Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-02-22 Meagherville Area Study.pdf 'S..1•••666......•••666........... • .. 66 .� Imo . • � - i ,....:„...:,..„1,1 \,ti 1 1 -•„„....... iii,‘,,,,,..,....,. , ...,,,,,.. __ .........,, ..,........ It MEAGHERVILLE, . \ ,,,, , ., ,,,,, . ..„,,..,..... ..,,, ,,, ........ .....„.„ ,\ ,,, AREA ;STUDY , ... . . ,... , , , . „... UNDER ARTICLE 98 OF THE 1970 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING BY LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD ERIK LUND, CHAIRMAN A.V. ZALESKI, A.I. P. FRANCIS T. WORRELL PLANNING DIRECTOR ERIC T. CLARK E DONALD M. GRAHAM FEBRUARY 22. 1971 LOIS W. BROWN SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD PROPOSALS 1. The Planning Board recommends that the 1971 Annual Town Meeting rezone to RH the 9.5 and the 14 acre parcels and authorize 23 acres to be designated as conservation land in accordance with the area development plan attached. 2. The 1963 Annual Town Meeting authorized land for an elementary school and the 1970 Annual Town Meeting approved money for the playground. The Planning Board recommends that the school site comprise 20 acres and the playground 5 acres, as shown on the plan. 3. Since at least one half of the school site will remain open, the total open land will consist of 44 acres or almost 3/5 Of the total study area of 78 acres as shown below: Conservation land 23 acres Playground & recreation 5 One-half of the school site 10 " Garfield St. reservation 2 " Open space in RH developments4 " 4. The Planning Board knows of no specific short- or long-range plans for the service road reservation along Rte. 128 or for the Garfield St. reservation, but it is believed prudent not to commit these strips of land to conservation or other specific use at this time. 5. The Planning Board recommends RH developments on two separate sites of approximately 80 and 100 units and a mix of building types from apartments to one family houses and with sizes ranging from efficiency to three bedroom units, priced to serve individuals and families of low, moderate and average income. The attached statistical tabulation shows a possible distribution. 6. The land involved is Town-owned and the 1971 Annual Town Meeting will not be asked to authorize its sale or lease for development. If the rezoning is voted, developers will be invited to submit proposals to the Selectmen and the Planning Board. When a proposal has been selected, the Town Meeting will be asked to authorize the Selectmen to lease or otherwise convey the land subject to specific conditions necessary to protect the Town's interests. Unless the intent of the Town is made clear through this rezoning, we can not expect developers to undertake the expense of preparing serious proposals detailed enough for evaluation. 7. The Selectmen need not convey the land until satisfied that all conditions will be met. In addition, each development will require approvals or permits from the subsidizing agency, the Planning Board, and the Board of Health, the Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector, involving several reviews and at least two public hearings. The development of each site may proceed independ- ently from the other as regards Town Meeting authorization, the developer and the timing. 8. It is the intention of the Planning Board that any specific proposal to be presented to a later Town Meeting would pay its own way in taxes or payments in lieu of taxes. OUTLINE INDEX MEAGhERVILLE AREA STUDY SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD PROPOSALS (inside front cover) I. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Article 101 of the 1969 Annual Town Meeting B Subsidized housing study and program C Article 98 of the 1970 A.T.M. , Meagherville study, Selection of consultants, assistance by DCA and Town Engineer II. CONSULTANTS' STUDY, CONDUCT AND FINDINGS . . 3 Components of study A. Physical limitations, soils, drainage, utilities, traffic B. Public meetings, attitudes of residents C. Basis for consultants' recommendations D. Alternatives for the housing development by the consultant E. Financial arrangement proposed by the consultant III. REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD HOUSING POLICIES . . . . • • 5 Policies for Meagherville and other housing A. The socio-economic and age groups to be served B. Developments not to be a tax burden to town C. Predominant construction to be of multi-family type D. Proximity to shopping and services not essential E. Size of development F. Subsidy programs IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD • 7 Basis for modifications recommended A. Area, size, density, reasons B. Development phases, rezoning and implementation sequence C. Dwelling types, sizes, tenancy arrangements D. Town improvements, Garfield St. , Reed St , Bedford St. signal E. Development not to be a burden on Town F. Distribution of subsidies and incomes G. Overall land use plan APPENDICES • • • 10 A. Planning Board Policy on Multiple Family Dwellings B. Summary of RH Requirements C Soils Engineer's Report D. Consulting Engineer's Review of JGA Plans E. Illustrative Development Statistics (inside back cover) F. Land Use Plan (outside back cover) 2 I. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE A. Under Article 101 the 1969 Annual Town Meeting called for a study by the Planning Board of "alternative methods of promoting the avail- ability of housing in Lexington for families of moderate income, a concept which the Meeting hereby endorses". B. In carrying out the study in 1969, the Planning Board considered, in particular, housing needs, subsidies available for this type of housing and the ways in which such a housing program could best be implemented in Lexington. This study was limited by the fact that no additional funds had been appropriated therefor. It was further in- fluenced by the passage in late 1969 of Chapter 774 by the state legislature, making municipal rejection of subsidized housing subject to appeal to a state committee. Early in 1970 a report entitled "Subsidized Housing Program for Lexing- ton" was published, distributed to all Town Meeting members and reprinted in the Lexington Minute-Man. The program recommended the provision of approximately 950 dwellings for people of low and moderate income on 125 acres of land, including the existing 100 units in the William Roger Greeley Village and the following: 50 units of additional housing for the elderly 100 units of public (Housing Authority) housing 200 units on tax-title lands for people of moderate income 500 units in privately-sponsored developments for people of moderate income on several sites The program was divided into two phases. The first phase included the following measures, all adopted by the 1970 Annual Town Meeting: 1. Provision for a new zoning district (RH district) embodying the concept of mixed-incomes development. 2. Rezoning and transfer to the Housing Authority of tax-title land off Winthrop Rd. and Waltham St. for 50 more dwelling units for the elderly. 3. Appriopriation of $10,350 for a study of the Meagherville area to ensure "in a manner compatible with soil characteristics, topo- graphy and the character of surrounding area the land require- ments and the best location not only for the subsidized housing, but also for recreation or playground and for a future school in this area". C. For the Meagherville study, authorized by Article 98 of the 1970 Annual Town Meeting, the Planning Board chose Justin Gray Associates of Cambridge as its consultant, T. Griffin of Portland, Maine was selected to obtain and evaluate the engineering data on soils, drainage, traffic, utilities and development costs, aerial photographs and detailed topo- graphic maps were supplied by New England Surveys, Inc. of Boston. Since the methodology and findings of this study were expected to be used for similar studies in other municipalities, the Mass. Dept. of 3 Community Affairs contributed $3,000 out of federal funds under Title IX of the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966. The Office of the Town Engineer provided important assistance in the form of traffic data and other engineering information. II. CONSULTANTS' STUDY, CONDUCT AND FINDINGS The following were the four principal interrelated components of the study by the consultants: 1. Physical limitations, possibilities and development cost estimates, as regards both the study area and the effect on nearby developed and undeveloped lands, 2. Attitudes and preferences of the residents of adjacent areas and of the Town as a whole, 3. Analysis of the existing and potential financial arrangements for the development and operation of the housing under various programs available, 4. Development of acceptable alternative patterns or mix of land uses (residences, school, play and recreation, conservation) in the area. A. As to the first component, i.e. , physical conditions, it was deter- mined by the engineering consultant that soils in the area are generally suitable for construction, the layer of organic soil and peat is only one to two feet deep and the wet areas above elevation 116-118 feet above sea level are surface pockets which can be easily drained by sur- face grading. The land below elevation 116-118 cannot be effectively drained without lowering drainage culverts on the other side of Route 128 near Hartwell Avenue. The consultants, therefore, recommended that 14 acres of land below elevation 120 in the westerly corner of the study area be retained in the natural state as a conservation area. Other municipal services (water and sewer) are available in the vicinity and adequate to serve the area. The other physical limiting factor is the capacity of streets serving the area. At present, the only paved access to the area is Reed Street. It now carries some 160 vehicles during the rush hour in the predominant direction. This number is likely to be increased to 250 in the future as a result of homebuilding on the existing privately owned lots, increased automobile ownership by residents and the traffic generated by the proposed school. This total is still less than 50% of the theoreti- cal capacity in one direction of a suburban street with 30 ft. pavement (provided the sidewalks are extended and pedestrians are not required to share the roadway with cars) . As pointed out by the engineering consult- 4 ant, the exit into the heavily travelled Bedford St. would be facili- tated by the installation of a traffic light. B. To explore the attitudes and preferences of residents, the Planning Board held four advertised public meetings in the early stages of the study and two more for discussion of the preliminary report of the con- sultant. The meetings were attended by Town Meeting members, citizens seeking to become better informed and nearby residents who feared that the proposed development might reduce the value of their property. Opposition was generally based on lack of sympathy for the objectives of subsidized housing and expressed itself as fears that traffic and drainage problems could not be satisfactorily solved and that the town's taxpayers would be burdened by the costs of the additional school chil- dren. It was believed that the development would change the status quo, that it would have a "project" atmosphere or appearance, and that the higher densities of dwelling units would not be compatible with the lower densities of existing single-family homes. C. The consultants' recommendations were based on the following premises: 1. That space be provided in the study area for a school and a playground. 2 That the number of dwellings to be proposed be determined by the physical limitations of the site and by a design consistent with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That the housing proposals be flexible within the designated sites as to the type of buildings and to tenancy arrangements, including individual ownership. 4. That land subject to possible flooding be excluded from consideration for housing. D. The alternatives proposed by the consultants and evaluated as to engineering and costs all provide for a school, a playground, a conser- vation area, a recreation reserve and two or three housing sites. The consultants recommended a density of 10 units per acre and presented the following plans Plan Al Plan A2 Plan A3 Dwelling units 318 308 421 Housing - acres 31.8* 30.8* 42.1 Recreation - acres 9.4 9.4 10.9 Reserve - acres 4.2 6.8 -- School - acres 13.5 13.5 13.5 Conservation - acres 21.1 20.05 11.8 Open space in housing 8.0 7.7 10.6 Road system Circumferential Cul-de-sacs Loop w. clusters *In two separate tracts 5 In all instances the consultants propose housing developments conform- ing to RH zoning with about 63% of dwellings reserved for people of low and moderate income, financed and subsidized by the Massachusetts Hous- ing Finance Agency with a possible additional subsidy through the use of the federal "Section 236" mortgage interest reduction or rental assistance by the Lexington Housing Authority. E. The consultants proposed that the required portion of the town-owned land in the Meagherville area (30+ acres) be conveyed to a non-profit or limited-dividend developer at $500 per unit, which would compensate the Town for the off-site development costs it would have to undertake. III. REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD HOUSING POLICIES The Planning Board felt that the consultants' recommendations and pro- posals for providing in the Meagherville area dwellings for people of limited income must be evaluated in the context of the Town-wide "Sub- sidized Housing Program" and in the light of the local housing needs and the financial and legal means available to satisfy these needs. In developing its recommended housing policies the Planning Board is keenly aware of the need to match its housing proposals to the Town's ability to absorb any financial impact on the Town's taxpayers. The Planning Board feels that many presently unmet housing needs can be met in subsidized housing developments that can pay their own way and recom- mends that emphasis be placed on the construction of such developments. A. An obvious need for housing in Lexington is for young adults and for the elderly. These age groups are now forced to leave Lexington. The composition of our population is unbalanced in favor of families with school age children. This, in turn, leads to high expenditures for children-oriented services and may jeopardize the quality of such serv- ices due to the excessive overall demand. While the young and the old often have limited incomes and do not wish to or cannot maintain a detached home, they do not necessarily fall in the low or moderate income category, as defined by the various subsidy programs. These considera- tions lead the Planning Board to recommend that Lexington provide dwell- ings for small families having a broad range of incomes. B. The state legislature is studying proposals for reimbursement of mu- nicipalities for extra costs of schools and other services due to subsi- dized housing developments, particularly to such developments forced upon a town under the provision of Chapter 774. Until such reimbursement becomes a reality, it is the position of the Planning Board that subsi- dized housing should pay enough in taxes or in lieu of taxes to cover the cost of town services, including schools. The actual experience to date 6 with subsidized suburban developments in Massachusetts towns shows that the percentage of school age children is much lower than the consultant's estimates for the Meagherville area, i.e. : Framingham: 540 units, 94 school children, 320 pre-schoolers Amherst : 204 units, 15 school children, Stoughton : 39 units, 15 school children, 28 pre-schoolers C. It is the recommendation of the Planning Board that in Meagherville and other sites for subsidized housing (except for some 50 small tax- title lots) the bulk of construction be in 4 to 12-unit attached row-, cluster- or townhouses, and garden apartments providing the desired accommodations at the most reasonable cost. Multi-family buildings permit the most efficient provision of living space, open space and town services. Detached houses on scattered sites are almost impossible to build within the federal subsidy cost limitations, unless the quality and durability are sacrificed. In addition, information recently obtained bears out the earlier conclusions of the "Subsidized Housing Program" that attached multi-family dwellings (townhouses or garden apartments) are the least expensive way to provide quality housing. D. It is not always possible to satisfy all the housing needs and objec- tives set forth in the "Subsidized Housing Program" on sites located close to shopping, other services and public transportation, nor is it always possible to provide shopping, services and transportation in anticipation of the future development. On the other hand, when housing is built and the needs of the residents can be determined, provision can be made to meet them in a way most compatible with the area. The Planning Board recommends therefore that the existence of shopping, public transportation, churches, schools, etc. , near a proposed housing site, such as the Meagher- ville, be considered as not essential, so long as the possibility exists for the subsequent provision of such services if and when they become necessary. E. The Planning Board reaffirms its recommendations in the "Subsidized Housing Program" (VIII. PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS item 1.) , that the number of dwellings in a development should not exceed 200. F. Of the numerous subsidy programs theoretically available and consid- ered by the Planning Board in 1969, many cannot be used because of inade- quate funding, because they are limited to public housing for low income families (Turnkey, T 'ased Housing, Chapter 705) or because of some feature or requirement inconsistent with our needs. After a careful review of the various programs, the Planning Board recommends that, except for public housing provided by tan. Housing Authority under Chapters 667 and 707, Meagherville and other housing be subsidized by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, augmented, if possible, by Section 236 mortgage interest reduction. This recommendation is not intended to exclude other subsidy programs which may become feasible in the future. 7 IV RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD The Lexington Planning Board has considered the engineering findings, the recommendations of its consultant and the best role of the study area within the framework of the "Subsidized Housing Program for the Town of Lexington, Mass.", particularly in the areas of the greatest unmet need. As a result, the Planning Board has significantly modi- fied the consultant's proposals, which were based on the capacity of the study area, and recommends development which the Board believes to constitute a fair share for this neighborhood of the overall housing program and which is to be carried out in a manner ensuring maximum control by the Town. A. The Planning Board recommends that the ultimate size of the devel- opment be reduced from 32 to about 23.5 acres and the number of dwell- ing units be reduced to approximately 180, resulting in a density with- in the RH-zoned land of less than 8 dwellings/acre. This means that more land will be preserved in its natural state and that the developed land will be used to less than its full capacity. This recommendation is based on the policy of avoiding large concentrations of mixed-income multi-family housing and instead distributing small to moderately-sized mixed-income developments throughout the Town in accordance with item 1. of Section VIII of the "Subsidized housing Program". B The Planning Board recommends that the proposed mixed income housing be in two separate sites, designated for ease of reference as the south- east or "Hickory St. RH Zone" and the north or "Myrtle St. RH Zone", as shown in appendix F. It is further recommended that the development of each site proceed in several stages, each subject to review and approval, as follows 1. Town Meeting votes rezoning to RH (2/3 vote required) . 2. Selectmen and Planning Board select the developer who then prepares preliminary plans. 3. Town Meeting votes authority to Selectmen to lease or sell Town land. 4. Developer obtains preliminary approval from the subsidizing agency, submits detailed plans and applies for a special permit (public hearing and Board of Appeals' approval with recommenda- tions by the Planning Board) . 5. If new street construction is involved, the developer submits subdivision plans (Planning Board and Board of Health approval after a public hearing) . 6. Developer applies for building permits (approval by the Build- ing Inspector) The above process ensures opportunities for Town review of each stage 8 prior to the approval or permit being granted, ability to adjust timing depending on other developments and, since the two sites may not be developed at the same time, allows modifications based on experience. To implement this process the Planning Board has inserted Warrant Arti- cles for the rezoning to RH of the two sites (in the Hickory St. site only about 9.5 acres are proposed for rezoning, a larger area was de- scribed in the Warrant because the exact boundaries had not been deter- mined at the Warrant deadline on January 4, 1971) . There are NO Articles to authorize the lease or sale of any of the land. This authority will be requested of a future Town Meeting after a devel- oper has been selected. The rezoning at this time shows the intention of the Town to use some of the land for subsidized housing, but no de- velopment can take place until the land is conveyed pursuant to a future Town Meeting vote. C. The Planning Board recommends ranges not only in size (0 to three bedrooms) and income of future residents (low to moderate to fairly high) , but also in building type (some one and two-family houses, as well as some apartments, the majority being of townhouse type) and in tenancy arrangement (rent, rent supplement by the Housing Authority, lease and ownership, condominium or on a single lot basis) . The specific selection will be made from the range of economically feasible alternatives permit- ted under various subsidy programs when the Town will be asked to author- ize the sale of this land. D. The Planning Board recommends that Garfield St. be improved as a Town way from 600' southwest of Hickory St. to Reed St. to provide a third exit from the Hickory St. site (Hickory and Ash streets are other exits) when its development is approved. When the development of the Myrtle St. site is approved, Reed St. should be repaved to the uniform pavement width of 30 ft. (Town standard for new subdivisions) and the existing sidewalk extended to Centre or Myrtle St. A traffic light should be installed at the Bedford St. - Reed St. intersection to regulate peak hour traffic flows. The cost of these improvements is estimated by the engineering consultant at $85,000 and can be covered by receipts from the sale or lease of land to a developer, from street betterment assessments on the developer and from real estate taxes. Consideration should also be given to paving Vaille Ave. between Reed St. and Bedford St. to provide second access. E. While the exact plans will be the responsibility of the developer selected, the Planning Board concludes that such a development can pay its way in taxes and not uE a financial burden to the Town. An illustrative tabulation of unit sizes, number and types of units, construction and ser- vice costs, numbers of school children and traffic estimates appears in Appendix E. 9 F. Under the illustrative arrangement considered by the Planning Board the mix of income limits would be about as follows: 45 units or 25% low income ($4400 - $6000 for 1 - 4 persons) , 45 units or 25% low to moderate income ($5940 - $9135) , 18 units or 10% moderate income ($6600 - $9765) , 72 units or 40% other ($8400 - $14800 for admission) The above arrangement would result in 60% of units being subsidized by mortgage interest reduction to 1% under Section 235 or 236 of the 1968 Housing Act or under Section 13A of Chapter 855 of 1970 and all units, including the remaining 40%, being financed by MHFA at approximately 7% interest rate. The 40% of dwellings rented at market rates may not be occupied by persons with incomes exceeding six times the rent. Although not considered above, rent supplements from the Housing Authority may also be used for a percentage of subsidized units. G. The Planning Board has studied the arrangement of other land uses in the area and recommends the following distribution of the currently vacant Town land (as shown in Appendix F) : Dwellings (RH) 23.5 acres in two sites, Conservation land 23+ acres toward Rte. 128 and Pine Meadows, Playground 5 acres in the middle, contiguous to RH and school sites, private & conservation land, School site 20 acres along Garfield St. extension, Garfield St. reserve 2 acres between Garfield St. extension and Cedar St. and Blinn Rd. lots, Service road reserve 4+ acres along Route 128. Out of the total area of about 80 acres in the Meagherville study area about 44 acres or over 50% will be preserved as open land as follows- Conservation land 23 acres Playground 5 acres 1/2 school land 10 acres Garfield St. reserve 2 acres Open space in RH developments 4+ acres The Planning Board knows of no specific short or long-range plans for the service road reservation along Route 128 or for the Garfield Street reservation, but it is believed prudent not to commit these strips of land to conservation or other specific use at this time. It is not the purpose of the Planning Board to determine at this time the specific configuration or style of dwellings. The pictorial plan of the sites in Appendix F is intended solely to indicate the spatial relationships which would result from one possible configuration of 180 dwellings clustered in groups around open spaces and separated by parking areas with one and two family homes forming a transitional area abutting private lands. 10 APPENDIX A PLANNING BOARD POLICY STATEMENT ON MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (As published on Sept. 14, 1970) The Planning Board last published its policy with respect to apartments in Lexington 2 1/2 years ago. In its report on Article 87 for the 1968 Annual Town Meeting, the Board said "It is the opinion of the Planning Board that apartments should be FORMER available in town to serve the varied housing needs of our population, (1968) provided that the total number of units as well as the location and CRITERIA size of tracts are carefully controlled. Total number of units. As far as the total number of units is concerned, the 1962 Phase I Summary Report of the Planning Board recommended about 500, in the opinion of the present board the exact number is not important provided that it is small enough so that the essential single-family residential character of the town is not impaired. As a matter of fact, the location and size of particular [apartment developments] , because these directly affect the character of neighborhoods, are more important than the total number of units in town Location of [apartment districts] . In the opinion of the Planning Board the location of a proposed tract should meet all or most of the following criteria 1. It should be removed from or, at most, on the perimeter of established residential areas. 2. It should have direct access to streets with traffic flows that will not be much affected by the additional automobile traffic generated by the apartment development. 3. It should be convenient to public transportation, shopping and community facilities and services. 4. It should be reasonably near stabilized open spaces, such as parks or conservation areas, and public recreation facilities. 5. It must be served by town sewer." In the past two years, the Board has been engaged in studying local and REASONS regional housing needs and in formulating and attempting to implement a FOR subsidized housing program for the Town of Lexington. This will require CHANGE multiple family dwellings in appreciable numbers. It has become clear to the Board that for several reasons our past criteria will not allow such housing to be built. First is the matter of economics Multiple family dwelling units, defined as single family units attached to one another by some means, can be con- structed at a much lower unit cost than single family dwellings on separate lots of 15,500 sq. ft. or 30,000 sq. ft. Land and building costs and high interest rates have put such new single family residences beyond the reach of the average wage earner. Under these circumstances, the shortage of ii moderately-priced single family housing is not likely to be relieved unless and until industrialized housing is readily available and accepted on a broad scale. Second, many designs for multiple family dwellings have come into use which differ in important ways from the apartment plans we have seen so far in Lexington. Acceptance of these dwelling types as desirable for suburbs has been slow in coming, but it has come, most markedly in the "new towns" such as Reston or Columbia outside of Washington, D.C. Many of the attributes of individual ownership, both of buildings and of land, are being utilized. A strong effort to avoid an impersonal uniformity in appearance is evident. Building sizes, and architect- ural styles and exterior construction materials vary within a single development. The clustering of dwelling units, a concept endorsed by the Board and accepted by the Town, enables sizeable blocks of land to be reserved for permanent recreation and open space use. Areas surrounding multiple family blocks can be divided in ways which allow individual tenants to develop private gardens as well. Third, in order for the average wage earner to acquire a decent home, subsidy is necessary. Federal and state subsidies are available for all housing types and we expect that both funds and the variety of programs will increase. As yet, however, no plan for new detached single family homes on scattered small sites has any real hope of wide scale implementation in this part of the country, despite the desirability of such a program, because of high costs. If the supply in Lexington of housing units for persons of low and moderate income is to grow in the near future, the Town should encourage construction of multiple family dwellings. The Board is committed to the implementation of a subsidized housing NEW program for Lexington and believes that a "subsidized housing policy" (1970) cannot exist separate and apart from an "apartment policy". The CRITERIA subsidized housing proposals preferred by the Board are "mixed income developments", i.e. , the construction within a single site of dwellings for a wide range of incomes from subsidized levels on up. Until there has been an opportunity to evaluate the impact of the subsidized hous- ing program, the Board will support no apartment proposal which does not include the mixed income feature incorporated in the Town's recently created RH zone. The sole exception is low income housing built by the Housing Authority exclusively for the elderly. Adoption of this policy does not mean that the Planning Board will support every proposal which includes subsidized housing. Each pro- posal must be considered in the light of several criteria including the following 1. Multiple family dwellings can be compatible with detached housing in predominantly single family neighborhoods. The scale, siting and concentration of units in a proposed develop- ment which includes multiple family dwellings will determine whether or not it can be readily assimilated in a particular 12 single family neighborhood. 2. The physical characteristics of each proposed site should be evaluated individually, with particular reference to adequate permanent open space in the development itself or nearby, and to any drainage problems, including the effect of the development on adjacent wetlands. 3. A sewer connection is essential in every case. 4. There should be adequate access to an existing or planned major street. The extensive use of minor residential streets to provide access to a development is undesirable. 5. The availability of public transportation, neighborhood shopping, and community facilities and services will argue in favor of a proposed development, but should not be considered determinative for these services generally follow development, rather than precede it. Sites will vary and future occupants will view the relative importance of these services differently. All the criteria, except the matter of sewer availability, will require the exercise of subjective judgment on the part of the Planning Board and the Town Meeting with respect to each proposal as it comes before us. The Planning Board intends to provide and expects the Town Meeting Members to demand of it as much detailed information as is available to the Board concerning the physical characteristics of the land and other statistical data of all kinds. We hope that the result will be an orderly development of a variety of dwelling types in Lexington, sufficient in number to fulfill the goals of our subsidized housing program. September 14, 1970 LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD 13 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF RH REQUIREMENTS (SEE ZONING BY-LAW SECTION 36) In addition to all uses permitted in one family districts, in RH districts the Board of Appeals may, after a public hearing and with an advisory report from the Planning Board, permit develop- ments by public agencies, non-profit or limited dividend organiza- tions containing at least 40% of dwellings for people of low or moderate income and financially subsidized and regulated under a state or federal government program. Such developments are subject to the following requirements: 1. Apartments, row-, town-, one- and two-family houses may be built in heights to three stories (four for duplex over duplex with entrances from different levels) at up to 12 dwellings per acre. Up to 18 dwellings per acre may be permitted where consid- ered appropriate, if extra open space and covered parking are provided. Condominium and individual ownerships are possible. 2. Front yards of at least 20 ft. and distance between buildings equal to the height of the taller building, but not less than 30 ft. , must be provided. Two or more street accesses are required for 24 or more dwellings. At least 1000 sq. ft. usable open land must be provided per dwelling, exclusive of parking, driveways, front yards and wetlands. 3. For every four dwellings five parking spaces must be provided, of these four must be within 150 ft. of the dwellings they serve. 4. Once approved, financial arrangement, building plans and site layouts cannot be changed without a new hearing and permit by the Board of Appeals. This includes also the number of subsidized units, landscaping, grading, utilities, open spaces, parking, other improve- ments and preliminary architectural plans. 5. Additional conditions and restrictions may be imposed by the Board of Appeals on its own initiative or on recommendation of other Boards to ensure that a proposed development meets the objec- tives of RH district, is well planned and compatible with the sur- rounding area 14 APPENDIX C SOILS REPORT FOR A TRACT OF LAND IN LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS The approximately 100 acre site investigated is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection formed by the Boston & Maine Railroad cross- ing of State Route 128 in Lexington. Topography is a gently sloping plain from about Elevation 190 at the eastern extremity at Garfield St. to about Elevation 120 at the Tophet Swamp. The entire area forms a part of the watershed of Kiln Brook, which runs northwesterly through Tophet Swamp, and crosses Rte. 128 south of the site, emptying into the Shaw- sheen River in Bedford. The soils investigation reviewed pertinent boring logs taken in 1959 for the widening of Rte. 128 (borings 226, 228, 230, 232) , and borings taken in May, 1970. The latter consisted of four drive sample borings (No. 1 through 4), four auger borings (No. 5 through 8) , one test pit, and ten peat punchings. All logs are included in this report. The site can be divided into two distinct surficial sections for purposes of evaluation. The Tophet Swamp, quite uniform in elevation, covers more than half the total area, located in the southwest portion of the tract. The upland area slopes up from the swamp with an average rise of five feet per hundred to Garfield and Reed Streets. Tophet Swamp has a relatively thin layer of swamp deposit material, when compared to the average peat swamp common to Eastern Massachusetts. The section of the swamp in the Lexington tract has a soft wet fibrous peat layer from one to five feet in thickness - average depth two to three feet. This is underlain by firm gray medium to fine sand. Water level is either at ground or within two feet of the surface. The sand beneath the peat blends into a firm gray silty sand, and to inorganic silt. Although none of the borings were extended to bedrock, it can be reason- ably inferred that overburden depths range from 25 to 45 feet. Bedrock is covered by a thick layer of unsorted glacial till, composed of gravel, sand, silt and boulders, with minimum amounts of clay. The area upland of Tophet Swamp has a thin covering of topsoil not more than eighteen inches in depth, underlain by dense unsorted glacial till, yellowish brown, composed of sand and gravel, with lesser amounts of silt and little clay. There are numerous boulders throughout the till. Ground- water can be expected three to seven feet below the surface. This un- stratified till forms the entire surface layer above bedrock, particularly above Elevation 175. Here again, although none of the subsurface explora- tions extended to bedrock, the till layer can be assumed to range in thick- ness from 25 to 45 feet. Bedrock, from past geological studies in the Lexington-Concord area, is probably igneous gabbro-diorite. There are no rock outcrops. The area presents no unusual problems for engineered development. Organic deposits in the Tophet Swamp are shallow enough to permit easy removal. Underlying lacustrine deposits of sand and silt below the peat are completely 15 inorganic and non-plastic, dense enough to support buildings of medium size, residential or commercial. Soil bearing capacities of 3 to 4 kips per square foot are conservative estimates. Pile foundations would not be required, except for extremely heavy loads. Consolidation of the sand and silt will be negligible. Sand drains, surcharging or other methods of speeding consolidation are not warranted if the peat layer is removed. The upland tills are uniformly excellent foundation material for almost any type of building or earth embankment. The till is also non-plastic. Bearing capacities in excess of 5 kips per square foot can be anticipated. Three problems should be considered in engineered development. First, excavation in tills will be difficult because of the density of the mater- ial and the presence of numerous boulders. Second, groundwater control should be expected if foundation excavation extends more than five feet into the till, or two to three feet into the swamp area. Third, drain- age design for the entire tract should consider that both till and sand deposits are slow draining. In development, topsoil should be preserved for future landscaping. Peat removed from Tophet Swamp will make excellent subsoil beneath topsoil, and could be blended with sand for adequate top dressing. June, 1970 Robert T. Tierney, P.E. , M. ASCE 35 Magnolia Road, Melrose, Mass. APPENDIX D. CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REVIEW OF JGA PLANS FOR MEAGHERVILLE The following describe the major street, traffic, sewage, storm water drain- age and water supply improvements necessary to implement the three proposed alternate development plans for the Meagherville Site. (Appendices B I, II and III - omitted - contain the cost estimates for each plan.) In addition to the site work, necessary for each alternate and included in the cost estimates, is the following• 1. Rebuild Garfield St. and a short stretch of Earl St. (to provide better access to the proposed school and housing sites) . 2. Resurface Reed St. and Centre St. TRAFFIC Drawing A-1, A-2 and A-3 was reviewed for proper traffic circula- tion. Drawing A-1 provides for the best traffic circulation because of the collector street characteristics provided by the new loop road from Ward St. to Garfield St. At the same time, it provides for internal pedestrian access to the school and the play areas without the need to cross the new street. Traffic counts made on Oct. 14 and 15 (Appendices A-1 - A-4) show that the intersection of Reed St. and Bedford St. requires only a stop sign for ade- quate ingress and egress of vehicles. Assuming all vehicles from the new 16 development utilize this intersection for access to Bedford St. , this inter- section should be signalized as a semi-actuated signal with detectors on Reed Street and Larchmont St. In this manner the peak hour traffic demand would be satisfied and Bedford St. would not be unduly delayed during the remainder of the day. SEWERS: The Meagherville Site has an 18 inch sanitary sewer, located on the southeasterly and northeasterly portion of the property. It should be noted however that this portion of the site also has the highest ground elevations. Therefore the sewage generated by the three proposed plans would have to be pumped in order to utilize this sewer. The only other sewer available is on Northwesterly side of Rte. 128. There is also a 14 inch sanitary sewer line which was laid under Rte. 128 during its constru- tion for the future developments of the area. However the information on the existing sewer and highway plans show the elevation of the 14 inch sewer under Rte. 128 to be two tenths of a foot lower than the trunk sewer. In view of this it is recommended that a dosing chamber and a small force main through the 14 inch sewer be installed. This would reduce the problem of deposition of solids and the resulting higher maintenance. Before any system is selected an actual check of these elevations in the field should be made to determine their accuracy. New 8 inch sanitary sewers should be constructed in the vicinity of the new road location in plan A-1 for all three of the proposed plans. It will also be necessary to run a collector sewer to serve the proposed school. DRAINAGE: Meagherville is adjacent to Rte. 128 and storm drainage is handled by a twin 60 inch R.C.P. culvert under Rte. 128. The site is currently drained by several minor brooks flowing toward Rte. 128 and through the 60 inch culvert to Kiln Brook. It should be noted that the Southwesterly por- tion of the site, known as the Tophet Swamp, has a water table which lies only two feet beneath the ground surface. The swamp is overlain with a relatively thin layer of peat with an underlying sandy soil suitable for medium sized buildings. In 1962 some 5100 feet of dredging and piping of Kiln Brook was proposed to drain the Tophet Swamp area. The estimated cost of construction at that date was approximately $60,000. Our feeling is that this figure was nearer $225,000. Because of cost and for other reasons Justin Gray Associates in their pro- posed layouts have not utilized this area for construction. They have how- ever retained this as a conservation area, thus eliminating the need for the Kiln Brook improvements at this time. Mosquito Control may dictate dredging the brook in the near future. The removal of storm water from the developed area can be improved by the several small storm drains discharging into the existing natural water courses flowing across the site toward Route 128. WATER: There are existing water mains at the Northeasterly and Southeasterly sides of the site. It is recommended that an 8 inch water main be installed from the intersection of Garfield and Hickory Streets Southwesterly in Gar- field St. to the proposed housing. The main would then extend Northerly to the intersection of Ward and Centre streets, completing the loop. November 2, 1970 THOMAS GRIFFIN ASSOCIATES Thomas F. Griffin, Jr. , PE 17 STATISTICAL TABULATION OF ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN PROPOSALS FOR RH HOUSING based on META financing of all units at 7% interest and additional interest reduction for 60% of the units to 1% under Section 236 or APPENDIX E. 235 of the US Housing Act of 1968. For locations see attached plan. 1. LAND USE Hickory St. RH site. . . .9.5 acres and 78 dwellings (net 8.2 units/acre) Myrtle St. RH site14.0 " " 102 " " 7.7 I. " Conservation land 23.0 " to be voted by the 1971 A. T. M. Playground 5.0 (construction money appropriated) School site 20.0 " (land designated by 1963 A. T. M.) Garfield St. reserve2.0 " betw. Garfield St. & Cedar St. lots Service road reserve4.7 100 ft. wide strip along Rte. 128 Total 78.2 acres and 180 dwellings (on 23.5 acres) 2. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION Building type Hickory St. Myrtle St. Total Dwelling size Detached houses 3 1 4 Efficiency 20 Duplexes 6 4 10 One-bedroom 31 Townhouses 69 57 126 Two-bedroom 120 Apartments - 40 40 Three-bedroom9 Total 78 102 180 Total 180 3. RENT AND INCOME RANGE Annual Income Limits for 1 2 3 4 persons Monthly payment Low (for admission) $ 4400- 4800- 5500- 6000 Efficiency to 2-Bedroom Low (for cont'd occupancy) $ 5500- 6000- 6875- 7500 $ 80 to $115 Low-moderate (S.236) $ 5940- 6800- 7725- 9135 $100 to $150 Moderate (20% of S.236) $ 6600- 7770- 9450- 9765 $110 to $160 Unsubsidized (for admission) $ 8400-13200- 14800- 14800 $140 to $280 a. Special conditions applying to income limits neglected for simplicity b. Three-bedroom units omitted from this rent table c. Total estimated annual rent from 180 units is $400,000. 4. COST ESTIMATES Building construction (dwellings and landscaping) $2,875,000 Streets and utilities on site (by developer) 85,000 Other costs (land, assessments, fees etc.) 540,000 Total construction cost $3,500,000 Initial cost per dwelling (average) $ 19,450 Annual cost per dwelling, debt service and operation (aver.) & 2,170 Initial payment to Town (land, assessments, fees) $ 75,000 Annual payment to Town (20% of gross rent) $ 80,000 5. ESTIMATED TOWN COSTS Repaving Reed St. (from engineer's estimates) $ 20,000 Improving Garfield St. $ 50,000 Bedford St. traffic light " $ 15,000 Annual cost of town services, including education $ 75,000 (Education cost computed at $1100 per student of which about 65% is paid out of the real estate taxes and 35% comes from other sources) 6. OTHER STATISTICS a. Number of school age children (high estimate based on ASPO and other statistics) : K-6 Gr. 30, Jr. High 12, Sr. High 13, Total 55. b. Number of cars for 180 units approx. 225, rush hour traffic 100 additional cars. c. Number of parking spaces provided on the plan: 244 or 1.35/unit. APPENDIX F. HICKORY ST. SITE 9.5 A., 78 D U MYRTLE ST SITE 14.0 A, 102 D.U. W ;PARKE R " 'SCHOOL. i--- - _ r 1= Vq�Ey 1 /ice �11RD, . '�-i / 8 0 M. R R _ _--- �y. rt - _ TOWN BICC i i'1" �� s= .aR/I_ - , _ T - ' \\\ - O W N i ri. ( 1 `71•1 ae, „9, 3 4 ► --, U� 1-- : \ if 1� ,'1 " - VIC9) —411 N lel. \ \ �\ \/ o_ \\ I \010_\ - ` Id y = 4 Q to N Q \ 1 +- WARD—0 T-9 ` - — 4 .,. 0 vi ._ 'so % i::' i 7-11'''.X4t* ......_ 0 -J 4i; - 111=Sr.=MalldIE 21 riti .0 S Q '' -4+ illinirierlivi. SEWER 1>V_ ► „� = ���- liv RE .N5' Of, 'CKTQ�,. ;VI �1{`�� iY A ►L `,`' \ i \ 4Ps`. 0.,1-AWN 23 1 iliffi IJ •#1 i 1I I DRAIN', IP JT: ,' .� ' .. T \\ �,c ,. •:t a�aaru I_ b r� I W •d/ , ti (..-5I IOC. .�// •�//� . ,i,, ,; V `C3. '` \ \ \ �, �� SCHOdLlTE 2.D3iA 1 • l' .9 1 000YYT V 4, 1 , l' r \ `\ i\ \\ awl W _ _ O11Lv M AMARA 1�O �� 3a-�"rs'�'r✓� ) \ .11431:\i \ 4,'NZ' l STREET _ \ • \ \ 1 - )/ , _ _ _ PAPER ` PINE MEADOWS y I� C '� i _ PRIVATE LAND TOWN « Isi L _ _, -- - N CEFAR 0 200' 500' 1000' sST. I 150.1970/2 25.71 A.V.Z.