Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-03-13PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 13, 1965 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held on Saturday, March 13, 1965, in its office, Town Office Building. The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Chairman Bryson, with Members Campbell, Fowle, Greeley and Rif£in, and Planning Director Zaleski present. The minutes of March 1 and 8, 1965 meetings were approved. Reviewed by the Board were the following Form A applications for a determination of Planning Board juris- diction: #65-9, submitted March 3, 1965 by Raytheon Co., Nora Ford, Atty.; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s & Sur- veyors. #65-10, submitted March 12, 1965 by George Williams; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. Owned by: George E. Williams," dated March 11, 19655 ' Miller 4, Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unani- mously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accompanying Forms A applications #65-9 and #65-10 do not require approval under the Sub- division Control Law and the plans were so endorsed. The Board then considered Art. 64 of the Warrant providing for apartments in the Central Business District. The Board decided to recommend against the adoption of Art. 64 and to state that it believes that a more accept- able solution can be worked out in the future which would not involve large rezoning or significant expenditures by the town. Mr. Greeley wrote a draft of the Planning Board report t(*hich was approved by the Board. MINUTES FORMS A APARTMENTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS The Town Engineer's estimate of cost of Emerson Rd. construction was read and discussed. It was decided to EMERSON RD. show slides pertaining to Emerson Rd. and discuss the over- all concept in connection with Art. 70 and Art. 73. Planning Board reports on Articles 56, 573 58, 59, PLANNING BOARD 60, 653 66, 672 68, 693 703 71, and 83 were.signed by REPORTS members of the Board. (See addenda) 3-13-65 -2- Notices 2- Notices of Board of Appeals hearings on March 30, 1965 BOARD OF to consider the petitions of the following applicants were APPEALS noted and placed on file: HEARINGS E. L. Sharkey Evangelical Church (steeple) William Oliver Evangelical Church (divide lot) George Doherty The Planning Board voted to recommend the acceptance STREET of the following streets as town ways as recommended by the ACCEPTANCE Selectmen: Without Betterments Albemarle Ave., Frost Rd., Saddle Club Rd., Todd Rd., and Turning Mill Rd. Under Betterment Act Cutler Farm Rd., Hudson Rd., Columbus St., Bennett Ave., Chase Ave., Melrose Ave., and Bruce Rd. Alteration and Relocation Skyview Road An unsigned letter regarding violations of the zoning ' ZONING VIOLA- was read and referred to Mrs. Riffin to prepare a letter to TIONS the Building Inspector, including both the violations men- tioned in the letter and others brought up by members of the Board. The Planning Board Director's report was distributed to members. A Metropolitan Area Planning Council Questionnaire filled out by the Planning Director was referred to the Chair- man for review. The acquisition of Swenson Farm was discussed next. SWENSON FARM Mr. Greeley proposed the acquisition of land east of Swenson RECREATION AREA Farm and west of the proposed Worthen Rd. Mr. Fowle argued in favor of the Town buying the whole of Swenson Farm for conservation. Mr. Bryson recommended that a meeting be held with the Conservation Commission to discuss this matter. Mr. Sussman, who happened to be in the Town Office Building, was invited to the meeting of the Planning Board and the issue was discussed with him. It was decided to meet with the Con- servation Commission on Thursday, March 18 at 9:00 p.m. Letters from the Selectmen in favor of Art. 70 and 71 were read and placed on file. Letter from the Selectmen 3-13-65 -3- notifying 3- notifying the Board of Mr. Cole's election as the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen was noted. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Natalie H. Riffin Clerk PLANNING BOARD STATEMENT ON PROPOSED INTENSIVE STUDY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (Article 71) The Planning Board is in full agreement with the statements made in the March lst report of the Town Commi-'ee on the Revitalization of Lexington Center (appointed by the Selectmen). Section 2 of this report is repeated below: "We must undertake a study of the needs and possibilities of the CBD as a whole. The Center's future viability as a business district is threatened by increased competition, notably by the not -too -distant com- pletion of the nearby Burlington regional shopping center off Route 128. It is therefore essential that a new role be identified for the Center which would enable it to cope with the new competition. Ideally, the Center should offer most of the advantages of a regional shopping center -- a diversity of retail and service establishments, convenience of access and parking, etc. --in a setting suitable to the scale and style of -an historic New England town center. Ideally, the eventually, it will have to offer some of the excitement and intimacy of Rochester's Midtown Plaza, as well as an appeal to quality and good taste which will enlarge the Center's normal geographic trading area. A study is needed, therefore, to: 1. Provide a visual representation of what might be achieved by outstand- ing architects and planners within the physical setting of the Center; 2. Evaluate the proper role of an in -town shopping center and the types of commercial activities which are consonant with the population char- acteristics; 3. Identify investment opportunities looking towards the further revital- ization of the Center; !�. Support improvements in the circulation and parking patterns that would enhance the Center's competitive position vis-a-vis the regional shop- ping center; 5. Lay down architectural and visual guidelines for the reconstruction of commercial facilities under private auspices. The timing of this part 3-13-65 -b- of the study is crucial, since the new owners can be expected to com- plete their plans and to begin construction before the end of 1965. Because of the obvious importance of this study to the retail and service firms in the Center, this Committee has undertaken a fund-raising campaign to provide a contribution from the private sector to the study of the Center's needs and possibilities for which public funds are being re- quested under Article 71. The private pledges now amount.to $7,000, they are contingent upon the Town's approval of Article 71, for which the Selectmen recommend an appropriation of $133000." The firm of Economic Development Associates, Inc. of Boston has been selected to make the study which they would complete by January 1966. Following is a summary from the Dec. 1, 19611 EDA proposal: "In July, 1964, Economic Development Associates were retained by the Lexington Chamber of Commerce to explore the possible future of Lex- ington Center, and to recommend any further studies which might be called for. "Growth and Lexington Center," a 23 -page report completed in October gave results of the exploration of the Center's future, in accordance with items A, B, and C of the agreement between EDA and The Chamber. This report, a definitive outline of proposed further studies, is in fulfill- ment of item D of that agreement. In summary of the earlier report, the prospects of Lexington Center depend to a large degree upon local initiative. A ten-year expan- sion to half again present activity levels appears feasible, but a self- sustaining cycle of decline and deterioration also appears possible if nothing is done to prevent it. Of three alternatives - commercial expan- sion outside of the Center, changes in the Center, or no changes at all, changes in the Center were found to best meet the objectives and values of the community. Parking, congestion, unfortunately ordinary appearance, and lack of additional "prime space" were seen as problems of the Center. Creation of additional "prime space" will require a major reorganization of the area, and in all likelihood will be possible only after the Center has demon- strated its ability to compete successfully with the new Burlington Shop- ping Center. Accordingly, the studies required now are ones to outline immediate improvements in circulation, parking, and appearance which can be made to help the Center in facing new competition. Studies of longer - range changes are important only in assuring that immediate actions contri- bute towards rather than thwart desirable long-range plans. Especially critical in the special case of Lexington Center is its lacy of visual distinction. A Center better reflecting the unique qualities of Lexington would be more attractive to both shoppers and new businesses, and w-uld provide a community focus of which Lexington citizens could be justifiably proud. Accordingly, special emphasis in these studies is placed on how Lexington Center might look." 1 f 3-13-65 The functional aspect of the and the visual study would be paid owners in the Center. -5- study would be paid for by the town for by the merchants and property LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Arthur E. Bryson, Jr., Chairman Joseph A. Campbell Evert N. Fowle Roland B. Greeley March S. 1965 Natalie H. Riffin PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4 (g) - A 1 GARDEN APARTMENT DISTRICTS OF THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON Article 83 of the Warrant for the 1965 Annual Town Meeting contains a proposal to amend Section 4 (g) of the Lexington Zoning By -Law by adding a new A 1 - Garden apartment district located at Hayden Avenue near Route 2. A duly advertised public hearing was held on this proposal on February 17, 1965 at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington, Mass. The petition to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment was signed by more than 100 registered voters of the Town, as provided for in Section 19 of the Zoning By -Law. The General Investment and Development Co. of Boston petitions for the rezoning from one -family (R 1) to Garden apartment district (A 1) of one parcel of land containing about 37 acres and owned by Hinds Realty Trust. The General Invest- ment and Development Co. holds an option to buy this parcel of land. They also have an option to buy another parcel of land, immediately adjacent to the southeast and containing about 14 acres. The rezoning proposal does not include the 111 acre parcel which would be developed as a private community club open to the residents of the proposed apartment development. About 470 apartment units could be accommodated in the proposed apartment dis- trict. The location of the proposed district is such that there are no shopping, recreational, governmental, and public transportation facilities, no churches or schools within reasonable walking distance. It is therefore probable that the number of cars in the development would be quite high, substantially more than one car per dwelling unit and about eight times as many as could reasonably be expected if this area were developed for one -family houses. The large number of cars would aggravate traffic congestion, particularly at street intersections, and have a detrimental effect on traffic safety. The Planning Board believes that the number of apartments permitted in Lexington should be such as not to affect the essentially open semi -rural residential character of the town and that the apartments should fill the existing need of accommodating long-time residents of Lexington no longer desirous of maintaining their own homes. It has also been the policy of the Planning Board to recommend apartment districts near churches, shopping and public transportation to make 3-13-65 -6- them attractive to the segment of our population which they are intended to , serve. Lexington already has enough land zoned for garden apartments to accom- modate about 500 units, which is the number suggested in the Phase One Report as the limit until we have had ample time to evaluate the impact of garden apartments. From the statistics available, the Planning Board is unable to conclude that the proposed apartments would be a significant source of revenue to the town or indeed do more than pay their share of the cost of municipal services they would be utilizing. The Town Meeting will undoubtedly be asked in the years to come to change the zoning in this area from R 1 because of relationship of Hayden Avenue to Rte. 2. We believe the best policy of the Town is to hold the line and not to entertain any substantial zoning changes in this area. At least until the implications of such change are clearly evaluated in the light of the long range financial and planning study proposed under Art. 70 of the Warrant, we should assume that the present zoning is correct. It is the opinion of the Planning Board that the proposed apartment district would have a significant effect on the character of the immediate neighbor- hood and on the character of the town as a whole, that it would detriment- ally affect safety and convenience in the area, that it would satisfy no town -wide need and would be contrary to the purposes of zoning as stated in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 40A of General Laws. Unless the need for more apartments can be demonstrated by long-range studies and until the impact of the apartment zoning already authorized can be evaluated, the Planning Board is opposed to the establishment of the large apartment district as proposed ' in Article 83 of the Warrant and recommends unanimously that Article 83 be rejected. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Arthur E. Bryson, Jr., Chairman Joseph A. Campbell Evert N. Fowle Roland B. Greeley Natalie H. Riffin March 1, 1965 1