Cambridge Planning Board concludes discussion on multifamily design guidelines; staff to revise and expand outreach

Cambridge Planning Board members on May 13 reviewed and provided detailed feedback on draft multifamily design guidelines developed by the Community Development Department, then voted unanimously to conclude the discussion and ask staff to revise the document and pursue broader outreach.

The discussion centered on how the guidelines will be presented and used, differences in format between the citywide urban design guidelines and the multifamily document, how to reach small property owners and neighborhood groups, and whether the guidelines should more clearly prioritize issues such as tree canopy, durability of construction, and sustainability. After the discussion the board voted 5–0 to conclude consideration of the draft guidelines; the motion was moved by H. Theodore Cohen and seconded by Tom Sinevich.

Mary Flynn, chair of the Cambridge Planning Board, opened the item and framed it as a continued discussion following an April 29 presentation and public comments. Evan Spetrini, senior manager for zoning and development in the Community Development Department (CDD), and urban design staff including Jeff Roberts and Eric Thorkelson answered members' questions and noted the draft grew from earlier affordable housing design work and was produced in-house using a different template than the citywide consultant-produced urban design guidelines.

Jeff Roberts, CDD zoning and development staff, cautioned about treating the document as binding regulation: "Guidelines are not zoning," he said, adding they are intended to "inform the process" and to be used alongside the city's Article 19 urban design objectives when the Planning Board reviews projects.

Board members raised several recurring points. Members asked that the guidelines: - Be easier to navigate and more visually consistent with the citywide urban design guidelines to reduce confusion among users. Several members said cross-references to the citywide document would help. - Include a concise, front‑facing explanation of the intended users and resources (for example, CDD contact points, recommended early outreach to neighbors, and links to building inspection staff), so that small owners and non‑professional applicants know where to start. - Provide a shorter pullout or primer aimed at small projects (two‑ to six‑unit developments) and small property owners rather than primarily medium and large developers. - Emphasize a clearer hierarchy of priorities — several members suggested foregrounding tree canopy, resilience, and construction quality as high priorities for the city. - Add examples of designs the city prefers as well as clear illustrations of configurations the city would discourage, to help non‑experts understand practical implications.

Eric Thorkelson, Community Planning and Design staff, said many formatting and illustration issues remain and that staff would do more cleanup to fix misplaced illustrations, redundant text, and clarifying captions for images (for example, to better explain approaches to at‑grade parking and garage treatments).

Several members recommended a stronger outreach plan: posting the document on the city website is necessary but not sufficient, they said. Suggestions included distributing a concise flyer or summary in the City Manager newsletter, providing print copies in libraries and City Hall, adding the guidelines to materials available at permit counters (including Inspectional Services Department), and notifying neighborhood organizations and smaller local architects and contractors.

Tom Sinevich, a Planning Board member, urged the board not to “stifle innovation” and recommended the guidelines allow room for exceptional or iconic design while still making clear preferred approaches. He also suggested a simple, memorable framework (which he summarized as durability, usefulness and delight) to explain good design to the public.

Staff described next steps: CDD staff will review the board's notes, coordinate with Eric Thorkelson and Susanna Bigelow, integrate feasible edits and clarifications, and work with the city's communications team on broader outreach. Staff did not commit to returning the exact document for another formal public hearing; instead they said they would incorporate the board's comments and circulate a revised version for final editing and distribution.

Formal action: the board made and seconded a motion to conclude the discussion on the multifamily design guidelines. The roll‑call vote was H. Theodore Cohen — yes; Diego Macias — yes; Tom Sinevich — yes; Ashley Tan — yes; Mary Flynn — yes. The vote was recorded as all members present voting in favor. The motion concluded the discussion; it did not adopt the draft guidelines as a binding rule.

The board also noted written comments received before the meeting from Ethan Frank and Gordon Moore. Staff said the next Planning Board meeting is set for June 10 and that the ordinance committee will hold hearings May 20 on related zoning petitions the board will consider in other venues.

The board directed staff to return a revised document (or circulate it for final edits), to pursue broader outreach to small owners, neighborhood organizations and permitting offices, and to correct illustration and redundancy issues identified in the discussion.