Cambridge planners unveil zoning proposals for Mass. Ave. and Cambridge Street, with bonuses for active ground floors

Cambridge Planning Board members heard a presentation July 22 from city planning staff proposing new zoning districts for Massachusetts Avenue (Mass Ave) and Cambridge Street that would allow taller residential buildings in exchange for active ground-floor uses, design standards and public benefits in parts of the corridors.

The proposals, presented by Drew Cain, senior city planner, and summarized by Jeff Roberts, director of zoning and development, would create corridor-specific districts that keep current nonresidential density limits while permitting greater residential height where projects provide active uses at street level and meet design standards. "These are places that serve kind of the everyday needs of the neighborhoods," Cain said, describing both corridors as neighborhood main streets that the plan seeks to preserve and reinforce.

City staff landed on a set of shared recommendations for both corridors: retain a base floor-area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential uses, allow greater heights for housing, tie additional height to broadly defined "active" ground-floor uses (including retail, community spaces and smaller offices), and implement minimum building-design standards—such as first-floor height and facade transparency—to support a continuous, walkable street wall.

Under the proposal for Mass Ave, the base residential standard would allow roughly eight stories (about a 1:1 ratio of street wall height to roadway width); projects meeting additional use and design standards would be eligible to rise to 11–12 stories in most places. A special planned-unit development (PUD) district for Porter Square would allow up to 18 stories in targeted locations in exchange for significant public benefits, including public open space and shared district parking.

For Cambridge Street, staff proposed a base residential height of six stories (matching recent multifamily zoning changes), with a Webster–Windsor subdistrict that could allow up to 12 stories because of its proximity to transit and adjacent redevelopment in Somerville. The Mass Ave proposal includes a 55-foot setback measured from the street center line (to widen sidewalks and allow spill-out uses); Cambridge Street would use a 37-foot center-line setback. Projects seeking bonus height would trigger a 15% open-space requirement in several subdistricts.

Roberts emphasized limits to what zoning can achieve: "We can allow for the range of uses, but ultimately the market will dictate what actually gets built," he said, adding that zoning should be permissive enough to avoid creating vacancy or unusable retail shells.

City staff presented updated housing projections based on the draft zoning: with the proposed changes, the city estimates roughly 1,000 additional housing units on the two corridors by 2030 compared with current zoning, and about 2,800 additional units by 2040. Staff said those estimates use the same methodology applied in the recent multifamily zoning process and cautioned the total would not by itself meet the Envision Cambridge target.

Board members and the public pushed staff on implementation details. Planning Board member Tom Senevich asked whether the city should use a more formal review for these corridors; he recommended stronger public review to define what qualifies as an "active" ground-floor use and to weigh trade-offs among height, design and public benefits. Several members raised concerns about sidewalk widths, tree canopy and the timing of public-right-of-way work by the Department of Public Works; staff said curb lines in most of Mass Ave will not shift with the DPW partial reconstruction and that front setbacks could be used to widen sidewalks.

Public commenters echoed both support for design and concern about scale and shade. Ruth Bridal, president of the Florida Square Neighborhood Association, urged more commercial amenities at the north end of Mass Ave; Heather Hoffman, a resident, questioned whether taller buildings would overwhelm sidewalks and limit tree growth.

Staff outlined next steps: revise the zoning petition in response to council feedback and return draft petitions to City Council when it reconvenes in September, with public hearings planned through the fall and potential council action by year’s end.

Votes at a glance: BZA referrals

BZA case 11695701 (wall signs, 100 [address not specified]): Planning Board motion: send a message of support to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA); outcome: approved, roll-call vote 5–0 (Mary Liedecker, Diego Macias, Ashley Tan, Carolyn Zern, Tom Senevich — yes).

BZA case 1176016 (freestanding sign, 1 [address not specified]): Planning Board motion: no significant planning-board comment / send to BZA with no objection; outcome: approved, roll-call vote 5–0 (Liedecker, Macias, Tan, Zern, Senevich — yes).

BZA case 1170612 (eight freestanding signs, address not specified): Planning Board motion: send comments to BZA consistent with prior decisions on the development; outcome: approved, roll-call vote 5–0 (Liedecker, Macias, Tan, Zern, Senevich — yes).

The board closed the item after moving and passing a motion to complete discussion. Staff said they will refine the zoning text and the detailed design standards with the city’s urban design team and economic-development staff and return with formal petitions this fall.

Ending

Staff and several board members said the presentation is intended to be the start of a public process that will include multiple hearings and revisions. The board asked staff to clarify how incentives will be calibrated, how the city will preserve small retail and tree canopy, and how corridor-level design and capital work (sidewalks, trees, lighting) will be timed with private redevelopment.