Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1999-05-26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 26, 1999 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-3, Town Office Building,was called to order at 7.40 p.m. by Mr Merrill with members Bridge-Denzak, Colman,Davies, Galaitsis,Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Garber present. **************************** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING **************************** 88. Brainstorming Sessions Mr.Bowyer commented that this is the first meeting in which the Board will try to spend at least one full meeting a month exclusively on comprehensive planning. These sessions will have considerable time for Board member input and discussion.Many of these sessions will be brainstorming,conceptual,policy discussions without a great deal of analysis or facts and figures. He said he has discussed the format of these meetings with representatives of the Lexington Minuteman. In a brainstorming sessions Board members should feel free to think out loud and push the conceptual envelope without the fear that those momentary inspirations will appear in the newspaper as a serious proposal. The Minuteman has been alerted that the"exercise"portion of the meetings is meant to contain conceptual ideas and not serious initiatives at this time. Serious proposals will require more thoughtful and detailed analysis and discussion. They will be developed later in the process and can be subjected to more normal reporting. The end result of the brainstorming, conceptual, policy exercises will be a written report for internal use. The exercise is a process of getting ideas down on paper It can be revisited as the planning process moves forward. 89 Land Use Element: Planning Exercise-Lexington Center The Planning Board and staff engaged in a brainstorming exercise about Lexington Center The exercise was designed to be a conceptual,policy oriented discussion. The session was not designed to produce specific recommendations and proposals but to identify ideas that would need further analysis for feasibility and timing before they could be presented as specific recommendations and proposals. The Board did not take any votes. A summary of the discussion, Summary Report,Comprehensive Planning Exercise#1,Lexington Center May 26, 1999, is attached to and a part of these minutes. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Steven L. Colman, Clerk I Summary Report Comprehensive Planning Exercise#1 Lexington Center May 26,1999 Introduction—Explanation As part of its comprehensive planning program the Planning Board and staff engaged in an exercise about Lexington Center These sessions are designed to be brainstorming, conceptual,policy discussions without a great deal of analysis or facts and figures. These sessions are not designed to produce specific recommendations and proposals. They are useful opportunities to identify ideas that would need further analysis for feasibility and timing before they could be presented as specific recommendations and proposals. The ground rules were that individual Board members were encouraged to think out loud and push the conceptual envelope without the fear that those momentary inspirations might be taken as a serious proposal—before they are analyzed more systematically Why Lexington Center? Lexington Center was chosen as a good lead off exercise because everyone is familiar with the Center and it is a rare person who does not have opinions about it. The Board's attitudes about the Center can be important about their attitudes about Lexington as a whole. This planning exercise was more as a kickoff for comprehensive planning than an attempt to preempt work by any of the other boards,committees that have responsibilities in Lexington Center. Each Planning Board member was asked to think about and be prepared to speak to the following questions that are shown in bold faced type. Their responses are indicated below in light faced type. The responses are in the sequence of Board member comments and are not meant to suggest priority 1 What role does Lexington Center play in relationship to the town as a whole? • The Center is very imageable.It is an important introduction to the town. • The Center has a civic quality that is a symbol for the town—emblematic of a quality of life in the town. • It is a place to bring visitors from out of town.Mr.Merrill recommends that his clients from other cities(in other states)view Lexington Center • The Center is the heart of the town. People in town identify with it. • There is activity in the evening and on weekends.Many town centers are dead but Lexington's has plenty of activity at numerous times of day, evening and weekend. • Aside from its role for a residential town,the Center has a national(and international)role for its vital role in the nation's history [Its importance to the nation has been the basis for, and will continue to justify,greater public stewardship-control than in the typical town center] • The Center needs to be maintained as an active,well functioning center of activity for residents. • It is the place for civic events—historical commemoration,parades,festivals,exhibits,gatherings for all types of civic organizations—from youth to seniors. • The town and the Center are a size that an individual meets people they know in the Center That reinforces friendliness and a sense of belonging. 2. What are Lexington Center's principal assets? • The Center has a great scale.It is framed well by two story buildings right at the sidewalk line. Comprehensive Planning Exercise#1 2 Lexington Center • The Center has a beginning and an end anchored by civic buildings and places—the Green,the historic area and Cary Library at one end and the Town building complex—with the open space at Woburn and Fletcher Streets at the other end. • The Center is comfortable and memorable. • The national historical importance of the Center brings money [tourists and recognition] and responsibility to the town to be stewards of the heritage. • It is an older central business district that still works—there are few, if any,vacancies. • The Center has a good mix of uses—commercial and public/civic—and retail,restaurant, banks, personal services and the like. • It provides opportunities for several"trips"to be accomplished at one time,by walking from one parking place.The several"trips"range from public—Library, Town Hall,Post Office,to banking, shopping, restaurants,medical-dental and the like. • The broad sidewalks. There is a landscaped promenade that is the most important visual feature of the Center. • The well established trees,benches,brick walks, lighting are all amenities. • A relatively uniform scale of buildings. The buildings are"unmemorable"—backdrop buildings that complement the landscaped pedestrian promenade rather than being noteworthy design on their own. • The commercial area"wraps around"from Massachusetts Avenue into Waltham Street.That provides a cross axis and some depth to the Center so that it is not entirely a linear strip limited to Mass. Ave. • The Minuteman Bikeway is a new asset for the Center although the connection from it to Mass. Ave. is weak. • Quality residential development is very close to commercial. Many town centers have awkward, often ugly,transition areas between commercial and residential. In what ways are forces at work that will diminish or threaten those assets? • The pedestrian promenade on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue has been in place about 30 years. It is looking tired in places. It was a great innovation in its day Many other older town centers have made improvements like it. See Arlington Center and Arlington Heights. The addition of benches in the last 5-8 years have been a great improvement but about the only one. List some potential implementation measures [to be investigated later in greater detail] that might be undertaken to improve on these assets. • The broad sidewalk is actually only on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue. The system of landscaped,pedestrian oriented spaces needs to be greatly expanded—to the sidewalks on the south side of Mass. Avenue and particularly to the pedestrian circulation neroendicular to Mass. Avenue.Members mentioned repeatedly the inadequacies of the pedestrian experience reaching the promenade on Mass.Ave. They repeatedly cited the need for coherent, attractive connections to Mass. Ave. for pedestrians, parkers and cyclists.A system of attractive connections needs to be developed. • Is it possible to have a traffic bypass? [Answer from Planning Department staff—Over 40-50 years there have been attempts to find a traffic bypass. There are no good alternatives that do not severely impact residential areas. The basic traffic problem is the 19"Century road pattern we inherited in which practically every arterial street in town leads to the Center It is difficult to get from one side of town to the other without going through the Center and in several directions making a turning movement in the Center.] • There need to be stronger connections for pedestrians and cyclists from both the north and south sides to the Mass. Ave. promenade. For example,the connection between the Minuteman Comprehensive Planning Exercise#1 3 Lexington Center Bikeway and Mass.Ave. is weak. On the other side,connections from the parking lots to Mass. Ave. are uninviting. • While many features of the edges of the commercial area have fine transitions to quality residential nearby,there are always opportunities for improvement.Parking lots need visual upgrades and the"backs of stores"need visual upgrade because of loading, service, dumpsters, lack of landscaping and generally unattractive rear facades. • The array of goods and services available is good and their price level is generally reasonable. There are not many chain stores so the Center does not have that anyplace, anywhere look of so many commercial centers in the United States. • More diversity in the landscape treatment of public spaces would be desirable. The larger public spaces, i.e. Emery Park, are mostly green spaces to look at. Surface treatments, such as texture elements,perhaps some changes in elevation with terraces or plazas, or some water elements, would introduce greater variety More benches,tables, landscaping are needed. 3. What are Lexington Center's principal liabilities,problems? • The Center may not be dense enough to support the critical mass of activities. • There are some things for teenagers and other youth to do but their needs deserve more attention. [In many towns,teenagers are discouraged from congregating in their town's center. Lexington teenagers have some"presence"in the Center but deserve more things oriented to them.] • Interruptions to the continuity of the pedestrian experience. Driveways, curb cuts and entrances to a parking lots produce pedestrian—vehicle conflicts. Examples are the driveway next to BankBoston, driveways on both sides of the DeCelle's building. • There are some blank,unattractive or"dead"building/storefront facades and anomalous buildings that reduce the interest of pedestrians. Several bank buildings are examples and a number of stores have unattractive and uninviting displays. The Telephone Company building and the Boston Edison substation are mechanical, switching facilities that offer nothing for pedestrians or shoppers. • Restrooms. • New England weather,particularly winter. • More off-street parking. • Pedestrian—vehicular conflicts. List some potential implementation measures [to be investigated later in greater detail] that might be undertaken to mitigate or counteract these liabilities,problems. • Are there canopies,overhangs,heaters, glass enclosures that could extend the time when pedestrians are comfortable on,or near,the sidewalks during cold weather conditions or when encountering snow or rain? • More off-street parking deserves separate consideration(from this listing)because it potentially involves multi-level parking structures,mixed use development so that the parking structures are not visible and potentially higher density • Investigate traffic"neckdowns"that will reduce the barrier to pedestrians those streams of traffic on Mass.Ave.present. [A member pointed out that parked cars along the curb present a kind of barrier] In what ways are forces at work that will further aggravate the liabilities or problems? 4 Looking at Lexington Center for urban design issues,what specific features need to be addressed? • Lexington Center is a model of what the"new urbanism"(the creation or restoration of traditional village centers) is attempting to achieve. t • The Minuteman statue terminates the vista along Mass.Ave. • The Minuteman statue provides a dominant and memorable image and icon for the Center. Comprehensive Planning Exercise#1 4 Lexington Center • The transition from commercial to quality residential is generally well handled.This is enhanced because many commercial uses on the edge of the business district are either located in buildings that are former residential uses or in buildings constructed for commercial use that use elements of residential buildings—scale,materials and detailing. 5 What organizational measures may be needed to provide the resources to address opportunities and problems in Lexington Center? Resources: The following is a partial list of reports and other documents in the library and files of the Planning Department. 1 "A Plan for Lexington Center, Summary Report," prepared for the Planning Board and the Committee to study the Revitalization of Lexington Center,by Economic Development Associates,Inc., and Bednarski-Falconer-Stein, Greenfield,Architects,February, 1966 2. "Lexington Center Managing Change,"prepared for the Center Revitalization Committee by Norma Bogen,AICP,December 1985 3. "Lexington Center Land Use-Parking Analysis," prepared by the Lexington Planning Department for the Land Use Subcommittee of the Center Revitalization Committee,March 1, 1984 4 "Parking Policy Issues in Lexington Center," Lexington Planning Department,December 1980 (along with a Summary) 5. "Land Use and Development Policies," Land Use Subcommittee of the Center Revitalization Committee, adopted on June 27, 1984 6. Report to the Town Meeting on Article 16, Parking Central Business District, of the Lexington Planning Board, 1984 7 "Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts, Town of Lexington,MA, Volume I, Public Improvements,"prepared by David Dixon and Associates, The Halvorson Co., 1990 8. "Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts, Town of Lexington,MA, Volume II, Private Sector Improvements," prepared by David Dixon and Associates,with Peter Johnson,The Halvorson Co., 1990 There is additional written material about Lexington Center These seem to be the most important that surfaced in the Department files.