HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02-SCSC-rpt.pdf Vresenreef lip?i r,WO/
� 4 �
Senior Center
Siting
Committee
Report
April 2, 2001
Senior Center Siting Committee
March 28,2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
SUMMARY 2
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 3
PUBLIC PROCESS 5
SITE VISITS TO OTHER SENIOR CENTERS 7
OTHER PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS 9
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA 10
SITES IDENTIFIED FOR POSSIBLE USE 12
COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL SITES 15
SITE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 21
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS COMPILED BY THE COMMITTEE 22
APPENDIX 23
SUMMARY
The Board of Selectmen formed the Senior Center Siting Committee in May 2000 to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of all potential sites in Lexington on which to build
a new Senior Center. Properties to be considered could be either publicly or privately
owned and either open space or presently developed. The charge to the Committee from
the Selectmen directed that two or more locations were to be identified. Subsequently,
the technical feasibility of building a Senior Center on these sites will be determined
professionally by a firm chosen by the Selectmen to execute the direction provided by the
2000 Town Meeting.
This report documents the process followed and criteria used by the Committee in
reaching its recommendations. There follows a description of the 15 sites considered
most favorably by the Committee. Next, the Committee's pro and con assessment of
each of these preferred sites is presented. The report concludes with the Committee's
recommendations back to the Selectmen.
A critical part of the Selectmen's charge to the Committee was that 'the Siting
Committee shall also develop a series of public process steps. to hear from interested
parties as regards to the siting of a new Senior Center facility" That public process
procedure was established early in the Committee s deliberations, presented to the
Selectmen in June 2000, was immediately endorsed and was conveyed to the public via
an op-ed piece in the Lexington Minuteman. Public participation in the Committee s
activities was substantial. It played a significant role influencing the Committee s
analysis and distillation of the information it considered in coming to its
recommendations.
In coming to its concluding phases, two factors emerged more strongly than others under
consideration. One was the consensus position of the Committee that a proposal for a
new Senior Center should include the use of the current Center in the Muzzey Condo
complex as a future Adult Day Care facility The other, which drew heavily on the
numerous, cogent inputs received from the public, was the decision to exclude from final
consideration any site deemed to be open space.
In summary, the recommendations of the Senior Center Siting Committee are:
1 Utilize the existing Center at Muzzey as the future Adult Day Care facility
2. Thoroughly evaluate the technical and logistical issues related to the Town
owned parcel at 201 Bedford Street (the DPW site)
3 Thoroughly evaluate the technical and logistical issues related to the
Walgreen s site (if negotiations with the principal leaseholder are favorable)
4 As a second-tier, or backup site, thoroughly evaluate the option of developing
the Munroe Center for the Arts site to house both the new Senior Center and
the Center for the Arts in a substantially reconfigured (and expanded)building
2
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Board of Selectmen formed the Senior Center Siting Committee in May 2000. The
objective of the Committee was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of all potential
sites for a new Senior Center in Lexington. Properties to be considered could be either
publicly or privately owned and either open space or presently developed. The purpose
was to identify two or more locations that could then be professionally assessed to
determine the technical feasibility of accommodating the proposed new Senior Center
The Selectmen's charge to the Committee read as follows.
The Senior Center Siting Committee will review the programmatic and space
requirements of the Senior Center using the functional and programmatic
requirements developed by the Council on Aging. The Committee shall inventory
and assess all potential site options(both developed and undeveloped)and
identify at least two sites that might be acceptable to the community for further
pursuit. The Committee shall identify the costs and benefits of the various options
that they consider The Siting Committee shall also develop a series of public
process steps that will be followed by the Committee and by the Board of
Selectmen to hear from interested parties as regards to the siting of a new Senior
Center facility. The Committee shall present its initial recommendations to the
Board of Selectmen regarding public process within four weeks of its creation.
The Committee comprised twelve members: five citizens representing different
neighborhoods, two members of the Council on Aging, and a member each from the
Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, the School Committee, the Conservation
Commission, and the Recreation Committee. Members of the Committee and their
affiliations are:
Cathy Abbott
Cathy is the representative from the Board of Selectmen, and chairs the Senior Center
Siting Committee. She lives in Precinct 7
Scott Burson
Scott is the representative from the School Committee. He is also a Town Meeting
member from Precinct 4
Marilyn Campbell
Marilyn is one of the two Council on Aging representatives. She resides in Precinct 7
Don Chisholm
Don is the representative from the Recreation Committee. He is also a Town Meeting
member from Precinct 4.
Steve Colman
Steve is the representative from the Planning Board. He is also a Town Meeting member
from Precinct 7
3
Bebe Fallick
Bebe is the representative from the Conservation Commission. She is also a Town
Meeting member from Precinct 6.
Don Graham
Don is one of the two representatives from the Council on Aging. He resides in Precinct
6.
David Harris
Dave is a citizen representative and a Town Meeting member from Precinct 4.
Ginna Johnson
Ginna is a citizen representative and a professional landscape architect and planner. She
lives in Precinct 6 and was recently appointed to the Town s new Ad Hoc Tree Bylaw
Committee.
Lauren MacNeil
Lauren is a citizen representative and a Town Meeting member from Precinct 2.
Anne Ripley
Anne is a citizen representative. She is also a Town Meeting member from Precinct 6.
Tom Ryan
Tom is a citizen representative and a professional landscape architect and planner He
resides in Precinct 4
Liaisons
Both the Capital Expenditures and Appropriations Committees provided liaisons to the
Committee. They were:
Shirley Stolz for the Capital Expenditures Committee.
Tom Griffiths for the Capital Expenditures Committee
Sheldon Spector for the Appropriations Committee.
Alan Levine for the Appropriations Committee.
Staff Support
The Town Manager's Office ably supported the Committee s efforts. Staff involved
were:
Richard White, Town Manager
Patrick Leopold, Management Intern
4
PUBLIC PROCESS
The Committee firmly believed that a thorough effort of public outreach was necessary
so that, as far as possible, all the ideas and concerns of the community could be
incorporated into the site-selection process. As a Town committee, the meeting schedule
was posted and all of our meetings were open to the public. In addition, the Committee
was charged by the Selectmen to develop a series of public process steps to ensure that
interested parties could provide input. In this regard, at the beginning of our
deliberations, we prepared the `Senior Center Siting Committee Public Participation
Policy Statement" (see Reference# 12) and presented it to the Selectmen on June 19th
This policy statement outlined a four-pronged strategy to insure that anyone who was
interested in this issue or would potentially be affected by a new Senior Center had ample
opportunity to participate in the Committee s process. This strategy was implemented as
follows:
1. The Committee wrote an op-ed piece that was published in the Lexington
Minuteman on August 3, 2000 (see reference#9). The article contained three
main sections. In the first section, the Committee's origins and mandate were
described and its members listed. The second section reported on the
information-gathering activities of the Committee. The remaining section
invited input from the public, listed current Committee meeting dates,
described where to find future meeting dates and outlined the Committee s
process for moving forward.
2. The Committee, through the Town Manager's Office,e-mailed meeting
schedules, meeting agendas, meeting minutes and other related documents to a
list of concerned citizens that attended the meetings.
3. The Committee held two public hearings in September 2000 to report on the
results of the its work to date. The first public hearing, attended by about 75
people, was held on the evening of September 14th at the Clarke Middle
School. The second public hearing was held during the day on September 15`h
at the Senior Center and was attended by over 50 people. In these meetings,
the Committee described the selection criteria used to categorize the potential
sites into three ranked classifications. Each potential site was listed in one of
the following groups: sites for primary consideration, sites for secondary
consideration and sites viewed as significantly less appropriate for the siting
of a Senior Center. Major portions of these meetings were utilized to solicit
feedback, as well as obtain new ideas for sites from the community at large.
The view graphs presented and the notes taken at the public hearings are on
file (see Reference# 10).
4 As the Committee identified a select group of sites for serious consideration,
residents who could be affected by a potential location for the center were
notified by mail of such a possibility and provided with a detailed list of
Committee meeting dates and locations. Committee meetings were held with
5
appropriate public notice, in which citizens at large, including neighborhood
groups, presented their position as to the suitability of specific sites under
consideration.
With the above procedures and with the support and assistance of excellent coverage of
the Committee s meetings by Eva Heney of the Lexington Minuteman, we are confident
that our outreach efforts were successful. Due to the large number of citizens who
regularly attended our meetings and public hearings, we believe that the goal of attaining
broad-based public input to the siting process was achieved.
6
SITE VISITS TO OTHER SENIOR CENTERS
The Committee determined that to carry out its assignment, it would be advisable to learn
from the experiences of other cities and towns in Massachusetts. The Committee went
about gaining this knowledge in two ways. First, we received and reviewed materials
from the Lexington Council on Aging summarizing the COA's earlier investigation of
other Senior Centers (see Reference# 1). Second, the Committee members paid visits to
several centers. (See Reference # 11 that provides a summary description of each
neighboring center visited).
The siting material received from the COA consisted primarily of the Town of
Needham's analysis of 24 senior centers and summaries of the Lexington COA s Long
Range Planning Committee's 1999 visit to six of them. The COA s principal conclusion
was that the Peabody Community Life Center was the best model to follow
Committee members visited five of the six centers the COA had toured in 1999•
Arlington, Newton,Winchester, Marblehead and Peabody The Committee also visited
Danvers, which was under construction at the time of the COA visits. The Committee's
principal findings were:
1 Dining and exercising are two of the most popular and well-attended
activities. It is essential to have at least one large room with related kitchen
and storage facilities. The size of the room depends on the number of
participants anticipated at the largest events and on the nature of the events.
Accommodations for 250 seated people and the provision of a stage would be
a reasonable estimate for Lexington.
2. A range of room sizes is needed. This could be accomplished by a
combination of small rooms committed to specific uses or functions, and
larger rooms with soundproof, movable partitions.
3. Significant storage space distributed throughout the building is essential.
4. A flexible design adaptable to changing program needs is more important than
aesthetics.
The Committee, as a result of the site visits, debated some of the original requests of the
COA.
1. The COA expressed a preference for a one-story center. A characteristic of
the Peabody Center was long, apparently underutilized, hallways. A two story
facility may prove to be more efficient and would almost certainly require a
smaller site.
7
2. The COA requested a Center large enough to include the adult social day care
(ADC) program now housed in a separate facility in Lincoln. This inclusion
would require a separate entrance, separate sanitary facilities, and additional
security measures. The popular ADC programs at Peabody and Arlington
introduced site complications affecting other programs. The Committee
suggested that a separate ADC facility might be preferable. As will be
discussed later, there are specific reasons in Lexington's case to plan for a
separate ADC facility
3. The COA requested a parking lot large enough to accommodate 150 cars. Of
the other centers visited, only Peabody could accommodate that many cars.
The other centers, although expressing some frustration about parking
inadequacies when holding certain large events, described a variety of
measures and techniques designed to alleviate the problem. The Committee
tended to feel that the parking situation in Lexington puts us into the latter
camp.calling for innovative parking and site access solutions.
8
OTHER PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
The Committee was aware that it was beyond its charge to recommend either the deletion
or addition of programs offered at the Senior Center. However, it recognized that it
needed to be familiar with the range of programs offered and to understand the facility
implications of each of the programs.
The current programs (see Reference#2 for details) include nutritional services, large
group programs,participation in the Lexington Community Education Program, social
services, health services, adult social day care services, fitness and exercise activities,
board and card games, a library a computer club and a fix-it shop. The Senior Center
also sponsors off-site bus tours.
The Committee was also sensitive to the fact that an inadequate facility in a poor location
would discourage attendance and thus reduce the effectiveness of any programs offered.
Conversely an ample facility on an attractive site would encourage both attendance and
the vigor and range of programs offered. (See Reference#3 for the COA's assessment
of future space needs).
The Long Range Planning Committee of the COA had indicated (Reference# 1)that it
felt that quality of programs offered and room for expansion were more important than
the specific location of the Senior Center within Lexington. There was a strong
sentiment on the Senior Center Siting Committee however, that the Senior Center be
located on a visible site near the center of Lexington. For this and various other reasons,
the Committee ultimately dropped outlying sites from final consideration.
Agreements between the COA's position and the SCSC's position were more prevalent
than disagreements. Both believed that a new Senior Center should place more emphasis
on activities that would draw in more of the community Both believed that the Center
should be appealing to both older seniors in need, together with their caregivers, and to
younger, more vigorous and self-sufficient seniors.
9
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
The selection criteria were established to give the Committee a basis to evaluate sites for
their suitability as possible locations for a new Senior Center for the Town. The criteria
were established after visiting and evaluating several senior centers in other Towns as
well as Lexington s Senior Center. The program developed by the Council on Aging was
also evaluated prior to the establishment of the criteria.
After reviewing the list of potential sites against the list of selection criteria, the
Committee found that there are several sites that met most of the selection criteria but no
sites that met them all. Among the sites that met most of the criteria, the site selection
criteria list was used to focus the discussion on the shortcomings of each of the sites. As
an example,the criteria were used to weigh the cost of one site against the availability of
another. The Site Selection Criteria were:
1 The property should be functionally accessible. Town residents should be
able to get to a new facility on the site easily
2. The property should have access to a well-traveled street. The traffic
generated by the Senior Center can be most easily accommodated by one of
the well-traveled streets in town, but the same traffic volume would be a
safety concern on a minor residential street.
3. The property should be sufficiently large to accommodate the projected
building size that might be up to 30,000 s.f. (including space for Adult Day
Care) plus parking. Sites with sufficient on-street parking spaces available or
adjacent parking lots available nearby should be a minimum of 1-1/2 acres.
Sites that are not near on street parking or available nearby parking lots should
be a minimum of 2-1/2 acres. These criteria were established based upon the
projected program for the building and the parking demands for the facility
4 The site should be owned by the Town or available for acquisition. This
criterion was in keeping with the 'willing buyer/willing seller" requirement
set by 2000 Town Meeting and the Selectmen.
5. The site should accommodate acquisition, construction, and project
completion in 4 years. This timetable was set to assure that the project could
be immediately implemented, once approved by Town Meeting and by the
voters.
6. The site should be visible and/or be located in a place of prominence. The
facility should be a resource for all the town's residents and occupy a
prominent location in the fabric of the town. A place of prominence would
emphasize the public nature of the building and encourage the use of the
facility during off-peak times, by all town residents.
7 There should be a bias towards adaptive reuse of a property as opposed to
development of open space. The Committee felt that the Senior Center should
not be built on open space if other adaptive reuse sites were available. This
bias is consistent with the reaction of many town residents who spoke at the
to
Committee meetings and is consistent with the long-range vision of the town
(see Reference# 13, Lexington 2020 Vision).
8. The scale of the facility (one or two floors with up to 30,000 s.f. of total floor
area including Adult Day Care), the traffic created and the land use should be
consistent with its surroundings. The site should be in a neighborhood of
larger buildings near commercial or institutional land uses.
9 Development and purchase of the property should not make the project cost
prohibitive. Sites should not have a large inherent site development cost due
to environmental mitigation. for example.
10. The traffic generated by the Senior Center should reinforce or encourage the
use of the present public transportation systems. Lexpress busses should be
able to easily service the site, and preferably the site should be near an MBTA
route as well.
11
SITES IDENTIFIED FOR POSSIBLE USE
The Committee initially identified more than 30 sites in Lexington that could possibly be
used as the site for a new Senior Center. They included both public lands and private
property some with existing structures on them and some comprising open space. We
used some initial screening criteria regarding parcel size and development potential to
assign a priority to each site (A-High; B-Maybe; C-Low- X-Rejected). A map in
Appendix A denotes the locations of the sites categorized A, B, or C. Appendix A also
includes an exhaustive list of all the sites that were considered by or suggested to the
Committee. In alphabetical order below is a short description of the A and B sites. The
Committee did an on-site survey of each A and B site before undertaking its substantive
discussions and considerations.
Bedford Street(No. 201)
This is a 9.6-acre parcel bounded on the west by Bedford Street, the Minuteman Bikeway
to the north, and a mix of residences and commercial buildings to the south and east. It is
presently the site of the Department of Public Works, which has one large, and two small
buildings on site. There s a large,paved parking area on the south side of the main
building. An open, flat parcel (about 2 acres) in front of the DPW main building on
Bedford Street has the potential to be developed as a Senior Center.
Concord Ave. (No.430)
This is a 5.0-acre privately owned, diamond-shaped parcel that is accessible from
Concord Ave. It is bounded by Hardy Pond Brook on the west, residential properties and
the Elks Club to the east, and the Swammin Swamp to the south. It has two buildings on
the property and a sizable section of wetlands in its back section.
Harrington School
The School Committee's future plans include the replacement of the present Harrington
School building with a new building elsewhere on the 12.1-acre property After
completion of that and the rest of their proposed elementary school projects, the current
building could be made available for other purposes. Eight or more years from now
depending on the outcome of future Town Meeting and town-wide votes, a new Senior
Center could be one possible use of the building.
Lowell Street
This is a 3.1-acre heavily wooded Town-owned parcel at the intersection of Lowell Street
and North Street that has about 450 feet of frontage on Lowell Street and minimal
frontage on North Street. It is located on the southeast corner of the intersection and is
bounded to the east by property in Woburn.
Meriam Street Parking Lot
This is the 2.7-acre municipal parking area behind Depot Square and the commercial
buildings along the north side of Mass Ave. It is bounded on the south by the Minuteman
Bikeway by Meriam Street to the west and a mix of residential and commercial
properties to the north. There are presently no buildings on the site.
12
Metropolitan State Hospital
The Lexington portion of this former state mental hospital consists of 90 acres of land
including a large complex of unoccupied buildings. The property is accessible from
Concord Avenue in Lexington, near the Belmont line. The rest of the property is in the
City of Waltham and the Town of Belmont. Lexington Town officials are presently
engaged in discussions with the state and the other communities to develop a plan for
reuse of the property by the communities and other parties. It is expected that it could be
a decade or more before the site would be available for purposes such as a new Senior
Center.
Militia Drive
This is a privately-owned 7.25-acre complex of 7 office buildings off Worthen Road and
adjacent to Walgreen's. The individual buildings are 2 stories with between 60,000 to
70,000 square feet of floor space. Limited parking is available around each of the
buildings. The possibility of building purchase or lease could be considered by the
Committee.
Munroe Center for the Arts
This is a Town-owned 1.5-acre property on Massachusetts Avenue across from
Bloomfield Street. It is bounded by a private residence to the east, the Munroe Cemetery
to the north and an access path to the cemetery to the west. The building, the former
Munroe School, now occupied by the Arts Center, comprises about 19,000 s.f. on two
floors. The rest of the property provides parking and a small recreation field in back.
Muzzey Play Field
This is a Town-owned 1 1-acre open field adjacent to the Muzzey condominium complex
on Massachusetts Avenue and across from Slocum Road and Rowland Avenue. It is
presently used extensively as a youth soccer field. It is also immediately adjacent to the
current Senior Center located in the Muzzey complex.
North Street
This is a Town-owned 2.8 acre wooded parcel at the intersection of Lowell and North
Streets that has about 280 feet of frontage on Lowell Street and 800 feet along North
Street. It is located at the southwest corner of the intersection and would be most
accessible via North Street from the Adams Street end. It is immediately adjacent to the
Town s 21 acre parcel of recreation and parkland referred to as the North Street Sand
Pits.
Pelham Road (Highland Avenue)
This is a Town-owned 14-acre parcel of open land that is publicly accessible from the
end of Pelham Road. It is also at the privately owned east end of Highland Avenue. It
abuts the Armenian Sisters School and Museum of Our National Heritage properties to
the north, residential properties to the east and west, and includes a portion of the Upper
Vine Brook wetlands area to its south. The northern half of the property is dry and
heavily wooded.
13
Waldorf School
This is a Town-owned, 10-acre parcel of developed land that includes the privately
owned Waldorf School and the Adams School play fields used for soccer and other field
sports. The Waldorf School's arrangement with the Town for the building (the former
Adams Elementary School) is an arrangement such that every 20 years, the Town may
repurchase the building by giving notice not later than 3 years prior to the expiration of
the 20-year renewal period. That means that this year, the Town had the opportunity to
repurchase the building by notifying the Waldorf School of its intention to do so no later
than August 31, 2000. Because of this timetable, the Committee focused its early
deliberations on the pros and cons of this site.
Walgreen's
This is a privately owned 2.2-acre property at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Bedford Street and Worthen Road. The site consists of two buildings that presently
house Walgreen s and Starbucks Coffee. The rest of the generally flat site is paved for
parking. Ownership and leasing of the site is somewhat complex in that the owner
(Royal Ahold) has a long-term lease with The Stop and Shop Companies which in turn
has shorter-term subleases with Walgreen's and Starbucks for their respective buildings.
Preliminary discussions with Stop and Shop have indicated a willingness to explore
possible public-private initiatives to redevelop the site to include a new Senior Center.
Wood Street
This is a Town-owned 9 acre triangular shaped parcel of open land only accessible from a
cul-de-sac at the end of Bates Road that is off Wood Street near the Lincoln Lab
entrance. The Town acquired it in 1989 as part of the Pine Meadows purchase. It is
bounded on the east by I 95/Route 128, to the southwest by residential properties, and by
the Katandin Woods conservation area to the northwest.
Worthen Road
This is a Town-owned 3.0-acre heavily wooded parcel on Worthen Road, under the
jurisdiction of the School Committee, across from the high school football field and field
house. Residences bound it to the rear(west) on Baskin Road and to the north by the
Fitness Path/Bikeway which extends from Worthen Road, through Lincoln Park, to
Middleby Road. The northern quarter of the site is low and seasonally wet.
14
COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL SITES
Prelude: When the Committee began its deliberations in May 2000, a working
assumption was that the new Senior Center would include a co-located Adult Day Care
facility As our deliberations proceeded through the summer and fall months, and after
visiting the centers in several neighboring communities, changes to that assumption
started to emerge. Two factors played important roles in our considerations. The first
was that there was no compelling evidence that co-location was essential or even
desirable. The second was the realization that the current Senior Center in the Muzzey
Condominium Complex could be suitably configured as an Adult Day Care facility Such
a use is one of the few options available to the Town based on its current agreement with
the Condo Association regarding the use of the space. Thus, our final working
assumption is that the new Senior Center, regardless of where it's located in Lexington,
will not include a co-located Adult Day Care facility It is our recommendation that the
Muzzey complex be used for Adult Day Care. The anticipated floor space need for a
future Adult Day Care facility is 3,600 s.f. Given the 9,000 s.f. of the current Senior
Center, there s the possibility of using the remaining space by other Social Services
activities. This reduced requirements for floor space as we considered the sites discussed
below
One of the dominant criteria established for this process (the 7`h in the discussion above)
was a purposeful bias away from the use of existing open space, if at all possible. Thus,
in the discussions below you'll find for sites deemed to be entirely open space, reference
to that fact is treated as a Con.
Bedford Street (No.201)
Pro—This is an attractive site for a new Senior Center for several reasons. It's on a
major roadway (Route 4/225), is serviced by the MBTA (Route#62) and Lexpress
(Route#4) and it abuts the Minuteman Bikeway (aka Jack Eddison Bikeway). Placing a
Senior Center on the landscaped area in front of the DPW Barn would result in a visibly
prominent facility that would be consistent with and enhance the attractiveness of the
surrounding area. Sufficient parking would need to be provided on site to meet the needs
of both the Senior Center and the DPW Availability of the land and site development
costs should be expected to be among the most favorable of the site options we
considered.
Con—The traffic volume on Bedford Street,especially during peak usage hours of a
Senior Center, can be excessive and may require the installation/modification of traffic
control options at or near the site. In developing plans for the site, the future needs of
DPW and the Senior Center will need to be incorporated.
Concord Ave. (No. 430)
Pro—Some abutters have expressed support feeling a Senior Center at this location
would be consistent with and enhance the attractiveness of the neighborhood. The site is
good-sized, flat and fairly clear of trees. It is accessible from a major road (Concord
Ave) and is near the intersection of Route 2 and Waltham Street that are major
15
thoroughfares. It is serviced by Lexpress (Route#2). It's ample size, with room for
expansion, may provide programmatic/usage opportunities not possible at many other
sites.
Con—This is a privately owned parcel some distance from the center of town.
Availability for acquisition by the town is uncertain and the property would be costly A
substantial portion of it is wetlands that have a history of misuse and may require
remediation if the site were to be used as a Senior Center. Access to the site is limited to
a 50-60 foot entrance on Concord Ave.
Harrington School
Pro—This option is highly attractive because of its potential reuse of an existing town
building that is more than large enough to accommodate the needs of the Senior Center
(with internal renovation and upgrading). The space available in the building could
possibly serve the needs of other town-wide activities (indoor recreation programs,
Center for the Arts, etc). It's located near two major streets (Lowell and Maple) and is
serviced by Lexpress (Route#3). Co-location with a new school at the Harrington site
could provide positive intergenerational program opportunities.
Con—Near-term availability is a major detriment with this site in that the current School
Committee planning timetable indicates it will be 8 years or more before the building is
available for non-school uses. The location is in the far reaches of town. The building
lacks prominence or visibility in that it's sited behind residences on Lowell and Maple
Streets. Retaining the building after its replacement is constructed could cause the loss
of several heavily-used recreation fields.
Lowell Street
Pro—This town-owned parcel is immediately available and could be developed within
the Committee's 4-year criterion. It's in a light density, mixed commercial and
residential neighborhood. It is serviced by Lexpress (Route#5) and is located on a
major roadway (Lowell Street).
Con—This is a heavily treed open space parcel in a remote corner of Lexington. Traffic
density on Lowell Street (the only access to the site) raises safety and congestion issues
for Senior Center users. Much of the site is low and resulting water/sewer discharge
requirements may add substantially to site development costs.
Meriam Street Parking Lot
Pro -This site is centrally located close to the shops, restaurants and facilities in the
downtown area. This could provide conveniences to Senior Center users. It is off a
major roadway (Mass Ave.) and is serviced fully by both the MBTA (Routes #62 and
76) and by Lexpress (all Routes). A center built at this site could be made visually
prominent and consistent with its surroundings.
Con—Accommodating a Senior Center and its parking needs with the existing use of the
site as a municipal parking lot will necessitate a multi-level building with one or more
16
levels of parking underneath. The building would also have to be designed and built in
compliance with Historic Districts Commission and Design Advisory Board dictates.
Users of the Center would add to the already congested traffic flow in and around the
downtown area.
Metropolitan State Hospital
Pro—This parcel has plenty of potential to accommodate a Senior Center with spacious
parking. There is no neighborhood impact.
Con—The site remains under the control of the state until such time that an agreement
can be reached among the communities of Lexington,Belmont and Waltham as to how
the site shall be developed. The Senior Center would need to be incorporated into an
overall master plan for the site, and approval of the plan by the state legislature must
precede property transfer. The timetable for this process is uncertain but is expected to
be at least 10 years. In addition, the site is remote, well off a major secondary road
(Concord Ave) and not presently convenient to public transportation. While there are
several existing buildings on site, their demolition (perhaps costly due to asbestos
problems) must precede building construction.
Militia Drive
Pro—The buildings in this complex are adequately sized to accommodate a Senior
Center(and some complementary Town functions). The site is centrally located near the
intersection of Worthen Rd. and Bedford St. and is in close proximity to other senior
interests. There is nearby service of both the MBTA (Route#62) and Lexpress (Route#
4). Buildings in the front of the complex would result in a visually prominent Center that
would be consistent with its surroundings.
Con—There is no evidence of a"willing seller"of any of the buildings and their likely
market value, if available, is expected to be high. Though building reuse could be
expected, major renovation costs would need to be incurred.
Munroe Center for the Arts
Pro—Reconfiguration of the site to serve as a Senior Center and a Center for the Arts is
the biggest potential for this modestly sized site. It is centrally located (on Mass Ave)
and is serviced by both the MBTA (Routes#62 and 76) and Lexpress (Routes#1 and 3).
With the likely use of the Muzzey site as the future Adult Day Care facility, its close
proximity could be advantageous.
Con—The site may be too small (1.5 acres) to accommodate the proposed multi-purpose
facility that would require ample parking space. Its development would eliminate an
actively used T-ball field. Traffic volume on Mass Ave. raises safety and congestion
concerns that could be mitigated with a reconfiguration of the existing traffic signal.
With residences on three sides, an expanded, multi-level complex with structured parking
may not be consistent with its neighborhood. (See Reference#8 for expanded rationale)
17
Muzzey Play Field
Pro—A Senior Center on the existing soccer field would provide the best co-location
advantages with an Adult Day Care facility in the current Muzzey Condo complex. This
site is centrally located (on Mass Ave.) and is serviced by both the MBTA (Routes#62
and 76) and Lexpress (Route# 1 and 3). A visually prominent building can be designed
and built on this site to be consistent with its surroundings.
Con—Development of this site would deprive the community of a prominent piece of
open space and an actively used soccer field. There are agreements with the Muzzey
Condo Association regarding the rights to and use of this parcel that would have to be
altered. There are traffic and parking issues that may be challenging to resolve. A multi-
level complex with structured parking may not be consistent with the neighborhood.
North Street
Pro—This town-owned parcel is immediately available and could be developed within
the Committee s 4-year criterion. It is in a light density mixed commercial and
residential neighborhood. It is serviced by Lexpress (Route#5) and is located on a
major roadway (Lowell Street) with an advantage over the nearby Lowell Street site of
being on the south (Adams Street) side of the intersection of Lowell and North Streets.
This site abuts a spacious recreation and parks parcel (North St. Sand Pits) that could be
developed for passive recreation purposes appropriate for Senior Center user interests.
Con—This is a part of one of the town s largest heavily wooded open space parcels, and
is in a remote corner of Lexington. Access from North Street, while less congested than
Lowell Street's traffic, has safety issues due to a narrow winding street surface that spans
the Vinebrook. Concern was raised in the public meeting that development at this site
might have an adverse effect on the Vinebrook and Burlington's water supply (See
Reference#5 for expanded rationale)
Pelham Road
Pro—This town-owned parcel is centrally located, has ample usable space and can be
developed within the Committee's 4-year criterion. Development could proceed
immediately and construction costs should not be excessive.
Con—This is a heavily wooded parcel of open space in a highly residential area. It is
accessible only from the end of Pelham Road and is not serviced by public transportation.
Entry into Pelham Road at Mass Ave. is at a heavily traveled, dangerous curve.
Waldorf School
Pro—Conversion of the existing structure (formerly the Adams Elementary School, now
privately operated as the Waldorf School) was an attractive alternative for the
Committee s considerations. The building comprises about 30,000 square feet of floor
space on three floors. It is on a major roadway (Mass Ave.) and is serviced by both the
MBTA (Routes#62 and 76) and by Lexpress (Route# 1). While existing parking is
limited, available town-owned land exists for some expanded parking. The conditions of
18
the current agreement with the Waldorf School could, if the Town exercised its option,
make the building available for renovation in 3 years.
Con—The Waldorf School has been an excellent addition to the Town in its nearly 20
years of operation at the Adams School building. They are an established and positive
presence. Substantial costs could be incurred in reacquiring and renovating the building
for a Senior Center. Expansion of parking could compromise one or more soccer fields
(already in short supply). Traffic congestion in the area of the Waldorf School is a major
concern. The COA is on record in opposition to the use of this site.
On August 3,2000 the Committee recommended (by a vote of 6 to 3) that the
Selectmen exercise the Town's option to proceed with the reacquisition of the
Waldorf School building for Town purposes. On August 14, 2000 the Selectmen
voted not to exercise the Town's option (2-yes, 2-no, 1-not present), foreclosing
further consideration as a Senior Center site.
Walgreen's
Pro—Redevelopment of this site, in partnership with the current land owner and tenants,
would result in a visually prominent enhancement to the area and would result in a
complex that is consistent with its surroundings. The site is ideally located (near the
Town Center), on major roadways (Worthen Road and Bedford Street), with numerous
nearby services and facilities. It is serviced by both the MBTA(Route#62) and
Lexpress (Route#4).
Con —While positive exploratory discussions have been held with the principal
leaseholder(Stop and Shop Co.), uncertainty remains whether a partnership can be
formed for the venture and at what cost to the Town. With retail space expected to
occupy a significant portion of the new building, access to close in, desirable parking
may be an issue for some Senior Center users.
Wood Street
Pro—This town-owned parcel is immediately available and could be developed within
the Committee's 4-year criterion.
Con—This is a heavily treed open space in a remote section of Lexington. The only
access to the site is via a secondary road (Bates Road) that presently has very low traffic
volume. It has nearby (on Wood Street) MBTA service (Route #76) but is not serviced
by Lexpress. A Senior Center on this site would not be visually prominent and would be
incompatible with its residentiaUconservation land/Route 128 surroundings.
Worthen Road
Pro—This town-owned parcel, under the jurisdiction of the School Committee, is
centrally located on a major roadway (Worthen Road) near the high school complex,
Hayden Recreation Center, and the Fitness/Nature Path. This proximity can provide
numerous opportunities for intergenerational and recreation options for Senior Center
users (see Reference# 6). The site is serviced by both the META (Route#76) and by
19
Lexpress (Route#2). While the usable portion of the site may limit on-site parking, it is
expected that sufficient supplemental parking will be available on Worthen Road.
Development on this site would result in a visually prominent facility consistent with its
Worthen Road surroundings.
Con—This is a visually prominent, heavily treed open space parcel that is integral to a
larger recreational and park setting including the playing fields complex adjacent to
Lexington High School. The parcel is under the jurisdiction of the School Committee. A
portion of the site is low and may be found to be vegetated wetlands. Substantial traffic
safety concerns exist for this option, especially during hours of high school usage. A
substantial residential neighborhood abuts the upland (west) side of the property (see
Reference#7 for expanded rationale)
20
SITE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee s assessment of the properties described above results in the four
recommendations listed below An overriding consideration, particularly after receiving
in-person and written inputs from the public (see References #4, 5, 7, and 8), was the
preservation of existing open space. In the final analysis, we opted to exclude all such
parcels from further consideration. It is the Committee s recommendation that the Board
of Selectmen immediately proceed with the next step in the process, namely initiating a
technical feasibility study and schematic plan that considers the four recommendations
summarized below Recommendations 2 and 3 below represent our co-equal primary site
selection recommendations. Recommendation 4 is included as a"second tier" choice in
case either of the preferred choices does not pan out. The recommendations are:
1. Utilizing the existing Senior Center complex at Muzzey as the future Adult
Day Care facility
2. Thoroughly evaluate the technical and logistical issues related to the Town-
owned parcel at 201 Bedford Street(the DPW site).
3. Thoroughly evaluate the technical and logistical issues related to the
Walgreen's site (if negotiations with the owner and principal leaseholder
continue to be encouraging).
4 As a second-tier, or backup site, thoroughly evaluate the option of developing
the Munroe Center for the Arts site to house both the new Senior Center and
the Center for the Arts in a substantially reconfigured (and expanded)
building. Use of this site for this purpose would be contingent on approval by
both the COA and the Munroe Center for the Arts Board of Directors.
In a substantially developed town like Lexington, no site will clearly satisfy every siting
criterion. It is the Committee's considered judgement, based on extensive research,
public input, and analysis, that the DPW (Bedford St), Walgreen's, or a redeveloped
multiuse Munroe complex could best satisfy Town objectives while prospectively
accommodating a Senior Center well suited to Lexington's needs.
21
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS COMPILED BY THE COMMITTEE
(These documents are on file in the Town Manager's Office, Town of Lexington)
1. December 6, 1999• Lexington Council on Aging Long Range Planning
Committee Proposal for a New Senior Center
2. September 13, 2000: What Is The Senior Center?. Lexington Council on Aging
3. August 3, 2000: Report to the Selectmen s Senior Center Siting Committee from
the Social Services Department Space Analysis Committee; Lexington Council on
Aging
4 Miscellaneous, 2000: Letters of Opposition to Various Specific Sites; Concerned
Citizens
5 November 9, 2000: Senior Center Siting Committee North& Lowell St. Site
Reasons to Reconsider; G. and J Serebrani-Kesner
6. November 1, 2000: Review of Worthen Road Site for Consideration as a
Senior/Community Center for Lexington; P Kelley
7 November 1, 2000: Worthen Road Woods-An Unsuitable Site for the Senior
Center: A. Dorner
8. September 7 2000: Munroe Center for the Arts; M. Dietrich
9 Various Dates: Article(s) regarding the SCSC process that appeared in the'
Lexington Minuteman newspaper E. Heney reporter
10. September 14/15, 2000: Notes and Vugraphs Used by Committee Members
During the Public Hearings Held on These Dates
11 Various Dates: Summary Descriptions of Senior Centers in Neighboring
Communities
12. June 19, 2000: SCSC Public Participation Policy Statement
13 January 2001 Lexington 2020 Vision—A Status Report of the Planning Process
22
APPENDIX
Map of Sites rated A,B,or C and listing of all sites considered A
23
ill
sr
4111 iti
ir
ac .,.__4__
,.
0 if 115 MI
kir:
� il 4 , '\/,' ' ,-ir 4
`r r Nip.„
No.
4T-- ) , ‘111-1
'1 " 14/ d ‘ 7...---ci
II
c-- 4- \ Ai < itio ,, .
"am 04 i. ‘ , - - -_44-, ,. , 1
ti f f in
lit • �
(es ' ,/
O
1p
• eill .
Apar
SENIOR CENTER '`
SITING STUDY
Senior Center Siting Study
Map Let Address Owner Value Area Rank
1 Laconia Street School C
54 35A LACONIA ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 189,000' 22,500 5
54 34 LACONIA ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 185,000 A
2 Highland Ave B
31 90A MARRETT RD TOWN OF LEXINGTON 200,000 15 A
3 Lowell Street B
68 44 LOWELL ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 254,000 135,907 S
4 201 Bedford St(DPW) A
64 69 201 BEDFORD ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 3,860,000 418,176 S
5 Harrington School B
38 21 146 MAPLE ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 4,788,000 527,076 S
6 Waldorf School
739 MASSACHUSETT THE WALDORF SCHO 1 146,000 435,600 S
7 Wood Street C
66 68 WOOD ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 386,000 382,021 S
8 Metropolitan State Hos. B
1 1A CONCORD AVE COMMONWEALTH OF 2,424,000 90 A
9 Middlesex County Hos, C
2 1A WALNUT ST COUNTY OF MIDDLES 1,374,000 48 A
10 Clarke St Medical Bldg. C
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST DRESS LEONARD 140,000 2,907 S
49 79-2 16 CLARKE ST YAFFEE HOWARD S 76,000 2,907 S
49 79-2 16 CLARKE ST MOUNT AUBURN PRO 127,000 2,907 S
49 79-2 16 CLARKE ST CUA REALTY TRUST 77,000 2,907 S
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST MOUNT AUBURN PRO 87,000 2,907 S
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST VLADIMER RICHARD D 114,000 2,907 S
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST THRASHER ELLIOTT L 64,000 2,907 S
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST ANDONIAN SAMUEL J 81,000 2,907 S
49 79-1 16 CLARKE ST SRA REALTY PARTNE 130,000 2,907 S
11 North Street
68 45 NORTH ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 246,000 121,968 S
89 99 NORTH ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 714,000 936,540 S
12 Hartwell Ave(near landfill) C
80 1 HARTWELL AVE BOSTON EDISON CO 1,125,000 236,966 S
66 68 WOOD ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 386,000 382,021 S
13 Munroe School A
39 62 403 MASSACHUSETT TOWN OF LEXINGTON 2,834,000 68,824 S
14 Meriam St parking lot A
49 5A MERIAM ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 368,000 115,712 S
15 School Admin Building C
48 170A 557 MASSACHUSL r l TOWN OF LEXINGTON 1,635,000 78,045 S
16 Worthen Road A
41 120 WORTHEN RD TOWN OF LEXINGTON 251,000 130,680 S
Wednesday,January 31 2001 Page 1 of 2
Map Lot Address Owner Value Area Rank
17 Muzzey(Play Field/Condo) A
48 276A 475 MASSACHUSETT Approx.60 Owners
48 2768 MASSACHUSETT TOWN OF LEXINGTON 203,000 46,174 S
20 Concord Ave B
10 8 430 CONCORD AVE MEAD MEADOW REAT 439,000 5 A
22 Winning Farm Land C
45 20A BLUEBERRY LN WINNING HOME C/O C 2,000 1,331 S
23 Militia Drive Area B
57 132 51 WORTHEN RD DOUGLASS ARTHUR F 1,027,000 60,195 S
57 131 2 MILITIA DR GRACE CHAPEL INC 2,023,000 60,697 S
57 130 1 MILITIA DR HERITAGE REALTY TR 1,646,000 60,206 S
57 135 3 MILITIA DR GRACE CHAPEL INC 580,000 67,998 S
57 134 5 MILITIA DR DOUGLASS JEWELS 1 775,000 64,966 S
57 133A 4 MILITIA DR SARAJEHA REALTY TR 1 784,000 63,019 S
57 129 21 WORTHEN RD DEFLICE BROS REALT 1,598,000 60,110 S
24 Meagherville C
66 64 CEDAR ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 354,000 270,072 S
25 Raytheon C
26 44D 131 SPRING ST RAYTHEON COMPANY 11,114,000 58 A
28 Westview Cemetery C
84 82 BEDFORD ST TOWN OF LEXINGTON 1 447,000 1,829,520 S
30 Walgreen's Site A
57 79 60 BEDFORD ST BENENSON CHARLES 2,267,000 97,950 S
Wednesday,January 31,2001 Page 2 of 2