Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-15L 1 PLANNING BOARD HEARINGS February 15, 1968 The Lexington Planning Board held public hearings in Science Lecture Hall, Senior High School, on Thursday, February 15, 1968 on certain proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law. Present were Chairman Mrs. Riffin, members Fowle, Greeley and Worrell, Planning Director Zaleski and Secretary Mrs. Macomber; also approximately 60 citizens. The first hearing was called to order by the chairman at 7:35 p.m. who explained the procedure to be followed and stated that the purpose of the hearing was for information to assist the Board in making a recommenda- tion to the town meeting, so the reasons are important rather than the number of those in favor or against. She then read the first proposal with the exception of the geographical description and introduced Mr. Fowle, who presented the article. This calls for a rezoning of part of CH 1 commercial and hotel zone located on the southwesterly side of Bedford St. near Rte.128 partly to CM 10 light manufacturing and partly to CS, service and retail. This would extend the CM 1 district down Hartwell Ave. towards Bedford St. Inasmuch as the CM 1 use has been developed nicely and it seems desirable to continue it down Bedford St.; and to provide an area for service and trade use which would be of benefit to the town. Thus this area would provide CH and CS uses bordered by CM 1 use on three sides. This CH land would permit but one motel whereas if the CH use were developed to all motel as it is now zoned, there could be a large number built and this would not be an attrac- tive development in the board's opinion. CM 1 land lies in the rear of the CH land and this is inaccessible. at the present time. To rezone to CM 1 a portion of the CH 1 land next to Rte. 128 would make this back land accessible. Slides were shown depicting what is there now and the proposed uses. In the CM 1 zone we now have 70 acres in use, 68 used for town, two for residence, and 177 vacant. CM total now 317 acres, proposed to add 19 which would make a total of 336 acres. Presently in CH 1 there are two zones, one on Bedford St. and one on Marrett Rd., a total of 45.7 acres in which none are in use as a motel and 10 acres are in some other use (Davenport and Smith). There are 13 acres used by Lexington Motor Inn as a hotel. There is presently no land in CS use and it is proposed to put 13 acres in that use. Because the first three articles are *ore or less related, Mrs. Riffin read the next article which deals with making changes in setback require- ments so that on Bedford St. the setback for the three zones would all con- form so as to have an orderly arrangement. The requirements would read from the baseline of Bedford St. 175 ft. back to what would be the building line. The reason for referring to the baseline is that a widening of Bedford St. is foreseen in the future and to make reference to the sideline could be confus- ing when we widen Bedford St. by extending it in this direction between Hart- well Ave. and Rte. 128. It can't be said what will be involved until the traffic study now under way is received, but the range of our estimates for the widening of the street runs between 30-50 ft. to handle the anticipated traffic. The last section actually allows automotive repair shops and gaso- line service stations in CS district. 2-15-68 -2- Mr. Greeley then went back to the first section. He explained that the details of the provisions in regard to the proportion of the front yards , that must be landscaped or used for parking or driveways are slightly different in the three different zones that were put in the ad. It is hoped to make the changes in the articles - to limit the amount of parking to not more than 25% of the total area of the front yard - 50% if you include the driveway, and to keep the filling station pumps and that type of thing at least 100 ft. back from the center line of the street. Weiss: This is quite involved. Would it be possible for town meeting members to have an explanation of what each subsection does. I think it is important to know. Mrs. Riffin said we don't have it as yet but perhaps it could be written up for the paper so people could understand it. Mrs. Thomas, Ivan St.: What are we going to find out about this traffic study, because this is going to contribute to the existing problem. Streets and driveways will be coming out on Bedford St. Mrs. Riffin: The Town Engineer is amassing data which he has to submit to the State. It will take in the entire area from Bedford line to Rte. 128. Thomas: A service road was mentioned - is this in the planning board's study? Fowle: A service road is a possibility and could be on the side the resi- dences are on and insulate them from the flow of traffic. , What about the houses on Bedford St.? They would still be on Bedford St. but on the service road. Greeley: We are sure Bedford St. should not be widened on the Ivan St. side. We know it should be widened on the other side but we don't know by how much. Sandy, Emerson Rd. Why do you want to reduce,the setback at this time? Actually we require 100 ft. setback in CH 1 but on Bedford street 200 ft. is required. For the use now proposed we require 75 ft. setback so this is an increase in CS to 175, also in CS it is more than is otherwise required. We think it would look better if we had a uniform setback instead of these different setbacks. How much would teh setback be from the final edge of the road when widened? Greeley: At least 100 ft. if not more. You are talking about one service road. It could be on the other side - it doesn't have to be on the commercial side. Worrell: I think perhaps there is some concern as to where the service road would be located if on the residential side. It would not make the road any ' closer to the houses than at present. It would be taken out of part of Bed- ford street and Bedford street moved farther away. 2-15-68 -3- Wathen-Dunn, Maple St. All this talk of reconstruction of Bedford Street ' between Rte. 128 and Hartwell Ave., if this is a State road this would have to be done by the Commonwealth, wouldn't it? Riffin: Not exactly. The town of Lexington has to tie its plans in with the plans of the State. If they approve our design and think it would work well with theirs, we could get approval. If we are willing to supply the land and do a good part of the work they might help us by reimbursing us for the work. 1 Is the Edison an easement or an actual ownership? Greeley: Edison owns most of the parcel and has an easement over the rest of it. Cary, Dee Rd. Won't a development tend to increase traffic? Riffin: The development of that land in any way would intend to increase the traffic on Bedford St. H. Stevens: Referring to the article on service stations, I am sure most of you know the Lexington Ford agency id East Lexington. It is on a peculiar shaped piece of land which makes it impossible for service to be rendered satisfactorily. The agency would be moved to the CS zone as shown on the slide. This is a large area for an automobile dealership but the restrictions on the setback and the amount of coverage of building to open area will make it more usable and a more attractive development. The other agency would be closed. Kula, Spring St. Are these changes to be made in conjunction with the present owners of the land? Yes, they are aware of it. Hardy, 451 Bedford St. Is this intended to be developed betore or after the road is widened? Greeley: Don't know if that can be answered. If the by-law is passed in March and the Atty. General signs it then any time after that the people are able to go ahead and build within the zoning restrictions. Then it could be developed before the widening. Could the service road be built prior to the extension of Bedford St. devel- opment? If that road is built, the town would pay for it? Mrs. Riffin: Yes, but the State has no intention of widening Bedford St.at this time - we were told only yesterday they can't build this at the present time because they have more important roads to come first. Butters: There would be considerable increase in traffic. Sometimes when approaching that section there must be at least 100 cars - all the way up and into Bedford is choked with traffic. 2-15-68 -4- Riffin: I don't think the town can make a taking right now because this may not be a solution of the traffic situation. When the traffic survey comes out we may find this is a solution and we might not. To take the I land is not justified. Levingston: Aside from the motel and Lexington Ford, are there other people who have indicated they wanted to build something on the commer- cial area? Riffin: Yes, we have been approached with different proposals. Mr. Stevens: I can spekk for the Ford Motor. I have explained that the land shown is 5.04 acres, and the land directly in the rear is owned by Dr. Barnes who owns most of the land shown on the road towards Rte. 128. I have talked with him and he is in favor of this proposal, but at the present time he has no definite plans to develop the land to the right and in the rear of the Ford piece. Riffin: We hope we will be having in the near future a very fine motel, but we feel one motel would be enough. Levingston: What are the other uses in CS? (Mrs. Riffin read list) Clancy: I represent C.C. & F. We have a small piece of property, about 3 acres, involved in the CM 1 change and we are in favor of having that area changed to make entrance to that piece and to continue the same kind of I development making it comparable to an industrial park. Mrs. Dunning representing her mother, Mrs. Bean, said their property was landlocked and they would be in favor of this change if it opened up their land. Mr. Murphy, 443 Bedford St. reiterated the fact that Bedford St. already had a traffic problem and he was not in favor of putting in anything else at present. Mr. Greeley mentioned the fact that a shopping center could be a possibility at present, they have been approached by the A&P, and this is an alternative. Mr. Weiss said he was opposed to this as it now stands - strongly opposed. Mr. Whitman said he didn't think changes could be made until a traffic report was received. Mr. Cary, Dee Rd., wished to register opposition. This hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. Mrs. Riffin read the notice of the final article and Mr. Greeley took over. He said the Board was not happy with the wording of the last clause ' and would like to change it to read ". . . this condition shall be deemed to be satisfied by the existence of public park, recreation or open space located on the same side and not separated by a major street" - or may use 2-15-68 -5- on the sameside of Massachusetts Ave. The indefiniteness of a major street is something the Town Counsel doesn't like. We are anxious to facilitate the redevelopment of the central business district and we think it more desirable to have multi -story buildings rather than develop it to one story buildings. It doesn't appear that an investor would be interested in putting store use above the first floor and office use seems to insist on private parking space for the tenants and this is difficult for the owner to provide. The next apparent use of the second and third floors would be apartments, they require only 1/3 as much parking space as would serve offices. This could be possible in the basement floor where office use could not be taken care of; subject to ountrols which we think would be beneficial. Residents need some kind of open space which they can consider their own. We think there will be relatively few properties which can provide this kind of open space. Kula: I can see someone putting up apartments and demanding the town put a green space around. Greeley: Not in conformity to the law. The law says the space shall be provided by the owner. This is by special permit from the Board of Appeals in C 2 areas and the applicants would have to demonstrate they would pro- vide the open space or it already exists. Mr. Giroux said they would be considering small efficiency apartments of one bedroom. Eaton: Would the public land across the street come under this open space? ' Greeley: We think the Buckman Tavern property across Mariam St. or the Depot Sq. Emery Park would count as it pertains to the central block. We said a major traffic artery because we felt this was an important criteria. Sousa: Would there be one parking unit per bedroom? Mr. Greeley read from the Zoning By -Law ". for each room designed for use or likely to be used for a bedroom ." - two bedrooms, two parking spaces. Weiss: Supposing there is more than one apartment contiguous to the public park would this open space apply to all? Greeley: I would expect a public park about 1/4 acre might reasonably be used by several contiguous apartments. Weiss: Could you give us some estimate of all the apartments that could be capable of being developed? Greeley: No, I can't. I expect it might be in the order of 100 in the central district. Giroux: We would be governed by the amount of parking we could get in the I basement - 50-55 parked cars. That would give you an idea of this property. 2-15-68 -6- Would these be comparable to the present apartments? Comparable in a sense but because of the different land cost involved here we think they would have to be small apartments - one bedroom and no big ones - only efficiency units. There being no further comments, the hearing closed at 9:15 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1 D