I think it would make a lot of sense for councilor Klingon and I to meet with the Gilman Square Neighborhood Council and kind of talk through these. I I I, for one, find no matter how many zoning maps I look at, like, I still sometimes kind of feel like it's unreality and really just go going kind of walking the streets, figuring out what what we're really talking about with all these, what's currently there.

That that's really helpful for me. So it's you know, I I don't want this, from my perspective, to be, like, a purely kind of formula based, you know, if you're this far from a transit, it has to be this as much as kind of, you know, what what the planning department does. Right? Like, thinking about the the nuance of all this. And I think what we're seeing is that it's both straightforward and really complicated. Right? Like, it's it's very easy to look at these and see good things and challenges about every single one of these scenarios for me. But, you know, that said, I think the the way it is now is kind of illogical to me. Right? Like, we have we have a t station there.

We should be zoned for more density, period. And then kind of actually landing on what is the one that we wanna put all our weight behind and really, you know, push for that still has not quite clicked for me. But this is extremely helpful material to kind of get me closer, and I'm more than happy early next year to get together with counselor Klingon and the Gilman Square Neighborhood Association to talk through this in some more detail. And, obviously, you know, for anyone in the public listening, 7PM on a Thursday, I'm I really welcome any kind of feedback on this.

See, mister Bartman raised his hand.

Mister chair, I want to share that the planning division shares councilor Ewan Kampen's interest in engaging the broader Gilman Square community, including the neighborhood council in the New Year, and we we were just about actually to reach out to both of them to to discuss, that very, notion. So it's encouraging to hear that too because we we think they that the public deserves this to take a look at the maps and have the and be able to, like, look closely and talk about that nuance that, that he had referenced, and that's all.

Okay. So I shouldn't just vote to approve scenario four then? You can't do that anyways. Miss Carr.

Thank you, chair. I did just wanna follow-up, quickly on a a point that councilor Yuencampin was mentioning, around kind of the on the ground context of the parcels. I did wanna highlight in particular scenario two, was thinking about some of the existing conditions, when thinking about the upzoning here. So, for example, on the West Side Of Medford Street, kind of trying to find the sweet spot of where there's already an established commercial mixed use corridor there. And so where where the proposal, here tapered that off, was on top of, the street right before the church lots there, whereas that big conglomeration of UR parcels on the West Side of Medford Street.

Where that boundary was cutting off on School Street and Marshall Street of the UR parcels being expanded, The consideration was they were falling within the quarter mile walk shed, but also trying to kind of take a consideration of building like for like parcels up on either side of the street and see where there was already some existing density that might kind of help transition that within the fabric of the neighborhood. So those are just two examples of kind of looking at the existing streetscape and how some of that was baked into the proposals here. The other that comes to mind is a little bit further south on School Street directly to the west side of the train station. You know, that's on a naturally high grade, and there is kind of a sense of transition within the streetscape of moving outside the main, central core corridor of Gelman Square as you proceed up the hill. So a couple of parcels, were considered in the last scenario for mid rise there that are kind of the corner lots just starting to go up that grade.

The others were zoned or proposed to be zoned for UR, to take those existing conditions into mind, and to be thoughtful about thinking about whether businesses could proliferate on that kind of streetscape. So I did just wanna highlight a couple of those things that were taken into consideration around the parcels, and also very much appreciate, the value of going in person to see the sites and what's kind of the existing conditions there.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from the council? Seeing none, this item will be left in committee. And see no further discussion. Councilman Campin moves to adjourn. So all all these items will be left in committee. We did vote to approve the 90 Washington items, which will take up Tuesday, and everything else will remain in committee.

And on adjournment, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Saeed?

Yes.

Councilor Wilson? Councilor Ewencamping?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Alright. Good night, everyone. Thank you.