HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-PB-rpt Commercial Development in the CRO, CM and CD Zoning Districts COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CRO, CM AND CD ZONING DISTRICTS
oo
Town of Lexington, Massachusetts
Planning Board
April 1997
Commercial Development
in the CRO, CM and CD Zoning Districts
Town of Lexington, Massachusetts
Planning Board
April 1997
Lexington Planning Board
Richard L. Canale, Chairman Steven L. Colman
Frederick L. Merrill, Vice Chairman Anthony G. Galaitsis
John L. Davies, Clerk
Town of Lexington
Planning Department
Robert A. Bowyer, Planning Director
Joseph A. Marino, Assistant Planner
Elissa M. Tap, Department Clerk
Acknowledgements
Important contributions to the preparation of this report and the Transportation Demand Management
Policy were made by members of the Lexington Transportation Advisory Committee:
Donald Graham, Chairman
Ben Turk
Elaine Dratch
Barbara Lucas, Transportation Coordinator for the Town of Lexington
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.........................................................j....Niiiiiiiillll XitH{ii}I,i FYii 1..........................;......;...:N:�•::....................................................................................
SUMMARY
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CRO, CM AND CD ZONING DISTRICTS 1
Introduction 1
Considerations in Rezonings: Impacts of New Development 3
Impacts and Benefits 3
Floor Area Ratio 4
The CD, Planned Commercial District Procedure 6
Traffic Impacts Require a Broader Transportation Response 9
Traffic Congestion at Nearby Intersections 9
Traffic That Affects Nearby Neighborhoods and the Town Generally 11
Traffic in Suburbia, Regional Considerations 13
A Multi-modal Transportation Response to Traffic Congestion 16
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 17
The Role of Parking 22
Broadening the Responsibility for Traffic Mitigation
and Transportation Demand Management 23
Lexington: A Leader in Transportation Planning and Programs 25
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLIED TO THE HAYDEN AVENUE CRO DISTRICT AND
THE CD REZONING PETITIONS 27
Traffic Impact 27
South Lexington Transportation Fund 30
Traffic Officers v. Traffic Signals 31
Safety and Neighborhood Improvements 32
Development in the Hayden Avenue Spring Street CRO Districts 32
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY 37
SUMMARY
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CRO, CM AND CD ZONING DISTRICTS
1. Introduction
This report provides a context for the Hayden Avenue rezoning petitions (Articles 27 and 28). It is based
on views of commercial development which the Planning Board has developed in four contexts:
1. working on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
2. as part of the four town planning study involving other HATS towns,
3. in preparation for rezoning petitions along Hayden Avenue; and
4. the Town's need to raise real estate taxes from commercially zoned property.
2. Considerations in Rezoning Decisions, the Impacts of New Development
When the Planning Board evaluates a rezoning proposal, the concerns usually articulated by Town Meeting
Members and residents are generally about a perceived loss in the quality of residential life. The impacts
most often cited include:
a. traffic; .... traffic; traffic; traffic;
b. the proximity of commercial structures to residential neighborhoods;
c. the physical attributes of commercial activity, such as noise, odor, lighting;
d. development on land that had been open and its replacement by asphalt, concrete and signs;
e. the visual impact of commercial development on what is primarily a residential town.
The Planning Board believes its responsibility is to weigh numerous factors, negative and positive, in its
recommendations. In evaluating a proposed rezoning, the Planning Board considers public benefits such
as:
a. the acquisition or protection of open space,
b. whether a development can sustain and reinforce the Town's residential character,
c. potential real estate tax revenue and whether there is a net gain in revenues to the Town
compared to the costs of providing Town services,
d. the provision by the applicant of needed public facilities and programs, and improvements to the
Town's infrastructure,
What's Behind Floor Area Ratio (FAR)?
In considering commercial rezoning, many focus nearly exclusively on the Zoning By-Law's requirement
for a maximum floor area ratio, which limits the amount of commercial floor space in relation to the
amount of dry, developable land on a lot. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is a coarse, general indicator
of the intensity of commercial development permitted on a lot or in a zoning district. But it does not begin
to tell the whole story.
Land use and zoning decisions should be made primarily on an analysis of the potential impacts and
benefits from a proposed development rather than a mathematical ratio.
Summary, Commercial Development
Since 1984, when floor area ratio was introduced into the Zoning By-Law, other regulations have been
introduced or strengthened. Section 12, Traffic, of the Zoning By-Law, introduced in 1987, is a far more
powerful technique for dealing with traffic. It provides that nearby intersections must be improved to
traffic level of service "D" or better or a new development cannot proceed. Traffic "level of service" is
a rating system used by traffic engineers throughout the country and is a measure of the degree of
congestion (delay). It rates intersections on a scale from A= excellent to F= failure.
The Planning Board has recently adopted a Transportation Demand Management Policy. In order to obtain
a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board on a commercial development that will increase
traffic demand, an applicant must have a Transportation Demand Management Plan(TDM)that will reduce
automobile travel in single occupant vehicles (SOVs). That will reduce the amount of automobile travel
generally and will be more beneficial throughout the town than the current requirements of Section 12 that
deal principally with congestion at nearby intersections.
The Federal Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements of the State's Architectural Barriers
Board now mandate elevators and other access requirements. That has resulted in a larger building foot
print and more floor area, and hence a higher floor area ratio, for a commercial building to be
economically feasible. Both the State Wetland Protection Act and the Town's Wetland Protection Bylaw
have been changed to provide greater protection for the physical environment.
Floor area ratio is heavily influenced by the size of the lot. Small lots typically have high ratios. Large lots
usually have lower ratios. Floor area ratio regulates the amount of floor area, not how that floor area is
used. Different uses of a building will have different impacts at different times of the day. FAR regulates
the amount of floor area on a lot but does not control the location of a building on the site, the number of
floors, the height, the mass or appearance of a building.
The CD, Planned Commercial District Procedure
Lexington's planned development zoning district procedure permits individualized, tailor-made regulations
on parcels large enough to constitute a separate zoning district. Favorable action on one CD zoning
application does not provide a precedent. No one is entitled to approval of a rezoning petition.
The procedure allows the Town Meeting to change the floor area ratio on one parcel by creating a separate
CD district without changing the FAR level throughout the commercial area. That is one of the arguments
made by the proponents of the 1987 reduction of the maximum FAR from 0.25 to 0.15. The Town
Meeting has permitted a higher FAR in approving two rezonings in 1989.
The Planning Board is not in favor of changing the maximum floor area ratio for whole commercial
districts such as the CRO and CM. The Planning Board will consider proposals for CD rezonings within
those districts -very carefully.
3. Traffic Impacts Require a Broader Transportation Response
A basic planning principle is that land use development cannot be considered in isolation from the
transportation (vehicular traffic, other means of transportation, and parking) that serves it. Another
important principle is that zoning should attempt to maintain some balance between the development
permitted and the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate the impacts from the development.
Summary, Commercial Development
Traffic Congestion at Nearby Intersections
If the developer can improve the traffic level of service rating to an acceptable level, the development may
be able to proceed. In 1988, for the rezoning of the Middlesex Mall property in Lexington, a traffic signal
was required at the corner of Lowell Street and North Street.
General Traffic Levels That Affect Nearby Neighborhoods and the Town Generally
While Section 12 addresses the traffic carrying capacity of nearby intersections, the Zoning By-Law does
not now address the increases in traffic from new development that affect nearby neighborhoods and the
town generally. The Planning Board is interested in developing additional mitigation for the nearby
neighborhoods and other streets in town. For example, many nearby neighborhood streets do not have
sidewalks/bicycle paths to provide safety for walkers and cyclists.
One of the promising new techniques for reducing the impact of traffic on residential areas is called "traffic
calming" - a series of minor construction actions that either discourage through traffic from entering
residential neighborhoods or slow it down.
Traffic in Suburbia, Regional Considerations
Between 1970 and 1990, 75% of the 500,000 new jobs created in the Boston metropolitan area were in
the suburbs. The traffic volume on Route 128 at Winter Street in Waltham is higher than at any location
on the Central Artery and the Southeast Expressway. Any breakdown, accident or adverse weather can
result in miles long backups on Route 128 and spill over onto local streets.
Suburbia now has a land development pattern that is too dense for single occupant automobiles but not
dense enough for public transportation. There are too many people going in too many different directions
-to other suburbs -to make a public transportation system feasible.
Transportation Planning Approaches to Suburban Traffic Congestion
To deal with growing suburban traffic congestion, transportation planners recognize that attempting to
endlessly build more capacity is incredibly expensive, enormously disruptive to already developed
properties, environmentally unsound and likely to be ineffective in accommodating traffic.
This problem has arisen because town zoning regulations, which determine where, and how much,
development will occur, is almost always separate from the operation of major transportation facilities by
state and regional agencies. There are only a handful of towns that have anything like Section 12 of the
Lexington Zoning By-Law that deals with the capacity of local, town streets. The ability of the regional
transportation system to accommodate the increased traffic from new development is rarely even mentioned
in a local zoning decision. Within five or ten years, there is likely to be a closer connection and
conceivably requirements between state and regional transportation agencies and municipal zoning.
The growing traffic problem in Lexington alone, or in suburbia, cannot be met by reliance on one mode
of travel such as one person in one automobile. Other modes (means of travel) such as suburban busses,
vans, car pools, walking, bicycling, and commuter rail are all needed.
4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The Planning Board has adopted its Transportation Demand Management Policy in response to the shift
in transportation planning to focus on demand rather than supply and its concerns about traffic.
Summary, Commercial Development
A TDM program includes various programs to promote alternative modes of travel and subsidized or free
public transportation passes, contributions to town public transportation services, and shuttle busses or
vans that take employees to lunch or other shopping or errands in mid-day. When bicycle and pedestrian
improvements are included, a TDM program becomes truly multi-modal.
An Inclusionary Policy
Analogous to its Inclusionary Housing Policy, the Transportation Demand Management Policy is also an
inclusionary policy. In order to obtain a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board for a
rezoning to a more intensive development, the proposal must include a program of alternative
transportation services that reduces reliance on single occupant automobiles.
An excellent example of TDM are the requirements in the Special Permit with Site Plan Review granted
in 1988 to construct an office building at 191 Spring Street. Boston Properties prepared and submitted a
Transportation Demand Management Plan, organized the South Lexington Transportation Task Force, and
started a shuttle bus service to the MBTA's Alewife Red Line station.
Employers, Town Play a Key Role
Transportation demand management, which is oriented primarily to peak hour travel by employees depends
heavily on programs which large employers, organize and promote. The Town of Lexington has an
important role in implementing TDM programs. It can not be left to business and forgotten. The Town's
role can be providing some technical assistance, coordination of the programs of individual business areas
and monitoring compliance with conditions included in permits granted.
TDM Is Not A Panacea
Transportation demand management is very difficult to achieve. Nearly all TDM programs require
adjusting time schedules to accommodate others - in a car pool or to bus schedules. The wide dispersion
of commuting trips throughout the suburbs adds to the difficulty. More than 60 percent of the
approximately 18,000 people employed in Lexington live in other suburbs. There are not enough of them
going in the same direction at the same time to make even a small bus feasible. Car pools and van pools
offer the best possibility of serving employees who live in other suburbs.
5. Broadening the Responsibility for Traffic Mitigation And TDM
The Planning Board would like to see all properties and businesses that contribute to traffic impacts
contribute to a multi-modal transportation solution - dealing with traffic and alternative transportation
services -proportionate to the number of vehicular trips made to their site.
The traffic intersection capacity test in Section 12 (ZBL) and the application of the Transportation Demand
Management Policy has some inherent inequities. It places the burden of achieving traffic and
transportation objectives largely on those "next in line" in the permit application process.
The Planning Board recommends that the Town investigate the adoption of some type of special district
procedure that would apportion the costs of a multi-modal transportation response -proportionate to the
number of vehicular trips made to their respective sites - on all who contribute to the problem and not just
on those who are next in line for permits.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CRO, CM AND CD ZONING DISTRICTS
117 INTRODUCTION
The two petitions to rezone land on Hayden Avenue provide the Planning Board an opportunity to present
its views on commercial development in the CRO (Regional Office), CM (Manufacturing) and CD
(Planned Commercial) zoning districts to the Town Meeting.
The Planning Board has been evaluating what its position on commercial development should be in four
contexts:
1. The Board has been working on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It has been
evaluating privately owned parcels of land in town that are potentially susceptible to
development and considering what might be desirable uses of those parcels.
2. As part of the four town planning study involving other HATS towns, the Board has developed
a position on land development and transportation in what we have described as "West
Lexington" - an area that is adjacent to Hanscom Field.
3. In preparation for its report to the Town Meeting on the Hayden Avenue rezoning petitions, that
first came to the Board's attention in December 1996, we have developed these views on
commercial development in the South Lexington CRO zoning districts along Hayden Avenue
and Spring Street.
4. As the Town's fiscal situation becomes more stressed, the Town will need to consider its ability
to raise real estate taxes from property, particularly commercially zoned property. Several of
the Town's other Boards and Committees have raised that issue.
In fulfilling its land use planning responsibilities, the Planning Board has to find some balance among
several conditions and factors - some of which are difficult to reconcile and, in fact, may be directly
contradictory.
1. Proposition 21 limits the Town's ability to raise real estate taxes by not more than 21 percent of
what it raised in the real estate tax levy in the previous fiscal year. That 21 percent limit is lower
than the rate of inflation. To stay within that limit (setting aside the prospect of regular overrides) the
Town would have to reduce services.
Proposition 21 allows a new growth exemption by which the base calculation of the tax levy limit
may be increased by the amount of new growth. Thus Proposition 21/2 places a premium on new
growth. Towns would have to maintain a high level of new development to keep up with the rate of
inflation, and other cost increases that are greater than the rate of inflation, (again, setting aside the
prospect of regular overrides). Here, tax law and fiscal policy may be working at cross purposes with
land development policy.
2. Concerned that the Zoning By-Law, as then written, would permit far more development than was
desirable, in 1984 and 1985 the Planning Board proposed, and the Town Meeting approved, a Floor
2 Commercial Development
Area Ratio (FAR), a technique for regulating the intensity of commercial development. The Planning
Board proposed a 0.25 FAR in the CRO, Regional Office, district based on its studies that showed
that level would permit some additional commercial development while still consistent with the
capacity of the Town's infrastructure.
In 1987, responding to a citizens' petition, the Town Meeting approved a reduction in the FAR from
0.25 to 0.15 in the CRO and CM districts. In response to a one third increase in the amount of
commercial floor space in Lexington - about 1.5 million square feet of floor space - in less than 10
years, this represented a need to more closely control commercial development in the CRO, Regional
Office, and CM, Manufacturing, districts. Some would even describe it as anti-growth representing
a desire to stop additional commercial development in town.
3. Lexington traditionally has not practiced "checkbook zoning" -encouraging development simply to
generate real estate tax revenues. Other communities nearby are examples of "checkbook zoning" and
are cited as examples of what Lexington does not want to become.
While not unmindful of potential real estate taxes, the Lexington Town Meeting has used a number
of criteria - land use, location, impact on nearby residential neighborhoods, consistency with the
overall residential character of the town, financial costs and benefits, environmental considerations,
and visual character- in its zoning decisions.
CONSIDERATIONS IN REZONINGS: IMPACTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
When proposals for new development are made, what the Planning Board hears about most is the potential
impacts of new development. In evaluating a proposed rezoning, the Planning Board considers various
factors.
The concerns usually articulated by Town Meeting Members and residents are a perceived loss in the
quality of residential life. The impacts often cited include:
a. traffic is invariably cited; (it is discussed more fully in Section 3, Traffic Impacts);
b. the physical proximity of commercial structures to residential neighborhoods that leads to
concerns about loss of the character of a residential neighborhood due to the intrusion of
incompatible commercial structures and a perceived decline in property values;
c. the physical attributes of commercial activity such as lighting, including direct glare and
increased ambient light levels, noise, operation during evenings and weekends, snow removal
operations during the middle of the night, and odors in some cases;
d. development on land that had been open - with the resulting loss of trees and other natural
features and their replacement by asphalt, concrete, steel, glass and signs;
e. the downstream effects of increased storm water runoff and pollutants from more impervious
surfaces;
f. the general visual impact of commercial development on what is primarily a residential town.
That visual impact is often dramatized because the commercial development is often proposed
near the entrances or gateways to the town because of a site's proximity to major highways and
streets. That concern is often stated as "We don't want Lexington to look like !" or
"I moved to Lexington to get away from !"
While some other boards and committees may focus primarily on the financial considerations of new
development, the Planning Board hears primarily about the likely adverse impacts of new development.
The Planning Board believe its responsibility is to weigh numerous factors, negative and positive, in its
recommendations. That is a recognition of the different roles and responsibilities the various Town boards
and committees have.
In evaluating a proposed rezoning, the Planning Board considers public benefits such as:
a. the acquisition or protection of open space,
b. well designed buildings and sites,
c. whether a development will sustain and reinforce the Town's residential character,
d. potential real estate tax revenue and whether there is a positive relationship between revenues
to the Town and the costs of providing Town services,
e. the provision by the applicant of needed public facilities and programs, and improvements to the
Town's infrastructure,
f. the provision of affordable housing in the case of a residential rezoning.
4 Commercial Development
The Planning Board considers the land use and the intensity and design of a proposed development, and _-
its impacts and benefits. Section 7.5.1.1 of the Planning Board's Development Regulations provides that
in its recommendation to the Town Meeting, the Board will indicate:
a. whether the proposed use of the land, without consideration of the proposed density or other
design features, is acceptable to the Board; ...
If the use is acceptable .... the recommendation will indicate whether:
b. the proposed density and other design features, are acceptable, ...
c. the proposed conditions on the development, or mitigating measures or benefits to the
neighborhood or the town, are acceptable, ....
FLOOR AREA RATIO
The Zoning By-Law's requirement for a maximum floor area ratio has acquired great symbolic meaning
for some people. Its symbolic value may outweigh its usefulness in evaluating proposed land use change.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a basic zoning control on the intensity of commercial development
because it limits the amount of commercial floor space permitted in relationto the amount of dry,
developable land on a lot.
What's Behind FAR?
Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is a coarse, general indicator of the intensity of commercial development
permitted on a lot or in a zoning district. But it does not begin to tell the whole story.
Land use and zoning decisions should be made primarily on an analysis of the potential impacts and
benefits from a proposed development rather than a mathematical ratio. In the presentation of Article 29
at the 1996 Town Meeting dealing with cluster residential development, the Planning Board argued that
the traditional focus on another ratio - residential density (the number of dwelling units per acre) - was
less important than:
• the actual impacts of residential development such as the size of buildings, site coverage,
impervious surface ratio, occupancy characteristics and motor vehicle trips generated, and
• the benefits of more open space, greater diversity of housing for different age groups, and
smaller houses.
In the 1997 zoning articles dealing with commercial development, a mathematical ratio (FAR) may be on
the minds of many Town Meeting Members. The Planning Board asks you to focus again this year on the
actual impacts and benefits of proposed development-what's behind the FAR.
Since the floor area ratio concept was introduced into the Lexington Zoning By-Law in 1984, other
provisions have been added to the Zoning By-Law and to other Town regulations that deal with impacts
more effectively. For a while, FAR was the principal limitation on commercial development but that has
changed as more effective tools have been introduced.
Section 12, Traffic, of the Zoning By-Law, introduced in 1987 (Article 43) is a far more powerful
technique for dealing with traffic, the impact of development (either commercial or multi-family housing)
that draws the most concern and comment. It provides that nearby intersections must be improved to traffic
level of service "D" or better. (Traffic "level of service" is a rating system used by traffic engineers that
evaluates the degree of congestion at an intersection on a scale from A= excellent to F= failure.) If the
Commercial Development 5
provisions of Section 12 are not satisfied, the development cannot proceed. (These points are discussed
in greater detail in Section 3. Traffic Impacts... )
The Planning Board has recently adopted a Transportation Demand Management Policy that will provide
a second method of dealing with traffic impacts. In order to obtain a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Board on a commercial development that will increase traffic demand, an applicant must have
a Transportation Demand Management Plan that will reduce automobile travel in single occupant vehicles
(SOVs). That will reduce the amount of automobile travel generally and will be more beneficial throughout
the town than the current requirements of Section 12 that deal principally with congestion at nearby
intersections. (These points are discussed in greater detail in Section 4, Transportation Demand
Management.)
Since the introduction of floor area ratio in 1984, both the State Wetland Protection Act and the Town's
Wetland Protection Bylaw have been changed to provide greater protection for the physical environment.
The State Department of Environmental Protection has adopted a Storm Water Management Policy
requiring "best management practice" for dealing with runoff from parking lots.
The Federal Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements of the State's Architectural Barriers
Board now mandate elevators and other access requirements that require a certain amount of space in a
commercial building. Real estate development economics mandate a relationship between rentable floor
area and "core" space where elevators and the like are located. That means a larger building foot print and
more floor area, and hence a higher floor area ratio, for a commercial building to be economically feasible.
Floor area ratio is heavily influenced by the size of the lot. Small lots typically have high ratios. Large lots
usually have lower ratios. The traffic impact from an 80,000 square foot office building would be twice
as great as that from a 40,000 square foot office building. Depending on the dry developable land on the
lot, the floor area ratio for the two proposals could be substantially different. The Raytheon Company
property has the most floor area and produces the greatest amount of traffic in the South Lexington CRO
district but has the lowest FAR (0.11) in the district because it is on a 89 acre lot.
Floor area ratio simply regulates the amount of floor area, not how that floor area is used. A laboratory,
a restaurant, an office building, a telemarketing operation and a medical office building could each have
the same total floor area but the amount of traffic generated from them, and the time of peak travel, would
be quite different. Section 12 uses different "trip generation rates" for different types of uses to project the
amount of traffic a use will produce.
Floor area ratio simply regulates the amount of floor area on a lot but does not control the location of a
building on the site, the number of floors, the height, the bulk or mass or appearance of a building except
very indirectly. Floor area ratio is based on NET floor area which is a measure of the usable, occupied
floor space that generates traffic and other activity. It is not designed to deal with the physical design
features such as building location, bulk, mass, height or appearance.
From the first introduction of floor area ratio in 1984, when data was obtained manually, the amount of
data available and the ability to process and analyze it has changed drastically. This allows the Planning
Board to evaluate the different types of impacts from a proposed development more thoroughly.
6 Commercial Development
THE CD, PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PROCEDURE
Lexington's planned development zoning district procedure permits individualized, tailor-made sets of
regulations on parcels large enough to constitute a separate zoning district.
Favorable action on one CD zoning application does not provide a precedent. Town Meeting Members
express an understandable concern about setting a precedent whereby others will expect similar treatment
later. No one is entitled to approval of a rezoning petition. That has been the longstanding practice of both
the Planning Board and of the Town Meeting as well. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the courts
give wide discretion to acts of legislative bodies, i.e. town meetings, in rezonings. They are reluctant to
overturn a town meeting act approving a rezoning. We know of no case in which a town meeting's
disapproval of a rezoning has been invalidated.
The CD, Planned Commercial District procedure allows the Town Meeting to change the floor area ratio
on one parcel by creating a separate CD district without changing the FAR level throughout the
commercial area. That is one of the arguments made by the proponents of the 1987 reduction of FAR
levels from 0.25 to 0.15. (Article 47, 1987 Town Meeting.)
The Town Meeting has permitted a higher FAR in approving two rezonings in 1989. One was for the
construction of a hotel on Hartwell Avenue (yet to be constructed) with an FAR of 0.30 . The other was
for an 80 room addition to the Sheraton Hotel on Route 2A that raised the FAR to 0.23.
Lexington's planned development zoning district procedure is beneficial to developers because their —
proposal can be analyzed on its merits without carrying the baggage of changing a whole zoning district
such as the CRO or the CM that applies elsewhere in town,
The principle that no one is entitled to a rezoning from the Town Meeting permits a more favorable
climate for dealing with the impacts of development and obtaining public benefits. One person at the public
hearing described rezoning as a privilege. A Board of Appeals, as an administrative board, has less latitude
than the Town Meeting and is required to operate more narrowly within predetermined rules. The creation
of a new zoning district by the Town Meeting through the planned development zoning district procedure
is much more flexible and adaptable to the peculiarities of individual properties.
These are some of the reasons that the Planning Board is not in favor of changing the maximum floor area
ratio for whole commercial districts such as the CRO and CM. The Planning Board will consider proposals
for CD rezonings within those districts–very carefully.
Some Town Meeting Members may be under the impression that the land use and dimensional
requirements of a CD district are required to parallel or shadow one of the existing standard zoning
districts such as CRO or CM. That would be contrary to the purpose of the CD district. Paragraph 8.2.1
of the Zoning By-Law says:
"The Planned Commercial District - CD, does not have predetermined standards for development."
The CD district is designed to be flexible and tailor made to the peculiarities of individual sites.
In practice the land use and dimensional requirements of the existing standard zoning districts provide an _.
informal frame of reference. Three of the last five CD rezoning petitions have been for CD rezonings in
Commercial Development 7
an already existing CRO or CM district. If a CD zoning was required to track the existing requirements,
there would be no purpose in rezoning the property.
In drafting the text of the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan required for each new CD district,
most proponents of CD districts find it is easier, and much shorter, to refer to the standards for an existing
standard district. That is for ease of draftsmanship not because it is a formal requirement.
The great advantage of the planned development zoning district procedure is that it can adjust to the
differences in topography, views in and out of the site, the presence or absence of natural buffers and
screening, the variety of land uses that occur on nearby properties and the dozens of other things that make
properties different from one another,
8 Commercial Development
...............
TRAFFIC IMPACTS REQUIRE A BROADER TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE
A basic planning principle is that land use development and transportation are inseparable. Land
development cannot be considered in isolation from the transportation (vehicular traffic, other means of
transportation, and parking) that serves it. The transportation system cannot be considered in isolation from
the land development pattern that creates transportation demand. The construction of major transportation
facilities, such as Route 128 or numerous other expressways, creates opportunities for land development.
We will focus here on two traffic impacts - congestion at nearby intersections and increases in general
traffic levels that affect neighborhoods nearby and the town generally - and the transportation response
(including other transportation considerations beyond traffic) needed to deal with those impacts.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT NEARBY INTERSECTIONS
To deal with traffic congestion at nearby intersections, Lexington has taken several important steps that
are already incorporated into the Zoning By-Law. This year the Planning Board is concentrating on other
impacts of traffic.
The first important principle is to maintain some degree of balance between the amount of development
permitted and the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate the impacts of the development. In 1984
(for the CRO districts) and again in 1985 (for the CM district), the Planning Board proposed and the Town
Meeting approved the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) technique. The FAR levels the Planning Board
recommended in those years were based on studies that allowed some new growth in those districts that
would be consistent with the capacity of the nearby intersections.
In 1987, the Town Meeting approved a whole new Section 12, Traffic, in the Zoning By-Law. Section 12
contains powerful provisions that deal with the potential traffic impacts of a proposed new development.
If these provisions are not satisfied, the development cannot proceed.
Section 12.3 of the Zoning By-Law requires that street intersections "likely to be affected by a
proposed development"1 have "adequate capacity". That means "traffic level of service" "D" or better
[on a scale from A= excellent to F= failure]. This requirement, usually called the intersection
capacity test, applies to all commercial developments with a total of 10,000 square feet or more of
floor space and all residential developments with 50 or more dwelling units. Those thresholds include
both existing and proposed development. "Traffic level of service" is a rating system used by traffic
engineers throughout the country and is a measure of the degree of congestion (delay) in passing
through an intersection. The intersection capacity test in the Lexington Zoning By-Law, includes: 1)
existing traffic counts, PLUS, 2) projections of traffic from other developments already approved but
not opened yet, PLUS, 3) projections of traffic from the proposed development.
The terms in quotes are defined and described in greater detail in Section 12.3 of the Zoning By-
Law.
10 Commercial Development
Paragraph 12.3.3 of the Bylaw provides:
" If the level of service .... is "E" or below, the SPGA [Special Permit Granting Authority
usually the Board of Appeals] shall determine there is not adequate capacity and shall deny
the application." (emphasis added) Note that "shall" is mandatory.
In other words, if the "traffic level of service" is not D or better, the development can not go forward.
A development may be able to proceed if the level of service of an intersection is improved.
Paragraph 12.3.3 provides that the SPGA shall consider that:
• various traffic engineering improvements [usually traffic signals but other techniques such as left
turn lanes and even pavement striping can increase the capacity of an intersection somewhat.]
• "other methods of positive traffic control, such as a traffic control officer",
can improve the traffic level of service rating to a higher and acceptable level. That paragraph goes
on to provide for guarantees that the traffic engineering improvements or other method of traffic
control be in place in relation to the issuance of building or other permits.
Due to the economic recession and the effect of the 0.15 FAR in the CRO and CM districts, there has been
very little new commercial construction that has triggered Section 12, Traffic. It has been applied in three
other CD rezonings.
In 1988, for the rezoning of the part of the Middlesex Mall property in Lexington, a traffic signal was
required to be installed at the corner of Lowell Street and North Street to raise the traffic level of service
to an acceptable level. The rezoning was for a 17,000 square foot building. That signal corrected a long
standing safety issue for turning movements at that intersection.
In 1989, a CD rezoning included a condition that the start of construction for the 80 room addition to the
Sheraton Hotel could not begin until a construction contract had been awarded for the improvement of
Route 2A that was needed to raise the traffic level of service.
In 1989, a CD rezoning for a 124 room Hilton Inn at 12-18 Hartwell Avenue (not yet constructed) included
conditions that the applicant contribute $200,000 toward the cost of traffic improvements and limit
activities that would involve the arrival of vehicles during the morning peak hours.
Safety and Pollution Considerations
While Section 12 addresses intersection capacity, it accomplishes two other objectives - safety and
reduction of air pollution. The traffic level of service test is essentially a measure of delays caused by the
conflicting movements of opposing traffic. Intervention, through a traffic signal or by the positive control
of a traffic officer, resolves potential conflicts into organized traffic movements - traffic headed in one
direction waits until another passes and then proceeds. Those conflicts are a major cause of traffic
accidents which result in personal injury and property damage.
Intersections operating at a higher traffic level of service are better for the environment because less
pollution is produced by vehicles sitting idling in a stream of traffic. The highest percentage of pollutants,
such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, are emitted at lower speeds. Emissions are higher on
congested roadways than when vehicles are operating at free-flow conditions.
Commercial Development 11
Techniques to Improve the Capacity of An Intersection
Intervention, through a traffic signal or a traffic officer, results in greater efficiency - many more vehicles
can pass through an intersection in less time.
There are ways to decrease traffic congestion with minor traffic engineering improvements in addition to
the installation of traffic signals. Among the simpler are minor modifications in the geometric layout of
intersections to handle the conflicts between different streams of traffic more effectively. Traffic engineers
call this channelization. A left turn storage lane permits left turns to be isolated and held while the main
traffic movement proceeds. That can be done by left turn islands (the intersection of Waltham Street and
Worthen Road is an example) or painted pavement markings.
Another example is to change intersections where approach streets meet at oblique angles. A 90 degree
angle is preferred. (School Street's south bound intersection with Marrett Road is channeled into a right
angle.)
Modern traffic engineering costs some money. It is not terribly expensive but in a fiscally stressed climate,
has not been visible on the Town's priority rankings lately. The Town has enough difficulty finding enough
money to keep the streets from deteriorating.
TRAFFIC THAT AFFECTS NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE TOWN GENERALLY
While Section 12 requires that the traffic carrying capacity of nearby intersections be maintained at an
adequate level, the Zoning By-Law does not now address the increases in traffic from new development
that affect nearby neighborhoods and the town generally.
The intersection capacity test in Section 12 deals largely with traffic impacts during peak periods - the so
called morning and afternoon rush hour. "Nearby intersections" are defined more exactly in paragraph
12.2.3 of the Zoning By-Law as:
".... a street or intersection "likely to be affected by the development" is one which has an Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2,000 vehicles or more and either:
1) carries 10 percent or more of the estimated trips generated by the development or
2) in the case of an intersection only, traffic from the proposed development will add 5
percent or more to the approach volumes."
Nearby neighborhoods will be aware of higher traffic levels during many hours of the day and evening as
well as during the so-called peak traffic hours. Higher traffic levels make it more difficult to emerge from
driveways and side streets.
As traffic from a new development disperses from nearby intersections, where congestion is monitored,
it reaches other intersections and other streets throughout the town. For example, even though the highest
percentage of traffic from new development on Hayden Avenue will go directly onto Route 2, some of the
new traffic from the area will reach the highly congested Waltham Street - Marrett Road intersection,
Lexington Center and other streets throughout the town.
12 Commercial Development
The Planning Board is interested in developing additional mitigation for the nearby neighborhoods and
other streets in town. But there is a lot of thought and work that has to be done before that objective can
be achieved.
Sidewalks, Bicycle Paths
Many nearby neighborhood streets do not have sidewalks/bicycle paths to provide safety for walkers and
cyclists. There are few sidewalks within the CRO and CM districts. Neither Hayden Avenue or Hartwell
Avenue (even though it connects to the Minute-man Commuter Bikeway) have sidewalks. Their absence
makes it difficult to encourage walking or cycling as a means of reaching work or of connecting to other
buildings within the commercial area where support services may be available. When available,
sidewalks/bicycle paths provide opportunities for exercise or other recreational activities for employees
during noon hours.
Constructing a sidewalk/bike path in either an existing residential neighborhoodor a commercial area is
not a simple proposition. Money must be budgeted or private owners in a commercial area may need to
contribute to the construction. An area wide plan will be needed and a connection to the Town's network
of bike paths and sidewalks has to be considered.
There can be difficult design issues in constructing a sidewalk/bike path due to physical features along the
alignment such as topography, rock outcropping and ledge, embankments, wetlands, stone walls, existing
trees and existing landscaping, such as shrubs or plants, or landscape elements, like fences, and irrigation
systems. Attempting to construct a sidewalk/bikepath a fixed distance from the edge of the street, which
is a common practice in new subdivision streets, is not likely to be acceptable along existing streets. In all -
likelihood, the sidewalk should be meandering -an alignment at variable distances from the street and at
variable elevations-in response to specific conditions. It may be desirable to obtain easements over private
property for part of the construction rather than remaining locked within the public right-of-way line.
Each sidewalk/bike path project should be designed by a landscape architect. Frequent consultation with
individual property owners should be part of the process.
Constructing a sidewalk/bike path in an existing residential neighborhood, or commercial area, will be
expensive - for the design process, for the construction and for the remedial planting.
Traffic "Calming"
One of the promising new techniques for reducing the impact of traffic on residential areas is called "traffic
calming" - a series of minor construction actions that either discourage through traffic from entering
residential neighborhoods or slow it down. Some of the most common examples of these techniques are
in cities with grid street patterns where "diverters" are erected in intersections to turn the neighborhood
into a mini-maze. Lexington does not have many neighborhoods with grid street patterns and most of those
are not impacted by through traffic.
Other traffic calming techniques that might work are:
a. changes in the surface or texture of a street to make the motorist aware that he/she is in a
residential area;
Commercial Development 13
b. slight changes in the elevation of the street, by either raising or depressing it, to slow traffic
down. This is analogous to a speed bump but much larger because it typically includes a whole
intersection or segment of a street; and
c. "neck downs" where the street width is narrowed to a minimum acceptable width - typically at
an intersection.
The Planning Board has to express some caution about traffic calming techniques. Residents should be
cautioned against flooding the Selectmen's Office with petitions for their streets to be "calmed". Traffic
calming approaches need careful review by Town officials. There are cost, maintenance, and liability
issues that must be addressed. Those issues are being successfully addressed in other cities including some
in northern areas where snow plowing is a factor.
The Town has a responsibility to manage traffic movement within its borders. Most of the traffic on
Lexington streets is either Lexington residents or the employees, customers or suppliers of companies
located in Lexington. If traffic is to be diverted, there needs to be clear sense of where it is being diverted
to. If traffic is diverted from your street, it will be transferred to someone else's street.
TRAFFIC IN SUBURBIA, REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Suburban Gridlock', the title of an important recent transportation/land use book, documents the precarious
traffic problems of suburbia nationally. As those who travel to other metropolitan areas in the country will
attest, traffic congestion in suburbia is far more severe elsewhere than in the Boston metropolitan area, but
the problem is increasing here as well.
In the earlier days of suburban development, a transportation system, and a related land use development
pattern, based on single automobiles occupied by one driver was adequate. Suburbia now has the dilemma
of a development pattern that is too dense for single occupant automobiles but not dense enough for public
transportation. There are too many people going in too many different directions -to other suburbs -to
make a public transportation system feasible.
Consider the following developments' in the Boston metropolitan area between 1970 and 1990:
• 500,000 new jobs were created, a 44% increase, while the population decreased by 3%. "These
additional jobs have been filled by existing residents joining the work force (especially women)
and from workers living outside the region."
• 75% of the new jobs created in the region are located in the suburbs;
• the number of households increased by 19% while the population decreased by 3%. Average
household size dropped from 3.2 persons per household to 2.6 persons per household.
Traffic counts on Route 128 are higher than the design capacity of the highway. While "Skyway Patrol"
reports on "highways like parking lots" in Downtown Boston, the traffic count on Route 128 at Winter
2 Robert Cervero, Suburban Gridlock, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, 1986
3 Data is from the 1997 Transportation Plan for the Boston MPO prepared by the Central
Transportation Planning Staff for the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization
14 Commercial Development
Street in Waltham is higher than at any location on the Central Artery and the Southeast Expressway. Any —
breakdown, accident or adverse weather can result in miles long backups on Route 128 that spill over onto
local streets. As the region works out of the economic recession earlier in the decade, traffic volumes have
returned to their mid-1980's levels and are projected to increase.
The nearly 18,000 people employed in Lexington and the more than 15,000 Lexington residents who work
(about 79% in other cities and towns) contribute to, and suffer from, the increasingly frequent breakdowns
in a highway system that is destined to become worse.
Transportation Planning Approaches to Suburban Traffic Congestion
Transportation planners recognize that the traditional "supply side" solution, i.e. building more or wider
roads, is not an effective solution. The "supply side" approach now concentrates on making the existing
transportation system work efficiently. In the case of streets, that means reducing and managing
congestion. Section 12 of the Lexington Zoning By-Law is an example of making the existing
infrastructure work more effectively but more tools are needed.
To deal with growing suburban traffic congestion, particularly on expressways, transportation planners
are focusing on several techniques:
• some construction projects to increase capacity;
• transportation demand management aimed principally at reducing the number of single occupant
vehicles (SOVs);
• reserving one or more lanes on a roadway for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) such as busses,
cars or vans with three or more occupants;
• incident management to promptly clear up accidents and breakdowns;
• "intelligent vehicle systems" whereby motorists, by telephone or radio, can learn of congestion
situations soon enough to avoid them;
• peak hour pricing -this highly controversial technique would levy "market driven" tolls or other
charges on those who use roadways during peak hours. (It would reduce congestion by pricing
many vehicles off the road); and
• "ramp metering" that measures and limits the number of vehicles entering an expressway ramp
to a number that allows the expressway to avoid saturation and continue to keep traffic moving.
Increasingly there is a recognition that attempting to endlessly build more capacity is incredibly expensive,
enormously disruptive to already developed properties, environmentally unsound and likely to be
ineffective in accommodating traffic even if the obstacles could be overcome. The techniques listed above
can be exercised by state or regional transportation officials on facilities that they control such as Route
128 and Route 2. Route 128 already experiences traffic volumes above its design capacity. Route 2 has
not reached that level yet.
There are several important consequences of these approaches for Lexington and other suburban
communities:
• These approaches are based largely on the more efficient use of existing major transportation
facilities. With the exception of some limited new construction, these are not the traditional
"supply based" transportation approaches that depend on dramatically increasing the number and
size of highways. Don't expect Route 128 to be widened to 12 lanes.
Commercial Development 15
• They are attempts to deal with traffic demand on the facilities that state and regional
transportation officials control.
• The excess demand that major highways can not accommodate will be left to the suburban cities
and towns. If through "ramp metering" vehicles have to wait on suburban town streets until an
expressway is able to accommodate them, think what that means for suburban town streets! If
because of "intelligent vehicle systems" motorists are advised of a severe breakdown on Route
128 northbound in Lexington, the alternate route may impact Spring Street, Waltham Street,
Bedford Street, Hancock-Adams Street and the like. A few events like that which have already
occurred are likely to be more frequent.
This growing problem has arisen because transportation planning and operations conducted by state and
regional agencies have had little, if any, contact with city and town actions that control land development.
A typical attitude of many suburban city and town officials is to focus almost exclusively on the real estate
tax revenue from new development. Their view of transportation is to lobby state and regional
transportation officials to provide improvements on the roads within their boundaries that intersect with
the expressways to accommodate the traffic from the new development. To overstate that approach, some
suburban officials see Route 128 or its connecting state highways, as service roads to their office parks,
industrial parks or shopping centers.
The development of those office or industrial parks and shopping centers create a traffic demand without
an effective procedure for how the supply of major transportation facilities will be provided - at either the
local level or the regional level. Local zoning, which determines where, and how much, development will
occur, is almost always a separate consideration from the planning and operation of major transportation
facilities. Even within local zoning, there are only a handful of towns that have anything like Section 12
of the Lexington Zoning By-Law that requires a balance between the traffic demand and the capacity of
local, town streets. The ability of the regional transportation system to accommodate the increased traffic
from new development is rarely even mentioned in a local zoning deliberation.
Much of this separation is rooted in the traditional responsibilities of the different levels of government.
Zoning has long been a responsibility of municipalities - a right of home rule. Construction of major
transportation facilities, that cross many municipal boundary lines and are very expensive capital
investments, has long been a state or regional responsibility. Proposition 21/2 aggravates the situation
because it places great pressure on towns to encourage development to take advantage of the new growth
factor in calculating the tax levy limit.
As transportation planning shifts away from a supply approach, i.e., construction oriented, to a demand
approach, transportation officials have become increasingly aware of the critical importance of local land
use controls. Within five or ten years, as the suburban congestion problem becomes more severe, it is
likely that there will be a much closer connection, and conceivably some regulations or requirements,
between state and regional transportation planning and programs and municipal zoning. As it has in many
other endeavors, Lexington may be a leader and a model in making the connection between land
development and traffic demand.
Neither Lexington or any other suburban town should make land development decisions in a vacuum that
does not consider the transportation implications of land use decisions - the land use-transportation
connection. Land development (zoning) decisions should not be made without considering the
16 Commercial Development
transportation implications of those decisions-whether on local streets or on the regional transportation --
network.
A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION
The growing traffic problem in Lexington alone, or in suburbia, cannot be met by reliance on one mode
of travel such as one person in one automobile. Other modes (means of travel) such as suburban busses,
vans, car pools, walking, bicycling, commuter rail are all needed. Culminating in the passage of the
landmark ISTEA, Intermodal [emphasis added] Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, by the
Congress, both Federal and State policy has shifted to encourage various modes of travel and efficient
connections between modes.
................
.......... ....
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
The Planning Board has adopted a Transportation Demand Management Policy in response to:
• the land use-transportation connection,
• the shift in transportation planning to focus on demand rather than supply, and
• the concerns about traffic that the Planning Board hears at every public hearing on a rezoning
proposal.
A copy of the full Policy is at the end of this report.
A transportation demand management program, also called TDM, usually involves a variety of programs
to promote alternative methods (modes) of travel. Among the most frequently used programs are: car
pools, vanpools (with the vans often provided at company expense), shuttle busses or vans that connect
to public transportation systems, subsidized or free public transportation passes, contributions to the
operation of town public transportation services, shuttle busses or vans that take employees to lunch or
other shopping or errands in mid-day. When bicycle and pedestrian improvements are included a TDM
program becomes truly multi-modal.
Providing support services on the site or nearby decreases the number of vehicular trips by reducing the
need to travel elsewhere for the service. In this context support services include restaurants, banks, child
care, automobile repair services and other services that employees use during the mid day or on their trips
to and from work. The Zoning By-Law now permits most of these support services in commercial zoning
districts. A thorough review of the Bylaw may show other support services that need to be added.
A more compact development pattern is more friendly to TDM. Lexington's office parks and industrial
parks are examples of suburban sprawl-buildings scattered throughout a commercial zoning district and
oriented entirely to automobile travel. A more compact type of development- within comfortable walking
distance and more easily served by alternative transportation services - is preferred. Lexington's office
parks and industrial parks, created during the 60s and 70s, need to be retrofitted to meet new transportation
considerations. That does not necessarily mean the overall density should be higher but that buildings
should be clustered. That will require a rethinking of traditional dimensional controls in the Zoning By-
Law.
An Inclusionary Policy
Analogous to its Inclusionary Housing Policy, the Transportation Demand Management Policy is also an
inclusionary policy. That means that in order to obtain a favorable recommendation from the Planning
Board for a rezoning to a more intensive development, the proposal must include a program of alternative
transportation services that reduces reliance on single occupant automobiles. Most Town Meeting Members
are familiar with the Planning Board's longstanding policy that, in order to obtain a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Board for a rezoning to a higher density residential development, the
proposal must include a percentage of affordable housing units.
This is actually the second year for the inclusionary transportation policy. There were alternative
transportation services, as well as affordable housing units, included in the Youville Place rezoning
18 Commercial Development
approved (Article 31) at the 1996 Town Meeting. Last year it was known as the Alternative Transportation
Services Policy.
A Work in Progress
After several extraordinarily productive meetings with the representatives from the Transportation
Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Town's Transportation Coordinator, the Planning Board adopted the
Transportation Demand Management Policy that appears in full at the end of this report. The Planning
Board and the TAC will continue to refine the Policy and plan to hold public hearings to hear from the
development community and the public after the 1997 Town Meeting is over.
The Policy is a synthesis and expansion of some programs already in place in Lexington and others that
have been employed in other parts of the country where the suburban mobility problem is much more
severe. The Policy lists various examples of programs to reduce single occupant automobile trips.
Tools Now Available
The Planning Board's Transportation Demand Management Policy provides a mechanism to deal with
proposals for a rezoning to a more intensive development- either commercial or multi-family residential.
The Board of Appeals has some powers already. Paragraph 3.4.3, Conditions for Approval of Special
Permit with Site Plan Review of the Zoning By-Law provides the [Board of Appeals]:
"may attach .... conditions and limitations ... including ....
c. compliance with traffic trip reduction techniques .... set forth in subparagraph 12.3.4..."
The reference is to paragraph 12.3.4. in Section 12, Traffic, and to
".... actions and programs by the owner and/or manager of a development to reduce the number of
single occupant automobile trips made to a development, particularly during peak traffic
hours...."
A Lexington TDM Precedent - Boston Properties
An excellent example of transportation demand management is the programs of the South Lexington
Transportation Task Force. As a condition of granting a Special Permit with Site Plan Review in 1988 to
Boston Properties for constructing an office building at 191 Spring Street, the Planning Board urged, and
the Board of Appeals included in the permit, a requirement that trip reduction programs be developed.
Boston Properties deserves plaudits for their corporate leadership. They prepared and submitted a
Transportation Demand Management Plan, organized the South Lexington Transportation Task Force,
provided staff support for transportation programs and started a shuttle bus service to the MBTA's Alewife
Red Line station.
From its early beginnings serving properties along Hayden Avenue and Spring Street, the Alewife Shuttle
has now been extended to other Boston Properties owned buildings in Waltham and to other major
employers in Waltham and to the Windsor Village apartment complex on Lexington Street in Waltham.
Including residential occupants adds a desirable "reverse commute" factor , i.e., riders moving in the
opposite direction from people employed in Lexington, to other places of work. That balances out ridership
loads and improves the economic efficiency of the service. The Alewife Shuttle bus now carries more than
100,000 rides a year.
Commercial Development 19
The success of the Alewife Shuttle points out the importance of broad participation among numerous
employers and high traffic generators. Greater participation produces higher ridership, more frequent
service and greater sharing of costs. The Shuttle is now operated by the Route 128 Business Council in
Waltham. Some of the companies who are members of the South Lexington Transportation Task Force
contribute funds. (There are different membership categories.)
Other Precedents
There are other precedents for transportation demand management in Lexington. The Preliminary Site
Development and Use Plan (PSDUP) approved by the 1989 Town Meeting (Article 45) for a 124 room
Hilton Hotel on Hartwell Avenue (not yet constructed) includes requirements that the applicant:
actively participate in the initiation, and implementation, of a transportation [demand] management
program for the Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street commercial zoning districts to include:
a. employer subsidy of a pass for MBTA bus service and a carpool-vanpool system;
b. limiting the starting time of meetings and the reporting time of hotel employees and
construction workers to avoid the morning peak hour;
c. establishing specific targets, in percentage terms, for the maximum number of employees
entering the site during peak hours in single occupant vehicles.
The Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan approved by the 1989 Town Meeting (Article 44) for an
80 room addition to the Sheraton Hotel on Marrett Road (Special Permit with Site Plan Review granted
in April, 1997 with construction due to begin this year) includes requirements that the Flatley Company
be responsible for:
• taking the initiative to set up a transportation [management] program among the businesses in
the CRO district along Route 2A;
• providing an employer subsidy of a pass for MBTA bus service and a carpool-vanpool system;
• establishing a shuttle bus service to be used by guests and employees.
The Town's Transportation Coordinator is working with the Flatley Company and with businesses along
Hartwell Avenue to establish a transportation management association that would serve both the businesses
along Route 2A and those along Hartwell Avenue. She has also obtained a grant from the State Executive
Office of Transportation and Construction to assist in forming a TMA in those areas. The Hartwell Avenue
-Bedford Street, CRO, CM and CD districts have the largest concentration of employees in Lexington and
the worst traffic congestion.
The Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan approved by the 1996 Town Meeting (Article 31) for
Youville Place included commitments to comply with the Planning Board's Alternative Transportation
Services Policy (the predecessor to the Transportation Demand Management Policy) by:
• revising the layout of access drives to accommodate busses and vans;
• providing a covered drop-off area and an inside lobby/waiting area for users of transportation
services;
• cooperating with other assisted living facilities to coordinate transportation services;
• conducting education and outreach to encourage use of alternative transportation services.
Employers Play a Key Role
Transportation demand management, which is oriented primarily to peak hour travel by employees to and
from the work place, depends heavily on programs which employers, particularly large employers,
20 Commercial Development
organize and promote. Some embrace the program, recognize its importance and see it as a means of
offering an employee benefit. Others are reluctant because they are not well informed about it. Still some
others see it as an unwarranted intrusion in their relationship with their employees. Some become involved
because their employees ask for it.
The benefits to employers are:
• the ability to reach a broader employee pool which is restricted by poor commuting to
Lexington:
• the ability to retain employees who have difficult commutes and are looking for other
employment opportunities that are easier to reach from their homes;
• having employees on the scene who are less stressed from their commuting experience than they
would be from driving a single occupant automobile;
• providing a form of employee benefit. It has been estimated that the cost of owning and
operating a second automobile used for commuting purposes is $5100 per year. When well
publicized, the employee who uses alternative travel is aware he/she has realized a substantial
financial benefit from the employer.
The transportation literature points out that employers are often reluctant to pioneer in the operation of a
Transportation Management Association (TMA) or a transportation demand management program. Many
of the TMA's were established initially by government requirement. That was the case in South Lexington
where it was a condition of the 1988 special permit.
Some companies need a prod. Others need technical assistance in starting a new program. There are
organizations such as the 128 Business Council and Caravan for Commuters that offer assistance in
establishing and operating programs.
The Town of Lexington has an important role in implementing transportation demand management
programs. It is not something that can be left to business and forgotten. The Town's role can be:
• providing some technical assistance in addition to that offered by private organizations;
• promotion and coordination of the programs of individual business areas. The more companies
and riders participate, the more successful the services will be;
• monitoring compliance with conditions included in permits granted.
The Town is also a major employer with about 290 employees in the town administration and about 730
in the Schools. With over 1,000 employees, the Town is subject to the Massachusetts Reduction of Single
Occupant Commuter Vehicle Use Regulations (310 CMR 7,16) which applies to employers with more than
250 employees.
TDM Is Not A Panacea
Transportation demand management is not a panacea for the growing suburban congestion problem. In
fact, it is very difficult to achieve.
The automobile is king in the United States and in suburbia. Many Americans believe it is their right, God
given or constitutional, to drive from their home to within 50 feet of the front door of every place they
want to go at any time of the day. Transportation demand management offers inconvenience. Nearly all
TDM programs require adjusting personal time schedules to accommodate others--in a car pool or to bus
Commercial Development 21
or transit schedules. Vehicles are typically less comfortable than private automobiles and must be shared
with others. There is inevitable delay in waiting for a vehicle to arrive or in changing from one travel
mode to another.
Numerous studies show little price sensitivity among commuting alternatives. Most Americans will, and
do, pay more for the convenience, comfort and privacy of a private automobile. Except in central city
locations where parking is prohibitively expensive, most commuters will use the private automobile even
when it is demonstrated to them that it is more expensive.
TDM does offer advantages to some. It is less stressful to have others drive; the commute becomes a time
to unwind or read a newspaper, a book, a report, or a TMMA publication. Some will appreciate the cost
savings when the comparison to operating a private car is demonstrated.
Even if only a small percentage of employees will use TDM programs, that can still be beneficial. The
Transportation Demand Management Plan for 191 Spring Street, prepared by Howard, Stein and
Associates, for Boston Properties points out that if 150 vehicles can be deterred from passing through an
intersection, the traffic level of service can be changed by one letter grade. A small percentage of
employees in an area such as South Lexington or Hartwell Avenue each of which has several thousand
employees, can have a positive impact on traffic operations. It is important to have as many of the
employers in those areas as possible enrolled in TDM programs.
The wide dispersion of commuting trips throughout the suburbs adds to the difficulty of making TDM
work. Fewer than 20 percent of the people employed in' Lexington live in the "Inner Core" communities
of the metropolitan area, such as Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, etc. that have MBTA service. The
Alewife Shuttle already serves that group of employees. About 21 percent of the people employed in
Lexington live in Lexington and could be served by LEXPRESS. (Working age adults are a small
percentage of LEXPRESS riders now and LEXPRESS does not operate service to Hartwell Avenue.)
More than 60 percent of the approximately 18,000 people employed in Lexington live in other suburbs.
There are not enough of them going in the same direction at the same time to make a bus service, even
a small bus, feasible. More than 51 percent of Lexington residents in the work force are employed in other
suburbs (not including Lexington) - offering some opportunities for "reverse commuting" by Lexington
residents in certain types of van pools. Of the approximately 15,000 Lexington residents in the work
force, nearly 28% work in the Inner Core, about 21% work in Lexington and 51% work in other suburbs.
Car pools and van pools offer the best possibility of aggregating employees into high occupancy vehicles.
Car pools and van pools operate most effectively when there is a large pool of employees, drawn from a
number of employers. Transportation Management Associations need to be organized on the basis of a
whole commercial area, such as South Lexington or Hartwell Avenue, rather than within one company.
4 In the data that follows, note the difference between Lexington residents (about 15,000 people) in
the work force and persons employed in Lexington (about 18,000 people) by businesses,
government agencies and non-profit organizations. There are an estimated 3,020 Lexington
residents who both live and work in Lexington.
22 Commercial Development
An additional consideration is that there may be a conflict in objectives among TDM programs. Flextime,
in which employees are able to start or end work before or after peak traffic hours, may be the most
popular and effective program to reduce peak hour congestion. However, due to its odd hours, it may
deter employees from using car pools, vanpools, shuttle bus services or public transportation which operate
more effectively with an assured base of ridership.
Despite its inherent limitations, transportation demand management programs appear to offer the best hope
for dealing with the emerging suburban traffic congestion problem. Their success depends heavily on their
promotion by major employers and by the Town including requiring it where possible. TDM is likely to
be heavily promoted by State and regional transportation officials in the next five to ten years. It is likely
to become a requirement as the suburban mobility problem worsens.
THE ROLE OF PARKING
One of the contradictions of employer's programs to promote a reduction in the percentage of commuter
trips made by single occupant vehicles (SOVs) is the acres of free parking sitting just outside the
employer's door.
A requirement of nearly all TDM plans is to provide a preferred location, nearest the entrances to
buildings, for high occupancy vehicles such as vanpools or car pools. A related requirement is to provide
comfortable, all-weather waiting areas for employees using alternative transportation services. The ability
of larger vehicles, such as busses or vans to enter a site and maneuver easily is included in the site design
requirements for new development.
In reviewing the rezoning proposals on Hayden Avenue, the Planning Board has made a vigorous effort
to reduce the amount of parking. The Planning Board has asked both petitioners to use the flexibility in
the planned development district procedure to reduce the number of parking space to an amount lower than
the minimum the Zoning By-Law now requires.
Zoning traditionally has specified a minimum number of parking spaces - the amount necessary to avoid
spill over parking onto adjoining streets. A few zoning regulations are beginning to also specify a
maximum number of parking spaces. The proposal by W.R. Grace, to have both a minimum and
maximum number of parking spaces will be a first in Lexington.
BROADENING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION
AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The Planning Board would like to see all properties and businesses who contribute to traffic impacts
contribute to a transportation solution proportionate to the number of vehicular trips made to their site.
That solution needs to be multi-modal -dealing with traffic and alternative transportation services.
The Planning Board recognizes,that the existing traffic intersection capacity test in Section 12 of the
Zoning By-Law and the application of the Transportation Demand Management Policy has some inherent
inequities. It places the burden of achieving traffic and transportation objectives largely on those "next in
line" in the permit application process. While not ideal, that is the best procedure now in place.
Regulations, such as zoning, can not be retroactive. This burden is not unique to transportation because
new and more stringent requirements are regularly being added to zoning and other regulations that did
not apply to those who obtained permits earlier. Height limits, minimum lot sizes, site coverage
requirements, wetland protection, floor area ratio, and the traffic intersection capacity test are examples
of regulations that have been added over time to meet public concerns.
A map of the South Lexington CRO district, showing the intersections and properties referred to
to below, is on page .
If it were not for prior commitments by two other property owners, an applicant whose rezoning petition
on Hayden Avenue is approved (or both, if both petitions are approved) would have been responsible for
raising the traffic level of service (LOS) during peak hours from "F", where it is now, to "D" or better
at four intersections:
* Waltham Street-Hayden Avenue intersection (which includes the Exit 54B off-ramp from Route
2 on the east side of the Waltham Street - Route 2 interchange),
* Hayden Avenue and the Route 2 Exit 54A off-ramp, (on the west side of the Waltham Street -
Route 2 interchange),
* Spring Street-Concord Avenue, and
* Spring Street-Marrett Road.
That would be a significant burden on any one petitioner or both for that matter.
Due to Special Permits with Site Plan Review (SPS) granted by the Board of Appeals in 1988, the
obligation to improve the LOS is assumed by other property owners at two of the affected intersections:
* Spring Street-Concord Avenue, (by the 191 Spring Street Trust - Boston Properties) and
* Spring Street-Marrett Road (shared by the Raytheon Company and the 191 Spring Street Trust-
Boston Properties).
The fifth intersection in the CRO district, Spring Street and Hayden Avenue, was evaluated at LOS "C"
because of the presence of a traffic officer, paid for by the Raytheon Company, as a condition of its 1988
SPS. Without the traffic officer, the traffic analysis indicates that intersection would also be at LOS "F".
24 Commercial Development
More than 89 percent of the floor area in the South Lexington CRO districts along Hayden Avenue and
Spring Street was built prior to the adoption of Section 12 in 1987. That floor area is exempt from its
provisions.
Similarly, only the building under construction at 191 Spring Street by Boston Properties is subject to a
requirement for a transportation demand management plan-per the 1988 SPS. Thus more than 94 percent
of the floor area in the South Lexington CRO districts along Hayden Avenue and Spring Street is not
subject to a requirement for a transportation demand management plan. Boston Properties has been able
to line up the participation of companies at other buildings in the area that it owns - at 33 Hayden Avenue,
92-100 Hayden Avenue and the original building at 191 Spring Street. WR Grace also participates in the
South Lexington Transportation Task Force and contributes some money to the 128 Business Council to
operate the Alewife Shuttle.
Two of the largest property owners, the Beal Company, which owns and manages the Ledgemont Center,
and the Raytheon Company do not participate financially in the 128 Business Council's transportation
programs. Those two companies own and manage 53 percent of the commercial floor space in the CRO
district.
In the interests of effectiveness and equity, the Planning Board believes that all property owners and
companies in the Hayden Avenue - Spring Street CRO and CD districts, and in the Hartwell Avenue and
Bedford Street and Marrett Road/Route 2A CM, CRO and CD districts, should contribute to a
transportation solution proportionate to the number of vehicular trips made to their respective sites. That
solution needs to be multi-modal - dealing with traffic, alternative transportation services and
bicycle/pedestrian paths.
The Planning Board recommends that the Town investigate the adoption of some type of special district
procedure that would apportion the costs of a multi-modal transportation response on all who contribute
to the problem in the various commercial areas and not just on those who are next in line for permits.
In addition to dealing equitably with the costs of traffic control at intersections, there are other
transportation programs that need to be expanded or initiated. A few examples:
• LEXPRESS service should be available in both commercial areas throughout the day. It is
available only during peak hours in the South Lexington commercial areas now and not at all
along Hartwell Avenue. It is reasonable for companies to bear some of the cost of LEXPRESS.
A substantial part of operating Burlington's B-Line, a counterpart to LEXPRESS, is paid by
businesses.
• A shuttle service should be initiated from the Hartwell Avenue and Marrett Road/Route 2A areas
to the Alewife and the Riverside terminals.
• Sidewalks/bikepaths are needed along both Hayden Avenue and Hartwell Avenue.
• Expanded car pool and van pool operations are particularly needed in both commercial areas to
serve the approximately 60 percent of the people employed in those areas who live in other
suburbs that are not well served by MBTA or LEXPRESS.
To be effective, TDM programs require large numbers of participants. Not only do services, such as
LEXPRESS, a shuttle to an MBTA line or a van pool, need to be available, they need to run at high
enough frequencies at little or no cost to riders to draw ridership out of private automobiles.
LEXINGTON A LEADER IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMS
Establishing a policy to require, and a special district to provide, transportation demand management
programs will place Lexington in a leadership position in dealing with the traffic impacts of development
on its own streets and in the suburban region. A leadership position in transportation is a familiar one for
Lexington. A few examples follow.
Faced with a decision in 1966-67 whether to widen Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington Center or to widen
the sidewalks there, Lexington made a remarkable choice for a time when the automobile was king, and
widened the sidewalks. It has defined the character of Lexington Center ever since.
In 1980, Lexington was one of the first towns to have an intra-town bus service - LEXPRESS. Lexington
has not only continued that service when other towns have discontinued theirs, but it has maintained among
the highest riderships for such services since.
Lexington, along with Arlington, was a leader in the ten year effort to establish the first commuter bikeway
in Eastern Massachusetts. Today the Minute-Man Commuter Bikeway (known as the Jack Eddison
Bikeway in Lexington) is an outstanding example that officials around the country seek to emulate.
Lexington, along with Framingham, was the first town to have an intersection traffic capacity test included
in its Zoning By-Law.
26 Commercial Development
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLIED TO THE HAYDEN AVENUE CRO DISTRICT AND THE CD REZONING PETITIONS
........................::::::::::::::::::
ARTICLE 27, 55 HAYDEN AVENUE
ARTICLE 28, 16 HAYDEN AVENUE
This part of the Planning Board's report applies the principles expressed in Commercial
Development in the CRO, CM and CD Zoning Districts to the Hayden Avenue CRO district and
the CD, Planned Commercial District rezoning proposals submitted under Article 27 for 55
Hayden Avenue and Article 28 for 16 Hayden Avenue. The material included here should be
considered to be part of the Planning Board's report and recommendation on those articles. That
saves the Planning Board from repeating it in both reports.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
The longstanding concern about the traffic impacts of development on Hayden Avenue and Spring Street
was expressed at the public hearings and in letters to the Planning Board. Section 12 of the Zoning By-Law
already addresses those concerns because new development will not be allowed to proceed until the nearby
intersections are improved to traffic level of service "D" or better.
There are five intersections in the area that qualify as "intersections likely to be affected by the
development". Four of those are at traffic level of service (LOS)5 "F" during one or both of the peak
hours.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - HAYDEN AVENUE - SPRING STREET INTERSECTIONS
Intersection LOS During LOS During
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Spring Street and Concord Avenue F F
Spring Street and Hayden Avenue C B
with traffic officer control
Spring Street and Marrett Road F F
Hayden Avenue and Route 2 Exit 54A Off Ramp (on F B
West side of the Waltham Street - Route 2 Interchange)
Hayden Avenue and Waltham Street (which includes F F
the Exit 54B Off Ramp on the East side of the
Waltham Street - Route 2 Interchange)
5 For an explanation of traffic "level of service", a measure of the degree of congestion in
intersections, see page 9 of Commercial Development in the CRO, CM and CD Districts.
28 Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue
Analysis of traffic counts shows that the Spring Street and Hayden Avenue intersection would be at LOS
"F" if it were uncontrolled. However, due to the presence of a traffic officer, paid for by the Raytheon
Company, the intersection has an LOS of "C" during the morning peak hour and "B" during the evening
peak hour.
Regardless of any new traffic that will be generated by new construction, those intersections must be
improved to LOS "D" or better for the development to obtain permits.
Listed below is the projected additional traffic from a general office building at 55 Hayden Avenue (W.R.
Grace) and a medical office building at 16 Hayden Avenue (Martignetti-Beeman). These projections are
based on the trip generations rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual. The ITE rate is higher for medical office than for general office. The ITE trip generation rates
have been shown to be higher than actual experience in facilities of these types in Lexington so the
projected impact is somewhat overstated.
Increased Vehicular Trips
Proposed Development AM Peak PM Peak Average Daily
Hour Hour Traffic (24 hours)
55 Hayden Avenue, 80,000 square foot 107 97 756
addition to general office building
16 Hayden Avenue, 31,500 square foot 87 122 933
medical office building*
Total 194 219 1689
* The Traffic Analysis prepared by BSC assumed a 31,500 square foot building. The trip generation
should be based on a medical office building with approximately 27,000 square feet of NET floor
area. This projection is overstated.
Also listed below is the projected LOS for the intersections counting all existing traffic PLUS the projected
traffic from the 82,000 square foot building now under construction at 191 Spring Street PLUS the
additional traffic assuming BOTH rezoning petitions are approved. Both traffic engineers, BSC for 16
Hayden Avenue, and Abend Associates, for 55 Hayden Avenue point out the LOS rating will be the same
for either a traffic officer or a traffic signal.
FULL BUILD SCENARIO - HAYDEN AVENUE - SPRING STREET INTERSECTIONS
(With Control by Traffic Officers)
Intersection LOS During LOS During
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Spring Street and Concord Avenue B B
Spring Street and Hayden Avenue C B
Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue 29
Intersection LOS During LOS During
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Spring Street and Marrett Road D C
Hayden Avenue and Route 2 Exit 54A Off Ramp (on B C
West side of the Waltham Street - Route 2 Interchange)
Hayden Avenue and Waltham Street (which includes B B
the Exit 54B Off Ramp on the East side of the
Waltham Street - Route 2 Interchange)
There are commitments to provide traffic control officers at each of the intersections.
Due to conditions included in the Special Permit with Site Plan Review (SPS) granted February 12, 1988
by the Board of Appeals, the Raytheon Company is committed to pay:
• for police officer traffic posts at the Raytheon Drive/Hayden Ave./Spring St. and the Marrett
Rd./Spring St./Bridge St. intersections on a pro rata basis with other businesses in the CRO
district who receive an SPS until traffic signals are installed at those intersections,
• $80,000 for traffic and safety improvements in the Spring Street/Hayden Avenue corridor, and
• participate with the Town and its neighbors in addressing traffic and safety concerns in the
neighborhood.
As a condition of the approval of a Special Permit with Site Plan Review, on December 20, 1988, 191
Spring Street Trust, (Boston Properties) is committed to provide funds for a traffic control officer:
• at the Concord Avenue - Spring Street intersection and
• at the Marrett Road - Spring Street intersection on a pro rata basis-as in the Raytheon SPS.
In addition, Boston Properties, has pledged to contribute $40,000 to the Town of Lexington for traffic and
safety improvements in the South Lexington area, and an additional $40,000 for South Lexington traffic
and safety improvements if the Town constructs a traffic signal at the Marrett Road/Spring Street
intersection.
The Planning Board has requested that both the 16 Hayden Avenue and 55 Hayden Avenue petitioners
include the following wording in their Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan:
"The applicant shall be responsible for positive traffic control, by use of a traffic control officer
(emphasis added), at the following intersections:
*Waltham Street and Hayden Avenue, (which includes the Exit 54B off-ramp from Route 2 on
the east side of the Route 2 - Waltham Street interchange), and
*Hayden Avenue and the Exit 54A off-ramp from Route 2 (on the west side of the Route 2
Waltham Street interchange)
to improve the traffic level of service rating for those intersections to "D" or better as required by
subsection 12.3 of the Zoning By-Law."
The Planning Board has recommended that the two Hayden Avenue petitioners each be responsible for the
intersections at the Waltham Street end of Hayden Avenue. If only one petition is approved, that property
30 Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue
owner will be responsible for both intersections. If both petitions are approved, the Planning Board has
recommended a cost sharing formula.
At the initial stage, the cost sharing formula is based on the ITE trip generation factors PLUS the actual
number of trips from existing development on the property. By this formula, during the initial period, W.
R. Grace would pay about 70 percent of the cost and 16 Hayden Avenue would pay about 30 percent of
the cost. After both buildings have been opened and thereafter, the cost sharing formula would shift to a
traffic count of actual trips on and off the site. By this later formula, a property owner would be rewarded
for having a successful transportation demand management program. With fewer trips during peak hours,
because they are diverted to other travel modes or other times of the day, the property owner would have
a lower proportionate share of the costs of traffic control during peak traffic hours.
SOUTH LEXINGTON TRANSPORTATION FUND
Due to commitments secured by Town Managers Robert Hutchinson and Richard White between 1983 and
1988, the owners of four different properties have made financial contributions for transportation
improvements. That money is in a separate account the Board refers to as the South Lexington
Transportation Fund. The phrasing of the commitments varies somewhat but, in general, the commitments
are worded generally enough to permit the Town to spend the money for three general purposes that make
up the Fund.
Eligible improvements include capital expenditures providing long term traffic, safety and other -
transportation improvements. The three general purposes are:
Traffic improvements, such as: the installation or upgrading of traffic signals or of a traffic signal
network, traffic channelization at an intersection, reconstruction or widening of a street or
segment thereof.
Safety improvements, such as: the reconstruction of intersections or a segment of a street with a
high accident experience, a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path (which may be either within a
right-of-way and adjacent to a street or outside of a street right-of-way across, and connecting,
one or more lots) or a special crosswalk design.
Other transportation improvements, such as: capital investments in alternative transportation
services such as a bus or van as part of a permanent vanpool service, a passenger shelter, a bench,
lighting, landscaping or other amenities specifically oriented to transportation services but not
including general site development. Eligible improvements shall include the costs of design of
such improvements and costs related to the construction of the improvement such as supervision
and inspection, the preparation of bid documents and the processing of payments.
Only the commitment executed with the Raytheon Company for their building at 141 Spring Street was
made under requirements of Section 12 of the Zoning By-Law. Commitments made by Boston Properties
for their building at 92-100 Hayden Avenue in 1984, and by the Beal Companies for their building at 124
Spring Street in 1983, were made before Section 12 was adopted in 1987. The commitment by 191 Spring --
Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue 31
Street Trust (Boston Properties) was made in 1988, although the project was grandfathered under the 1986
Zoning By-Law.
By 1990, $160,000 had been received. 191 Spring Street Trust (Boston Properties) has pledged an
additional $80,000.
TRAFFIC OFFICERS V. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
When the contributions were made, there was an assumption most of the money would be used for the
erection of traffic signals at intersections although that was not a written commitment of the contribution.
At the time of the contributions, and to this day, residents of the area have expressed opposition to the
erection of traffic signals. There are several reasons:
• traffic signal installations are a visual intrusion that make the wrong visual statement at the
gateways to Lexington. They project a commercial or urban image for what is a residential town;
• the minimum requirements for traffic signals (a national standard) mandate elaborate installations
with mast arms suspended over the roadway as well as a proliferation of poles and appurtenances.
These requirements are considered "overkill";
• traffic signals are only needed during the peak travel hours and at some intersections, only in the
morning or in the afternoon. (See tables showing LOS above.) They are not needed during the
remainder of the day, during the evening or on weekends.
The Planning Board shares these concerns and has told each petitioner that as a condition of obtaining a
favorable recommendation from the Planning Board to the Town Meeting, to satisfy Subsection 12.3 of
the Zoning By-Law, the Board will require that there be commitments to traffic control officers on a
permanent basis. That language is included in the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan for each
rezoning district.
Using traffic officers is not as simple as it may seem. One reason is cost. At the 1997 billing rate of$38.50
per hour, it will cost about$40,000 per year to provide traffic control for two hours in the AM peak period
and two hours in the PM peak period for about 250 business days per year. The costs are paid by the
property owners by payment into a Town account from which the officers are paid.
Some intersections do not need control during both the AM and PM peak periods or do not need it for two
full hours. It will cost about$10,000 per year to provide traffic control for one hour for about 250 business
days per year. A generic traffic signal at a generic intersection would cost about $100,000 - a one time
cost. A more complicated intersection will be more expensive.
The hourly billing rate for traffic control officers is determined by collective bargaining. As the Town
assumes responsibility for traffic control at intersections affected by commercial developments in the South
Lexington area, the method of providing officers and the billing rate should be examined.
Another reason is safety and the human factor. Police Chief Christopher Casey is on record as being
opposed to the use of police officers for traffic control purposes. Police officers have been struck by
vehicles when on traffic duty. By definition, if an intersection has a low traffic level of service, it has high
32 Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue
traffic volumes and is complicated to control. The limited number of traffic control assignments police
officers handle now are private details controlling access in and out of company driveways. The
intersections in South Lexington are generally a different type of assignment.
Chief Casey points out that an officer may not be able to effectively control a complicated intersection like
Waltham Street and Hayden Avenue. The intersection has seven approach lanes and two significant left
turn movements as well as high speed traffic exiting Route 2 onto an off-ramp directly into the intersection.
The sight line up Waltham Street toward Lexington Center is poor because of a hump in the roadway. He
is similarly concerned about the intersection of Route 2A (Marrett Road) and Spring Street- Bridge Street.
If the Town is to rely on officers to control traffic at congested intersections, the design of the intersection
needs careful study to make sure there is a safe location (perhaps some type of structure) for the officer,
ample lighting and clearly defined lanes for the various traffic movements.
SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
The Planning Board is interested in using a substantial amount of the money in the South Lexington
Transportation Fund for safety improvements in nearby neighborhoods. The Board would like to have a
detailed study of:
• constructing a sidewalk/bikepath along Spring Street;
• "traffic calming" on Spring Street.
Both of these projects are quite complicated and will require extensive study. They were discussed in the —
sections Sidewalks, Bicycle Paths and Traffic Calming beginning on page twelve of the main Commercial
Development in the CR®, CM and CD Zoning Districts report.
The Engineering Division has advised the Planning Department that their very preliminary look at
constructing a sidewalk/bikepath along Spring Street indicates it will be quite expensive due to the slopes,
ledge and rock outcropping and existing trees and other plant materials.
A landscape architect should be retained to work with each property owner to design a sidewalk that is
sensitive to each property.
DEVELOPMENT IN THE HAYDEN AVENUE SPRING STREET CRO DISTRICTS
The Planning Depai tiuent collected information on each parcel of land and building in the South Lexington
CRO District (see map on page 36). The following tables, entitled "South Lexington CRO District, Site
and Building Information" and "South Lexington CRO District, Assessed Value and Tax Revenue" contain
summary data on location, owner, total land area, developable site area, building gross and net floor areas,
floor area ratio and remaining development potential, assessed value, and amount of tax revenue, for each
parcel in the district.
The properties in the CRO zoning district are limited to a maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.15.
F.A.R. is the ratio of net floor area to the developable site area on a site. The terms "net floor area" and -
"developable site area" are defined by the Zoning By-Law. Net floor area typically excludes areas of a
Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue 33
building that are used for operation and maintenance, as well as mechanical rooms, elevator shafts,
common areas, and areas in a building used for off street parking. A short cut method of estimating net
floor areas is to assume that it is 80 percent of"gross floor area" which the Zoning By-Law defines as all
space inside the exterior walls of a building regardless of its use.
Developable site area is defined as the total lot area minus wetlands and land area in another zoning
district. For example, parts of the properties owned by Raytheon are wetlands, and other parts are in the
RO single family district. Those areas are subtracted from total land area to arrive at developable site area
and then to calculate F.A.R.
The information shows that there are more than 1.5 million square feet of commercial floor space in the
219 acre area, and estimates that under the provisions of the existing Zoning By-Law there is a potential
for another 268,000 more. The majority (257,297 square feet) of the remaining potential floor area is
owned by Raytheon. The other is owned by W. R. Grace which now has a potential for an additional
10,900 square feet. That amount will be "folded" into and increased if Article 27 is approved.
During this fiscal year the South Lexington area will produce about $2.6 million in tax revenue for the
Town. The Board notes that the figure is understated because a current value has not yet been established
for the building now under construction at 201 Spring Street. The value included in the table for that
property is from 1995 and includes only the building at 191 Spring Street.
34
South Lexington CRO District, Site and Building Information
Street Address Owner Land Area Developable Gross Net Floor F.A.R. Max Remaining
Site Area* Floor Area Floor Development
Area** Area potential
Allowed
a b c d e f g h i j
«f„x80% ."g„/„e„ GLeflx15/ "i" Ag"
191 Spring st Boston Properties 1,054,849 1,054,849 197,218 157,774 0.15 157,774 0
201 Spring St Boston Properties 297,515 297,515 82,030 65,624 0.22 65,624 0
92 Hayden Ave Boston Properties 276,170 261,770 88,952 71,162 0.27 39,266 0
Subtotal 1,628,534 1,614,134 368,200 294,560 0.18 262,664 0
80 Hayden Ave 80 Hayden Avenue 81,457 35,677 44,993 35,994 1.01 5,352 0
33 Hayden Ave Mercer Management 287,060 189,060 79,823 63,858 0.34 28,359 0
124 Spring St Ledgemont, Beal 490,050 490,050 212,214 169,771 0.35 73,508 0
95 Spring St Ledgemont, Beal 1,088,072 513,960 219,505 175,604 0.34 77,094 0
Subtotal 1,578,122 1,004,010 431,719 345,375 0.34 150,602 0
Spring St Raytheon 39,433 39,433 0 0 0.00 5,915 5,915
Spring St Raytheon 1,665 1,665 0 0 0.00 250 250
125 Spring St Raytheon 220,849 220,849 53,762 43,010 0.19 33,127 0
131 Spring St Raytheon 1,084,644 1,084,644 163,794 131,035 0.12 162,697 31,661
131 Spring St Raytheon 2,505,571 1,969,931 95,024 76,019 0.04 295,490 219,470
141 Spring St Raytheon 270,508 270,508 56,050 44,840 0.17 40,576 0
Subtotal 4,122,670 3,587,030 368,630 294,904 0.08 538,055 257,297
Hayden Ave W.R. Grace 257,938 61,918 0 0 0.00 9,288 9,288
55 Hayden Ave W.R. Grace 1,369,526 1,119,146 207,800 166,240 0.15 167,872 1,632
Subtotal 1,627,464 1,181,064 207,800 166,240 0.14 177,160 10,920
Hayden Ave Town of Lexington 222,156 82,578 0 0 0.00 0 0
Totals (Square Feet) 9,547,463 7,693,553 1,501,165 1,200,932 1,162,191 268,217
Totals (Acres) 219.2 176.6
* Gross Floor Area does not include parking structures;
** Developable Site Area is Total Land Area MINUS Wetlands MINUS Land Outside CRO District
( j.
Commercial Development, Hayden Avenue 35
South Lexington CRO District, Assessed Value and Tax Revenue
Street Address Owner 1997 1997 Tax
Valuation Revenue
191 SPRING ST Boston Properties $13,349,000 $350,411
201 SPRING ST Boston Properties See Note Below
92 HAYDEN AVE Boston Properties $7,066,000 $185,483
Subtotal $20,415,000 $535,894
80 HAYDEN AVE 80 Hayden Avenue $3,407,000 $89,434
33 HAYDEN AVE Mercer Management $6,007,000 $157,684
124 SPRING ST Ledgemont, Beal $13,281,000 $348,626
95 SPRING ST Ledgemont, Beal $17,358,000 $455,648
Subtotal $30,639,000 $804,274
SPRING ST Raytheon $208,000 $5,460
SPRING ST Raytheon $5,000 $131
125 SPRING ST Raytheon $4,011,000 $105,289
131 SPRING ST Raytheon $10,500,000 $275,625
131 SPRING ST Raytheon $9,782,000 $256,778
141 SPRING ST Raytheon $3,975,000 $104,344
Subtotal $28,481,000 $747,626
HAYDEN AVE W.R. Grace $1,027,000 $26,959
55 HAYDEN AVE W.R. Grace $11,757,000 $308,621
Subtotal $12,784,000 $335,580
HAYDEN AVE Town of Lexington $0 $0
Totals $101,733,000 $2,670,491
Note: Data for 191 Spring Street is from 1995 and includes 210 Spring Street parcel.
w
rn
, . 10-\-4 i
\ v4. - ;
���� .4 , .;. t eitit__ftisarillesliii ' - : .
„1„. at , #116,,,y�� ■ ���� /e it-i1���r
aviertisionallhi------. X
•
40. ..,4„. hit iir gioss4i.al ._.....„,ea kiiiii lif 4i 1 61
irvii:01--- ----.. • • ^,1 •,,,itreplirobflizal:iv.:it:11. it
''''- 4; .- • bIlliwiressiain....„fte:earitrawa.
i• ig
,:k.::0,:.:1...,
...... ...
a iffitit7ti-1111111111111r--% �. ■ rV . '
::..'-...::.
�' gift . i. dot -
w0 t I� to ,-,
'''itl.:':.',. 1:: ‘ i___ .' i '
/Mercer
Management d.: em -..
33 Hayden 16 Nay
•• -.• ...
Raytheon i Gcaoe
1 ;:
�R �Pvs
25/131/
1
4
1
t •
e
Spring L.
ed
9
em
on
9y
pnnta s� 95H24 55N ,.:-.'':S.'.','::{ii.::::;:fF.... .,..,;..,..r...._,
Spring St -.. . -
... Aiwa, . ..
/...
Al Boston--:-.•:•;,-7
2 .....: .:iii.::......;................................
Properties 11111V.-8-O Hayden
Hayden .-.1-7 .11177 .Y'.......i111111. 411111110.. — 1411"11111 .,.,., r, .
CD
•HaA.::::1'...:I'l.n..1. :::1;•::••••:'1::::•:•;:::;::.:.'.":-.:::: illAtilltia °XS% 111101 0-t
- ...:::-; ve
:
AD
• \WIVE 111 miii. IS!1 . ,
lir. --,4 „..,„,.
.. ' -.; .
4r1,4,
YiP
:: � . - cy
-
•
, 0\0 4
4 .
;; Stones,._ 9 . �/ o
' ' `` ---\
-J . 0.,‘ ,..
. 191/?f'e�jes �,,'
':.. Spnnasf ,
o.
a
South Lexington CRO District
cp
t
o,s MogNlNC
PLANNING BOARD
_( y
� Town of Lexington, Massachusetts
•oaipr+ - '
Richard L. Canale,Chairman 1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Frederick L.Merrill,Jr.,Vice Chairman Lexington,MA 02173
John L. Davies, Clerk (617) 861-2745
Steven L. Colman Facsimile: (617) 861-2748
Anthony G. Galaitsis
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY
Adopted by Vote of the Board, March 10, 1997
OBJECTIVES:
This Policy focuses on meeting the transportation needs of Lexington by a variety of measures that affect
the demand for, and use of, various modes of travel rather than changes in the supply of transportation
facilities, such as the construction of roadways and multi-level off-street parking facilities.
The Policy seeks to reduce the use of automobiles, particularly single occupant vehicles (SOV), in order
to:
1. permit vehicular traffic on Lexington streets to move in an efficient manner without excessive
delay or congestion,
2. reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents on the town's streets,
3. permit emergency vehicles to reach homes and businesses with a minimum of delay,
4. reduce the awareness of and impact from vehicular traffic on a predominantly residential town,
5. promote safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and bicyclists,
6. promote cleaner air and reduce automotive exhaust emissions caused by vehicles standing and
idling for an excessive time,
7. maintain a balance between the traffic generating capacity of businesses and residential
development in the town and the traffic carrying capacity of streets and intersections.
The Policy also seeks to:
1. assure adequate opportunities for mobility for all Lexington residents, workers and visitors, and
2. expand the Town's inventory of data about transportation needs and transportation utilization.
The Policy seeks to aid Lexington businesses and other establishments to:
1. reduce the cost of operations for Lexington companies and establishments caused by delays in
vehicular traffic,
2. expand the pool of potential employees who can reach places of work in Lexington more easily
and economically,
3. employ a more efficient and satisfied work force less concerned at the work place by the
frustrations of transportation, particularly commuting,
4. permit potential customers and clients to reach places of business in Lexington more easily and
economically,
5. provide transportation services more effectively in collaboration with other businesses and with
the Town.
Transportation Demand Management 2
Voted March 10, 1997
TERMINOLOGY: DEFINITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS AND CONCEPTS
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES: Alternatives to the use of the single occupant
automobile including but not necessarily limited to public transit, ride-sharing, van pooling, and use of
pedestrian or bike ways.
CONGESTED INTERSECTION: an intersection of two or more streets that meets the test set forth in
paragraph 12.2.3. of the Zoning Bylaw for an intersection "likely to be affected by the proposed
development" that now has, or is projected to have, a traffic level of service of "C" or below or has
experienced that level in the past.
FIXED ROUTE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: a transportation service that operates on a specific
route according to a pre-determined schedule. (See subsection 3 on page 5 for a description of these
services.) Other "demand responsive" services are flexible, respond to calls for service from customers
and do not have a specific schedule.
TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): a method of evaluating the degree of congestion of intersections
as described in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 Edition" published by the Transportation Research
Board. The system has six levels from "A" to "F" with "A" being the least congested and "F" being near
failure.
TRANSPORTATION HANDICAPPED: any of several classes of people who are not able to use private
automobiles, or in some cases regular public transportation, due to age, economic condition or physical --
disability. The term typically applies to children who do not have a driver's license, older people no longer
able to drive, those unable to afford a private automobile and those with various physical disabilities.
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: a non-profit group formed by local businesses,
corporate employers, owners/developers of properties, and civic leaders to address community
transportation problems that can be dealt with more efficiently on a collective basis. Some are single
purpose organizations formed specifically to address transportation concerns to facilitate private sector
involvement in addressing transportation issues. Others are elements of broader multi-purpose civic
organizations.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): various services and programs to affect the
behavior of motorists and encourage them to use alternatives to driving alone. Transportation Demand
Management strategies focus on reduction of vehicle trips, especially commuter trips during peak travel
periods.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM): a program to improve the efficiency of the
existing transportation system by more effective use of facilities or resources.
TOWN TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR: The person appointed under the Lexington
Selectmen/Town Manager Act to be the Transportation Coordinator.
Transportation Demand Management 3
Voted March 10, 1997
APPLICABILITY
Inclusionary Transportation Services
In order to obtain a favorable recommendation, or where applicable, a favorable action, by the Planning
Board on construction or other activity that will increase transportation demand, each:
a. commercial establishment with 10,000 square feet or more of gross floor area on the lot, (including
any existing floor area, but not including any floor area devoted to residential use or to off-street
parking), or
b. new housing development, with 25 or more dwelling units, which gains an increase in density greater
than that previously allowed by right' in the zoning district in which it is located, or
c. other activity that might not include new construction, such as a change of use, that increases the
number of vehicular trips by 50 or more trips per day,
shall provide transportation services as described in this Policy.
COMPENSATORY BENEFIT: Where an action of the Town increases the value of a property, by
permitting more intensive commercial development or a higher density of residential development, or
reduces an owner's or developer's expense, by granting a waiver or variance from normal standards, the
Town should receive a benefit, such as some type of transportation demand management program in
return. Further, the Town should refrain from actions which increase value, or reduce expenses, unless
it does receive such a benefit.
Written Transportation Demand Management Plan Required
A developer or property owner:
a. constructing a more intensive commercial development or
b. constructing a higher density of residential development or
c. that proposes another activity that increases the number of vehicular trips by 50 or more trips
per day,
shall be responsible for preparing and administering a written Transportation Demand Management Plan.
[This responsibility may be delegated to a company or other tenant of a building.]
The developer may also propose alternative transportation infrastructure improvements and alternative
transportation services in the event that the principal proposed facilities and services cannot be successfully
achieved.
It will usually be necessary to enter into a written agreement with the Town to insure that the provisions
of the Transportation Demand Management Plan are carried out by the developer and subsequent occupants
or owners.
NOTE: Later sections of this Policy contain additional provisions for annual reporting and monitoring
of compliance with the written Transportation Demand Management Plan.
` This does not apply to residential developments in cluster subdivisions that are permitted under Section
9 of the Zoning Bylaw. Those developments which may have a higher density, as measured by the
number of dwelling units, but do not have a greater impact than a subdivision otherwise permitted by
right.
Transportation Demand Management 4
Voted March 10, 1997
Once approved, the Transportation Demand Management Plan, shall apply to any successors or assigns, --
to any subsequent developer, property owner or business. The provisions of the Plan shall run with the
property.
PROGRAM REQUIRED
The Transportation Demand Management Plan shall provide a program of transportation services, drawn
from each of the nine categories below. The Plan shall generally include each of the numbered services
in each of the nine categories except that the Planning Board may permit exceptions on a case by case
basis. These new transportation services shall be a parallel program to any proposed intersection
improvements to mitigate traffic congestion as required by subsection 12.3 of the Zoning Bylaw.
If a proposed development is near an intersection "likely to be affected by the proposed development" (as
defined in ZBL 12.2.3.) that is a "congested" intersection, the Planning Board may require additional
efforts in some of the nine categories - as listed below under "congested intersections". A "congested"
intersection is one that now has, or is projected to have, a traffic level of service of "C" or below, or has
experienced that level in the past.
1. Site Design
1.1 Include transportation infrastructure elements in the site design, such as:
a. Adequate street and driveway widths, turning radii, and vertical clearance (if applicable) to
accommodate alternative transportation services vehicles.
b. Bus stops, turnarounds and/or pull-offs.
c. Bus stop shelters and benches. These may be provided in a building, such as part of a lobby
area adjacent to a bus route/stop. Or they may be provided adjacent to the street in a
comfortable, all weather passenger shelter. When not included in a building, a passenger shelter
shall have lighting, landscaping, seating or other amenities for riders.
d. Drop-off and pick-up for alternative transportation services other than buses.
e. A number of off-street parking spaces that shall not exceed the minimum number of parking
spaces required by Section 11.3 of the Zoning Bylaw unless the applicant can demonstrate that
a greater number of parking spaces is required to serve the public interest.
f. Suitable signage.
g. Pedestrian routes that deal adequately with potential points of conflict with vehicular traffic.
h. Taxi stands (if applicable)
1.2 Provide preferential parking locations and arrangements closest to a building for vehicles other than
single occupant automobiles. See ZBL 12.3.4 4)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
1.3 Participate in a site development that provides more concentrated development that is served more
easily by alternate transportation services. [In some cases, this is likely to transcend property lines
and require modification of traditional zoning and site development requirements.]
Transportation Demand Management 5
Voted March 10, 1997
2. Transportation Information
2.1 Designate a transportation coordinator for each property. The transportation coordinator for the
property shall coordinate the provision of transportation services with each business with five or more
employees on the property.
2.2 The transportation coordinator for the property shall:
a. Provide a data center where prospective users of alternative transportation services can locate
others with whom they can ride.
b. Maintain and promote information about alternative transportation services. This includes both
an office and informational bulletin boards or a kiosk. It includes assisting the promotional
activities of others, such as LEXPRESS, MBTA or transportation management associations that
serve the site.
3. Connection to Existing Public Fixed Route Transportation Systems
In the context of this Policy, Public Fixed Route Transportation Systems includes:
* the MBTA Red Line rail rapid transit service with a terminal at the Alewife station and all other
parts of the MBTA rail rapid transit service that connect to it;
* the MBTA Green Line light rail transit service with a terminal at the Riverside station and all
other parts of the MBTA rail rapid transit service that connect to it;
* the MBTA Commuter Rail service with nearby stations in Belmont, Waltham, Lincoln,
Concord, Woburn and Winchester;
* MBTA buses that have part of their route in Lexington, or at the Alewife Red Line terminal or
the Riverside Green Line terminal, or
* the Lexington LEXPRESS service.
Elsewhere in the Policy there are references to cities and towns served by Existing Public Fixed Route
Transportation Systems. That includes:
* the metropolitan core, i.e. cities and towns with:
* MBTA rail rapid transit service that have access to the Alewife Red Line terminal,
* MBTA light rail transit service that have access to the Riverside terminal, and
* any other parts of the MBTA rail rapid or light rail services that connect to the Alewife
or Riverside terminals.
* communities, such as Arlington, Belmont, Concord, Lincoln, Waltham, Woburn or Winchester
through which MBTA bus routes or commuter rail routes pass, and
* Lexington.
3.1 The transportation coordinator for the property shall maintain and promote information about public
fixed route transportation services. Route and schedule information for all public fixed route
transportation systems and any transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128
Business Council) that connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service, shall be displayed.
3.2 The property owner or tenant shall financially assist (paying at least half the cost of a pass) for any
employee requesting a pass for use on:
a. a fixed route public transportation system, as described above, or
b. any transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business Council) that
connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
Transportation Demand Management 6
Voted March 10, 1997
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the --
developer or applicant to:
3.3 Pay the full cost of a pass for any employee requesting one for use on:
a. a fixed route public transportation system, as described above, or
b. any transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business Council) that
connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4. 1).
3.4 Contribute financially annually and for an extended period to a transportation fund devoted to
assuring the continued provision of transportation services by the Town. This includes both
transportation coordination services and LEXPRESS.
3.5 Contribute financially annually and for an extended period to allow LEXPRESS service to serve the
site or for the frequency of LEXPRESS service to be increased.
3.6 Make a capital investment in a public transportation service such as purchase of a LEXPRESS bus.
4. Outreach to Areas Not Serviced Well by Existing Public Transportation Systems
In the context of this Policy, Areas Not Serviced Well by Existing Public Transportation Systems means
suburban towns and cities that are not serviced by Existing Public Fixed Route Transportation Systems,
as described above. They are typically west, north and south of Lexington.
4.1 Encourage use of carpools, ridesharing and vanpools by a continuous program of education of
employees, and visitors on the need for, and existence of, alternative transportation services and by
marketing these transportation services to encourage greater use by them. The transportation services
may be operated by others. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
4.2 Provide preferential parking locations and arrangements closest to a building for vehicles other than --
single occupant automobiles See ZBL 12.3.4 4)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
4.3 Actively participate in, including financial support of, an organization that operates car pools and
vanpools.
4.4 Actively participate in promotional activities for alternative transportation services whether provided
by transportation management associations or by the Town.
4.5 Provide, or contribute to the provision of, day care services on or near the site and encourage greater
use of car pools, ride sharing and vanpools for those with child care or elder care responsibilities.
4.6 Provide, at the developer's or business' expense, vans or automobiles for use by own employees in
vanpools or car pools.
4.7 Reduce the number of parking spaces to the minimum number required by the Zoning Bylaw or to
fewer than those required by using the special permit provision for a reserved parking area.
5. Other Trip Reduction Techniques
5.1 Provide only a minimum number of parking spaces that meet minimum Town requirements rather
than more spaces than are required.
Comment: The Planning Board needs to review the parking standards in the Zoning Bylaw to be sure
that they are the minimum.
5.2 Utilize the special permit provision in the Zoning Bylaw (paragraph 11_8.a.) to construct fewer
parking spaces than the minimum number otherwise required if a plan shows there is a "reserve area" -_
where parking spaces could be built if needed.
Transportation Demand Management 7
Voted March 10, 1997
5.3 Encourage employees to work at home and "telecommute" to the company by electronic means for
some parts of the day, particularly during peak travel hours, or parts of the week.
5.4 Schedule hours of operation, such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and spread scheduling that
reduces trips during peak traffic hours See ZBL 12.3.4 3) while still reducing the total number of
single occupant vehicles (SOV).
Comment: Flex-time is an effective technique for reducing trips during peak hours. It may not result
in an absolute reduction of, but a shift in, SOV trips to another time period. The applicant shall
consider, and address in the Transportation Demand Management Plan, the possibility that flex-time
can be competitive to, and reduce utilization, of other alternative transportation services that depend
on a group of riders necessary to make alternative transportation services feasible. A developer or
property owner preparing a transportation demand management plan needs to address the potential
conflict between flex-time and alternative transportation services in the Plan so that flex time still
permits a reduction in the total number of single occupant vehicles (SOV).
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
5.5 Provide, or contribute financially to an organization that provides, vans or a shuttle bus service to
restaurants, banks or other mid-day employee needs that are not available within walking distance
of the work site.
5.6 Adopt a formal Trip Reduction Plan with a specific target percentage of single occupant vehicles
(SOV) accessing the site. The penalty could be a financial charge to the company - deposited into a
fund for alternative services transportation operated by the Town or by a non-profit association.
5.7 Arrange for car rentals, operate delivery and passenger shuttles, consolidate courier or mail pick-up
services to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the property.
5.8 Provide employee incentives, such as prizes, trips, time off etc., for using alternative transportation
services.
5.9 Place restrictions on access to, or egress from, off-street parking areas during peak traffic hours. See
ZBL 12.3.4 5)
6. Other Travel Modes
6.1 Provide bicycle parking facilities that are secure and protected from the weather, and other measures
such as locker and shower facilities to encourage bicycle commuting. See ZBL 12.3.4 6)
6.2 Construct a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path on own property that connects to a larger network
of sidewalks, or bicycle/pedestrian paths in the area. (Connections to a larger network that is planned
but is not yet constructed in its entirety are included.)
6.3 Provide for the issuance of taxi vouchers, or other means to aid the mobility of "transportation
handicapped" (see Terminology) site occupants or visitors who do not use private automobiles.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
6.4 Construct, or make a financial contribution to, a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path off their own
site that is part of a larger network of sidewalks, or bicycle/pedestrian paths in the area. (Contribution
to a fund for maintenance or security in that network is included.)
r-,
Transportation Demand Management 8
Voted March 10, 1997
7. Coordination With Other Transportation Demand Management Activities
7.1 Be a contributing, dues paying member of a Transportation Management Association or of a transit
service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business Council) that connects to an
MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
7.2 Take a leadership role in organizing a Transportation Management Association, or a transit service,
such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business Council) that connects to an MBTA or
LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
7.3 Make a financial contribution to a private association or to the Town for establishing or maintaining
activities that promote one or more transportation management association(s) in Lexington.
8. Related Development Actions
8.1 Include basic support services for employees and business operations on site so they do not have to
drive elsewhere to obtain those services. These include food service establishments, automatic teller
machines and other convenience goods and day care.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
8.2 Include additional support services for employees and business operations on site so they or the
employees of other nearby establishments do not have to drive elsewhere to obtain those services.
These include restaurants and other food service establishments, banks, dry cleaners, convenience -_.
goods, day care, elder care and auto repair.
9. Transportation Reporting
The transportation coordinator for the property shall:
9.1 Prepare an Annual Transportation Report that shall be submitted to the Town's Transportation
Coordinator with information on:
a. compliance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan,
b. the number of persons regularly employed on the site and the zip code of the home of each such
employee on the site. [Name and home address of employee not included.]
9.2 If the property owner or business files a Rideshare report to the Department of Environmental
Protection, provide a copy of that report with the material submitted to the Town's Transportation
Coordinator.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also require the
developer or applicant to:
9.3 The transportation coordinator for the property shall include in the Annual Transportation Report:
a. A survey of the mode of travel of each person regularly employed on the site showing those
arriving at the site by:
* single occupant automobile
* carpool
* vanpool
* public transportation - MBTA or LEXPRESS
* private transit service, such as the Alewife shuttle
Transportation Demand Management 9
Voted March 10, 1997
* bicycle
* walking
In the case of employees who work at home and/or "telecommute" to the property, the Report
may include a tabulation of the time that those employees are off the property.
b. A survey of the time of arrival and departure of persons regularly employed on the site.
9.4 As needed, the property owner shall provide funds necessary for independent monitoring of
compliance with any special features of the Transportation Demand Management Plan for the
development.
OTHER POLICIES
The transportation management services and programs shall not be discriminatory. They shall be designed
and operated to maximize convenience of use for the primary on-site users but the services and programs
shall be available for use by all.
The transportation management services and programs shall be consistent with, and mutually supportive
of, other transportation management services and programs in the Town. Any questions on inconsistency
shall be resolved in consultation with the Town Transportation Coordinator.
Through the execution of appropriate written agreements, the transportation management services provided
by the developer shall remain operational and in use for an indefinite period, and be subject to the annual
review and approval of the Transportation Coordinator. The written agreements shall provide penalties,
which may be financial, for failure to provide the transportation management services included in the
Transportation Demand Management Plan.
The developer shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the on site and off site
transportation infrastructure elements included in the Transportation Demand Management Plan. Off site
facilities may be constructed and maintained by the Town or by others, with the costs thereof borne by the
developer or its successor.
The Planning Board will not make a recommendation on a proposed development subject to the
requirements for Inclusionary Transportation Services until it has provided an opportunity for the Town's
Transportation Coordinator to make a recommendation to the Board. If either the Board or the
Transportation Coordinator requests, the Transportation Advisory Committee or designated
representative(s) shall be provided an opportunity for the Town's Transportation Coordinator to make a
recommendation to the Board as well.
Transportation Demand Management 10
Voted March 10, 1997
Planning Board adopted this Policy on March 10, 1997 in order to provide petitioners for CD rezoning
on Hayden Avenue with more definitive guidance on what the Planning Board believes should be
included in their proposals. [The Planning Board had provided them earlier draft versions of the Policy
and had consulted with the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Transportation Coordinator.]
After the 1997 Town Meeting is over, the Planning Board intends to consult with the commercial
development community and the business community to evaluate and refine the Policy. The Board will
hold a public hearing on refinements to the Policy.
The Inclusionary Transportation Services parts of this Policy apply to development proposals on
which the Planning Board makes either a decision or a recommendation. The Board believes
transportation demand management will work more effectively and equitably if extended to the existing
large employers in town who are not likely to be applying for a permit from the Town. Within a year
or two, the Board believes the Town should adopt a transportation demand management program
affecting existing large employers.