Medford officials review draft rezoning for Medford Square, call for further study on height, shadows and traffic

Medford City Council Planning and Permanent Committee members reviewed a draft rezoning map for Medford Square on March 26, as consultants from Innis Associates walked the committee through proposed mixed‑use subdistricts, building heights and cross‑section studies intended to implement goals from the city's comprehensive plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

The proposal creates a graduated set of mixed‑use districts for the square (labeled in the draft as "mixed use 1," "2a," "2b" and "3") where allowable building heights and incentive zoning vary by subdistrict. Paola (Pablo) Ramos Martinez, senior urban planner and designer with Innis Associates, described the rationale for the changes and presented street sections that show how topography could be used to hide parking and reduce perceived building bulk.

Why it matters: the draft would make additional height and density possible near Medford Square and along connecting corridors. That could provide new housing and commercial space while changing the square's street profile and potentially its relationship to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Committee members said the maps are a first draft and stressed the need for more targeted study before zoning text is advanced to a public hearing.

The draft zoning map would: allow a lower‑scale mixed use 1 near historic High Street buildings (intended to preserve 1–3 story blocks), create a mixed use 2a with 4 stories by right (plus up to 2 additional stories via incentive zoning), create a mixed use 2b with 6 stories by right (plus up to 2 with incentives), and reserve a smaller mixed use 3 subdistrict to align with existing taller buildings and the Mystic corridor. Ramos Martinez and the consultant team showed cross‑sections that test shadows, floorplates and where covered parking might be placed to reduce surface lots facing the river and park.

Councilors and staff asked follow‑up questions and proposed further analysis. Councilor Lemming suggested considering additional height directly adjacent to Route 93 to act as a noise and sight buffer; planners said that narrow parcels directly abutting the highway may not accommodate taller buildings and asked for a focused feasibility study. Councilor Callahan and several public commenters asked the consultants to clarify transitions between higher mixed‑use blocks and adjacent neighborhood residential zones and to confirm that 45‑degree transition/setback rules would be applied in the draft for areas like Salem Street.

Senior planner Daniel Evans and Director Hunt flagged transportation interactions. Evans said some cities have found converting one‑way streets to two‑way reduces circling and improves business visibility; Director Hunt noted a Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) 25% design meeting related to signals that could touch the square is scheduled in late April and encouraged coordination between the rezoning work and any roadway studies. The draft already proposes requiring a developer shadow study when applicants seek additional incentive stories so the city can evaluate impacts on neighboring properties.

Public commenters urged more height and housing in several areas, and some urged caution about shadows on historic buildings and existing residences. David McKenna, a resident who spoke in public comment, said he found the draft conservative and called for more residential opportunity near the square's edges to support storefront occupancy. Another resident asked that the cemetery block be clearly protected; the consultant and staff said the cemetery is already protected by historic designations and will remain undevelopable regardless of the mapping.

Next steps and direction: councilors said they want the consultant to examine whether select parcels can be feasibly rezoned to the taller mixed‑use category (notably the triangular parcel east of City Hall and other lots abutting Route 93), to provide additional shadow analyses, and to coordinate with the Department of Public Works and MassDOT on potential roadway or signal changes. Staff and the consultant said more refined maps and cross‑sections will return to the committee for additional feedback before the Community Development Board hearing process.

Votes at a glance: At the close of the meeting a procedural motion to adjourn passed. Councilor Lemming moved to adjourn; Councilor Callahan seconded. The committee recorded three votes in favor (Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lemming, Vice President Collins) with President Barris and Councilor Scarpelli absent; the motion passed.

The consultant emphasized that the maps presented were illustrative. Ramos Martinez said, "These are not the architecture that will come; this is not an image of what it's going to be. But these are the opportunities that we could have with this zoning." The committee will accept more public input and expects additional drafts before any vote to adopt changes is scheduled.