HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 Comprehensive Plan C��a�tr�a22�ia�iu� T�uu� T.e22��tut�ra�r T�.ocge�4
Public Meetings and Thematic Workshops
Initial Planning Board Meetings on Comprehensive Plan
August 30, 2000 October 16, 2000 November 15, 2000
Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
January 3, 2001 May 2001 October 10, 2001
February 13, 2001 June 20, 2001 October 24, 2001
January 30, 2002 (Public Hearing)
Resource Group Meetings
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
July 25, 2001/August 29, 2001 —Economic Development
July 31, 2001/September 11, 2001/September 19, 2001 —Housing
August 1, 2001/August30, 2001 —Natural and Cultural Resources
August 23, 2001/September 25, 2001 —Land Use
External Groups
November 2001 —Business Round Table Informational Meeting
November 2001 —Lexington Center Committee Informational Meeting
September 2001, April 5, 2001 —League of Women Voters Informational Session
Governmental
March, 2001 —Progress Report to Town Meeting
March 18, 2002 —Board of Selectmen
February, 2002 - Town Meeting 2002, Exhibit at first six sessions
Active Participants
Planning Board and Staff
Stacey Bridge-Denzak, Sara Chase, John Davies, Anthony Galaitsis, Glenn Garber, Thomas Harden,
Karl Kastorf, Maryann McCall-Taylor, Frederick Merrill, Jr. (former member), Elissa Tap, Deborah
Tyson
Consultants
Philip B. Herr& Associates, Sarah James & Associates
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee(CPAC)
Lawrence Belvin, William Carlson, Thomas DeNoto, Elaine Dratch, Eileen Entin, John Farrington,
Marilyn Fenollosa, William Hays, Karl Kastorf, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Joseph Marino, Joyce
Miller, Jerry Moloney, Anne Ripley, Lee Sinai, Susan Solomon, Iris Wheaton, Ada Wong
Additional Participants
Sheila Butts, Jacquelyn Davison, Andy Friedlich, William Hadley, Paul Hamburger, Fred Johnson,
Alan Lazarus, Candy McLaughlin, Karen Mullins, Michael Schroeder, Gail Wagner, Loren Wood
INTRODUCTION
The summaries that follow are drawn from The Lexington We Want: Comprehensive Plan, First
Four Elements, approved by the Planning Board in January 2002. That document provides a
broad statement of collective intentions about the kind of Town that those involved want
Lexington to be. It both frames overarching policy and outlines specific actions for
implementation. This work builds upon a strong planning legacy that reaches from the Town's
pioneering planning and zoning in the early 20 century to the contemporary Lexington 2020
planning process. Over that entire period Lexington's growth and change have been guided
thoughtfully and creatively in a process to which the preparation of these four elements is one
more contribution. This effort will be followed by many others, most immediately by preparation
of the remaining elements included in the current statutory outline of what constitutes a
comprehensive plan.
This work has been carried out under the direction of the Planning Board, assisted by a
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) created by the Board, and supported by staff
and consultants. It is important to note that this Plan isn't a law or regulation or a commitment to
funding or organizational change, but it does provide guidance for all of those, reflecting
agreement about intentions among those charged with carrying out the Plan.
The Lexington which people want has been revealed in many ways through this planning work,
importantly including a range of public activities ranging from smaller focus group meetings to
larger evening forums. There is a healthy diversity of views on the particulars of that future
vision, but there is a clear thread on which there is wide agreement. Strikingly,the "Town-Wide
Vision Statement"for the Lexington of 2020 as earlier articulated by the Lexington 2020 Core
Participants Group would equally well stand as a Vision for this work on the Comprehensive
Plan. That congruence in values expressed provides an affirmation for both efforts.
Summaries of four Comprehensive Plan elements follow: Land Use, Natural and Cultural
Resources, Housing and Economic Development. Each begins with a discussion of background
information, then describes goals and objectives, and an agenda of implementing actions to be
taken or at least explored. Some actions by their nature appear in multiple elements: much of the
Land Use element is an abbreviated restatement of initiatives more fully outlined in the other
three elements. There similarly will be convergence between some items in these elements and
items not yet developed in the four elements still to come. No plan of this kind is ever"Final."
The process of thoughtful and creative planning guidance will continue to evolve even after
completion of the remaining elements.
LAND USE
BACKGROUND
Lexington's land use pattern reflects the history of the town's growth as a classic suburban
community with a commercial center around a historic railroad depot, compact residential
development near the center, and lower density residential development elsewhere. Highway
oriented R&D areas, neighborhood commercial sub-centers, and scattered protected open spaces
complete the picture.
Lexington's land use pattern is fully established, so land use issues now center on succession
uses involving redevelopment and intensification. Only about 600 acres remain in undeveloped
parcels out of a total town area of about 10,000 acres. That land could accommodate about 900
dwelling units under current zoning, but substantial amounts of it is likely to be put to other uses,
such as protected open space.
There is essentially no vacant land in Lexington Center, but intensification of existing uses is
possible within the limits of zoning, particularly if supported by structured parking. Only a
limited amount of further commercial development is possible in outlying commercial areas, but
much more would become feasible if dimensional rules were altered.
In addition to completely undeveloped parcels, about 400 "underdeveloped sites"have been
identified, of which about 150 have been characterized as being"conspicuously"
underdeveloped. Of those 150 sites, 35 have been studied as being the most vulnerable to
development(see Table "Categorization of Study Sites" and Map "Desired Future Outcomes of
Under and Undeveloped Land"). There are few incentives to encourage appropriate development
for these parcels, and there will never be enough funding to acquire them all as Town open
space. Therefore a strategy combining regulatory tools, development incentives, and acquisition
is needed to appropriately guide use of these vulnerable lands.
GOALS AND ACTIONS
Land use goals flow from the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan:
• Housing to support the social and economic diversity of Lexington.
• Economic development consistent with other Town values, including tax revenue, services
for residents, employment, and sense of place.
• Acquisition and preservation of open space.
• Protection and promotion of the character and beauty of the community.
• Land uses that have a thoughtful and responsible relationship to local and regional resources.
Implementation intends reliance on a range of means including incentives and market
• opportunities rather than relying only on regulation, managing rather than stopping
development, in an exemplary open, accessible, and strategic process as urged by Vision
2020.
• Encourage development that supports the existing mature land use patterns. Changes in
existing zoning districts should be marginal at most. These are among the actions intended to
accomplish that.
— Assure that creation of flexible Planned Commercial (CD) and Planned Residential (RD)
districts advance the intentions of this Plan, in both cases working with other Town
bodies such as the Conservation Commission and the Historical Commission to facilitate
meeting Lexington's goals in their areas of responsibility.
— In the disposition of"surplus" land, give priority to the uses for which land is essential:
diversity-serving housing and the preservation of open space.
— Seek opportunities to improve the speed and predictability of regulatory decisions.
• Give priority attention to actions serving multiple Plan elements.
— Facilitate mixed uses where appropriate, such as housing uses in Lexington Center and
more versatile commercial development to serve neighborhoods.
— Manage land uses to reduce dependence on the automobile.
— Seek to protect at least a third of Lexington's remaining open land through the
Community Preservation Act or other means.
— Develop incentives to encourage cluster housing development.
— Consider provisions to control the adverse effects of out-of-scale houses, where
appropriate.
• Maintain an overview of land use change and review these goals and implementation
strategies to meet changing conditions.
CATEGORIZATION OF STUDY SITES
Of the potentially buildable sites remaining within the town of Lexington, close to 400 of
these sites were identified as undeveloped or under-developed sites based on market and
zoning norms. Thirty-five private sites considered to be the most vulnerable to
development were selected for further analysis. This allowed a general, conceptual test of
development and preservation strategies. By employing a variety of regulatory strategies,
portions of sites such as these could be preserved while allowing thoughtful development
on the remaining portion. The above chart describes and defines the categories used for this
analysis. These sites are shown on the "Desired Future Outcomes of Under- and
Undeveloped Land" map on the page to follow. The idea was to reflect what the
characteristics seem to tell us about this remaining land, rather than to suggest or impose a
site-specific regulatory or development status on any given parcel.
CATEGORIZATION OF STUDY SITES (Special Test Cases)
Category Number Acres Description
of sites
Critical Preservation 8 137 Designated for preservation rather than
development. Taken directly from the Lexington
Open Space Plan, highest priority acquisition
category.
Highly Sensitive—Open 12 230 Residential use possible, but only with clustered
Space Residential(zoning housing and lowest feasible densities, as well as
amendment needed) preservation of highest quality open space that
exceeds minimum requirements. Needs an
enhanced preservation tool for highly sensitive
sites that are not practical for acquisition.
Cluster usually preferred 11 181 Benefits accrue from clustering,but with less of
an imperative than for above cases. Cluster
provisions as they now stand are adequate to
accommodate this category of development.
Innovation sites 4 32 Complex opportunities, possibly including mixed
use,with widely varying combinations of
residential and commercial or office activity
closely fitted to the particular site(s). Locations
must be chosen with care, scaled(down)to
Lexington character and possibly linked to transit,
where possible. Enhanced regulatory tools might
be needed, or, at a minimum, some amendments
to the use regulations in zoning.
Total 35 581 All sites are constrained by environmental,
locational, or cultural concerns.
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
BACKGROUND
Lexington enjoys unique national significance based on its role in the battle for independence,
and its broad legacy of cultural resources. That, plus the Town's environmentally sensitive
location at the headwaters of three river basins, provides extraordinary benefit to those who live
here, both directly in improving the quality of life, and indirectly, such as through drawing
visitors who supportthe local economy. However, having those special natural and cultural
resources also carries important stewardship responsibilities, and those responsibilities have
importantly shaped all elements of this Plan.
Lexington's richness of cultural resources isn't limited to those of the Revolutionary period. A
nine-volume inventory of the Town's cultural resources includes many from the relatively recent
past that have national significance, such as those found on Moon Hill, while others play a vital
role in what makes neighborhoods special for those who live in them. Stewardship for those
more local resources also are of critical importance. Similarly, about 1,400 acres within the
Town have been protected as permanent open space, not all of it of broad regional significance,
but all of it important in supporting both regional and larger environmental objectives and the
local quality of life.
The Town has strong institutional resources through which to manage its resources. The
LEXINGTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION sponsored the inventory cited above, looks after the
preservation of those inventoried buildings, and can inhibit their demolition for up to six months.
The HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION regulates work done to visible portions of building
exteriors and their settings within four designated areas where the buildings have special historic
or architectural significance. General advice can be offered also by The DESIGN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, the LEXINGTON CENTER COMMITTEE, the LEXINGTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY and the
NATIONAL HERITAGE MUSEUM, all of which play important advisory and educational roles. The
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE owns, administers, and protects property within the Old Battle Road
District of the Minuteman National Historic Park.
The CONSERVATION COMMISSION administers state laws pertaining to the important water
resources of Lexington: the Wetlands Protection Act, Department of Environmental Protection's
stormwater requirements, and the MA River Protection Act. Local environmental controls
include the Town's Wetlands Bylaw, a recently adopted tree protection bylaw, and a number of
provisions within the Town's Zoning By-Law. The CITIZENS FOR LEXINGTON CONSERVATION
and the LEXINGTON STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE, as well as the LEXINGTON NATURE TRUST and
other local trusts provide private protection assistance.
GOALS AND ACTIONS
The Town's natural and cultural resource goals and intentions have some important aspirations
in common: beauty, sustainability, and regional interrelations are critical for both as the Town
seeks to sustain, protect, and enhance its resources, doing so efficiently and fairly, balancing
growth and maintenance of its valuable existing resources. These are among the actions
intended.
• Reduce encroachment on natural resources.
— Open space protection is a critical need, with the intention of protecting at least a third of
the Town's remaining uncommitted land. This can be done in part through regulation,
such as stronger requirements for open space provision in subdivisions, transfer of
development rights, and fees for open space mitigation. Gaining policy assurance of
adequate funding for the local share of the cost of key acquisitions is also critical.
— Protection of natural resources through "green building"bonuses and strengthened
performance-based zoning controls is to be explored.
• Moderate auto usage.
Mixed land use, if supported in ways as discussed in other elements, can materially reduce
auto trip numbers and length. Strengthening transportation demand management through site
design,facilitation of alternative modes usage and creation of a regional transportation
management organization can lend further support. These concepts will be more extensively
addressed in this coming year's Comprehensive Plan elements, especially Transportation.
• Address pollution and other natural resource concerns.
The Town itself could provide an example to businesses, residents, and other civic uses by
demonstrating how cost-effective strengthened resource efficiency and waste reduction can
be while also conserving resources. More could be done to handle solid waste disposal and
greywater(wastewater) disposal in resource-protective ways. Exploration of organizational
structure and leadership is called for to guide that and other new environmental efforts and to
support programs already in place.
• Celebrate the Town's place in National history.
Efforts would include providing visual definition for the entrances to Lexington (such as
Massachusetts Avenue, Route 2A, Route 2, Bedford Street, and others)for travelers, both
local and visiting. A `Battle Road Corridor" overlay district could be established to highlight
the entire Battle Road through Lexington, perhaps in an effort linked with adjoining Battle
Road towns.
• Address Other Cultural Resource Concerns
To provide coherent guidance for the Town's cultural resource preservation efforts, a Town-
wide Preservation Plan should be developed. These are among the items it would organize
into an integrated program.
— Adaptive re-use of historic buildings, including valued twentieth century buildings such
as schools, picturesque service stations, storefronts, and the like, conserving the Town's
local cultural resources.
— Public education and signage programs relating to the character of the Town as it has
grown over the two hundred and twenty-seven years since the first battle of the
Revolution. The Town's scenic roads, neighborhoods (such as Woodhaven, Moon Hill,
Five Fields, the Manor, Peacock Farm, Follen Hill), and conservation lands having
historic significance (Paint Mine, old farm lands) would be more clearly identified to the
public.
— Strengthened zoning incentives and controls and further refined demolition controls are
to be developed to better protect and preserve neighborhood character, topographic
features, and archaeological resources.
— Funding mechanisms for cultural (historic) and natural resources are to be explored.
Local tax policies can provide both "carrots" and "sticks," and programs such as the
Community Preservation Act can help to redistribute some private money with
considerable augmentation by state funds.
HOUSING
BACKGROUND
As a mature suburb, Lexington has limited potential for new housing development. However,
because of strong demand in the regional housing market and Lexington's position in that
market, new housing development is likely to continue on scattered small parcels of remaining
undeveloped land (see Chart"Homebuilding: Lexington 1950—2000"). In addition, re-
development of existing housing stock is also likely to continue -- involving replacement of
smaller houses and renovation and additions to other existing properties (see Chart"Housing
Construction: Lexington Existing and Projected." "Alternate"reflects aggressive open space
efforts and facilitation of accessory dwellings). These trends are contributing to demographic
changes making Lexington a community more stratified in income, with an older population in
smaller households than is common in other communities.
HOMEBUILDING
Lexington 1950-2000
500 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
450
400
350
v 10-yearaverage
t 300
5
m
250
� Annual
m
200
3
0
150
100
50
0
�P 00 gp gP' gb 96 g0 �O
HON EBUILDING 1950—2000
Lexington's vacant unprotected land supply has dwindled tremendously in the last fifty years,
leaving the town with less than 1,000 acres for residential development. A strong program of land
conservation has also affected this downward curve in vacant lots. The trend in homebuilding
today is the teardown of older homes on existing lots to make room for new modem replacement
homes, because new land is minimally available. This trend will continue as more vacant land is
used.
�.a�e it �i�e�ui,�cJ�cnanu(22fr
Mar
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Lexington Historic and Projected
1,400 ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....
1,200
1,000
H
Y 800
.y
0 600
2
400
200
0
199n - 9nnn Prnierted Altprnatp
El On new land ElAccessoryunits 11Replacement
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION: Lexington Historic and Proiected
In recent years, nearly half of all building permits issued have been for replacement
housing, as well as for construction of accessory units in existing homes. As the little
existing land remaining in Lexington is used for residential construction, the trend of
teardowns and replacements will remain constant, if not increase. The demand for housing
in Lexington continues to be strong. The graph illustrates the breakdown of housing units
constructed in the last ten years in comparison with those units projected to be built in the
future. The units shown in the `alternate' column represent what might be built assuming
more aggressive open space protection, support for creation of accessory units, and a
demolition rate based on the historic trend of the last eight years.
Lexington seeks to have a socially and economically diverse community, both over the whole of
the community and within its neighborhoods. hi support of that fundamental social goal, a basic
housing goal is to provide housing opportunities supportive of the population diversity we seek.
This will require attention both to the needs of lower income groups and also to the needs of a
growing segment of middle income households who also are being priced out of Lexington. The
potential beneficiaries of our efforts to accommodate diversity are not only those who otherwise
could not live here but are all of us, enriched by having a more complete community for
ourselves and for our families. We need to achieve that diversity of opportunity through
appropriate means—without sacrificing the qualities of existing residential environs through
unreasonable density departures, introduction of disruptive traffic or other impacts, or building in
a way that is inconsistent with its context.
Although Lexington has long enjoyed a reputation as a town that actively seeks to guide change
to serve goals of community diversity and housing opportunity, responding to these recent socio-
economic changes is increasingly difficult to accomplish because of the Town's now-modest
growth potential. Change through trends in occupancy of existing units will be a far more
significant determinant of population diversity than can be achieved through shaping the
relatively small increment of new construction that is projected.
GOALS AND ACTIONS
Lexington will have about 12,000 housing units at "build-out," an increase of fewer than 1,000
units. While this planning process has not resulted in firm quantitative goals for the housing
profile that is wanted, the directions wanted are clear:
• The proportion of housing made affordable to households otherwise priced out of Lexington
would preferably be larger, serving not only the elderly but also families, including, but not
limited,to young adults. Housing that is "affordable" as the State defines it might grow from
the present 7% of Lexington's housing stock to the State's objective of 10% of all units being
affordable. Half of that"affordable"housing might serve families, compared with less than
40%that does so at present.
• The share of housing that serves renters would preferably be not lower than at present, and
ideally somewhat larger. One fifth of all housing might be available to renters, compared
with about 17% at present.
It is not possible to achieve those objectives only by shaping the limited number of units to be
added within the "build-out." Efforts to include more affordable housing in the new
development that occurs must be complemented by policies designed to affect the affordability
of existing housing.
This approach suggests actions implementing the following strategies:
1. Broaden opportunities for producing housing, especially where that production is likely to
include housing that is relatively affordable and that is likely to serve other diversity
concerns, such as serving small households. Actions may take the form of allowing housing
in the Center and other potential mixed-use districts and allowing higher density near good
transportation
2. Protect existing housing that is important for the maintenance of diversity. Over time,
demolition and replacement is eroding the Town's once-rich diversity of housing, steadily
reducing the number of small freestanding single-family dwellings as a significant Lexington
resource for affordability, and producing a"monoculture" of new housing comprised of only
large, expensive new homes. Actions may take the form of mitigation requirements for
houses that are large for their lots, and demolition delay requirements that might slow the
process of change.
3. Assure that new development doesn't indirectly exacerbate the housing problem. Actions
may take the form of incentives and/or requirements to include affordable housing in new
development.
4. Support homeowner's efforts to afford their housing costs by liberalizing policies controlling
the use of the home as workplace.
5. Develop sources offunding to support housing affordability. Actions might include
participation in the regional housing consortium, passage of the Community Preservation
Act, and development of a program for first-time buyers in conjunction with local banks.
6. Strengthen groups, institutions and alliances that can promote,facilitate, or carry out the
development of the kinds of housing that the town wants which the market is not now
providing. Actions might include establishment of a local nonprofit developer or housing
partnership or improvements in the permitting process for affordable housing developments.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, economic development has centered on job creation, while more recently the
search for job growth has been motivated by concerns over municipal finances. Economic
development efforts have often been questioned by some residents who view the negative
impacts of business activity, most particularly traffic congestion, as threatening to quality of life
in the Town.
Lexington has about 20,000 local jobs, which is about a third more than the number of job-
holding residents in the town. Despite that,the great majority of Lexington residents commute
out of town for work. In 1990, only 24% of Lexington's workers held jobs within Lexington.
Types and locations of jobs in Lexington have changed dramatically over the years (see Chart,
"Jobs in Lexington, 1985 —2000"). Jobs in wholesale and retail trade and manufacturing have
declined while jobs in technical and professional services have grown. Jobs in Lexington Center
have probably declined, while employment along Hayden and Hartwell Avenues has grown.
JOBS IN LEXINGTON
1985-2000
25,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..
❑Services
20,000
■Fin, Insur, RE
`o
15,000 ❑Trade
x
❑Transp, comm
S
a 10,000 El Manufacturing
0
■Construction
5,000
❑Government
o ■Agriculture
0A0 0A0 0�b1 0A0 0�b0 00f 00n 00� 045 001 000 000 001 00P 000 O69
JOBS IN LEXINGTON 1985—2000
Types and locations of jobs in Lexington have changed dramatically over the years despite
relatively modest overall change in the total number of jobs. Changes in the regional
economy account for the difference in the number of jobs available since 1985. However,
individual industries, such as manufacturing, have significantly declined. Retail and
wholesale trade have also declined dramatically, but growth in technical and professional
services has offset the change.
�.a�e aui �ie�eu�ui,�cJ,unanuU�
Lexington's retail sales and services are of special significance. They not only provide jobs and
fiscal support, but also offer a valued service to residents. Retailing visibly shapes the perceived
character of the community. Retail sales in Lexington fell by nearly a quarter between 1987 and
1997, falling to less than half the statewide level of sales per capita. Residents' shopping needs
are increasingly being met in other communities. The result is not distressed real estate, but
rather is changing land use patterns. Land on Bedford Street, where residents formerly bought
lumber, now holds more employees, but they work in offices providing services.
Business property has paid about a quarter of the Lexington tax levy over the last decade or
more. Lexington applies a higher tax rate to business than to dwellings, and in doing so has
reduced the fiscal swings that otherwise would have resulted from commercial real estate value
fluctuations (see Chart, "Assessed Valuations"). In 1990, the non-residential share of assessed
valuations was 22%, but by 1997 that had fallen to less than 13% as residential property values
boomed and total business property values declined.
Assessed Valuations
A6,000 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
6
v
0 5,000
N
c
O
4,000
c
3,000
c
O
2,000
A
w 1,000
N
N
U
N 0
a
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
❑Commercial ❑Industrial ■Personal Property ❑Residential
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Clearly, residential taxes account for the majority of Lexington's tax levy. Commercial
properties account for approximately one quarter of the tax levy in Lexington, a figure
much lower than surrounding communities. However, despite their smaller representation,
businesses are taxed at a higher rate than residential properties to buffer real estate
fluctuations within the residential market
The municipal expense of servicing business is less than the taxes business pays. Because of that,
growth in local business helps to reduce the residential share of the tax levy. However,the
possibility of taking advantage of business growth is limited by availability of land and the rules
the Town has chosen for controlling such development.
Business commonly occupies about 10% or less of a community's developed land area. Of
Lexington's 11,000 acres of land, 8% is zoned for business. Many parcels now developed for
business still have substantial expansion capacity remaining within zoning limits. Nearly 4
million square feet of business floor area exists, while another one million square feet of floor
area could be added under current zoning. That is enough to accommodate another 4,000 jobs. In
the Center,the key limitation on the ability for business floor area to expand is parking
requirements. Elsewhere, the key limitation on added business development is the allowed ratio
of building floor area to lot area, or"FAR." As theoretical tests of future land use potential,
increasing allowable FAR by 50% in outlying business districts and removing on-site parking
requirements in the Center would more than double the potential that otherwise exists for new
business development in Lexington, as revealed by modeling a"TEST" growth scenario (see
Chart, "Commercial Build-Out, Lexington Major Commercial Areas').
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT
Lexington Major Commercial Areas
3,000,000 ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
_2,500,000
x
c 2,000,000
w
y 1,500,000
w
c 1,000,000
LL
500,000
0
Hartwell Ave. Hayden Ave. Lexington Center BedfordANorthen Rte.2A/Mass Ave
❑Existing floor area 02001 zoning potential OTEST zoning added potential
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT:Lexington maior commercial areas
A build-out is a planning exercise often found to be useful in comprehensive plans. As a
test of long range development impact for a given land use, it provides a theoretical profile
of what ultimately could be built under current zoning and/or alternate zoning scenarios.
Approximately eight percent of Lexington's land is zoned for business. About 4.5 million
square feet of land has been developed and little vacant land exists within the five nodes.
However, many businesses have room to expand under current zoning. Assuming a
constant floor area per job, 4,000 jobs could be created with the additional one million
square feet of floor area. This chart shows by commercial node location the existing floor
area as well as the total floor area that could be built under current zoning regulations. The
category called "Test zoning-added potential" refers to theoretical changes to the current
zoning if Lexington chose to increase commercial use intensity. The first condition of this
test zoning includes the theoretical elimination of the requirement for on-site parking in
Lexington Center. The second condition calls for an increase to a 50% allowable FAR. All
other zoning laws would remain the same.
Lexington has a strong capacity for directing its own economic future, given high demand for
location here and already powerful zoning and land use tools. The Town has exercised that
capacity in the past with decisions regarding the Center, and with the creation of large lot
industrial/office space, but excluding retail on Hayden and Hartwell.
GOALS AND ACTIONS
Four goals stand out as the reasons for the Town to engage in economic development.
• Provide fiscal support necessary for the high level of public services residents of Lexington
seek; a strong local economy can help.
• As some but not all of the businesses here do strongly, provide important services and
employment opportunities for Lexington residents
• Provide nearby jobs easily accessible to Lexington residents, important especially for some
whose mobility or time is limited
• Strengthen Lexington's sense of place and community
Specific implementation actions, stated here in barest summary, include these.
• Encourage economic development in ways that moderate auto usage and promote
accessibility to jobs and services for Lexington residents:
— Broaden allowed use of homes for work as well as living, reflecting new economic trends
and technologies
— Explore revising zoning to allow residential use in Lexington Center.
— Review zoning to identify impediments to mixed use elsewhere.
— Modernize CN District regulations; neighborhood stores, by definition, provide
accessibility by being near the residents they serve.
— Adopt a requirement that no large trip-producing use shall be allowed unless a showing
can be made that the trips the use will generate will be below that customarily expected
from that type of use.
— Explore transit-oriented design rules for commercial and industrial districts, especially
those along Hartwell and Hayden Avenues.
• Strengthen Lexington Center's retail service function through actions such as these.
— The Economic Development Office and others should be further supported in focusing
their efforts to support Center businesses of the kind being sought.
— Ease the inadvertent regulatory impediments to changing between categories of use in the
Center, which discourage retailing in favor of non-retail uses.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The Town of Lexington decided in the past few years to prepare a new comprehensive plan
(ComPlan), something that the town had not had since the 1960's. This initiative emanated from the
Planning Board and Town Meeting. While well known for zoning and policy innovations over the
years, Lexington did not have a policy document with the sweeping and long-term purview of a new
community plan. Earlier efforts between 1996 and 2000 (see paragraph to follow) segued into the
more detailed ComPlan in 2001 under the aegis of the Planning Board, with four of the statutorily-
required elements proceeding at that time.
The four planning elements that follow Land Use, Natural And Cultural Resources, Housing and
Economic Development, are the beginning of a broad statement of collective intentions about the
kind of town that those involved want Lexington to be. It both frames overarching policy and
outlines the specific actions for implementation. This work builds upon a strong planning legacy
that reaches from the Town's pioneering efforts in the early 20t' century to the more contemporary
Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) Report of the mid-1990s, and the Board of Selectman's
ongoing Vision 2020 strategic planning process that was begun in 1999.
Over that entire period, Lexington's growth and change have been guided thoughtfully and
creatively in a process to which the preparation of these four elements is one more contribution.
This effort will be followed by many others, most immediately by preparation of the remaining
elements included in the current statutory outline of what constitutes a comprehensive plan. These
include Transportation and Public Facilities, along with an overall Implementation piece. An Open
Space Plan is also part of the document, but this piece has been left for its traditional steward, the
Conservation Commission.
The current effort has been carried out under the direction of the Planning Board, assisted by a
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) created by the Board, and supported by staff and
consultants. These four elements were adopted by the Planning Board on January 30, 2002. This
Plan will not be a law or regulation or a commitment to funding or organizational change, but it will
provide guidance for all of those, reflecting agreement about intentions among those it is hoped will
carry out the Plan.
The Lexington which people want has been revealed in many ways through this planning work,
importantly including a range of public activities ranging from small early morning meetings to
large evening forums. There is a healthy diversity of views on the particulars of that future vision,
but there is a clear thread on which there is wide agreement. For example,the LRPC identified four
"Core Values"which continue to have salience: these include: 1) quality public education; 2)
preservation of a level of open space that maintains our"semi-rural" character; 3) a public safety
establishment which enables Lexingtonians both to be safe and feel safe; and 4) affordability to the
point where we can maintain and enhance our economic diversity.1
Strikingly,the "Town-Wide Vision Statement"for the Lexington of 2020, as earlier articulated by
the Vision 2020 Core Participants Group, can equally well stand as a vision for this work on the
i✓✓LRPC Draft Report,
9April
1996,page 1-1 (Strategic Planning and Implementation Group).
Comprehensive Plan. That congruence in values expressed provides an affirmation for both efforts,
so it is repeated here in the form of an excerpt from the CPG Town-Wide Vision Statement
(Written in 2000 as if in the year 2020):
The Town of Lexington prides itself on being a great place to live. Residents and visitors
alike characterize it as a vibrant and active community, which places a high value on
learning at all ages. Its residents and employees welcome the diversity of people who are
attracted to Lexington and choose to call it their home and/or place of employment.
Lexington is, and will stay, a primarily residential community with a tradition of offering
quality, broad-reaching municipal services. It is committed to preserving and maintaining a
sense of community that includes its historic tradition, its public and private open spaces,
and its public support for civic life. It strives, however, to maintain a range of affordability.
Residents recognize that these qualities are always difficult to balance.
An open and structured process of community conversation and long-term planning help the
town remain forward-looking. Major elements, which are consistently addressed and
evaluated, include: fiscal responsibility; sustainability of natural and human resources;
transportation issues; education; and regional cooperation and integration. Residents are
invested in and rely on this process as they reconcile competing needs and interests.2
Each planning element begins with a discussion of background information, sets goals and
objectives, describes a strategy for approaching those objectives, then lays out an agenda of
implementing actions to be taken or at least explored. A final section summarizes those actions and
organizes them by the board, official, or committee that is to initiate their implementation. Some
actions by their nature appear in multiple elements. As a result, much of the Land Use element is an
abbreviated restatement of initiatives more fully outlined in the other three elements. Sustainability
was such a pervasive but complex theme that it is further discussed in an Appendix.
There similarly will be convergence between some items in these elements and actions not yet
developed in the ComPlan elements still to come in the Planning Board's initiative: Transportation,
Public Services and Facilities, and an integration of Implementing efforts. For that reason, the Plan
cannot be 100% adopted until the completion of those remaining elements, even then recognizing
that no plan of this kind is ever "Final," and that the process of thoughtful and creative guidance for
Lexington will continue to evolve after that.
Most of these actions entail significant consensus building, research and technical analysis, crafting
of the product and negotiating of the twists and turns of public process. These realities demand the
participation of multiple supporting parties. The job of moving forward with initiatives from the
ComPlan over the next few years is too formidable to lie solely with any one board, department or
committee. Although state law requires municipalities to engage in long range planning, it puts few
teeth into the enforcement and realization of that dictum. In the end, then, the document is only as
useful as the desire of people in those communities to see the proposals press ahead.
2 Lexington 2020 Vision:A Status Report of the Planning Process,Executive Summary&Volume 1, January 2000,
page ii.
BACKGROUND
Each element of the Comprehensive Plan proposes policies and actions that, when implemented,
would have major consequences for land use, and many of those actions rely upon land use
interventions as a means of achieving their goals. Land use is not only the physical trace of
activity; it also can be the medium through which our goals in diverse sectors are reconciled and
achieved
CURRENT LAND USE
Lexington's land use pattern faithfully reflects the history of the Town's periods of greatest
growth. The result is a"classic" suburban community form that serves the Town well today.
• A clear and dominant Town civic and commercial center, focused on the historic railroad
depot, reached by a radial local street network.
• Areas of relatively compact residential development closely surrounding that dominant
center, plus a second one in East Lexington.
• Lower-density residential uses elsewhere, having rich variations in character from place to
place that help to give identity to the Town's neighborhoods, differing in typical lot sizes,
house sizes, house styles, extent of tree cover, and other characteristics.
• Neighborhood identity and convenience further strengthened by the location and function of
a number of commercial sub-centers across the Town.
• Major office and research and development uses oriented to regional expressways, chiefly
near the Town's perimeter.
• Protected open space laced through that pattern, reflecting where valued natural resources are
located more than adhering to any preconceived land use form, such as a"greenbelt."
Those are land use qualities that are widely sought by other towns, but few communities have
them to the same extent that Lexington enjoys.
;�. '. �5 i• Ili-.
i
S.
r:NnrW;t.rX.ffi.^n
t
Table L1. LEXINGTON LAND USE 2000
Categories I Acres %
COMMITTED PARCELS BY LAND USE
Residential 4,600 44.3%
Business 700 6.7%
Public, semi-public 3,000 28.9%
Other 1,500 14.4%
Subtotal 9,800 94.3%
UNCOMMITTED PARCELS
Buildable
R Zones 370 3.6%
C Zones 30 0.3%
Both 390 3.8%
Unbuildable
R Zones 220 2.1%
C Zones 20 0.2%
Both 240 2.3%
Uncommitted Subtotal 590 5.7%
TOTAL LAND 10,390 100.0%
Chart L1.
EXISTING LAND USE
Parcel acres, Lexington 2000
Vacant
Residential
Other
Public +
Business
Source: Lexington Assessor's data+Planning staff preliminary analysis.
"Other"comprises streets plus other acreage not included in Assessor's records.
"Public&semi-public" includes land publicly owned or otherwise tax-exempt, including Conservation land.
"Vacant' and"uncommitted" are the same.
C2� , z//. � 2OD2
FUTURE LAND USE
The eras of major Town form-shaping are past for Lexington, along with most of the Town's
vacant and developable land. Lexington's land use questions now largely center on succession
uses: already developed land again being developed or otherwise changed from one active use to
another, or simply intensifying in the same use.
About 600 acres of developable land remain in vacant parcels for potential development out of
the Town's 10,000 total acres of land, along with a significant amount of"underdeveloped" land
within already developed parcels. Less than 10% of the land in uncommitted parcels is in
commercial zones. Vacant land as zoned might accommodate an addition of about 900 dwelling
units, and some of that potential capacity is likely to be put to other uses, importantly including
open space conservation. Despite that small amount of vacant land, home-building might average
close to 100 units per year for several decades as new homes replace older ones on the same
land, and added dwelling units are created within existing houses or through similar intensifying
reuse. That process commonly raises concerns over mansionization, damage to neighborhood
character, loss of relatively modest housing, and stress on infrastructure.
Similarly, a great deal of additional business floor area could be built within the Town Center
although there is virtually no vacant land there. Increased floor area would largely occur through
addition to or replacement of existing structures, presumably supported by structured parking. hi
outlying commercial areas the potential for additional activity through use succession and
expansion is tightly limited under current zoning, but would be very large if zoning's
dimensional rules were to be altered to allow growth to occur.
Although there is little remaining acreage in undeveloped parcels, there are a large number of
sites in Lexington on which there is significant potential for building. On such sites, lot area,
frontage, and buildable land suffice to make development or substantial expansion possible, even
though on many of those sites some development already exists. Close to 400 such sites have
been identified and reviewed by the Lexington planning staff, and 150 of those sites that are
undeveloped or conspicuously under-developed by market and zoning norms have been
inventoried. Those studies make clear that such sites are widely distributed throughout the Town,
and not concentrated in only a few areas.
Thirty-five of the larger private sites were selected for more detailed analysis. Using the 1997
Lexington Open Space Plan, topographic maps, the Massachusetts GIS system, visual inspection
and other sources, these 35 sites were studied and determined to constitute an inventory of the
larger private sites in the community that are considered to be most vulnerable to development.
These parcels range from the most environmentally fragile ones needing priority acquisition, to
those that can accommodate development, but only with imposition of special protective
controls. The Town's present regulatory kit contains tools that enable landowners to achieve the
"best case" futures for those parcels. However, there are only weak incentives for owners to do
so, since the tools are passive and not obligatory. As a result, many, if not most, of the studied
sites are highly vulnerable to development of a kind or extent that would depart from the Town's
apparent interests.
�Zl� 7
The overriding assumption in these 35 parcels is that there will never be enough funding to
acquire all of them. Indeed, there may never be sufficient resources to purchase all of the highest
priority sites alone. The strategy, then, is to aggressively employ a hierarchy of regulatory tools
to partially preserve vulnerable lands. Some of these approaches will require the passage of
regulatory amendments or other initiatives by the Town.
CATEGORIZATION OF STUDY SITES
Category Number Acres Description
of sites
Critical Preservation 8 137 Designated for preservation rather than
development. Taken directly from the Lexington
Open Space Plan, highest priority acquisition
category.
Highly Sensitive — Open 12 230 Residential use possible, but only with clustered
Space Residential (zoning housing and lowest feasible densities, as well as
amendment needed) preservation of highest quality open space that
exceeds minimum requirements. Needs an
enhanced preservation tool for highly sensitive
sites that are not practical for acquisition.
Cluster usually preferred 11 181 Benefits accrue from clustering, but with less of
an imperative than for above cases. Cluster
provisions as they now stand are adequate to
accommodate this category of development.
Innovation sites 4 32 Complex opportunities, possibly including mixed
use, with widely varying combinations of
residential and commercial or office activity
closely fitted to the particular site(s). Locations
must be chosen with care, scaled (down) to
Lexington character and possibly linked to transit,
where possible. Enhanced regulatory tools might
be needed, or, at a minimum, some amendments
to the use regulations in zoning.
Total 35 581 All sites are constrained by environmental,
locational, or cultural concerns.
Mar
RESOURCES FOR MANAGEMENT
The Town manages land use change through many means. A widely respected array of land use
regulations is one of them. Among other regulations, town meeting-adopted bylaws govern
zoning, wetland protection, building in historic districts, and building demolitions, joined by
Planning Board-adopted subdivision regulations, Board of Health regulations, and many others.
Town investments in infrastructure further shape land use, whether through utilities enabling
compact development or off-street parking supporting a dominant Town center. Finally, the
Town itself is a major user of land, whether for active use such as Public Works facilities or
inactive use such as conservation land. Bringing all of those ways of managing use into
harmonious directions is a central purpose of this planning.
A major consideration in managing land use is the context at state and regional levels within
which the Town must operate. State enabling laws in many cases narrowly prescribe what
localities may do, including vested rights rules, limitations on residential controls, and rules
about the status of old roads. Chapter 40B allows local zoning to be ignored when developing
affordable housing, while other State legislation trammels Town authority regarding utilities,
churches, and schools. On the other hand, the State also contributes to effective land
management through its highly sophisticated wetlands controls, administered locally; MEPA
review of most large developments; air quality measures; and other devices that, with skill, can
become part of a town's strategy for management.
At the regional level, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has worked for decades to
promote better-structured regional development, including efforts through its Minuteman sub-
area planning group known as MAGIC. However, like most other Massachusetts regional
planning agencies, the MAPC lacks sufficient authority to have had as much impact as many
would hope. The HATS (Hanscom Area Towns) four-town planning group has recently
established an advisory project review process for Developments of Regional Importance
(DRIB), but has neither staff nor authority.
�° �l Zl� �� 11
Chart L2.
LAND ALLOCATION
Lexington Historic and Projections
1,400 .. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...
1,200
1,000
N
N
A 800
A
v
A
v 600
C
A
J
400
200
0
1990-2000 Historic 2001-2020 Alternate 2001-2020
Available @ end ■Conserved Developed
Table L2. LAND FOR HOMES AND CONSERVATION
Buildable land acres
200 2020
1990-2000 Historic1 - Alternate
Initially available 1,347 747 747
Develo ed 411 412 332
Conserved 168 168 349
Available period end 747 183 93
Table L3. DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED
2001 -2020
1990-2000 1 Historic I Alternate
Housinq units constructed 730 1 300 1 100
On new land 500 500 400
lAccessory 301 80 100
Re Iacement 210 730 600
Analytic s\Perm its-1-3!DataBld
�° �l Zl� �� 13
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Town's goals for economic development, housing, and natural and cultural resources all
become goals for land use, as well. They include these.
• Housing that is supportive of a community that is diverse in various ways, socially and
economically.
• Economic development consistent with other Town values, and that provides fiscal support
for Lexington's high level of services, provides services and opportunities for residents,
provides nearby jobs for those for whom that is important and strengthens Lexington's sense
of place and community.
• Protection for and promotion of the character and beauty of the landscape and community.
• Thoughtful and responsible relationship to both local and regional resources, including a
responsible level of consistency with the principles of sustainability, even beyond that
already established.
Achieving all of those diverse goals requires a creative balancing of interests that are affected by
land use decisions. Some numbers can help understanding what "balance" now means for
Lexington.
Given no change in Town policies and growth management actions, housing
development and new open space protection are likely to continue to annually claim
shares of the Town's declining total of uncommitted land at rates as projected based on
the history of the past twenty years. Under those assumptions, less than 15% of the
currently uncommitted land would remain uncommitted after another twenty years. For
every acre of land protected as open space during that period, more than 2 acres would
have been developed. The added protected open space would reach less than half the total
acreage sought for protection by the Land Acquisition Planning Subcommittee of the
Conservation Commission, an objective incorporated in the Vision 2020 "Managing
Growth"report.
A more aggressive "Alternate" scenario is possible, and has been quantitatively
simulated. In it the annual percentage rate at which open space is protected is increased to
the rate necessary to reach the 350-acre objective of the Town's earlier open space
planning. The assumed rate of housing demolition and replacement was reduced to reflect
possible stronger Town regulatory intervention, and the rate of development of accessory
dwelling units was increased by a third to reflect possible regulatory revisions. The
results are illustrated in Chart L2 and Tables L2 and L3 on the preceding pages. They
illustrate the range of potential differences in land development that policy choice might
make, even at this "mature" stage in the Town's development. Under the "Alternate"
scenario, land build-out is much more nearly reached in twenty years than it is under the
status quo, but the amount of land protected during that period is more than doubled.
Land consumed by development is reduced by about a quarter. Housing construction on
new land and on "tear-down" lots both decline significantly. Those results demonstrate
that it is not yet too late to act strongly, should the Town choose to do so.
Another quantitative way of considering land use and "balance" deals with jobs and labor
force. Maintaining a stable relationship of local jobs to local labor force—jobs within the
Town growing at about the same rate as the number of resident workers — could be
achieved consistent with either of the above land use allocation scenarios, should the
Town so choose. The implication of commitment to such "balance" would mean no more
than modest growth for either housing or jobs.
Achieving the Town's land use goals also requires more than the above.
— Most of Lexington's "classic" land use characteristics should be maintained: a vibrant
and dominant Town Center, surrounded with compact residential neighborhoods; major
office and research and development uses oriented to regional expressways, the diversity
of neighborhood character protected and strengthened.
— The relationship between transportation and land use must be creatively addressed, since
no other single concern is so limiting on acceptability of land use change, or as
threatening to the residential quality of life.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
The following are some aspects of the strategies for implementing land use goals.
❖ Achieving the goals that have been identified requires skillfully managing growth and
development. It certainly doesn't require stopping change, nor does it necessarily entail
substantially increasing the amount of development that will occur. Something more than the
blunt tool of stopping bad things or pursuing tax-lucrative growth is required to address the
subtler issues that Lexington faces. That places a premium on innovation, since the Town is
aiming high in what it wants to achieve.
❖ Lexington's Vision 20/20 strategic planning program urged that the Town practice
exemplary open, accessible and strategic processes. Those qualities do not often characterize
land use control, but to succeed in 21" Century Lexington it is essential to make them part of
its land use management approach.
❖ Given Lexington's circumstances, it makes sense to use incentives and land market power to
support Town objectives, rather than relying only on further regulatory impositions. We
should move towards a sense of partnership among those proposing development, those most
affected by it, and those in government, all working together.
❖ Land uses and their locations should be shaped to serve the interests of the Town's residents.
These are some of the ways of doing that.
— Doing what we can to have businesses that importantly provide goods and services to
residents, rather than just incidentally to a wider specialized market;
— Doing what we can to site businesses with sensitivity to residential concerns, making
them easier to reach and less intrusive on residential values;
— Doing what we can to encourage businesses whose employment opportunities include
ones creating opportunities for those persons whose mobility for reaching jobs is limited.
The more specific means of implementing those strategies include some that are familiar. Mixed-
use, for example, has become a standard part of planner's agendas. Mixed use is often difficult to
actually implement, but it is so promising that it deserves prominent inclusion. Even the
continuation of local agriculture can be an important strategy towards a number of our goals.
Another newly standard planner's tool is "transit-oriented development," commonly but
mistakenly dismissed as pointless in communities such as Lexington where the trains stopped
some decades ago, but where the potential for improving the efficiency of movements through
newer means is urgent and is strongly dependent upon appropriate land use design.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Major departures from the present pattern of land uses, densities, and the present land
management system should occur only for important reasons, and then with as much
predictability as possible. As noted earlier, the Town's land use pattern largely serves us
well, and there is a great deal of reliance by both public and private parties on the future
largely resembling the past, given the mature status of land development in Lexington.
Among other things, that means generally making no more than marginal changes to
configuration of commercial zones versus residential zones on the Zoning Map. Achieving
the balance that is sought among residential, business and open space uses will require
creative efforts to find sufficient means of securing the amount of open space that is sought,
but no changes in the extent of land zoned residentially or for commerce is required for the
desired outcome. Changing conditions might lead to reasonable proposals for change from
one type of commercial district to another or to proposals for marginal revisions to the
configuration of such districts. However, there is no anticipation that new commercial
districts will be created at any location within the Town, or that existing ones will be
substantially expanded. As described in the Economic Development element, the current
configuration of zoning districts nicely matches the Town's intent.
1.1 Build policy guidance for change where regulations now provide unusual flexibility,
without losing the benefits that come with, among other things, the opportunities the
present structure provides for a clear and place-responsive voice on development for the
town meeting. The Planned Commercial district (CD) system in effect invites
development to depart from the provisions of the existing zoning, with virtually no
constraints as long as town meeting agrees. Results to date have been sufficiently
beneficial not to suggest revising the rules, but two considerations raise concerns. First,
the predictability about change that would serve all parties is notably absent: the Bylaw
only predicts that town meeting will set the rules. That uncertainty can lead to dispute,
deadlock, and disappointment. Second, the invitation for change departing from current
rules eventually gets built into real estate expectations. At that point, land values reflect
the expectation that current limits can be changed favorably for development, resulting in
land prices that make development conforming to the current rules at least difficult, often
impossible.
The Planned Residential district (RD) system is similar, although somewhat more
restrained. It has a system of indirect density control through limitations on height and
impervious coverage that aren't open to project-by-project departures, but there is broad
flexibility for individual projects regarding the type of housing that will be developed.
When approved by town meeting, multifamily housing could apparently be developed at
about ten times the usually expected density of single-family housing. Again, this system
raises concerns over uncertainty and the escalation of land values based upon land market
expectations that departure from basic zoning will be allowed, in turn making the
departure a prerequisite to any development at all.
No document such as this Plan can bind the discretion of a legislative body such as town
meeting. However, the Plan certainly can articulate expectations that may help give
guidance to both those considering the proposal of new CD or RD districts and to those
whose vicinity would potentially be affected by adoption of such districts. These are a
beginning.
(a) Creation of either a Planned Commercial (CD) or Planned Residential (RD) district
should, except in the most unusual circumstances, respect the following.
— The proposal should, if involving or abutting resources either previously
identified by the Conservation Commission as being of high priority for
acquisition or previously identified by the Historical Commission as a
"Significant Building," make provision for meeting the intent of those
designations.
— The proposal should in demonstrable ways advance the principles of
sustainability beyond the level expected without rezoning approval.
(b) Creation of a Planned Commercial (CD) district should, except in the most unusual
circumstances, respect the following.
The location should primarily lie within an area already in a Commercial or
Planned Development district, and if extending beyond such an area, avoid
increasing the length of arterial street frontage within such districts.
�Zl� 17
— The proposal should clearly advance the intentions articulated in the Economic
Development Element of this Plan.
(c) Creation of a Planned Residential (RD) district should, except in the most unusual
circumstances, respect the following.
— The district and proposal size, location, and proposed housing type or mix of
housing types should be consistent with the intention that housing which departs
from Lexington's single-family norm should occur in a dispersed pattern across
the Town rather than being concentrated into large single-type districts.
— The proposal should be consistent with the objectives specified at Section 9.1.1
(Residential Development Objectives) of the Zoning Bylaw.
— The proposal should clearly advance the intentions articulated in the Housing
Element of this Plan, in particular, the inclusion of units that serve to broaden
housing opportunities.
Finally, the adoption of performance-based controls, as proposed at many points in this Plan,
will give further assurance about outcomes not just in terms of changes in zoning districts but
in the consequences of those changes.
1.2 Establish policy that in acting on the disposition of "surplus" public land (e.g. tax title
parcels, Met State land when it is transferred), priority should be given to the two uses for
which land is key: diversity-serving housing and preservation of important open spaces.
1.3 Wherever possible, implement changes in land management approaches through
adaptation of existing systems rather than creation of new ones. For example, the
improved guidance for business development that is proposed in a number of these
elements might be achieved by drawing on the residential "Developments with
Significant Public Benefit" (Zoning Section 9.6) approach as a model for framing parallel
provisions for commercial development.
1.4 Explore the Zoning Bylaw for opportunities to improve the speed and predictability of
decisions through making decision standards more specific. Coupled with that, explore
the appropriateness of enabling more development applications to be acted upon without
need for special permit review and its related uncertainties and time requirements where
doing so results in no loss of assurance of strong compliance. Few communities are as
near-universal as Lexington in requiring special permits, which it does for all residential
development of more than two dwelling units, and nearly all non-residential development
of more than 10,000 square feet floor area. Some bases for permit decisions have
objectively measurable standards in the Zoning, but many do not. An example is the
sweeping requirement that uses not be "disturbing, detrimental or hazardous ... by reason
of special danger of fire, explosion, pollution of the water ways or ground water,
corrosive or toxic fumes or materials, excessive heat, smoke, soot, obnoxious dust or
glare...excessive noise or vibration" and so forth (Section 4.2 Line 18.2). Many of those
Id, �Zl�
considerations and others could be and in some communities are expressed as
performance standards. Doing so would enable less unpredictable and judgmental
outcomes. For some circumstances that certainty might allow decisions to be made as a
matter of right rather than as a matter of administrative discretion.
2. Give priority attention to actions serving objectives under multiple Plan elements.
2.1 Manage land use to moderate dependence on auto usage and improve mobility by other
means, thereby reducing traffic and its consequences, addressing a major concern over
development, and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels. This same intention has been
expressed in the Housing, Economic Development, and Natural and Cultural Resources
elements. These are among the land use actions identified for addressing that intention.
(a) Facilitate mixed uses. Bringing different land use activities together makes non-auto
access easier and shortens auto travel when it occurs, even in the small increments
that are all that can be expected in the Lexington context. Among the steps suggested
in those elements are these.
— Allow and perhaps provide incentives for residential uses in the Center.
— More generously allow various forms of low- or no-commute housing, such as
home occupations and other forms of live/work arrangements.
— Reconsider Neighborhood Commercial zoning to encourage more neighborhood
stores and an updated array of allowed uses, enabling such areas to better serve as
service centers for their neighborhoods, without being expanded.
— Reexamine commercial regulations to remove impediments to clustered mixed
use, including retail.
(b) Relate density & transportation. More a policy than an action step, the density/land
use connection is so important it deserves restatement. Where transportation services
and facilities are most robust, densities higher than elsewhere may often be
appropriate, except where precluded by existing traffic.
(c) Strengthen Transportation Demand Management. Commitments to management
efforts to reduce transportation demand are commonly obliged as a part of the land
use permitting process, but in Lexington, the effectiveness of that has been
questionable. The system deserves reconsideration, moving from an emphasis on
providing resources for mitigation of the harm done by traffic towards incentives for
reducing the amount of traffic that is created in the first place. Such actions might
include regional approaches that are of a non-regulatory and pro-active nature, and
support for transit links, car/van pools, ride guarantees, zip car franchises where there
is critical mass, etc.
(d) Refine zoning and subdivision controls to facilitate access by means other than
single-occupant autos. As cited in other elements, current provisions deserving
reconsideration in those codes are the requirement of 100 foot deep front yards in
some locations, and only minimal provisions regarding access by pedestrians,
bicycles, van pools, or ridesharing.
(e) Accommodate tour buses. Looking on the positive side, tour buses enable more
people to enjoy Lexington's heritage resources with fewer vehicle trips and space
allocation for parking than would be true in their absence. Facilitating tour buses is a
key land use-related action.
2.2 Manage land use to facilitate meeting housing objectives as described in the housing
element, such as these.
(a) Provide incentives for small-scale age-restricted housing.
(b) Explore refining restrictions on creation of added dwelling units within existing
dwellings, such as through accessory apartments, to somewhat increase the current
average of only three such units being granted permits per year.
(c) Facilitate conversion of non-residential structures to residential use.
(d) Provide both mandates and incentives for development of affordable housing.
2.3 Manage land use to protect open space, as provided in the Natural and Cultural Resources
element, such as these.
(a) Gain a local financial commitment for funding of open space acquisition through one
means or another, whether through the Community Preservation Act, capital facilities
plan reservation, or other means. Seek to protect at least a third of the remaining
acreage of uncommitted land, giving priority to holdings serving biodiversity
objectives.
(b) Improve impervious coverage controls, refining how limits are established, especially
for cluster development, and then extending such controls to non-residential and
"conventional"residential development.
(c) Explore measuring and controlling "density" in trips per acre as well as in floor area
per acre, then obliging high trip-density uses to offset that with open space
contributions.
(d) Enhance existing cluster provisions, adding a lower-density but possibly by-right
cluster option as a true open space residential provision.
2.4 Manage land use to encourage compactness.
(a) Strongly encourage or mandate clustering of development.
(b) Adopt open space requirements and incentives for new construction, including in
"conventional" subdivisions.
2.5 Manage land use to reduce encroachment on or degradation of natural systems.
(a) Consider providing incentives for development that has low non-renewable energy
demand and other resource-efficient design approaches. National green building
design standards such as the Green Building Rating System of LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design, a respected international organization) or
currently proposed Massachusetts green design standards could be included among
the special permit criteria by which projects are judged. The benefits to Lexington
could include improved air quality through reduced emissions, healthy interior
environments, and lower power requirements and costs, as well as making a
contribution towards broader environmental goals.
(b) Use Town facilities & operations as a demonstration of good resource efficiency and
waste reduction practices. Through its own example, the Town could encourage its
citizens and businesses to reduce costs through reducing solid waste generated,
increasing the recycling rate, or making use of renewable energy sources.
2.6 Manage land use to protect the special character and qualities of Lexington.
(a) Adopt provisions to control the adverse aspects of out-of-scale houses. The
consequences of intrusion of incongruously large new houses into established
neighborhood contexts include damage to visual character, change in social character,
and often results in extensive disruption of the existing fabric of the natural
environment. When that process displaces existing homes, the consequences also
include loss of relatively modest-priced housing resources, and sometimes loss of
highly valuable architectural and other cultural resources. A range of approaches have
been outlined in both the Housing element and the Natural and Cultural Resources
element.
(b) Seek a role in land use management at Hanscom. While controversy over air carrier
operations claims headlines, the impacts of other activity there are also of major
concern, especially the traffic impacts of access over Lexington roads to Hanscom-
based office and research facilities. All possible avenues for exerting influence over
those activities should be explored, including creative use of existing land use
authority, and the seeking of both local and regional voice in on-base land use
management.
(c) Manage expanses of asphalt. Experience with the detailed landscaping requirements
of current zoning (Section 11.7.9) suggests that they deserve reexamination,
especially in the case of very large parking fields, where the plantings required have
proven inadequate to overcome the appearance of an unbroken sea of cars and
asphalt. The appropriate remedy in some cases may go beyond landscaping to include
breaking up parking areas into smaller areas, separated by structures or extensive
green areas to maintain appropriate scale.
(d) Explore techniques for preservation and strengthening of the diverse character that
distinguishes one Lexington neighborhood from another. Possibilities include
creating zoning sub-districts within the RO and RS districts with rules that vary to
reflect the exiting differences, as well as the kinds of architectural controls explored
in the Natural and Cultural Resources element.
(e) Explore how best to encourage businesses that provide goods and services to
residents or that offer employment opportunities especially well suited for mobility-
limited residents. Perhaps the concept of "developments with significant public
benefit" (Zoning Section 9.6) can incorporate this consideration.
3. Maintain a well-structured overview of land use change, and refine course accordingly. It is
critical in times of rapid change that there is an ongoing systematic reexamination of the
consistency between the Town's actions and its stated policies. These items are of special
significance.
3.1 Assure that the results of density increases and land use change authorized by rezoning or
special permit taken together over time maintain the "balance" between residential and
non-residential growth cited above. If over time, departures from the policy are
frequently approved, the policy itself should be revisited and following public discussion
it should be either revised or better adhered to.
3.2 Periodically review success in linking land use and the principles of sustainability, as
discussed in "The Lexington We Want," and identify any steps which might strengthen
how Lexington's ability to be selective in its land use development and its interests in
sustainability are being joined.
Parcel Key
Site Name Legend CONCORD AVE CONSERVATION LAND 43
10 PELHAM RD 1 CRANBERRY HILL 44
11 LARCH MONT LAN 2 DAISY WILSON MEADOW 45
110 SHADE ST 3 DIAMOND MIDDLE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 46
116 VINE ST 4 DPW LAND 47
1265 MASS AVE 5 DUNBACK MEADOWS 48
167 CEDAR ST 6 EMERY PARK 49
171 WOBURN ST 7 ESTABROOK SCHOOL PLAY AREA 50
202 CEDAR ST 8 FISKE HILL CONSERVATION 51
241 GROVE ST 9 FISKE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 52
33 MARRETT RD 10 FIVE FIELDS 53
336-342 BEDFORD 11 FRANKLIN FIELD 54
39 HIGHLAND AVE 12 FREEMONT ST. PLAY AREA 55
397 LINCOLN ST 13 GARFIELD ST. PLAY AREA 56
430 CONCORD ST 14 GROVE ST - CARCH 57
435-443 LINCOLN 15 HAMMERHILL CONSERVATION LAND 58
45 CONCORD AVE 16 HARRINGTON SCHOOL PLAY AREA 59
540 LOWELL ST 17 HARTWELL AVE 60
643 WALTHAM ST 18 HASTINGS PARK 61
675 WALTHAM ST - GOLF COURSE 19 HASTINGS SANCTUARY 62
69 PLEASANT ST 20 HASTINGS SCHOOL PLAY AREA 63
877 WALTHAM ST 21 HAYDEN RECREATIONAL CENTER 64
93 HANCOCK ST 22 HAYDEN WOODS 65
959 WALTHAM ST 23 HENNESSEY LAND 66
ADAMS PLAY AREA 24 HILL ST - RUGE 67
ALLEN ST/WALTHA 25 HOBBS BROOK CONSERVATION 68
BASKIN PLAYGROUND 26 HOBBS BROOK RESERVATION 69
BATES ROAD CONSERVATION LAND 27 IDYLWILDE 70
BELFREY HILL 28 IVAN &JUSTIN ST PLAY AREA 71
BELMONT SPRINGS CC 29 IVAN ST. CONSERVATION LAND 72
BENNINGTON ST 30 JERRY CATALDO RESERVATION 73
BLOSSOM ST. FIELD 31 JUNIPER HILL 74
BOSTON EDISON EASEMENT 32 JUSTIN/BERNARD CONS LAND 75
BOWMAN PARK 33 KATAHDIN WOOD 76
BOWMAN SCHOOL 34 KINNEEN PARK 77
BOWMAN SCHOOL PLAY AREA 35 LACONIA SCHOOL SITE 78
BRIDGE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 36 LEX. BATTLE GREEN 79
BROOKHAVEN CONSERVATION LAND 37 LEXINGTON CLUB 80
BROWN HOMESTEAD 38 LEXINGTON GOLF CLUB 81
BURLINGTON STRIP 39 LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 82
CAMBRIDGE WATER BASIN 40 LIBERTY HEIGHTS 83
CHIESA MEADOW 41 LINCOLN ST PLAY AREA 84
CLARKE MIDDLE SCHOOL PLAY AREA 42 LOWELL ST - BU 85
LOWER VINE BROOK 86 VALLEY ROAD 129
MARRETT RD - DAI 87 VALLEYFIELD PLAY AREA 130
MARVIN ST. PLAY AREA 88 VYNE BROOK VILLAGE 131
MEAGHERVILLE 89 WALTHAM ST. FARM 132
MET STATE HOSPITAL 90 WEST FARM 133
MIDDLESEX CO HOSPITAL 91 WESTVIEW CEMETERY 134
MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HIST PARK 92 WHIPPLE HILL 135
MINUTEMAN BIKE PATH 93 WILLARD WOODS 136
MINUTEMAN VOC. TECH. SCHOOL 94 WOBURN ST -WIN 137
MUNROE SCHOOL 95 WOOD ST. CONSERVATION LAND 138
MUZZEY FIELD 96 WOODLAND BIRD SANCTUARY 139
NORTH ST. SAND PITS 97 GREY NUNS 151
OLD RESERVOIR 98
OXFORD ST. PLAY AREA 99
PAINT MINE AREA 100 Subdivision Legend
PARKER FIELD 101 POTTER POND 140
PARKER MEADOW CONS AREA 102 ORCHARD CROSSING 141
PARKER SCHOOL PLAY AREA 103 MASON'S HOLLOW 142
PEACOCK FARMS 104 CENTRE VILLAGE 143
PHEASANT BROOK 105 TURNBURRY HILL 144
PINE MEADOWS GOLF COURSE 106 MORROW CROSSING 145
PLEASANT ST -W 107 FISKE COMMON 146
POOR FARM 108 DRUMMER BOY 147
POPLAR ST. PLAY AREA 109 LEXINGTON PARK 148
RINDGE AVE PLAY AREA 110 COPPERSMYTHE WAY 149
SCHOOL SITE 111 OLD SMITH FARM 150
SCOTT ROAD CONSERVATION LAND 112
SHAKER GLEN 113
SIMONDS BROOK 114
STATE DPW1 115
STATE DPW2 116
SUN VALLEY POOL 117
SUTHERLAND PLAYGROUND 118
SUTHERLAND WOODS 119
SWAMMIN LAND 120
THE GREAT MEADOW 121
TOPHET SWAMP 122
TOWER PARK 123
TOWN LAND1 124
TOWN LAND2 125
TRACERLANE 126
TURNING MILL POND 127
UPPER VINE BROOK 128
BACKGROUND'
Lexington is a place of national significance because of the historic events that began here, and is
equally a place of regional significance because of some natural resource elements that begin
here. The Town gains extraordinary benefit from being where things begin, but that position also
carries extraordinary stewardship responsibilities. They deserve careful attention in the Town's
comprehensive planning.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Water Resources
Lexington has no rivers, only relatively small brooks and streams, because the Town is sited
straddling the divides among three watersheds. No extensive streams go through Lexington; they
all start here, traveling to the Merrimack River via the Shawsheen basin if originating in the
north, to Boston Harbor via the Mystic basin if originating in the east, and to Boston Harbor via
the Charles basin if originating in the south. Being at the beginning of river basins carries both
benefits and responsibilities.
❖ There has been no need in Lexington for building and maintaining major bridges to cross
waters. Lexington has no bridges, rude or not, for arching major floods (the Concord River
starts gathering water more than 20 miles away from Concord in Hopkinton, another three-
basin headwater town).
❖ Even Lexington's largest streams are of the scale that one clogged culvert or a family of
beavers can create flooding, but also are of a size that large-scale structural damage from
flooding is a smaller concern than is common further from headwaters. Lexington has its
' This material draws heavily upon the rich information resources of the 1997 Lexington Open Space and Recreation
Plan.
share of sometimes-flooded basements, but has no, even occasionally, raging torrents of
floodwater.
❖ For the same reason relatively low flows waterbodies in Lexington are more sensitive to
man's actions than is the case downstream where local impacts are diluted in larger volumes
of flowing water. Streamflows in Lexington are highly sensitive to changes intervening in the
water cycle, such as new impervious surface, causing streams to dry or flood or both.
Similarly, even relatively small amounts of contamination introduced into a small stream can
easily result in water qualities destructive to that stream's ability to function as a healthy
natural system.
❖ By virtue of being at the headwaters, water impacts that occur in Lexington continue to be of
consequence for many miles as the waters flow downstream. Among the downstream
resources affected by action or inaction in Lexington are the Arlington Reservoir and Hobbs
Brook Basin, one important as a recreation resource, the other as public water supply for
Cambridge. Via groundwater as well as surface flows, water flowing from Lexington
contributes to water supplies in Burlington, Bedford, and Woburn.
Lexington residents' use of potable water and disposal of used water are largely isolated from
those natural systems. Virtually 100% of the dwellings in Lexington are served by MWRA water
collected no nearer than Clinton, and all but about 6% of Lexington dwellings are served by
public sewerage disposed into the MWRA system2. Our own water and sewer service is
"invisible" and largely taken for granted. No raging floods occur nearby, and even water as a
recreational or scenic asset is a relatively small part of the Lexington environment. That probably
leads to less awareness of the significance of local actions for water in Lexington than would
otherwise be true, but, in fact, human actions in Lexington are of large importance to water
resources in the region, as well as being of significance locally, where flooding does occur to
some degree, and water quality is not always well maintained in streams and ponds.
2 Based on US Census of Housing 1990 data.
lye
/7 ��Cd � � ��27
Land and Vegetative Resources
Statistically, less than 1,000 acres of Lexington's land (out of about 11,000 acres in the Town)
remains undeveloped but developable, suggesting that the Town is essentially wholly built out.
Flying over the Town gives a very different impression. Lexington appears lushly green, with
discernable pockets of development, but the dominant impression is that of tree cover and
ground vegetation. Both of those views are correct. Virtually all of the Town's land resources are
to some degree now urbanized, but that urbanization exists within a vital and vitally important
natural context.
While nearly 1,000 acres remain developable, another 1,000 aces are unbuilt-on because they are
unbuildable, chiefly because of wetlands. Lexington's relatively flat topography and location
straddling watershed divides has resulted in extensive wetland areas that act as hugely productive
resources for the ecosystem, and even serve development by acting as sponges to mitigate both
flooding and dry spells. Some 1,300 acres, some of them included in the "unbuildable" count
above, have been protected through public or civic ownership and held as open space. That
acreage is not just a heritage from the distant past: most of it has been protected just in the past
four decades. Protected acreage nearly doubled in the past twenty-five years. Since 1985, in
Lexington, about 40% as much land has been added to the rolls of protected land as has been
developed.
In his 1961 book, Megalopolis, geographer Jean Gottman noted "The rockiest pasture ten miles
from Boston is more valuable than the blackest loam in central Illinois."3 He predicted the
persistence of agriculture in megalopitan (his term) areas, but only those types that could benefit
most from that locational value, especially nurseries serving homeowners, and greenhouse and
other space-intensive growing of crops for local sale. Those uses of land indeed persist in
Lexington. The acreage they involve is small, as is the dollar volume of their production in the
regional economy. However,they make vital contributions to the local quality of life, community
character, and by providing an otherwise missing element in the mix of terrestrial environments,
they can contribute to the local ecosystem as long as their practices reflect appropriate concern
about chemical intrusions.
Fisheries and Wildlife
Fish are stocked in the Old Reservoir and inhabit a variety of other locations where they play a
role in the ecological system, but are not noted as a recreational or food resource. A great variety
of mammals inhabit the Town to the increasing concern of many, since they prominently include
often-troublesome coyotes, skunks, raccoons, possum and occasional whitetail deer. They too
play roles in the balance of natural systems of which we are a large, and perhaps to those
mammals, troublesome, element. Lexington is host to a rich array of birds. Dunback Meadow is
a birding site of statewide significance. A number of rare species are, from time to time, found in
Lexington, deserving special care, including long-eared owls and spotted and wood turtles.
Jean Gottinan,Megalopolis, The Twentieth Century Fund,NY, 1961.
lye
The significance of wildlife to the Lexington environment underscores the importance of
protecting corridors for their movement among habitat areas. A number of critical corridors have
been identified in the 1997 Open Space Plan and targeted for special protection efforts.
Resources for Natural Resource Management
Responsibility for management of the Town's natural resources relies heavily upon the
Conservation Commission's authority, chiefly that of administering the State-adopted Wetlands
Protection Act and the companion Town Wetlands Bylaw, and enforcing compliance with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's stormwater management requirements.
The Town also relies upon the Commission's own initiatives, which go well beyond that to
include leadership in seeking acquisition of land and in public education. The Commission works
together with Citizens for Lexington Conservation and the Lexington Stewardship Committee in
its efforts. The Lexington Nature Trust and a variety of more localized trusts provide vehicles for
financing public interest efforts through private contributions.
Additional authority for natural resource management comes from a variety of local by-laws.
Those include the recently enacted Tree Bylaw and the many resource-protective elements of the
Town's Zoning By-law, including brook and pond setbacks (now overshadowed at many
locations by the Massachusetts River Protection Act), the Wetland Protection District, and the
Flood Hazard Insurance District.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Lexington's stewardship responsibility to its Revolutionary War heritage has clearly shaped the
course of development in the Town for two and a quarter centuries, and will clearly continue to
do so in the future. That stewardship responsibility has been executed with effective care.
History didn't stop being made in Lexington in 1775. The Town has other cultural resources
deserving of careful attention, and they,too, have drawn responsive efforts.
Listing of properties on the State or National Register gives recognition to their antiquity,
architecture, or associations as well as being a preservation aid. Designation as a National
Historic Landmark is an even more selective honor, being made directly by the Secretary of the
Interior. Most communities have no such Landmarks, but Lexington has four of them: Lexington
Green, Buckman Tavern, the Hancock-Clark House, and the Minuteman National Historic Park,
in a designation shared with Lincoln and Concord. Eight additional properties are individually
listed on the National Register, as are properties within five National Register Districts.
Approximately 600 properties are protected through inclusion within one or another of the
Town-established local historic districts.
The most recent National Register listing in Lexington was Metropolitan State Hospital in 1994,
and that complex may contain the most recently constructed structures to be listed in Lexington
(unless the Post Office holds that position). Change may be coming. Five Fields, designed and
developed by the Gropius-led Architects Collaborative, just celebrated its fiftieth anniversary,
making it of an age when it is normally eligible for consideration for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. Moon Hill, produced by the same acclaimed firm, is just a few years
older.
The cultural resources of Lexington deserving protection also include those of local importance
but that are not of major importance beyond the Town. For many, the character of their own
neighborhood is a cultural resource of great value to them, both deserving and needing protection
against erosion though destructive change. As noted in other elements of this Plan, steadily
growing demand for location in Lexington and dwindling "new land" for development places
many existing structures at risk of displacement, to say nothing of having inharmonious
development occur nearby. Among the neighborhoods that have been noted in this context are
Meriam Hill, Parker/Upper Clarke Street, Follen Hill, Peacock Farm, Moon Hill, and Five
Fields.
At even a more localized scale, there is large concern in Lexington that the character of many
individual streets or blocks is being damaged by the construction of new homes replacing older
ones. The new homes are commonly viewed as being both out of scale and out of context with
the established character of that location. That concern is common not only in Lexington but in
many communities facing development pressures like Lexington's. The prevalence of that
intrusive change is a legitimate public concern.
Resources For Management
The Town employs a powerful array of tools for managing its cultural resources. The Lexington
Historical Commission has prepared a nine-volume inventory of historical structures across the
Town, documenting more than a thousand structures. All of those buildings plus certain others
are protected against demolition until the Commission has reviewed that proposal and approved
it or ordered that it be delayed for a six month period to allow alternatives to be sought, including
rehabilitation.
Four contiguous local historic districts have been created by Town Meeting, extending along
Massachusetts Avenue from East Lexington to Worthen Road, and out Hancock Street to the
Hancock-Clarke premises, including a substantial area in Lexington Center. Within those
districts development (or demolition) may proceed only following determination of
appropriateness by the Lexington Historic District Commission.
Two advisory groups add to the process. The Design Advisory Committee brings professional
design expertise to assist Town agencies and those doing development in bringing new buildings,
signage, lighting, and other change into a good relationship with Lexington's special context. Its
success, through assistance, rather than regulation, has made it a model for other communities.
Similarly, the Lexington Center Committee, among other roles, provides input into design when
it involves the Center.
Two private non-profit organizations are of special note. The Lexington Historical Society plays
a number of key roles, not least through ownership of the Hancock-Clarke House and Munroe
Tavern and management of Buckman Tavern under lease from the Town. The National Heritage
lye
Museum provides resources and programs that nicely complement the cultural management
efforts of the Town.
The National Park Service is a key actor as an owner and resource steward for the Battle Road
Minuteman National Historic Park, and the educational efforts associated with it.
Chart R1
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION
Lexington 1963-2000
1,400
1 200
1,000
E
E
� 800
a
d
c 600
U
N
N
N
Q 400
200
0 1 oil I I I I oil I I I I oil K
^ill
^g� 1p, 1? 1P 4" 4' 1g 1 ^g^g ^gam^ 1$ 10 ^gam^ 1§1b 1* 101 10 IPA le
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In a refreshing departure from the usual verbiage, the Open Space Plan cites protection of the
physical beauty of the landscape and community as one of its basic goals. That equally deserves
inclusion as a goal in this Comprehensive Plan as well. "Beauty" is a word that often sparks
derision and debate in planning and design circles, but beauty clearly motivates a significant part
of our concerns for both natural and cultural resources. Some will argue that it is not necessary to
pursue "beauty" as an end in itself since if we manage well from other perspectives, the
outcomes will as a result be perceived as "beautiful." So be it. We shall nevertheless
acknowledge this as a goal, alongside managing well from other perspectives.
The Open Space Plan states as a goal the protection of the region's (our emphasis) vital natural
habitats and biodiversity. To that we would simply add "cultural resources." The Background
discussion above makes clear how interrelated Lexington's resources are with those of its region.
The Battle Road does not stop in East Lexington or at Fiske Hill, any more than Vine Brook dies
at the Middlesex Turnpike. Our actions need to take neighbors into account and, where
appropriate, be executed in unison with them.
The goal of local as well as global sustainability is applicable to all elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, but its salience is especially clear for this element. "Sustainability" means
meeting present as well as future human needs, while using resources efficiently, fairly, and
within Nature's means. The four key principles for achieving that are to meet human needs fairly
and efficiently, giving priority to basic needs, to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels,
underground metals, and minerals; to reduce dependence upon chemicals and synthetics; and to
reduce encroachment upon Nature.
� ���1� i�� � �� 33
.Mar
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Having initially listed the "natural" and "cultural" strategies separately, it became strikingly clear
how commonly the same strategic approaches apply to both. Accordingly, that is how strategies
are now being conceived.
❖ Protect and heighten elements characteristic of Lexington, avoiding or using great care
regarding intrusion of "exotics," whether natural or cultural. Make Lexington more
especially "Lexington" than ever, guarding against any further homogenization into
faceless suburbia. The arguments supporting that for both natural and cultural
environments are profound, not a simple "we like it." So too are the arguments for not
being absolutist about it. Moon Hill in its time was viewed as "exotic," and fortunately
out of the way so not to be intrusive. It has enriched the community's cultural
environment. The Lexington landscape is now enriched through trees and other landscape
materials now common here but introduced from distant lands a century or more ago.
❖ Preservation and reuse of existing resources. That applies equally to a rainwater cistern
for the garden and the sensitive restoration of a century-old house. Through mindfulness
towards this strategic approach both encroachment and degradation can be reduced, while
strengthening what is singular about Lexington.
❖ Use the power of Lexington's locational attractiveness as a tool for achieving objectives.
Communities as different as Cambridge, MA and Londonderry, NH are currently
succeeding in demonstrating how selectivity in responding to growth pressures can
provide support for both cultural and natural resources. That power enables Lexington to
be narrowly selective in the development that it facilitates, and to offer demanding
incentives with expectation that they will draw responses.
❖ Heighten community receptivity to proposals through carefully programmed community
education. The level at which discourse in Lexington takes place has allowed this
community to entertain approaches that are demanding in their rationale and basis.
Careful education can allow debate to be well informed.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Reduce Encroachment on Natural Resources
Encroachment on natural resources remains a vital concern, even in an essentially
"developed" community such as Lexington.
1.1 Pursue open space protection efforts. Bringing permanent protection to open space is a
powerful means of both avoiding encroachment on land, water, habitat and other
critical resources, but also serves to protect community character resources. The goals
that have been discussed for open space protection are dauntingly high, including the
goal of protecting at least one-third of the remaining uncommitted land in the Town: it
will take major efforts to accomplish them. These are among the potential means.
(a) Mandate the preservation of open space in all but the smallest-scale new
development, including "conventional" subdivisions. That is nearly, but not quite,
done under the Town's present residential zoning controls. Following now well-
established Massachusetts examples, that current residential requirement could be
extended in its applicability (through a carefully structured zoning provision), and
extended to apply also to non-residential development, for which the rationale for
open space preservation is no less compelling. A system of fees in lieu of such
provision, if carefully constructed, could provide flexibility for both applicants and
the Town.
(b) Explore enabling development rights to be transferred from one parcel to another
when both Town and applicant find that it serves their interests, resulting in
preserved open space on one parcel and more density than otherwise allowed on
another. Called "Transfer of Development Rights" or "TDR," such transfers have
long been touted as a means of protecting key resources, but have seen limited
usage in New England towns. Even that limited usage demonstrates how potentially
effective TDR could be, though in Lexington, usage of that device would likely be
limited. hi effect, TDR is "clustering" between parcels rather than within a single
one.
(c) Offer open space preservation as a traffic mitigation option. Explore zoning that
measures and controls "density" in trips per acre as well as in floor area per acre,
then obliges high trip-density uses to offset their high trip generation with open
space contributions.
(d) Gain at least policy commitment to adequate local funding for open space
acquisition. Open space acquisition and its funding have been strongly supported
for many years in Lexington, essentially through a series of case-specific proposals.
At this point, however, assurance of having the capacity to achieve the goals now
set out would greatly facilitate planning and budgeting. The Community
Preservation Act (CPA) is intended to provide such a committed source. For
various reasons that specific mechanism may not be appropriate for Lexington, but
that does not mean that some form of reliably predictable funding over time would
not be an invaluable aid. Predictability of funding could be gained through
inclusion of such funding in the Town's Capital Improvements Program, or perhaps
through a dedicated source, such as CPA provides, or perhaps simply through broad
agreement with a statement of policy in a later version of this Plan.
(e) Establish an aggressive program to encourage and facilitate donations of land or
rights in land, helping owners satisfy both their family fiduciary responsibilities and
contributing to the public interest, which, with skillful guidance, can often be a
benefit to all involved parties.
1.2 Revise zoning and other development controls to protect natural resources against
encroachment or degradation. There are many helpful measures that can be taken to
reduce encroachment on resources from development that takes place.
(a) Strengthen controls over landscaping in both Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
by including provisions regarding chemical use avoidance, controls regarding
importation of invasive exotic species, and requiring water use moderation as a
complement to other existing controls under Board of Health or other jurisdictions.
(b) Further strengthen landscaping controls by restricting the severity of topographic
change that is allowable without a special exception, with change measured either
vertically (changing grade more than X feet) or in cubage (displacing more than Y
cubic yards of earth materials).
(c) Strengthen zoning controls regarding the allowable extent and location of
impervious coverage, improving residential development coverage limits now
applied only to cluster and special residential development, then extending them to
business and "conventional" residential development, and more strictly controlling
the location of such surfaces, such as limiting paving in front yards. No amount of
stormwater management ingenuity can really replicate the original context when
impervious surfaces comprise a large share of the ground surface.
(d) In that same spirit, revise subdivision regulations to allow narrower streets in
subdivisions. The Planning Board commonly does so on waivers. Revision would
make clear that the Town really prefers a smaller scale for its residential streets.
(e) As suggested in the Land Use element, consider revising zoning to offer "green
building" some form of bonus in new development upon its demonstration that it
meets specific standards for performance regarding site design, energy, water, and
interior environment. That might use the LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design) rating system or the standards of a tax incentive bill
currently under consideration in the Massachusetts legislature.
2. Moderate Auto Usage.
Less auto travel would result in reducing fossil fuel dependence as well as protecting town
character. This type of effort is discussed at length in the Economic Development Element,
so its parts are only briefly cited here.
2.1 Promote mixed use. Mixed uses can materially reduce the number and length of trips.
Mixed use can mean an array of things in Lexington ranging from more appropriately
allowing occupations within homes, through revising rules to allow residential uses in
more business districts (including the Center's BA district), to refining rules to enable
more business districts to effectively serve nearby residents.
2.2 Strengthen transportation demand management. As cited above, uses can be obliged to
reduce their trip generation below usual norms (or doing so can be encouraged through
incentives), and better site design to encourage access by other than individual autos
could be facilitated, encouraged, and in some aspects required. Requiring pedestrian
and bike access efforts in new development is one potential part of that.
2.3 Explore further ways of reducing auto trip making, such as creation of a regional
Transportation Management Organization through which public and private efforts can
be joined to gain scale and effectiveness.
3. Address Pollution and Other Natural Resource Concerns.
Natural resource concerns go beyond open space protection and addressing the automobile.
These are some further measures towards implementing our goals, most of which are also
cited in other Plan elements or are already underway in the Town.
3.1 Have Town facilities and operations serve as a demonstration of good resource
efficiency and waste reduction practices. The Town already reflects sustainability
principles in its facilities and operations. It could go a step further. In adopting and
integrating such objectives in its own practices, the Town could serve as a
demonstration in areas such as maintaining, powering, rehabilitating, or developing its
buildings, facilities, land, and recreation areas, and also in carrying out ongoing
municipal operations and services. Town actions in these areas could serve to illustrate
what the community's businesses, private residential and commercial development, and
general citizenry might also undertake to reorient their respective activities in directions
that are resource protective.
For example, the Town might make explicit goals for and take steps to reduce,
creatively re-use, or recycle its own solid waste, thereby demonstrating how solid waste
disposal problems and costs can be addressed, serving the principle of meeting human
needs efficiently. The Town could maximize use of alternatives to chemical products in
building and ground maintenance, thereby showing how to reducing chemical and
hazardous waste contamination, disposal, and cost problems, and modeling what cost
and employee benefits result from that reduction in dependence upon chemicals. The
sustainability objective to reduce encroachment upon nature could provide a basis for
efforts at reducing and reusing graywater and stormwater, retaining and protecting
shade trees, and further protecting remaining wildlife areas.
3.2 As cited in the Economic Development element, the Town might explore the creation
of a Business Improvement District in Lexington Center, undertaking among other
things solid waste management efforts, possibly involving a regional effort to deal with
commercial use solid waste recycling.
3.3 Continue supportive programs already in place, including the annual tree planting
program, an aggressive solid waste management program, and the implementation of
parts of the Town's Open Space Plan not specifically cited here.
lye
3.4 Conduct a program for periodic monitoring of environmental quality parameters as
proposed in Vision 2020 to provide a basis for ongoing corrective action.
3.5 Explore creation of a new organization, provision of new resources to an existing
organization, or take other structural measures to provide leadership for the actions
listed above and others relating to making more efficient use of resources and reducing
waste.
4. Celebrate the Town's Place in National History.
All communities have stewardship responsibilities to the legacies of their pasts. For Lexington,
that stewardship includes elements of far more than local significance, towards which there are
special responsibilities, entailing both protection of surviving resources from the Revolutionary
era and also providing a setting for them that is appropriate to that legacy.
4.1 As suggested by Vision 2020, continue efforts to document and archive information
from that era, provide educational resources about it, and promote awareness of that
time and its events even among Lexington residents, many of whom know little about
them.
4.2 Seek resources to explore creation of a"Battle Road Corridor Overlay" district. A small
part of the Battle Road in Lexington is within the Minuteman National Historic Park. A
large portion, but by no means all of the Battle Road in Lexington is included within
one of Lexington's four Historic Districts. The remaining portions are not identifiable
in relation to that history in any way except by reading maps, nor are they protected
against inappropriate development actions in any way. Surely that which perhaps is
American history's most celebrated route should be legible on the ground in its entirety,
at least through Lexington, and perhaps through the other towns through which it
passes, as well.
Exactly what would constitute appropriate measures for providing that legibility and
recognition requires careful consideration. Distinctive street signs would be a small step
beyond the present lack of attention. Perhaps there could be distinctive landscaping, at
least within the public way, and possibly beyond it. Milestones? More commemorative
markers? Banners on Patriot's Day? Demanding regulation of abutting architectural
change might go too far. Finding the right mix and extent of actions (all the way to
Charlestown?) deserves effort.
4.3 Develop a program to articulate the entrances and, perhaps, symbolic small spaces
within Lexington. Lexington has a wonderfully clear Center, but it no longer is clear
where historic (or contemporary) Lexington begins or ends. Such a remarkable
community should be recognizable immediately upon entry, ideally not by yet another
painted sign, but perhaps in some other more direct way. In fact, it would be even better
if one could recognize being in Lexington throughout the Town, at least on major
arteries. That might be achieved if there were an exemplary program of street design
and green space adoption and management by civic groups, resulting in a distinctive
pattern of special plantings at the Town's most visible spots, which are those within
intersections.
5. Address Other Cultural Resource Concerns.
Lexington's cultural resource concerns cover the entire Town and are not bound by historical
era Accordingly, there are a number of further cultural resource management efforts that are
important to pursue.
5.1 Prepare, adopt, and pursue a Town-wide Preservation Plan. Inventories of existing
resources have occupied preservation planning energies for some years, but that does
not constitute a plan. Just as the Town's open space and recreation actions are
supported through a detailed Open Space and Recreation Plan, cultural preservation
efforts would benefit from a well-developed plan.
5.2 Develop controls protecting special locations within the Town.
(a) There are many areas of the Town that contain architectural resources that deserve
protection, but perhaps should not be at the same level of regulatory control that is
normally exerted within an historic district. Such relatively light-handed districts
might prove appropriate to areas already cited, such as Meriam Hill, Parker/Upper
Clarke Street, Follen Hill, Peacock Farm, Moon Hill, Five Fields, and the Manor.
The potential for such districts should be explored.
(b) There are areas in which design specifics are not of concern, but the prevailing
scale of dwellings is very much so, as tear-down and replacement result in change
that is badly inconsistent with the context, both physically and socially. A
possibility for protection against that could be the establishment of powerful
controls over both the demolition of existing dwellings and the reconstruction of
their sites, applicable Town-wide but of special utility in these areas.
(c) The character of Lexington is powerfully influenced by the character of its roads,
some of which retain a traditional canopy of trees and bordering stone walls. The
Scenic Roads Act (MGL Chapter 40 Section 15C) authorizes towns to designate
roads it selects as "scenic," following which destruction of stone walls and trees
requires Planning Board review and approval, including compensatory
replacements. Explore whether that or some alternative means would be
appropriate for protecting such roads in Lexington.
(d) Undertake a process to identify places in Lexington that importantly contribute to
the Town's character, attractiveness, or scenic interests, then devise means of
protecting their contributions, whether through acquisition of easements,
requirements or incentives for sensitive siting of potentially intrusive development,
commemorative plaques, or other means.
5.3 Develop regulations applying Town-wide to protect cultural resources.
(a) Address out-of-scale houses. The continuing loss of existing homes and their
replacement with far larger ones has been destructive of community character and
housing resources. It has engendered a great deal of discussion and debate about
what, if anything, the Town should do about it. That issue should be brought to
resolution, whether through the adoption of carefully designed controls or through
clear resolution that regulation is not an appropriate avenue. That effort is well
under way, including"House Impact Provisions" currently being considered.
(b) Strengthen Zoning's present incentives for preservation. Lexington zoning has a
unique set of incentives for the preservation of existing structures (Section 4.4).
That promising initiative deserves review and, if possible, strengthening to be a
more commonly effective tool.
(c) Explore adoption of local protection for archeological resources. There are federal
and state controls that often protect archeological resources, but in many instances
neither of those apply. This is a complex area for local control, but there are some
promising models that deserve being considered.
(d) Strengthen & refine demolition controls. Lexington has a local bylaw requiring a
delay before demolishing any building that the Historical Commission deems
important to preserve (except within historic districts, where the Historic District
Commission plays that role). Experience has indicated some aspects of that bylaw
are in need of refinement. That bylaw is a highly useful one, and its refinement
should be a priority undertaking.
5.4 Explore how to fund achievement of preservation objectives. For example, through
adoption of a Local Option Property Tax Assessment system, as authorized by MGL
Chapter 59 Section 5J, the Town can delay the full tax impact of increased historic
building value resulting from historically compatible restoration efforts. Bedford is one
of the towns that has done this. The cost to the Town would be minor, but such tax
impact relief, though temporary, has proven to be a useful tool in preservation efforts
elsewhere, especially when joined with State and federal historic preservation tax credit
devices. Use of Tax Increment Financing, where improvements are financed through
dedication of a portion of the increase in tax revenues that will result, is another
example, this one authorized under MGL Chapter 40, Section 59. The Community
Preservation Act(CPA) is another.
.Mar
cllXew"
BACKGROUND
Lexington's housing circumstances are in some ways very comfortable compared both with other
communities and with other periods, but at the same time, those circumstances are very
challenging by the same comparisons. The Town has largely exhausted its vacant unprotected
land supply (with less than 1,000 acres remaining), so the era of struggling to accommodate 400
or more new dwelling units in a year has gone by. Both land development and a strong program
of land conservation have resulted in a striking reduction in the remaining building capacity of
the Town (see Chart H1). Added housing now comes relatively slowly, but the demographic
change that is transforming the Town is rapid and sharp. Regional housing market forces have
escalated housing prices with resulting rapid demographic change, making Lexington a
community highly stratified in income, with an older population in smaller households than is
common in other communities. Those socio-economic changes alter the community in ways
made more difficult to address as a result of the Town's now-modest growth potential.
The Town had a net addition of fewer than 500 dwelling units over the past decade, and the
expectations for net housing growth in the future are for even slower growth. Population change
in Lexington now depends more on the changing demographics of household size and other
characteristics of those who will occupy units already existing than on the small number of
added dwelling units occurring through new construction. The homebuilders, however, are likely
to remain busy, since there is much more homebuilding in Lexington than there is net growth,
with work supported by constructing tear-down replacements and additions to existing homes,
often eclipsing the existing unit in size.
Over the past decade, more than a quarter of all building permits given for new dwelling units in
Lexington (about 655 units) were for construction replacing an existing house on a lot(about 150
units) or for an accessory unit added to an existing building(about 30 units). Neither of those
involves previously vacant land (see Table H1 and Chart H2). In the most recent years, the share
of replacement and accessory units has approached half the total units constructed. Town choices
can, and may, heavily influence the rate of creation of both replacement and accessory units.
Under continuation of current policies and rules, it is likely that the rate of homebuilding on
vacant lots will sharply fall as land disappears, but the rate of building replacement housing and
accessory units might remain little changed. Barring unforeseen regional change, demand for
housing in Lexington seems likely to grow. Stable supply and growing demand make it likely
that price escalation will continue, making existing modest homes targets for upgrading or
replacement. As land becomes an ever-growing proportion of the value of residential premises,
existing buildings, sadly, become dispensable to many owners in many circumstances (see Table
H2 and Chart H3).
Fiscally, this housing dynamic is beneficial. Residential property represents about 85% of the
Town's taxable assessed valuations, and pays about three quarters of the tax levy. The difference
is attributable to a"split"tax rate favoring residences. As residential values rise,the tax rate may
well continue its long-term decline, since Proposition 2 1/2 constrains the tax levy to slow growth,
more than the recent rate of appreciation in real estate values. Even though tax bills will
presumably continue to grow, the fiscal strength of the community is unquestionable, and is
heavily based in residential valuations.
The change that is taking place in Lexington's housing is profoundly altering the nature of the
community. The year 2000 census figures, still partial, are already revealing. As recently as
1990,the age profile of Lexington was little different from the average across Massachusetts.
However, in 2000,the number of young adult residents, aged 20-24, had plummeted to one-third
the number"expected" on a Statewide basis. The number aged 25-34 was less than half that
"expected" (see Charts H4A and H4B). Apparently, few young adults can now afford to live in
Lexington and few choose to do so. Offsetting that, the share of Lexington's population found in
all age groups over 45 exceeds statewide norms. The cost and available types of housing in
Lexington have clearly altered the age profile of the Town. The departure is not typical of all
suburbs. In Massachusetts, only Sherborn and Dover were found to have a smaller share of
young adults aged 20—34. Such socio-economically-similar communities as Hamilton,
Wakefield and Newton much more closely parallel statewide norms than does Lexington, as do
all of Lexington's abutting municipalities.
Lexington's housing stock is predominantly owner-occupied (83% in 2000) and single-family
(not yet reported for 2000, but similar). Units in poor physical condition are increasingly rare.
Year 2000 Census figures on value and rental cost are not yet available, but clearly both are
extremely high and still climbing. That existing stock will likely comprise 95% of the housing in
the Town in 2010 and more than 90% of it in 2020. That strongly shapes the potential of various
interventions the Town might choose to make. For example, requiring that 10% of all new
housing must be "affordable"would probably bring affordability to no more than '/2% of the
Town's 2010 housing stock. Existing housing has to be a major resource in any housing efforts
the Town might choose to make, unless the Town is willing to make regulatory change enabling
much more housing production, which is an unlikely step given the major"cost" any such move
would entail.
The Town long enjoyed a reputation as one that actively seeks to guide change to serve goals of
community diversity and housing opportunity, but in recent years performance has failed to
match that promise. The Town has an enviable infrastructure for doing so. In 1985 the Planning
Board adopted a"Housing Element"for a comprehensive plan, articulating goals and approaches
that still sound largely appropriate. Those policies, when firmly supported, resulted in substantial
gains in units reserved for that purpose or financial contributions in lieu thereof. Lexington's
Zoning codifies that policy within its Section 9.6, Developments with Significant Public Benefit
(DSPB). In those ways, while not mandating that development include affordable units, the
Town made clear that doing so is key to gaining any discretionary approvals. During the period
when there was a substantial amount of relatively large-scale development in Lexington,that
policy approach was highly effective. More recently, that has no longer been the case because of
a variety of reasons ranging from obstacles in the Town's own regulations to change at state and
federal levels.
The Lexington Housing Authority serves housing needs through units that it owns and through
administration of vouchers which provide subsidies for individuals and households to rent
private housing, with a cost to them that they can afford. In total, the Authority is dealing with
about 340 housing units. The Authority's waiting list for rental vouchers alone is more that 200
applicants, evidencing how far the Town's supply of affordable housing is from meeting current
needs.
The Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB) is an organization unique to this Town. It
acts to assist through administering affordability restrictions placed on housing developed
through the Town's efforts, and also acts as a developer of affordable housing, funded through
developer payments in lieu of affordable units and from other public sources. Through those
efforts, it now owns and rents 46 dwelling units, both attached and detached single-family.
Since 1990, a total of more than 100 affordable housing units have been created in Lexington,
equivalent to about 20% of all the new housing approved over that period. That is an admirably
high ratio, but those units represent less than 1% of the Town's current housing stock. The
Commonwealth, in a variety of ways, has established having 10% of the housing stock securely
"affordable" as a policy goal. Under current State counting practices, Lexington has 796
"subsidized" or "affordable"units out of year-round housing stock of 11,274 units per the 2000
Census, or about 7.1% of all housing"counted"by the State as being affordable'. Achieving
10% affordability(without"counting"unrestricted units rented to low or moderate income
households having rent vouchers) is a reasonable target, and would require 332 more affordable
units than existed in 2000, plus 10% of all the additional housing units created. Assuring
affordability in 10% of all the new units that get developed, creating perhaps 100 affordable units
over the next two decades, would keep the Town from falling further behind on that objective,
but would not do anything more. To achieve 10% affordability, including the present housing
stock, would require bringing affordability to 330 units, in addition to those that might be gained
by a"10%rule." That would have to be accomplished either within the new housing being
produced (requiring an unlikely 57% inclusion rate if achieved within 20 years) or by bringing
affordability to housing that already exists, or some combination of both (see Table H3 below).
' The system for"counting"has recently been changed through new DHCD regulations, and is proposed for further
change under pending legislation. The Town has been in dialog with State officials over"correcting"the official
count, with results that increased the number of credited units from 537 to 796.
2DD2 ° n
Chart H1
HOMEBUILDING
Lexington 1950-2000
500 ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
aso
400
350
d 10-year average
r 300
5
m
250
Annual
m
200 '...
3
0
150
100
50
0
Table H1 .
CAPACITY FOR HOMES AND CONSERVATION
Housing units capacity
2001-2020
1990-2000 Projected Alternate
Initial capacity 1 ,623 900 900
Developed 495 497 399
Conserved 202 203 420
Available period end 900 220 112
Housing constructed 734 1 ,305 1 ,100
IOn new land 495 497 399
(Accessory 33 77 102
(Replacement 206 731 598
Chart H2
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Lexington Historic and Projected
1,400
1,200
1,000
x
c 800
m
c
o 600
x
400
200
0
1990-2000 Projected Alternate
E1On new land ■Accessory units Replacement
17
2DD2 ° n
Mar
Table H2
RESIDENTIAL SALE PRICES
Year 1-family Condo
2000 $ 451,000 $ 330,500
1999 $ 410,000 $ 288,950
1998 $ 369,000 $ 280,000
1997 $ 354,500 $ 226,000
1996 $ 310,500 $ 235,000
1995 $ 290,000 $ 223,000
1994 $ 279,000 $ 172,000
1993 $ 256,000 $ 180,000
1992 $ 250,050 $ 170,000
1991 $ 239,000 $ 188,333
1990 $ 248,000 $ 78,000
1989 $ 270,000 $ 164,000
1988 $ 260,000 $ 191,450
Source: The Warren Group website
C h art H3
SALES PRICES
Lexington (median)
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
�1-Fam it :Condo
2DD2 ° n
Chart H4A
AGE: LEXINGTON &MA
2000
85 years and do r
75no 84 years
65 to 74 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
45 to 54 years
35to 44 years
25 to 34 years
20 to 24 years
15to 19 years
10 to 14 years
09 years
Untler5 years
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Percent ofpopulation
Massachusetts ■Lexington
Chart H413
AGE:1990-2000
Lexington
85 years and over
75 to 84 years
65 to 74 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
45 to 54 years
35 to 44 years
25 to 34 year
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
0 yeas
Under 5yeany
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Percent of population
111990 02000
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Lexington seeks to have a socially and economically diverse community, both over the whole of
the community and within its neighborhoods. hi support of that fundamental social goal, a basic
housing goal is to provide housing opportunities supportive of the population diversity we seek.
As pointed out in the 1985 Lexington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, and as is still true
today, we seek a better fit between our housing supply and the emerging needs resulting from
demographic change. Even as Lexington's average household size has steadily grown smaller,
our housing units have continued to grow larger. Young adults are largely priced out and
disproportionately so, too, are most ethnic minorities. We applaud diversity, but we are losing it
along a number of dimensions. One clear housing goal is to seek to enable at least our own
children to live here, and more broadly to provide housing opportunities for a broad social and
economic spectrum. We want to accommodate not only the classic American husband/wife/kids
family but also individuals living alone, seniors, young adults, those with physical or mental
disabilities, and a variety of others.
Given housing data that is twelve years out of date, but about to be updated by a decade, this is
an inappropriate time to set quantitative goals for housing, but some sense of scale can
reasonably be provided.
For Lexington, meeting our housing affordability needs will not only require attention to the
needs of lower income groups, but will also require attention to the needs of a growing segment
of middle income households who also are being priced out of Lexington. Our community is less
complete without that diversity. The beneficiaries of our efforts to accommodate diversity are not
only those who otherwise could not live here, but are all of us, enriched by having a more
complete community for ourselves and for our families to the extent that efforts toward diversity
succeed.
We need to achieve that diversity of opportunity through appropriate means. Importantly, that
diversity should be achieved without sacrificing the qualities of existing residential environs
through unreasonable density departures, introduction of disruptive traffic or other impacts, or
building in a way that is inconsistent with its context. Diversity should exist throughout the
Town in all of its neighborhoods, not just within some. The principles of sustainability are not
inconsistent with these goals, and they should be respected in housing,just as for other efforts.
The small number of additional units, for which there is land capacity within current zoning,
makes achieving housing goals difficult, since almost all of the housing that the Town will
contain at"build-out" already exists. Change through trends in occupancy of existing units will
be a far more powerful determinant of the Town's future demographics,than change through
shaping the relatively small increment of new structures that is projected. Analyses made for this
Plan indicate that Lexington will have about 12,000 housing units at"build-out, an increase of
fewer than 1,000 units."2 While this planning process has not resulted in firm quantitative goals
2 In the Land Use Element two analyses are shown: a Projection based on continuation of past policies and trends,
and an Alternate analysis reflecting choice of more aggressive open space protection and support for creation of
units through conversion of existing structures.
for the housing profile that is wanted, the directions wanted are clear. For the Lexington We
Want, the proportion of housing affordable to households now priced out of Lexington would be
larger, serving not only the elderly, but also families, including, but not limited to young adults.
The share of housing that serves renters would be not lower than at present, and ideally
somewhat larger. To illustrate how limited growth capacity makes achieving those goals more
difficult, we have analyzed an example of possible (but not adopted) numerical objectives.
— Housing that is "affordable", as the State defines it, (costing not more than 30% of the
income of a household at 80% of the regional median income) might grow from the
present 7% of Lexington's housing stock to the State's objective of 10% of all units
being affordable.
— Half of that"affordable" housing might serve families, compared with less than 40%
at present.
— One fifth of all housing might be available to renters, compared with about 17% at
present.
To achieve those seemingly "easy" objectives, through shaping the roughly 700 units to be added
within the "build-out" limit, would require heroic efforts. The numbers are in table H3. Reaching
those objectives would require more than half of all added housing units being affordable. It
would require three-quarters of the added affordable units being provided for families. It would
require a majority of the added units being provided for renters. There is no likelihood that those
figures could be achieved, or even that the Town would want its housing increment to be so
shaped.
Two things mitigate the concern. First, some of the change might take place through change
within the existing housing stock. For example, bringing affordability to existing dwellings can
help in meet affordability goals without drawing on limited capacity for new construction.
Second, the actual "build-out" limit may not actually be as constrained as the figures suggest.
The calculation of 12,000 ultimate units is based on current zoning, but town meeting can and
often does change that. For example, rezoning to RD can result in more dwelling units on a
parcel that would otherwise be achievable. Even without legislated change in zoning, some
additional units can be created through special permit incentives, such as those allowed for
"Developments with Significant Public Benefits." More dramatically, it is possible for
development to go outside of the Town's regulatory scheme either through variances or through
"Comprehensive Permits" granted for subsidized housing under Chapter 40B, MGL. In some
communities, that currently is the largest single source of housing production. Finally, new
opportunities for development of housing might arise that are not reflected in the existing
analysis. Should the Town discontinue use of four elementary schools, as currently being
discussed,those buildings or their sites might provide housing opportunities. All of those
avenues could, and to some degree are likely to, increase the ultimate level of housing in the
Town.
Mar
The experience of communities that have approached full build-out in the past is instructive.
Development truly does typically slow as build-out is approached, but it doesn't stop, and the
"build-out ceiling"keeps being raised through one or more of the avenues noted above. Unless
the World changes, Lexington some day will exceed its currently estimated build-out capacity.
Departures through creative use of existing controls (e.g. special permits), changing the controls
(zoning amendments), getting variances from the controls, and gaining freedom from the
controls (Chapter 40B), and currently unforeseen opportunities will in time account for more
added housing units than does the remaining capacity nominally calculated within current
zoning. hi designing a strategy for housing, it is critical to not only address actions within the
current"envelope"but also to assure that actions outside of that envelope consistently serve
housing concerns, and in fact become a major means of reaching housing goals.
To illustrate that, we have analyzed a hypothetical future in which Lexington's build-out reaches
13,000 units rather than the 12,000 indicated by current rules, probably stretching reasonable
reality, but illustrative. In Table H3,that scenario is shown under "Build-out total with special
units." hi that scenario,the share of added units represented by affordable ones is cut in half
from the basic projection to about 30%, still difficult to achieve but credible. The needed share of
added units serving rental needs falls to less than 40%, again difficult but possible. Most
importantly, that tabulation clarifies the importance of assuring that any exceptions to the usual
regulatory"envelope"whether school site reuse or rezoning or special permit should be firmly
guided to serve the Town's basic housing objectives.
Table H3. HOUSING CHANGE ANALYSIS
Total Affordable units
units Total I Elderly Family Rental
Year 2000 Total units
Total units 11,300 800 500 300 1,970
% of Total units 100% 7% 4% 3% 17%
Build-out total: current rules
Total units 12,000 1,200 600 600 2,400
% of Total units 100% 10% 5% 5% 20%
Increase over 2000
Added units 700 400 100 300 430
of added units 100% 57% 14% 43% 61%
Build-out total w/s ecial units
Total units 13,000 1,300 650 650 2,600
% of Total units 100% 10% 5% 5% 20%
Increase over 2000
Added units 1,700 500 150 350 630
of added units 100% 29% 9% 21% 37%
STRATEGIC APPROACH
The housing problem that Lexington faces is the result of regional dynamics more than the
specifics of this place, and its resolution will require approaches that are inclusive of efforts that
are larger than local: regional, state and federal. Further, as is true for any metropolitan
community, Lexington can't possibly bring housing benefits to all parties. At best, its efforts will
mitigate the concerns experienced by some, but not all, potentially affected households.
At the same time, Lexington's singular circumstances suggest a set of strategies that are
reflective of this particular place. These are those strategies.
❖ Housing development is the single most important means through which housing goals
are to be met. New opportunities for compatible and policy-serving housing development
need to be explored. Actions that would limit housing production or add to its costs
should be carefully examined for justification in light of this consideration. In this
context, approaches are needed for working with property owners, not as their
adversaries, in together seeking ways to meet housing objectives, emphasizing enabling
at least as much as requiring, while also respecting the Town's other legitimate concerns
such as environmental protection.
In the spirit of support for housing production and working with property owners, devices
such as the Local Initiative Program (LIP) might be used as a positive tool. They utilize
Chapter 4013, MGL(which authorizes Comprehensive Permits)to enable departure from
zoning for locally supported affordable housing efforts. Those approaches can be
valuable,just as they can be disruptive and damaging when used in an adversarial
context.
❖ To achieve the various kinds of diversity that we seek, much of the accomplishment must
occur within existing housing, not simply through obligations placed upon new housing.
With new development producing a small and declining share of our housing stock, no
imaginable requirements placed upon new housing alone can enable us to reach our
goals.
❖ We need to assure that new development doesn't make matters worse. A "monoculture"
of new housing comprising only large, very expensive, single-family homes would
simply accelerate the troubling change that is occurring in our community's profile.
❖ Helping people to afford housing costs without subsidy is an important means of
addressing the wish to preserve housing opportunities for households having incomes too
high for government subsidies but too low for the Lexington market. New sources of
income (from such potentials as modernized rules about working from the dwelling or
rental of an independent housing unit) or reduced expenses (from such means as energy-
efficient design or financing and design reflecting willingness to forego an automobile)
can be the means.
❖ Even with all of the above, new financial resources for achieving affordability need to be
found, including use of a permanent dedicated revenue source, such as the Community
Preservation Act, "linkage"funds from business to compensate for the costs of making
housing affordable to its employees, and similar sources.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Broaden opportunities for producing housing, especially where that production is likely to
include housing that is relatively affordable and that is likely to serve other diversity
concerns, such as serving small households.
1.1 Explore allowing housing in most or all commercial and industrial districts, including
Lexington Center. Only the relatively small Neighborhood Commercial (CN) districts
now allow residential uses. The other zoning districts uniformly prohibit residential use,
reflecting the once-prevailing view that residences and businesses could not make good
neighbors, and that it was critical to prevent residential usurpation of business site
opportunities. Both of those views remain true in some circumstances, but not all, and
less adamant segregation of uses has proven to be a means of creating not only housing
but a mix of activities that benefits all parties.
1.2 Explore allowing higher residential densities near retail and good transportation. The
logic is clear: those are locations where compact development can really result in
somewhat lower auto trip generation per dwelling unit and per job, and more compact
development is inherently lower in cost, making affordability somewhat easier to
achieve.
1.3 Provide incentives for small-scale, age-restricted housing. Such housing would serve a
salient housing need in this Town, and would have relatively light impact on the
Town's fiscal capacity, traffic, and infrastructure.
1.4 Explore reducing the restrictions on creating additional housing accommodations
within existing dwellings, whether for accessory apartments or other arrangements.
Current rules (chiefly Zoning Section 5) are highly detailed in often-difficult
specification standards, resulting in fewer than three units of such housing per year
being built annually in recent decades. With care, impediments to more production of
such housing could be removed without damage to neighborhood values, character,
traffic or other qualities.
1.5 Explore facilitating the creation of diverse dwelling types, such as congregate housing,
co-housing, and other cooperative types. Again, Section 5 of the Zoning By-Law
commendably recognizes a variety of allowable housing types, but the cumulative
effect of the many restrictions may dim the prospects of achieving the housing that is
nominally allowed.
1.6 Facilitate conversion of existing non-residential structures to residential use through a
careful, but not onerous special permit procedure. School conversions to such use,
authorized under Zoning Section 9.8, have been widely accepted as compatible with
existing neighborhood fabric. More opportunities for compatible reuse may exist with
other types of structures, but zoning designed to facilitate that doesn't exist.
1.7 Make diversity-serving housing one of the presumptive future uses of any"surplus"
public land proposed for disposition, along with open space. Consistently allow
organizations producing such housing an opportunity to evaluate its potential for
housing use. Metropolitan State Hospital is the outstanding example of this.
Lexington's 38 buildable acres within that site might accommodate up to 300 housing
units, with more than a third of the units being reserved for affordable housing or
DMH-sponsored units. Some have suggested that because of the isolation of the site it
should not be used for housing at all. However, given the pressing needs for more
housing supply and for the kinds of diversification the planned housing would provide,
diversion from long-planned housing use would be unacceptable.
1.8 Explore requiring a housing affordability quid pro quo where relief from usual rules is
being sought. Review existing regulations for provisions where discretionary relief is
being provided for the development of housing, such as with "Frontage Reduction
Subdivisions." Identify whether it would be reasonable to seek service towards
meeting Town housing goals to balance that departure, such as using the site to develop
a housing type that is especially sought, or providing funding to help support diverse
housing on other sites. Explore replacing or complementing broad exhortations, such as
the "Developments with Substantial Public Benefit" considerations, with specific
housing benefit requirements.
2. Protect existing housing that is important for the maintenance of diversity. Over time,
demolition and replacement is eroding the Town's once-rich diversity of housing, threatening
to virtually eliminate the small freestanding single-family dwelling as a significant Lexington
resource. Actions to manage impacts of unusually large houses are included in the Land Use
Element(at action 2.6(a)) and the Natural and Cultural resources Element(at action 5.3(a)),
and are scheduled for consideration at the 2002 Annual Town Meeting. Those actions would
address this concern as well as other land use and community character concerns. The
following are further potential actions.
2.1 Consider adopting a mandatory delay in the demolition of any residential structure,
regardless of its age, design qualities, or historical associations in order to allow time
for the reuse of the structure as a housing resource to be explored and, if feasible,
initiated. Currently demolition of structures is substantially delayed only upon finding
by the Historical Commission that the structure has value from an historic preservation
perspective. This complementary provision would delay demolition simply because the
structure represents an important potential housing resource if saved,thus warranting
time before demolition is allowed. Such provision has served Nantucket well.
2.2 Consider a mandatory delay in the permitting of a new structure on the site from which
a residence has recently been removed, other than for housing meeting Town housing
needs criteria. Since redevelopment is the common reason for demolition, a delay in
site availability, post-demolition, would diminish the incentive to undertake demolition,
and would provide an incentive for serving housing goals.
Effectively, this pair of actions means regulating the tear-down and replacement process
from a housing needs perspective, in addition to the present regulatory basis rooted in
"historical or architectural heritage or resources" (Article XXXIII Section 3.4 of the
Lexington General By-Laws).
3. Assure that new development doesn't indirectly exacerbate the housing problem
3.1 Revise the Zoning §9.6.3.1 Maximum Development Incentive to provide affordable
housing with a permitted impact"bonus,"rather than affordable housing being only one
of a menu of items in effect"competing"for a maximum allowable bonus. For
example, a formula in the By-Law might reward affordable housing by allowing higher
impervious coverage or dwelling unit count impacts than otherwise, regardless of what
other bonuses are sought or awarded. To reflect that, the total increase in impacts
allowed as bonuses for other benefits would be "capped" at a commensurately lower
level. Any developer seeking to provide affordable housing in Lexington pays a
substantial financial price for doing so. For impact bonuses to be equitable for those
developing affordable housing and to be effective in encouraging developers to choose
that option,they need not to be in "competition"with other benefits in seeking a limited
overall bonus.
3.2 Categorically mandate inclusion of affordable housing. With a density bonus as
described at 3.1, mitigating the financial "penalty" of choosing to develop affordable
units, it becomes a relatively small step to mandate that such units be included in all
except the very smallest developments. Lexington has had substantial success in
negotiating affordable housing in return for, or as a condition of, site rezoning or
purchase of Town-owned land, but the option of gaining density as an optional
"Development with Significant Public Benefits" hasn't been comparably effective. That
mirrors the disappointing experience of other New England communities 3. Abroad
mandate, however, would be different. All developments above some threshold size
would then include enough affordable housing so that they have the proportion of such
units that is sought for the Town at large. Otherwise, new development simply adds to
the "deficit" of affordable housing in the Town, helping by increasing overall supply,
but further skewing the cost distribution of housing.
Developers might be offered the option of making financial contributions to a dedicated
housing trust fund in lieu of including such units on their site, foregoing some or all of
the impact bonus suggested at 3.1 above. The option would need to be crafted with care
'For a review of experience across four New England states see Herr Associates,Zoning forHousing Affordability,
for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund,Boston, 2000.
C2� , z//. � 2OD2
to avoid becoming an unallowable fee, and to protect the intention of the Town that
affordability be widely included, not found only in a few publicly sponsored projects.
3.3 Support regional or State-level initiatives to require "linkage"through which large
commercial projects would support a fair share of the costs of addressing the affordable
housing needs of the workers they add to the region. Boston, Cambridge, and a few
other Massachusetts municipalities impose such "linkage"through local requirements.
However, only about 15 out of 100 workers employed in Lexington live in Lexington,
which means that any local linkage program would fail to serve the great majority of
workers, and that is true in all but the largest metropolitan municipalities. For that
reason, a regional approach is a much fairer and more effective way of gaining direct
employer support for the housing needs their employees create.
4. Develop new resources and approaches for reducing the costs of housing that limit the ability
of a diverse population to meet housing costs. For example, enable homeowners to better
afford their housing costs by allowing the use of those homes for work as well as residing,
doing so more generously than do the present home occupation rules. Explore where the new
concepts of"live/work" spaces might be applicable in Lexington.
5. Develop robust sources of funding to support housing affordability.
5.1 Commit a stream of Town funds in support of affordable housing, as the Community
Preservation Act would do if locally approved, or through a different mechanism if
more appropriate for Lexington. The Town has been resourceful in finding ways to
support housing, but direct financial commitment by the Town itself would be of both
symbolic and practical value, even if the level of funding were modest.
5.2 Explore gaining eligibility for federal housing subsidy funds through joining an eligible
regional consortium. Neighboring Waltham and Belmont are regional consortium
members together with Brookline, Newton and Watertown. Being in such a regional
group would make Lexington for the first time eligible for federal funding under the
HOME program, including funds in support of administrative costs. Although funding
levels at present are modest,they could mean real benefits for meeting housing needs,
and may grow over time. Benefits of being part of a regional partnership go beyond
funding to include the clout of advocacy as a region, and provision of another setting
for discussion of inter-community questions, such as the location of and zoning for
housing at the Metropolitan State Hospital site.
5.3 Pursue other creative potentials. A first-time homebuyer program, especially if
regionally supported, can trigger financial support from both the Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community Development and mortgage lenders. Banks
might be lobbied to focus some of their Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) activities
within Lexington, where the reality of real need may not be apparent to them. For
example, a consortium of local banks could provide vital support for a first-time
homebuyer program aimed at enabling such people as young adults and a range of
Town employees to live in Lexington. Explore establishing a program to solicit
voluntary deeded restrictions on resale assuring long-term limitations on resale price
and even building size, in return for which the donor of the restrictions gains tax
benefits as well as the satisfaction of contributing to a vital quality of the community.
6. Strengthen institutions and administrative systems to facilitate the process of developing the
housing that the Town wants without sacrificing attention to other important considerations,
such as neighborhood impacts.
6.1 Explore organizational change to assure that the roles needed for addressing housing
needs will be effectively filled in the future. The Lexington Housing Authority,
LexHAB, and to a lesser extent the Selectmen and the Planning Board all actively
promote the meeting of housing needs. However, in each case,there are limitations on
their ability to take on some roles, such as undertaking non-profit housing development,
or actively advocating a pro-housing position in Town government. Perhaps existing
organizations could, with some adjustment, play those or other needed roles, or perhaps
new organizations are needed, locally or regionally. A private, non-profit housing
development organization has been suggested to actively seek out housing development
opportunities. LexHAB acts as a mini-developer, and does that well, but has some
constraints by virtue of its relationship to Town government and other ongoing
management responsibilities. An aggressive private organization could complement the
efforts of other existing groups. A Lexington Housing Partnership Board appointed by
the Selectmen could act as an inside-government housing advocate, as a project liaison,
review, and support group (yes, the roles appear to conflict), and as liaison with State
agencies on behalf of the Town.
6.2 Explore means of improving permitting processes, especially for affordable housing.
Some system choices have been made in Lexington that work better for luxury housing
than for modest-priced housing. For example, Lexington offers extraordinary flexibility
to developers that are willing and able to go through a Planned Residential (RD)
process that includes both Town Meeting and special permit approval. Those
transactional and time costs are inconsistent with producing affordable housing given
Lexington's land costs. Perhaps innovative approaches can make Lexington a more
welcoming locus for those seeking to do affordable housing and can do so without
compromising protection of other values.
7. Achieve housing progress in ways that promote sustainability.
The above actions promote sustainability- meeting present as well as future human needs,
while using resources efficiently, fairly, and within Nature's means. Virtually all of them are
motivated by concerns over meeting human needs fairly and efficiently. Many have the effect
of making development more compact, reducing travel and demands on fossil fuels, and
reducing encroachment on nature. Many involve productive reuse of existing structures,
reducing dependence on many resources, including fossil fuels, chemicals, and synthetics.
Two further housing actions are suggested in consideration of sustainability.
60 011--f
7.1 Develop an education program regarding how to build with a smaller ecological
"footprint,"making materials easily available for all involved in the process: prospective
home owners, builders, lenders, designers and officials.
7.2 Explore creating a wonderful yard for the recycling of building materials, thereby
reducing resource waste and pollution at the same time as reducing costs.
61
2DD2 ° n
Kev to Housing Site Locations
ID Address of Parcel Number of Units 40B Units Production
1 1 ShirleySt/William Roger Greely Village 102 100 Public
2 V nebrook Village 48 48 Public
3 42 Garfield Street 6 6 Mortgage Sub
4 Judges Way/Pine Grove Village 16 16 Mortgage Sub
5 96 Wood Street 1 1 Public
6 39 Garfield Street 1 1 Public
7 15 Earl Street 1 1 Public
8 31 Tarbell Avenue 1 1 Public
9 5 Davis Road 1 1 Public
10 7 Avon Street 1 1 Public
11 11 Ash Street 1 1 Public
12 90 Wood Street 1 1 Public
13 50 Wood Street 1 1 Public
14 3 Alpine Street 1 1 Public
15 39 Spring Street 1 1 Public
16 88 Wood Street 1 1 Public
17 120 Reed Street 1 1 Public
18 5 Rangeway 1 1 Public
19 134 North Street 1 1 Public
20 130 North Street 1 1 Public
21 132 North Street 1 1 Public
22 10 Avon Street 1 1 Public
23 314 Bedford Street/Parker Manor 28 7 Inclusionar
24 299 Woburn Street/Countryside Village 60 60 Rental Sub
25 1475 Mass Avenue/Muzzey High School 71 71 Inclusionar
26 8 Emerald Street 1 - Public
27 159 Bedford Street 2 51 Public
28 425 Woburn Street/Countryside Manor 51 - Inclusionar
29 225A Waltham Street/Centre Oak 4 - Rental Sub
30 7 Stedman Road/Franklin School 38 38 Morta e Sub
31 365 Waltham Street 3 - Public
32 307 Wood Street/Katandin Woods 128 128 Rental Sub
33 87 Hill Street/27 Tewksbury 8 8 Public
34 31 Skyview Road 1 - Public
35 987 Waltham Street/Lexington Ride 198 198 Mortgage Sub
36 1 Emerson Gardens 150 - Public
37 165 Waltham Street 1 - Public
38 561 Massachusetts Avenue 2 2 Public
39 3 Stedman Road 1 - Public
40 8 Bruce Road 1 Public
41 18 Banks Avenue 1 - Public
42 663 Lowell Street/Locke Village 62 6 Inclusionar
43 14 Woodland Road 1 - Public
44 15 Grandview Avenue 1 Public
45 16 Philip Road 1 - Public
46 10 Pelham Road/Grey Nuns 90 90 Inclusionar
47 2 Spencer Street 2 2 Public
48 6 Sedge Road 1 - Public
49 45 Forest Street 6 6 Public
Total 1103 855
*4013 column represents units accepted in 40B as of November 2001 (-not yet accepted as 40B)
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, economic development has centered on job creation, especially those jobs that
through "multiplier effects"will result instill more jobs for the target area, or jobs serving those
who otherwise would have limited opportunities for employment. More recently, in metropolitan
areas, the search for job growth has been motivated by concerns over support for municipal
finances. Still more recently,the motivations for economic development efforts have often been
questioned sharply by residents who view the negative impacts of business activity as
threatening to the local quality of life. All of those motivations are in play in Lexington. The
challenge is to serve all of them.
Jobs in Lexington
Lexington is often characterized as a"bedroom suburb,"but in fact it is rich in local jobs. With
about 20,000 jobs located in Lexington and only a little more than half of Lexington's 30,000
persons in the labor force,there are about a third more jobs in Lexington than there are job-
holding residents (see Tables E1 and E2 and Chart E1). Some neighboring communities are even
more 'Job-heavy"than Lexington, notably Burlington, with more than three jobs per resident
worker. Others are notably more "resident-heavy," such as Arlington, with perhaps as few as a
third as many local jobs as resident workers, but with an appearance that seems more business-
centered than Lexington's, as a result of differences in the types and locations of the jobs
between the two towns.
Jobs and travel
Despite there being more local jobs than locally resident workers, the great majority of
Lexington residents commute out of town for work. hi 1990, the most recent year for which there
is reliable data, fewer than one out of five of Lexington's resident workers were employed within
Lexington,the other four workers commuting outward. In 1990, Lexington residents held barely
more than one out of ten local jobs. To gain one job for a Lexington resident,the Town would
have to expect to add ten jobs overall. The effects of dispersion of where people work, on means
of travel to work, are clear. Eighty-five percent of Lexington workers in 1990 drove alone to get
to work. The share is almost exactly the same for those working within Lexington as it is for
those commuting from Lexington to elsewhere.
Job types and locations
Types and locations of jobs in Lexington have changed dramatically over the years, despite
relatively modest overall change in the total number of jobs. As shown on Chart E2,from 1985
through 2000,jobs in Lexington have risen and fallen within a narrow range, reflecting the
regional economy. Individual sectors, however, have experienced large change. In common with
Massachusetts and the US,jobs in manufacturing have steadily declined. Jobs in wholesale and
retail trade have also fallen steadily, but those declines have been more than offset by growth in
employment in services, much of it technical and professional.
Jobs in Lexington Center have probably declined, while jobs visually less prominent along
Hayden and Hartwell Avenues have grown by large amounts, with the jobs focus moving from
the Center outwards,just as is happening at a larger scale for the metropolitan area as a whole.
Serving the Town: Retailing
Retail sales and services are of special significance in Lexington. Retailing serves not only as a
job source and a fiscal support, but it also provides convenient and valued service to residents.
Through location and design, retailing is the most visible sector of the local economy, and the
one with which residents have the most contact. For those reasons, it is a major element in
shaping the perceived character of the community, and of its business sector, despite
representing only about 10% of local employment.
Retail sales per capita in Lexington in 1997 were less than half the statewide level, despite high
local incomes (see Table E4). Even for so-called "convenience goods," such as food and
beverage sales, purchases within Lexington by all customers are far lower than the amounts
spent by Lexington residents at all locations. The sole sales category for which that is not true is
health and personal care. As reported in US Census figures, retail sales in Lexington fell by
nearly a quarter between the 1987 and 1997 censuses of retail trade, even measured in current
dollars. Lexington's jobs in retailing fell even more over that same period. Clearly,there has
been a major shift in resident's shopping patterns. The result is not distressed real estate, but
rather changing functional patterns. Land on Bedford Street, where residents formerly bought
2x4s and shingles, now accommodates many more employees, but they work in offices
providing services, not in retail sales. Resident's shopping needs, even for groceries, are
increasingly met in other communities, more than offsetting any growth in sales here to people
from away.
Jobs and taxes
The impacts of economic activity on municipal finance are subtle and complex. On average, over
the last decade or more, business property has paid about a quarter of the Lexington tax levy.
That is somewhat less than the average for businesses across the Commonwealth's communities,
despite Lexington's high employment level in relation to population. That difference is probably
the result of Lexington's residential property values being so high. As allowed by statute,
Lexington applies a higher tax rate to business than to dwellings, and the use of that device has
reduced the fiscal swings that otherwise would have resulted from real estate value fluctuations
over recent years. For example, in 1990,the non-residential share of assessed valuations was
22%, but by 1997,that had fallen to less than 13% as residential property values boomed and
business property values in many cases declined.
The municipal costs of servicing business are commonly documented to be less than the taxes
business pays, though the margin differs between types of development. Because of that, growth
in local business accommodations not only provides "new growth"benefits under Proposition 2
'/2, as would any new development, but also helps to reduce the residential share of the tax levy.
Analyses made for 2020 pointed out how limited the possible fiscal gains from business growth
are because of spatial limitations'. However, as noted below,the real limitation results from rules
the Town has chosen for controlling such development, not from basic limitations inherent in
location or the land.
Land for business
Business commonly occupies about 10% or less of a community's developed land area.
Consistent with that, about 900 of Lexington's 11,000 acres of land, or 8%, is zoned for
business. Roughly 4.5 million square feet of business floor area has been developed within those
districts. Few vacant lots exist within them, and most of those remaining parcels are limited by
virtue of public or institutional ownership or land qualities. However, many parcels now
developed for business have a substantial expansion capacity remaining within zoning limits. hi
the five major business areas that largely serve a wider than local area, nearly 4 million square
feet of business floor area exists (see Table E6 and Chart E4). Under current zoning, if floor area
per job were to remain constant, about another one million square feet of floor area could
theoretically be added within those districts, enough to add another 4,000 jobs to the 20,000 jobs
existing in Lexington.
The key limitation on the ability for business floor area to expand in the Center is parking.
Development on none of the lots there currently completely fills the "envelope" of floor area
allowed by zoning. Elsewhere, the key limitation on added business development is the allowed
ratio of building floor area to lot area, or"FAR." All other requirements of allowable building
coverage, setbacks, parking, and height are much more easily met than the FAR rules. We
modeled a test of regulatory change to explore the limits. Increasing allowable FAR by 50% in
outlying business districts greatly increased allowable floor area, despite no other regulatory
changes being made. In the Center, removing on-site parking requirements and changing nothing
else resulted in the ability of properties to reach the allowable ratio of floor area to lot area,
almost tripling the floor area feasible under current zoning. Between them, those two changes
would more than double the potential for new business development in Lexington, without
change in the zoning map.
' "Managing Fiscal Stability,"Final Report, June 8, 2000,page 13 and citations there.
.Mar
67
6f
Resources for Guiding Change
Despite its business centers being largely "built out," and having many constraints ranging from
locational through technical to political, Lexington has a strong capacity for directing its own
economic future. It has done so in the past. When decades ago the Town declined rezoning for a
shopping center(now in Burlington) at Routes 2 and 128, it took a giant step towards shaping the
Town's present economic structure. It reinforced that with the planning and infrastructure actions
(and selected inactions)taken a few years later in reshaping Lexington Center. Further
reinforcement came in the Town creating large-lot industrial and office districts along Hartwell
and Hayden Avenues, but excluding retailing from them. Lexington's zoning limits business
development far below the level that the market would support if regulations permitted. That
gives the Town the capacity to choose what it wants and where it wants it. The power of land use
controls under these circumstances is awesome.
Less dramatically, but still powerfully, other actions can shape the Town's economic future.
Fiscal policy can be powerful. Raising business taxes, as high as is allowed and aggressively
imposing development and operations fees at levels, as high as possible, would have a very
different impact on the economic future of the Town than would a more moderate set of fiscal
approaches. The Town's relatively new Economic Development Office is another resource. It
sees its mission as largely that which elsewhere is sometimes termed "economic gardening,"
more importantly, working to support businesses already here rather than reaching out to induce
new arrivals. Finally, Town infrastructure and service efforts can be instrumental in shaping the
Town's economic future. Once that meant extending sewerage. Recently, it has meant
facilitating broadband communications. Tomorrow, it may have meaning as unimaginable
currently, as "broadband"was a few short years ago.
Table E1.
LEXINGTON JOBS, HOUSING AND FLOOR AREA 1/12/02
Labor Housing Workers/ Local Jobs/ Business floor area
Year Force units hsing unit Jobs labor force Total I Per ob*
1985 16,936 10,144 1.67 18 846 1.11
1990 15,735 10,841 1.45 19 411 1.23
1995 15,462 11 224 1.38 17 838 1.15
2000 16,007 11,347 1.41 21 600 1.35 4 500 000 260
2005 16,270 11,533 1.41 q385
1.35
2010 16,461 11,669 1.41 1.35
2015 16,589 11 760 1.41 1.35
2020 16677 11822 1.41 1.35 5 900 000 260
Includes only jobs occupying busines floor area,estimated at 80% of total jobs.
Sources: Jobs&labor force- DET
Housing units: US Census Decennial reports& building permit data.
Business floor area: Herr Associates estimate.
Projections:Herr&James Associates.
Chart E1
JOBS PER 100 RESIDENTS
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts
Burlington
Bedford
Woburn
Waltham
LEXINGTON
Winchester
Belmont
Lincoln
Arlington
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Jobs/100 residents
Table E2.
JOBIPOPULATION COMPARISONS,2000
Resident Jobs per
Municipality Population Local Jobs 100 residents
Arlington 42,389 6,949 16.4
Lincoln 8,056 1,502 18.6
Belmont 24,194 5,466 22.6
Winchester 20,810 6,714 32.3
LEXINGTON 30,355 20,265 66.8
Waltham 59,226 61,289 103.5
Woburn 37,258 38,985 104.6
Bedford 12,595 16,810 133.5
Burlington 22,876 38,591 168.7
Massachusetts 6,349,097 2,915,478 45.9
Sources:
Population: US Census of Population, 2000.
Local jobs: MA DET website, 4th Quarter, 2000. Excludes Government.
70
Table E3
EMPLOYMENT IN LEXINGTON 1/12/02
EMPLOYMENT
Agriculture
Forestry Govern- Const- Manufac-
Year Total Fishing ment ruction turing TCPU Trade FIRE Services
1985 18,846 65 1,361 670 4,701 261 5,504 643 5,641
1986 18,457 59 1,370 718 4,383 146 4,695 864 6,223
1987 18,197 75 1,366 449 4,963 306 4,440 838 5,760
1988 18,803 75 1,386 443 5,141 360 4,412 931 6,055
1989 19,428 80 1,389 421 5,143 380 4,749 877 6,389
1990 19,411 84 1,393 309 5,007 495 4,072 997 7,054
1991 16,823 83 1,362 271 4,630 439 3,462 1,112 5,464
1992 15,838 79 1,254 240 4,158 434 2,794 1,225 5,654
1993 16,153 82 1,416 237 3,978 293 2,815 1,320 6,012
1994 16,335 89 1,484 373 3,623 302 2,758 1,377 6,329
1995 17,838 99 1,514 329 3,515 335 2,466 580 9,000
1996 18,037 99 1,578 296 3,150 354 2,363 629 9,568
1997 19,078 109 1,647 302 2,966 325 2,663 667 10,399
1998 20,566 106 1,658 308 2,623 408 2,860 683 11,920
1999 21,427 123 1,693 328 2,342 448 3,110 715 12,668
2000 21,600 161 1,700 426 2,155 539 2,662 757 13,172
TCPU=Transportation,Communications,and Public Utilities.
FIRE=Finance, Insurance and Real Estate.
Changes in industry definitions in 1988 and 1997 limit comparability with earlier data.
Source: MA Division of Employment and Training,except 2000 Government estimated by Herr&James.
Chart E2.
JOBS IN LEXINGTON
1985-2000
25,000 ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
20,000
Sery ices
IN Fin, Insur, RE
m 15,000 Trade
■Transp, comm
J
c ❑Manufacturing
c 10,000 ■Construction
❑Government
■Agriculture
5,000
Source:MA DET
0
9�h 9�6 9�'� 9�0 9�9 990 99� 99ti 99`5 99M 99h 996 99'� 990 999�O�O
a � t 71
Table E4.
LEXINGTON RETAIL SALES, 1997
Sales in 1997 Per capita sales
Lexington MA I Lex
x1000 X1,000,000 Lexington MA of MA
Furniture furnishings $ 8,448 $ 1,857 $ 278 $ 292 95%
Electronics appliances $ 1,099 $ 1,574 $ 36 $ 248 15%
Building materials garden $ 2,731 $ 5,053 $ 90 $ 796 11%
Food & beverage $ 21,251 $ 11,294 $ 700 $ 1,779 39%
Health & personal care $ 18,948 $ 3,520 $ 624 $ 554 113%
Gasoline $ 12,655 $ 3,814 $ 417 $ 601 69%
Clothing $ 11,387 $ 4,309 $ 375 $ 679 55%
Sporting oods books etc. $ 7,335 $ 1,904 $ 242 $ 300 81%
Other $ 47,546 $ 25,253 $ 1,566 $ 3,977 39%
Total sales 1997 $ 131,400 $ 58,578 $ 4,329 $ 9,226 47%
Total sales 1987 $ 172,027 $ 44,818 $ 5,937 $ 7,876 75%
Population 2000 30,355 6,349,097
Po ulation 1990 28 974 5 690 369
Sources:
Retail sales: US Census of Retail Trade, 1997 and 1987.
Population: US Census of Population, 2000 and 1980.
�.a�e 72 C�,earzansie .�zve� .t
Table ES..
LEXINGTON FISCAL BACKGROUND 16-Jul-01
Year I Residential I Commercial Industrial Personal Prop Total % Resid Other%
ASSESSED VALUATION BY CLASS
1990 2,928,897,300 628,404,800 169,707,600 45,372,200 3,772,381,900 77.6 22.4
1991 2,620,862,100 453,302,000 111,683,000 21,635,600 3,207,482,700 81.7 18.3
1992 2,519,321,000 379,126,000 98,899,000 54,052,800 3,051,398,800 82.6 17.4
1993 2,574,645,700 329,673,000 89,196,000 41,747,200 3,035,261,900 84.8 15.2
1994 2,633,197,000 300,199,000 77,172,000 43,156,200 3,053,724,200 86.2 13.8
1995 2,801,492,000 297,404,000 72,673,000 45,468,200 3,217,037,200 87.1 12.9
1996 2,975,007,040 310,888,960 76,259,000 46,710,800 3,408,865,800 87.3 12.7
1997 3,099,278,410 313,486,740 82,025,000 50,047,000 3,544,837,150 87.4 12.6
1998 3,300,687,100 345,212,000 85,747,000 63,451,360 3,795,097,460 87.0 13.0
1999 3,523,737,000 399,289,000 102,171,000 64,517,160 4,089,714,160 86.2 13.8
2000 3,761,567,000 541,307,000 114,841,000 88,562,290 4,506,277,290 83.5 16.5
2001 4,200,706,000 582,453,000 124,645,000 107,509,290 5,015,313,290 83.8 16.2
TAX LEVY BY CLASS
1990 26,945,855 10,016,773 2,705,139 723,233 40,391,000 66.7 33.3
1991 29,248,821 10,099,569 2,488,297 482,041 42,318,728 69.1 30.9
1992 30,811,296 9,023,199 2,353,796 1,286,457 43,474,748 70.9 29.1
1993 35,118,167 8,766,005 2,371,722 1,110,058 47,365,952 74.1 25.9
1994 37,286,070 8,138,395 2,092,133 1,169,965 48,686,562 76.6 23.4
1995 39,220,888 7,902,024 1,930,922 1,208,090 50,261,924 78.0 22.0
1996 41,679,849 8,244,775 2,022,389 1,238,770 53,185,783 78.4 21.6
1997 43,017,984 8,229,027 2,153,156 1,313,734 54,713,901 78.6 21.4
1998 44,328,228 8,806,358 2,187,406 1,618,644 56,940,636 77.8 22.2
1999 45,068,596 9,778,588 2,502,168 1,580,025 58,929,377 76.5 23.5
2000 46,079,196 11,037,250 2,341,608 1,805,785 61,263,839 75.2 24.8
2001 50,870,550 12,773,194 2,733,465 2,357,679 68,734,888 74.0 26.0
TAX RATES BY CLASS (Shift
(Composite) factor)
1990 9.20 15.94 15.94 15.94 10.71 149%
1991 11.16 22.28 22.28 22.28 13.19 169%
1992 12.23 23.80 23.80 23.80 14.25 167%
1993 13.64 26.59 26.59 26.59 15.61 170%
1994 14.16 27.11 27.11 27.11 15.94 170%
1995 14.00 26.57 26.57 26.57 15.62 170%
1996 14.01 26.52 26.52 26.52 15.60 170%
1997 13.88 26.25 26.25 26.25 15.43 170%
1998 13.43 25.51 25.51 25.51 15.00 170%
1999 12.79 24.49 24.49 24.49 14.41 170%
2000 12.25 20.39 20.39 20.39 13.59 150%
2001 12.11 21.93 21.93 21.93 13.71 160%
73
.Mar
Chart E3.
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Lexington
6,000 . ..................................
5,000 -
4,000
0
.2
3,000 — — — — — — —
.2
E
2,000
1,000
0 -
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
OCommercial OIndustrial ■Personal Property IlResidential
74
Table E6A 1/12/02
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT SUMMARY: 2001 zoning
Floor area (square feet
Lot area Allowed Potential
Location (sq. ft. Existing byzoning Increase Total
Hartwell Ave. 11,060,000 2,020,000 1,570,000 280 000 2,300,000
Hayden Ave. 9,180,000 1,010,000 1,360,000 480,000 1,480,000
Lexington Center 560,000 390,000 420,000 140,000 520,000
BedfordNVorthen 1,070,000 270,000 340,000 130,000 400,000
Rte. 2A/Mass Ave 1,130,000 170,000 180,000 10,000 180,000
TOTAL 23,000,000 3,860,000 3,870,000 1,040,000 4,880,000
Table E613
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT SUMMARY: "TEST" zoning
Floor area (square feet
Lot area Allowed Potential Test zoning
Location s . ft. Existing] b zoningIncrease Total added
Hartwell Ave. 11,060,000 2,020,000 2,320,000 670,000 2,690,000 390,000
Hayden Ave. 9,180,000 1,010,000 1,920,000 940,000 1,950,000 460,000
Lexington Center 560,000 390,000 1,120,000 740,000 1,120,000 600,000
BedfordNVorthen 1,070,000 270,000 460,000 210,000 480,000 80,000
Rte. 2A/Mass Ave 1,130,000 170,000 200,000 30,000 200,000 20,000
TOTAL 23,000,000 3,860,000 6,020,000 2,590,000 6,440,000 1,550,000
Land in residential use or districts and lots in public or institutional ownership excluded.
Land in CD districts assumed to be restricted to existing floor area.
2001 Zoning: all rules as current 7/01
Floor area constrained by FAR limit except in CB where floor area is constrained largely by
parking requirements and a low height limit*.
TEST Zoning
FAR increased 50% except in CB and CD districts.
In CB no offstreet parking required.
Potential not reduced to reflect site circumstances such as wetlands.
* Rather than being determined by the FAR of 2.0, the assumption for the preceding
commercial buildout in CB is that half the buildings had two stories and half had one.
Chart E4.
COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT
Lexington major commercial areas
3,000,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2,500,000
2,000,000
A
w
A
`0
0
w 1,500,000
w
w
A
v
N
1,000,000
500,000
0
Hartwell Ave. Hayden Ave. Lexington Center BedfordANorthen Rte. 2A/Mass
Ave
OTEST zoning added potential
02001 zoning potential
Existing floor area
76
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Better, not Bigger is the title of a book currently popular among planners. That might be the
bumper sticker for the intent of economic development in Lexington at this point. There is no
envy here of the neighboring communities that have more jobs or higher job-to-resident ratios
than Lexington, nor would we choose to emulate the more purely"bedroom-like"places in the
region. What we do want to do is to join with the business community that is here to find ways
of making this a better community for residents, workers, and enterprises, taking advantage of
the wonderful benefits conferred on the Town by its location and legacy.
Four goals stand out as the reasons for the Town to engage in economic development.
• First, a strong local economy can help provide necessary fiscal support for the high level of
public services residents of Lexington seek. Tax support from business in Lexington fell in the
weak economy of the mid-nineties, even as more business floor area was being added. Helping
business to thrive here helps the municipal economy, with or without physical expansion of
land or building area devoted to business.
• Second, some of the businesses here provide important services and opportunities for
Lexington residents. Having to travel to other communities for goods and services is a loss to
the local quality of life and sense of community, so, defending and building local service
opportunities is an important goal.
• Third, nearby jobs play an important role for some whose mobility or time is limited. For
kids, seniors,the handicapped, and any whose employment is part-time, having jobs nearby is
a major concern. Having jobs easily accessible for Lexington residents is an important goal,
even (or especially) in an auto-centered and Internet-connected world. It benefits those who
thus are facilitated in getting and holding jobs. It benefits everyone by reducing,to some
extent,the amount of travel involved in connecting jobs and homes and with that, the
inconvenience imposed on others, dependence on fossil fuels, and degradation of air quality.
• Fourth, economic change can strengthen Lexington's sense of place and community. Having
locations that we all commonly use, and within which we can enjoy the benefits of
serendipitous exchange and multi-purpose visits, is an important element in building
neighborhood and town identity and community. Current trends are eroding that. Economic
development efforts, if appropriately directed towards creation of real centers of community
and neighborhood activity, can perhaps achieve a reversal.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Not only is the selection of goals important, but so too is the selection of strategies for
approaching those goals and identification of constraints within which efforts should fall, since
the strategies themselves have important consequences for broader community objectives.
2 Eben Fodor,New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,BC, Canada, 1999.
77
❖ While business invigoration is an essential part of any set of economic development
strategies, emulating Burlington within Lexington is neither necessary nor sought-after.
Clearly economic growth should not overburden transportation or other infrastructure, or
transform the carefully established image of the community. Current zoning would
theoretically allow addition of about a million square feet of business floor area. In
actuality, somewhat less is probably feasible.
The Town's zoned potential for housing growth allows another 700 or so housing units,
accommodating about 1,000 workers given household size and labor force participation
rates similar to the present. The Town now has about one-third more local jobs than it has
locally resident workers, offset by net in-commuting. To maintain that relationship from
now until "build-out"would mean adding about 1,300 jobs. About 20% of Lexington-
based jobs are not located in business buildings, but rather in schools, houses and many
other non-commercial places. Adding 1,300 jobs overall would therefore mean adding
about 1,100 jobs in business quarters, requiring about 280,000 square feet of added
business floor area. The current zoning could accommodate more than triple that amount
before accounting for some "spreading out"to occupy more floor area per worker. After
accounting for growth, in space per worker and theoretical capacity, that is unrealistic to
achieve on the ground, current zoning appears to be adequate to accommodate the present
relationship of jobs to housing at residential build-out, with a modest margin to spare.
That analysis suggests that current zoning is very close to perfectly balanced, for a policy
of accommodating growth in jobs, within Lexington, in proportion with the anticipated
growth in resident workers in Lexington. In turn,that suggests a balanced approach to
change in business regulation. The aim of any regulatory change should be better growth
than current zoning would be likely to result in, but not more growth than would now be
allowable and expected.
❖ Any removal of regulatory and other constraints on economic development must be
joined with measures to assure that any harmful impacts of the resulting activity
increases, such as traffic burdens, will be avoided or fully mitigated.
❖ Efforts should importantly include support for businesses already here in Lexington,
since they are (or should become) part of our community, and are critical to our achieving
the goals we seek.
❖ Efforts should reflect and take advantage of the profound interconnectedness of economic
activities and initiatives, within Lexington, and those in the surrounding region.
❖ In this topical area, no less than in others, respect for the principles of sustainability
should guide our initiatives. Those efforts can be proactive in providing support for
economic activity that is healing in its effects, not merely benign. When workers who
formerly drove to work commute by foot, or, when a"green-committed" Lexington
business achieves a niche in a market lacking such approaches, there is a net gain for a
multitude of interests: economic, environmental, and social, both locally and more
widely.
Id'
❖ A key aspect of our approach should be to recognize the value of the high demand for
business location in Lexington, and to work with that demand to help achieve the goals
articulated, including"better, not bigger." With care and skill, that can be achieved.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Better accessibility, less auto dependence.
Encourage economic development that will moderate auto usage and promote accessibility
for Lexington residents to jobs and services. That will reduce traffic impacts, the single
objection to business growth most commonly cited locally. It also will strengthen positive
connections between business and the Lexington resident population, and reduce dependence
on fossil fuels. Moderating auto usage can be approached both through how business
activities are located within the Town, and by strengthening how they are operated.
"Mixed use" is an old idea having new currency for these purposes, whether mixed within a
building, within a site, within contiguous sites, or within a district.
1.1 More generously allow use of homes for work as well as residing. Home-based
business is the ultimate mixed use, now sometimes termed "zero-commute housing."
An extreme version is live/work arrangements, where neither residential nor business
use is accessory to the other and therefore limited, but rather there is flexibility over
time in the allocation of space within the building for either. Lexington's home
occupation rules reflect a long-ago era. They urgently require modernization to reflect
contemporary technology and work patterns, to enable economic growth with minimal
adverse impacts, and to accommodate an emerging lifestyle shift. Supporting home-
based business also means making efforts to assure the timely availability now and in
the future for state-of-the-art telecommunications.
1.2 Explore revising zoning to allow residential use in Lexington Center. The
transportation benefits of mixed functions in close proximity is exemplified by
Lexington Center, where a single vehicle trip provides access to multiple activities
within easy and attractive walking distance. Over the years, residential functions have
been pushed to the periphery of the Center, in part by real estate economics, but also by
zoning. Modifying zoning to allow and facilitate residential use in the Center Business
district could substantially benefit economic development, housing, and transportation.
The Massachusetts Downtown Initiative website features a large photo of Lexington
Center opposite its "Seven Basic Building Blocks of Downtown Revitalization."
Lexington scores well on six of those seven building blocks. "Living downtown" is the
seventh, and on that, the Center doesn't meet the guideline3.
1.3 Review Zoning to identify impediments to mixed use elsewhere. Compact multi-
functional development could occur elsewhere in Lexington, given supportive
www.state.ma.us/dhed/components/des/downtown.
79
encouragement by the Town in its regulations and facilitation efforts, again producing
proximity that enables moderation of the auto impacts of business to the extent that
walking replaces driving.
1.4 Modernize CN District regulations. Neighborhood stores, by definition, provide mix by
being near the residents they serve and often near the residences of some of their staff.
Regulatory impediments to such enterprises should be identified and remedies
proposed, such as modernizing the regulations on allowable categories of use in
neighborhood commercial (CN) districts, and perhaps revising the zoning map to create
new CN or similar districts.
Even without pedestrian-scaled proximity between business and related activities, it is
possible to have economic development without the usually expected level of traffic
impact. Strengthening Transportation Demand Management(TDM) can do that. Zoning
(§ 12.3.4) authorizes the requirement of such efforts in certain cases, but more could be
done.
1.5 Explore a requirement that no large trip-producing use shall be allowed unless it
documents that the trips it will generate will be a specified amount, below that
customarily expected from that type of use. Reductions could be the result of employer-
arranged ride-sharing, vanpools, and similar efforts or,failing that, through
compensatory reduction in potential trip generation, through reserving open space on
that or other sites.
1.6 As a less forceful fallback alternative to the above imperative, such trip-limiting efforts
might be encouraged, rather than required. Incentives might be offered in return for
excellence in similar transportation demand management efforts.
1.7 Explore transit-oriented design rules for commercial and industrial districts, especially
Manufacturing and Regional Office districts, such as those along Hartwell and Hayden
Avenues. Current rules there make efficient operation of vanpools or mini-buses as
difficult as possible. Clustering of adjacent buildings is prohibited by wide side and rear
yard requirements, and front yard rules force buildings to be distant from the street,
frustrating trip efficiency for vehicles picking up and leaving off passengers. Sixteen
pages of zoning text and graphics specify, in fine detail, parking and traffic
arrangements, with barely a mention of pedestrians or bicycles. Revision is overdue.
1.8 Explore further ways of reducing job-related travel. Even without facilitation by the
Town, private businesses have begun providing van links for their employees, often
connecting to Alewife. There is a wonderful potential there and perhaps elsewhere,
such as Lowell and Montachusett, for two-way van links, such as Lexington resident
commuters being brought to Alewife on their way Downtown, and in-town residents
being brought from Alewife to Lexington jobs.
2. Strengthen Lexington Center's retail service function.
Lexington Center's economic health is unquestionable. However, the Center no longer, as
strongly as before, plays the traditional role of being the unique place where all residents
come for a variety of goods and services and, through that, being the place of shared
experience, supporting both serendipitous and planned meetings and exchange. Trends in the
retail industry, real estate economics, and transportation, all contribute to the shift from
retailing that chiefly serves a local market to specialty retailing, serving a broader region and
to non-retail activities. What is at stake is not just a nostalgic wish for things to be as they
were, but rather the preservation of a vital element in the mix of things that have made
Lexington such a cohesive community.
2.1 Focus administrative efforts towards this objective. The Economic Development Office
and others should be supported in their efforts to facilitate the establishment and
healthy continuation of the types of business that promotes the vibrant activity center
that is sought. That means, most importantly, serving Lexington residents, supported in
doing so through welcomed business from tourists and from participants in a possible
strengthening of the Center, as a place for evening leisure activities.
2.2 Facilitate flexibility in changes of land use. Shifts between categories of retail use, even
within the same floor area, are made difficult in Lexington Center because of the
regulatory system, especially regarding parking. That affects retail use particularly,
since permit-triggering change is more frequent for that use than for office or financial
uses. Further, since retailing is a more intensive use than are most others, those
obstacles are more likely inhibitions for retailing,than for other uses. That
inadvertently promotes less intensive office or financial uses in its place, the opposite
of what would benefit the Center's traditional role. Rules inhibiting the uses we want
should be systematically identified and remedied.
2.3 Support an initiative of the business community, should it come,to create a Business
Improvement District("BID"). Such a district, if petitioned by a majority of affected
property owners and approved by the Town, can perform a variety of functions on
behalf of the businesses collectively. In Lexington, that might critically include
provision of solid waste management services, creative approaches to parking,
organizing transportation demand management efforts, and various other supporting
programs better enabling Center interests to enhance their district. A BID might be the
ideal entity to explore the possibility of a regional recycling program for commercial
wastes. Fees, assessed through the Town but managed by the participating businesses,
would support the efforts of the district. Such districts are authorized under Chapter 40-
0 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
3. Manage economic development in other ways to protect our shared environment.
3.1 Explore creation of a system for non-residential "Developments with Significant Public
Benefit,"parallel to the Zoning § 9.6 provisions for residential development. Section
9.6 specifies, with detail and clarity, what the Town expects from residential
a � �t dI
development that seeks flexible treatment, bonuses, or other discretionary approvals.
The same could be done for business development, with a simplified and expedited
decision process as one possible incentive. In addition to items mentioned earlier in this
set of implementing measures, "significant public benefits"might include:
(a) Scoring sufficiently high on an objective environmental sensitivity scoring system,
such as the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green
Building Rating System or the MA environmental tax credit system proposed in
2001 House Bill 3840, "A Green Building Income Tax Credit."
(b) Conducting"eco-friendly operations." The above two are "scoring systems"
centered on the development itself, not what is done inside of it. A company whose
primary inputs are materials, otherwise likely to be waste, and whose products are
environmentally no worse than benign, might earn credits for providing significant
community benefit, over and above any benefit from having a building whose use
of resources in construction and operation is noteworthy.
(c) Achieving trip reduction significantly exceeding the levels required under other
measures.
3.2 Maintain a well-structured overview of change, and refine course accordingly. It is
critical in times of rapid change that there is an ongoing systematic reexamination of
the consistency between the municipality's actions and its stated policies. Two items
are of special significance.
(a) Assure that over time, business floor area and trip generation increases, authorized
by rezoning or special permit are offset by commensurate resulting decreases in
floor area and trip generation expectations elsewhere, in order to maintain the
"balance"between residential and non-residential growth, cited as a basic strategy
above. If over time, it frequently seems appropriate to approve departures from the
policy, the policy itself should be revisited and, following public discussion, either
revised or better adhered to.
(b) Periodically review tax rate policy. Lexington has chosen to "classify" its tax levy
or to utilize a"split tax rate" in order to maintain an appropriate balance between
residential and non-residential tax burdens. The share of the tax levy to be borne by
business is annually set to reflect Town policy. It appears that variations in the
"split," over time, have been used to mitigate fluctuations in the residential tax
burden that might otherwise occur because of differences in rate of change between
residential and non-residential real estate values and the resulting change in shares
of the Town's assessed valuation. Those annually reconsidered shifts also send a
signal to business, and influence the kinds of business that can prosper in
Lexington. There are also a few other tax policy options affecting business,
including optional exclusion of business from the Community Preservation Act tax
surcharge, should the Town approve use of that Act locally. Tax policy should be
explicit, accessible, and frequently revisited.
The four Plan elements preceding this chapter contain an array of actions through which it is
intended that the Plan be implemented. Those actions are organized below, not by Plan element,
but rather by the board or official that is expected to guide at least the initial steps towards each
of those actions actually being taken. Not surprisingly, the Planning Board has the largest agenda
to initiate, but the Selectmen, Town Manager, Conservation Commission, and Historical
Commission all are also intended to play initiating roles. For a number of the actions, the
initiator has not yet been designated or perhaps is not yet in existence. Further, designating initial
responsibility for certain of the actions is appropriately deferred until the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan is undertaken, as is scheduled for the near future, along with the
(Public) Facilities and Implementation Strategies elements. As these action items move forward,
efforts will also involve virtually all the agencies of Town government, some standing
committees and several other community service and advocacy organizations.
Listed at the end of each action item are references for where within the four elements a more
complete context for and description of the action can be found. Also listed is an indication of
the time period within which the action appropriately might be undertaken:
— "Near Term:" items to be undertaken and perhaps completed within the next year or so.
— "Intermediate Term:" items to be undertaken within the next three years or so.
— "Long Term:" items that can or must take longer than three years, reflecting level of
difficulty, prerequisites, or level of priority.
— "Ongoing:" items that by their nature are not point in time ones but rather are carried out
continuously over time.
When the preparation of further elements of the Comprehensive Plan (particularly
"Transportation") draws towards completion, additional implementing actions will be added to
the Town's agenda That will create an appropriate point at which to systematically look back on
the implementation accomplishments of the year or so between now and then and to reassess
who should do what, when they should do it, and what resources should be provided. Similar
reassessments should be repeated from time to time in the years following that to assure that the
Plan remains an importantly relevant part of the Town's activities, and not just part of its
literature.
SELECTMEN
CROSS-CUTTING POLICIES
Two actions, one dealing with land and one dealing with taxation, are to be initiated by the
Selectmen, reflecting their unique role in relation to policies that cut across narrower interest
areas.
• Surplus land. Establish policy that in acting on the disposition of"surplus" public land
(e.g. tax title parcels, Met State land when it is transferred), priority should be given to
the two uses for which land is key: diversity-serving housing and preservation of
important open spaces. [Land Use 1.2, Housing LT NEAR TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Conservation Commission, LexHAB, and Lexington Housing Authority.
• Tax rate policy. Establish policy that there will be a periodic long-term review of both
the splitting of the tax rate and other tax rate matters undertaken and publicized to assure
that an appropriate balance is maintained between residential and non-residential tax
burdens and that to the degree possible, tax policy is encouraging the types of investment
that the Town seeks. [Economic 3.2(b): INTERMEDIATE TERM]
Possible additional initiators/actors: Assessor, Special Study Committee
BUILDING A FRAMEWORK FOR HOUSING
Lexington's policy commitment to housing and its past housing achievements can be matched in
the future only given new structure and resources.
• Housing infrastructure. Explore housing organizational roles and capacities, initiating
changes in them, possibly including creation of a new body, such as a Housing
Partnership Committee, to fill the void revealed through these studies and the lack of a
suitable vehicle for implementing a number of the actions. [Housing 6.1: NEAR TERM].
• Housing funding. Commit Town funds for housing, whether through the Community
Preservation Act, linkage, or other means. [Housing 5.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: CPA Committee(if affirmatively voted), Lexington Housing Authority,
LexHAB, Fair Housing Committee.
BUILDING RESOURCE-EFFICIENCY INTO THE SYSTEM
Many innovative approaches to avoiding resource waste and thereby reducing costs and
improving the environment are contained in the Plan, and deserve an organizational framework
to assure implementation.
• Resource Organization. Explore creation of a new organization, provision of new
resources to an existing organization, or other structural measure to provide leadership
for the actions listed below under"Resource Savers: Helping to Reduce Waste."
[Resources 3.5: NEAR TERM].
TOWN MANAGER
BUILDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE
Meeting the challenge of appropriate economic development in a mature community with
diverse perspectives on the meaning of"appropriate"will require a careful balancing of interests.
• Economic Development Infrastructure. Explore creation of an organization, whether
short-term or permanent, or provision of new resources to an existing organization or
other structural measure to provide leadership for the actions listed below under
"Building Better Business." [NEAR TERM].
Possible additional actors/initiators: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Business
Roundtable, and Chamber of Commerce.
PLANNING BOARD
DEALING WITH TOWN CHARACTER
The proliferation of out-of-scale houses, tree-cutting, damage to valued architectural resources,
and loss of coherent town form are examples of the range of concerns expressed centering on
sensitivity to desired town character.
• House Impact Provisions. Prepare a package of measures for addressing the Town's
concerns over out-of-scale houses. [Land Use 2.6(a), Housing 2, Resources 5.3(a): NEAR
TERM].
Note: initial package of house impact control measures is nearing completion as of this writing and will go to
Town meeting 2002 this spring.
• Initiating a designer's effort. Hold discussions with various groups having design roles
and capacities, including the Design Advisory Committee, the Historic District
Commission,the Historical Commission, the Lexington Center Committee, and the
Lexington Garden Club to determine how best the actions listed under"Designers
Guiding Town Character"below can be carried forward. That might result in either
creation of a task force or identification of an existing organization to subsequently lead
the effort. [INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actora {From the groups in the paragraph above}: Lexington Center
Committee, Design Advisory Committee.
CREATING REGULATIONS TO HELP HOUSING
Zoning and other local regulations are often perceived as root causes of housing problems, but
those measures can also be constructive tools for addressing the concern.
• Inclusionary zoning. Broadly mandate that housing developments include affordable
units. [Land Use 2.2(d), Housing 3.2: NEAR TERM].
• Housing in business districts. Explore allowing housing in some business districts,
including the Center. [Land Use 2.l(a), Economic 1.2 and 1.3, Housing 1.1:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Lexington Center Committee, Chamber of Commerce, and LexHAB.
• Affordability density bonus. Revise density and impact bonuses to strengthen housing
affordability incentives. [Land Use 2.2(d), Housing 3.1: LONG TERM].
• Affordability quid pro quo. Formalize through amendment to regulations that some
contribution to affordability is expected where relief from usual rules is sought. [Housing
1.8: NEAR TERM.]
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Small-scale elderly housing. Provide incentives for small-scale age-restricted housing
[Land Use 2.2(a), Housing 1.3: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Cohousing and other new formats. Explore rules to assure that they do not
inadvertently obstruct new approaches to housing, such as cohousing. [Housing 1.5:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: LexHAB, Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing
Committee.
• Adaptive reuse for housing. Facilitate reuse of existing non-residential structures for
housing. [Land Use 2.2(c), Housing 1.6: LONG TERM].
• Modernize house rules. Creatively explore modernization of the rules about what you
can do with your existing house to accommodate contemporary work and living styles,
e.g.,telecommuting, computer-based home businesses, live/work arrangements,
accessory apartments [Land Use 2.1(a) and 2.2(b) Economic 1.1, Housing 1.4 and 4:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Protect existing resources. Following experience with House Impact Provisions to be
acted upon in the near term, consider further measures to protect existing modest-price
housing resources, one example of which might be tear-down site reuse delay. [Housing
2.1 and 2.2, Resources 5.2(b): LONG TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actor: Housing Partnership or similar new entity, Fair Housing Committee.
PROMOTING APPROPRIATE BUSINESS
Carefully designed regulation can assure that business development serving the Town's interests
is effectively encouraged.
• Modernize Neighborhood Business District zoning. Update use controls to employ
contemporary categories, and to facilitate mixed uses. [Land Use 2.1(a), Economic 1.4,
and Resources 2.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Several existing Civic or Neighborhood Associations.
• Specify non-residential benefit expectations. Create a system mirroring the residential
"Development with Significant Public Benefit"to offer incentive for special trip
reduction efforts, "green building,"housing support, etc. [Land Use 1.3 and 2.5(b),
Resource 1.2(e), Economic 3.1: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, LexHAB, Building Commissioner.
"GREENING" DEVELOPMENT
There are a number of ways in which existing regulations could be refined in ways that are
protective of resources and other Town concerns without imposing substantial burdens.
• Allow narrower streets. Revise Subdivision Regulation standards to allow a lower-
impact design standard [Resources 1.2(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Mandate subdivision open space. Through use of special permits, authorize
requirement of open space even if applicant seeks conventional subdivision. [Land Use
2.4(a) and (b), Resources 1.l(a): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Refined cluster. Enhance existing cluster provisions, adding a lower-density but possibly
by-right cluster option as a true open space residential provision. [Land Use 2.3(d):
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Strengthen controls on chemicals, landscaping materials,water use. Revise both
Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to specify such requirements or incentives as a
complement to other existing controls under Board of Health or other jurisdictions.
[Resources 1.2(a): LONGTERM].
d7
Possible additional initiators/actors: Board of Health, Conservation Commission. Public Works.
• Explore enabling transfer of development rights. Consider allowing preservation of
open space on one parcel to permit higher density on another parcel. [Resources 1.l(b):
LONG TERM].
• Reexamine impervious surface controls. Extend impervious surface controls to all
residential development, resolve current disincentives for clusters, and address related lot
coverage and recharge issues. [Land Use 2.3(b); Resources 1.2(c): INTERMEDIATE
TERM].
• Limit allowable grade change on residential building sites. Require special review if
change from existing grade exceeds a stated limit. [Resources 1.2 (b): NEAR TERM].
IMPROVING REGULATORY SPEED AND PREDICTABILITY
Unnecessarily burdensome and slow regulatory processes are costly to both applicants and Town
staff, and regulations which fail to have predictable decision outcomes are damaging to both
those who would develop and those affected by that development.
• Expedite regulatory processes. Explore removal of unnecessary delays and burdensome
procedures, in particular for selected, desired uses or land use changes, where doing so
results in no loss of assurance of strong compliance. [Land Use 1.4, Housing 6.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, Selectmen, and possible Special Study
Committee.
• Improve planned development commercial (CD) and residential(RD) predictability.
Provide better policy guidance for the creation of planned development commercial (CD)
and residential (RD) districts through, among other things, use of performance-based
controls. [Land use 1.1: LONGTERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Business Roundtable, Selectmen, possible Special Study Committee,
Building Commissioner, and Town Manager.
ASSURING POLICY CONSISTENCY
Maintain a well-structured overview of land use change, and refine course accordingly.
• Observe residential/non-residential "balance."Note inevitable departures from the
policies of this Plan over time, and if necessary take remedial action on either the Plan or
actions to be guided by it. [Land Use 3.1: ONGOING.]
Possible additional initiators/actors: Vision 2020 Implementation Committee
• Periodically assess links between land use and the environment. hi the same spirit,
note over time whether corrective change to either the Plan or ongoing actions would be
appropriate in light of environmental and sustainability consequences of land use change
overtime. [Land Use 3.1: ONGOING.]
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCES
This Plan calls for efforts to protect at least one-third of the Town's remaining land resources, as
well as calling for a number of other resource protection efforts to which these actions are
intended to contribute.
• Funding for open space. Gain a local financial commitment for funding of open space
acquisition through one means or another, whether through the Community Preservation
Act, capital facilities plan reservation, or other means. [Land Use 2.3(a), Resources
1.1(d): NEAR TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: CPA Committee(if program is adopted).
• Continue and strengthen current efforts:
— An aggressive program for open space land donations. [Resources 1.1(e):
ONGOING].
— An environmental monitoring program, as suggested in Vision 2020. [Resources 3.4:
ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Board of Health, Tree Committee/Tree Warden.
— Other natural resource programs, e.g. tree planting. [Resources 3.3: ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Tree Committee/Tree Warden.
HISTORICAL COMMISSION
PROTECTING OUR LEGACY
Lexington's rich and still-evolving historical legacy deserves strong efforts towards its
strengthened management.
• Prepare a Historic Preservation Plan. Building on the base of inventory work already
done, develop policies, strategies, and a course of actions for managing cultural
resources. [Resources 5.1: LONGTERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission.
• Explore how to fund preservation. Potential means include the Community
Preservation Act, special tax treatment for historic home improvements, tax credits, and
tax increment financing. [Resources 5.4: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actor: CPA Committee(if program is adopted).
• Protect archeological resources. Explore development of local regulations to
complement state and federal ones. [Resources 5.3(c): LONG TERM].
• Strengthen and reline demolition rules. Seek to make the process smoother and more
inclusive. [Resources 5.3(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Explore"Battle Road Corridor Overlay District." Seek resources to make the entirety
of the Battle Road a recognizable and well-managed resource. [Resources 4.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission.
• Continue Revolutionary War documenting. Document, archive, and make educational
use of information from that era. [Resources 4.1: ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Volunteers in a possible Special Study Committee.
INITIATORS TO BE DESIGNATED OR ORGANIZED
The following dozen or so actions are best carried out through efforts to be led by initiators not
yet formed or designated. In some cases the initiators may turn out to be an existing organization
with a new charge, or a short-duration special task group, or a new addition to the Town's
organizational structure.
DESIGNERS: GUIDING TOWN CHARACTER
The following are items to be initiated by a group having expertise at and interest in design and
management of Town character, created or identified as outlined above under "Planning Board."
• Explore"light" historic districts. Devise a light-handed means of helping to protect
historic resources in more areas of the Town, including relatively new ones. [Resources
5.2(a): LONG TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Historic Districts Commission, Historical Commission, Planning Board, Design
Advisory Committee, special study committee.
C2� , 2OD2
• Strengthen diversity of neighborhood character. Explore how Zoning as well as
architectural controls can contribute to underscoring the diverse character of Lexington's
neighborhoods. [Land Use 2.6(d): INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actora Planning Board.
• Articulate Lexington's identity. Gateways might be given special character, and
identity-providing qualities might be supported throughout the Town making it a visually
identifiable place. [Resources 4.3: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actora Planning Board, civic and service organizations.
• Protect"special places." Identify and then find means of protecting the special places
that contribute to the Town's character and attractiveness. [Resources 5.2(d): LONG
TERM].
• Avoid unbroken seas of asphalt. As proposed in Vision 2020, explore controls to
supplement current landscaping rules with requirements that will preclude large-scale
parking areas unbroken except by relatively modest landscaping, using buildings, grade
changes, and major landscaping to maintain appropriate scale. [Land Use 2.6(c):
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
• Strengthen preservation incentives. Zoning's incentives for preservation, though new,
might be strengthened to promote their use. [Resources 5.3(b): Intermediate Term].
Possible initiators/actors: CPA Committee if program adopted, Planning Board.
• Explore the Scenic Roads Act. Trees and stone walls along designated roads could get
special protection through this widely used Act. [Resources 5.2(c): LONG TERM].
• Explore a building materials recycling yard. Saving and finding new life for trim,
doors, mantles, and other useful items saved from inevitable demolition. [Housing 7.2:
LONG TERM].
SUPPORTING HOUSING DIVERSITY AND OPPORTUNITY
These items are to be initiated by a group having housing-related skills and interest in supporting
a diverse Lexington, created or identified as stated above under"Selectmen."
• Explore housing funding potentials. Regulations and good efforts need to be joined
with financial resources. Creative approaches need to be explored. [Housing 5.3:
ONGOING].
Possible initiators/actors: Selectmen, Planning Board, and LexHAB. CPA Committee(if
program is adopted).
• Join a regional housing consortium. A number of Lexington's neighbors, through
having joined together, now gain funds otherwise unavailable. Lexington could do the
same. [Housing 5.2: LONG TERM].
• Support regional or State"linkage" explorations. This could provide a fair and
effective approach to addressing housing impacts of business development. [Housing 3.3:
ONGOING.].
RESOURCE SAVERS: HELPING TO REDUCE WASTE
A group having resource conservation skills and interest in encouraging efficient use of
resources, identified or created as described above under"Selectmen," is to initiate the following
actions, which will also be closely related to the future Comprehensive Plan element on Public
Services and Facilities.
• Use Town facilities & operations as a demonstration of good resource efficiency and
waste reduction practices. Through its own example,the Town could encourage its
citizens and businesses to reduce costs through reducing solid waste generated, increasing
the recycling rate, or making use of renewable energy sources. [Land Use 2.5 (b);
Resources 3.1: ONGOING.1
Possible initiatorslactors: Public Works, Selectmen.
• Consider providing incentives for development that has low non-renewable energy
demand and other resource-efficient design approaches. National green building
design standards such as LEED (Leadership in Energy& Environmental Design) or
currently proposed Massachusetts green design standards could be included among the
special permit criteria by which projects are judged. The benefits to Lexington could
include improved air quality through reduced emissions, healthy interior environments,
and lower power requirements and costs, as well as making a contribution towards
broader environmental goals. [Land Use 2.5(a): LONG TERM]
• Develop educational materials to encourage home design that reduces
environmental impact. Information provided to prospective Lexington homeowners,
builders and lenders could explain the connections among how homes are sited, designed,
and constructed and their resulting impacts on land, wildlife, water, air, and community
character as well as on long term operating costs and global environmental deterioration.
[Housing 7.1: LONGTERM]
BUILDING BETTER BUSINESS
The Plan's action intentions for economic development emphasize "better, not bigger," and
continuation of directions already being taken, including the focusing of administrative efforts on
supporting retail activity in the Center. The following are to be undertaken through a group
created or identified by the Town Manager as stated above under"Town Manager."
• Flexible use change in the Center. Pursue revisions to cure the inadvertent obstacles
that Zoning creates for change of use within retailing in the Center. [Economic 2.2:
INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Business
Roundtable.
• Help helpful businesses. Explore how best to encourage those businesses that serve local
residents, workers, businesses. [Land Use 2.6(e): ONGOING].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber
of Commerce.
• Support creation of a Business Improvement District. Such an organization would
bring together business interests in the Center to do collectively what they can't do
individually [Economic 2.3, Resources 3.2: INTERMEDIATE TERM].
Possible additional initiators/actors: Economic Development Officer, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber
of Commerce.
WITHIN THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The following actions identified in the first four elements of the evolving Comprehensive Plan
will gain stronger context and appropriateness for full consideration in the next phase of Plan
development when a Transportation Element is prepared later in the comprehensive planning
process in 2002-03. At that point,timing(near, intermediate, or long term) can be selected for
these items if they are still being proposed, and lead agencies and initiators identified.
EXPLORE ACHIEVING FEWER AND SHORTER AUTO TRIPS.
Rather than adapting roads to accommodate more cars, we can shape development to produce
relatively less travel in relation to activity levels.
• Explore locating higher densities near retail and good transport. [Land Use 2.1(b),
Housing 1.2].
• Explore the feasibility and impact of transit-oriented design. Design rules can
facilitate alternative travel modes, especially for commercial and industrial development.
[Land Use 2.1(d), Economic 1.7].
• Trip generation density rules in Zoning. Explore measuring and controlling"density"
in trips per acre as well as in floor area per acre,then obliging high trip-density uses to
offset that with open space contributions. [Land Use 2.3(c), Resources 1.l(c)].
• Strengthen Transportation Demand Management(TDM). Lexington pioneered in
adopting TDM rules, but their limited effectiveness suggests various ways of
strengthening them, including regional approaches that are of a non-regulatory and pro-
active nature, and support for transit links, car/van pools, ride guarantees, zip car
franchises where there is critical mass, etc. [Land Use 2.1(c), Resources 2.2 and 2.3,
Economic 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8].
OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ACTIONS
• Accommodate tour buses. Visitor auto trips and parking demand can be reduced
through better bus transport. [Land Use 2.1(e)].
• Seek land use role at Hanscom. Perhaps the Town can act with some degree of
authority on some land use actions within Hanscom. [Land Use 2.6(b)].
Appendix I
During the course of this comprehensive planning process, the concept of sustainability and how
the Town might orient policies and practices more in its direction have been extensively
explored. Groups of citizens and officials, in brainstorming how to pursue sustainability, noted
that many of the early proposals emerging from the planning process already moved in the
direction of a scientifically based framework of sustainability principles. In fact,the Town
currently acts in a number of ways that strongly support those principles, LEXPRESS being a
prominent long-established example, PAYT being a prominent new one. Using that framework
of sustainability principles to further organize and clarify actions, participants in that
brainstorming then identified additional supporting proposals.
To move in the direction of sustainability, activities need to be oriented to meet our human needs
efficiently, fairly, and within the means of nature to support those needs. Natural systems—
ecosystems, water, forests, and our atmosphere—are deteriorating at a rate faster than they can be
renewed and replenished. That is occurring largely due to our increasing encroachment upon
and degradation of those natural resources. Encroachment occurs through using up land, water,
woods, and natural habitats faster than those can be recreated. Degradation occurs through our
increasing release into nature of man-made substances, fossil fuel emissions, and other elements
from below the Earth's surface faster than natural systems can reabsorb and break them down.
At the same time, our consumption habits and patterns, as well as population as a whole, are
increasing regionally, nationally, and globally. These two trends—deteriorating natural systems
on the one hand, and rising consumption and population on the other—are like two sides of a
funnel which are converging upon each other. To stabilize, if not reverse,these trends we need
to find more efficient ways to meet human needs fairly, while reducing dependence upon those
activities that are encroaching upon and degrading natural systems.
Four principles can guide our actions to move in this direction. Those principles are based upon
several years of scientific discussion and consensus about what needs to happen to reorient
human activity toward a sustainable society'. The principles are:
1)Meet human needs fairly and efficiently, giving priority to basic needs: In what ways
can we more efficiently and fairly meet the needs of citizens and the needs of the
community—needs such as housing,jobs, food, mobility, municipal services, affordable
taxes, and quality of life?
2)Reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, underground metals and minerals: In what ways
can we meet needs for energy, heating and cooling buildings, moving about from home to
'The principles are based upon The Natural Step approach to sustainability,developed by a group of Swedish scientists led by an
oncologist -Dr.Karl-Henrik Robert. This approach is also the basis of the guiding objectives of the American Planing
Association's Policy Guide Planning for Sustainahility.
work to shopping while reducing dependence upon fossil fuels? How can we change to
practices that use fewer or no toxic and non-degradable substances such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium?
3)Reduce dependence upon chemicals and synthetic compounds: In what ways can we
landscape, garden, farm, build, use or create products and services at home and work, that
reduce or eliminate use of chemical and synthetic substances?
4)Reduce encroachment upon nature: In what ways can we plan and design development
that minimizes encroachment on nature including undeveloped land, woods, and wildlife
habitat, and the quantity and quality of water?
Throughout the Comprehensive Plan, we have sought to respect and address those principles.
Doing so is not just a locally altruistic gesture towards a global concern, but rather commonly
involves a local action that is of local benefit as well as making some contribution at larger
scales. For example, LEXPRESS modestly improves Lexington's air quality, but more
importantly to many, it contributes to the mobility of some residents who can't drive, and by
offering transportation choice enhances the quality of life in Lexington, while also serving more
global concerns by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and chemicals. That conjunction of local
and larger-than-local benefits can be noted throughout this Plan in actions that meet the
sustainability principles.
Appendix 2
PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 30, 2002
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office
Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Davies,
Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall-Taylor, Tap and Tyson present. Philip Herr,
Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendy Manz, Susan Solomon, Elaine Dratch, Edmund Grant, Gary Larson,
Gerry Paul, Michael Schroeder and Susan Fisher also attended.
Public Hearing, Draft Comprehensive Plan
Overview by Staff: Mr. Garber made a brief introduction and then presented PowerPoint slides
that detailed the planning process from its inception in the year 2000 to the four elements
presented in draft form tonight: land use, natural and cultural resources, housing and economic
development. The current effort had its wellsprings in the Selectmen's Long Range Planning
Committee and subsequent 2020 Strategic Planning Initiatives. He described the lengthy and
detailed public process which entailed more than 20 public meetings of the Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee, a representative group of residents. The resulting plan provides clear
impetus and direction for zoning amendments and a host of other implementing actions.
Mr. Garber said that the draft document, on which this hearing is being held, was widely
distributed and it addresses the concerns of everyone involved in the process, sometimes by
softening the language, or changing its priority designation.
Mr. Galaitsis expressed the Board's thanks for all the effort that the participants put into this plan
and invited comments on the draft document.
Comments by Planning Board and Public
Mr. Gerry Paul, 43 Highland Avenue, asked if the plan showed a particular use for the Munroe
Hill area, where he lives. The neighborhood would like to see it remain as open space. Mr.
Garber responded that the plan is a general document. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that the area he is
concerned with is covered by the Open Space and Recreation plan of 1997.
Mr. Edmund Grant commended the Planning Board and everyone who took part in producing
these four elements of the comprehensive plan. He said that the plan will add credibility to future
Town actions within the town and from without. As a former Planning Board member, he said he
knows how difficult it is to accomplish a plan.
Ms. Chase suggested that selected pieces of the data appear in the Lexington Minuteman, as it
would help to support the Planning Board's positions at Town Meeting. She said the plan is
rather too monumental as a whole. She also suggested a presentation to Town Meeting as a way
to keep it before people. Ms. Manz suggested presenting it at the town meeting members'
information meeting. Mr. Galaitsis suggested assembling a"mini"booth to be set up in the foyer
at Town Meeting, showing strategically chosen data
�/ 2 97
Mr. Herr, planning consultant for this plan, stated that the implementation actions are the most
interesting and challenging portion of the process. He said that what distinguishes a plan is the
connection between the elements, the most difficult connection being that between circulation
(transportation) and land use. However, to wait until the circulation and public facilities elements
are done would only delay needed action in the elements already prepared and separating
implementation from this important beginning would be unfortunate. This plan is about
principles and values, the bedrock for future shaping of the town. It is most important to begin.
Mr. Garber said that copies would be provided to the TMMA, and that it is important for them to
read the elements before the implementing actions. Ms. Fenollosa suggested that an executive
summary be written for town meeting members, who are overloaded with reading material
during town meeting.
Mr. Kastorf commented that at the beginning of the 2020 planning process, of which he was a
part,the group needed data and it was difficult to acquire. This document pulls it together. He
believes its readership will increase and a well-printed copy should be available for people who
will use it as a resource document. Perhaps it should be available after town meeting when there
will be more time to absorb it.
Mr. Grant agreed that an executive summary would be valuable.
Ms. Dratch asked if a presentation about the plan, like that done by the staff last year, could be
made under Article 4 at town meeting. Mr. Grant suggested a progress report on the
comprehensive plan be made under article 4. Mr. Herr remarked that the executive summary and
the presentation should be two separate items.
Mr. Garber asked for guidance on the executive summary. Mr. Kastorf suggested that each
Board member write a summary of one of the elements.
Ms. Dratch questioned the wisdom of presenting the Board's proposed House Impact Review
amendment to the Zoning By-Law before the comprehensive plan has been presented. Ms. Chase
said that the housing element should accompany the house impact review amendment.
Mr. Harden said that the comprehensive plan is already distilled and he believes that a summary
would lose a lot. An executive summary would be a good thing only if it encourages people to
read the entire plan. He believes it should not be a substitute.
Ms. Manz asked how to get started on the implementation actions. Mr. Herr pointed out that the
largest group of implementing actions are the Planning Board's responsibility. He suggested the
Board organize its time so that it can act on them, and create groups to accomplish others. He
noted the difficulty of getting an existing committee to act on the actions that are its
responsibility.
Mr. Kastorf said he believes that the momentum is there to accomplish much. It created this plan
as well as the report of the 2020 Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Garber commented that the
staff will be making a presentation to the Business Roundtable and to the 2020 Implementation
group. The aim is to keep consciousness raised regarding the comprehensive plan.
After a brief discussion of whether or not to wait to accept the comprehensive plan in its entirety
after completion of the other two elements, on the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Mr.
Harden, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to adopt the four elements of the comprehensive plan
already completed, subject to technical editing.
Mr. Garber thanked the members of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and all
participants once again and invited them to take part as well in creating the circulation and public
facilities elements neat fiscal year.
Page 1 of 1
1
1
1 r
1
1� r
}
•
M
1
1
l'L
F '
7
_ I L f•+Ly
6
I
— t
1•
- •s
� r
.y
R
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/desir... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
-M-2
- � r
••� i
• 7
a
t
_ •k M1
S �
' r.l
I
r-
I
ti
ti
x•
I
{
f
S•
JL� _
r
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/prese... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
r
I
x
S•
� 1
1'
L
1
}y
k
t � -
- K.L
S•
� I I
r
t• �
m
r •••
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/reco... 8/19/2010
n �
ti
DIM
='L�. �• C � .1 �f
f4l S L
Y kcal
FIA
r ¢'
,r^{ 4L.
6-.
%
� r .
a}
,yy
•r.•a f
a
K
Page 1 of 1
Nit!t
1
� 1 L
1
}
x
ll
� r
5
rc
w -
a
a
r -
•n
i
r
1 -
l 7�
i
LYrS
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/nat_r... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
y �
-WA,
r
i
' 5
r
�f
r
i
L
d
• x
,Lt
f
l 7�
k
t
L • ' G
Y
M1
7
.y
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/hist_... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
y �
..limp
IMAM
AWN
L:
� y 1
1 �
}
' S
r,
• r
r
i
x
f
l �C
r t
i
, 6
.y
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/housi... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
- Y
7
+t
r �
y
y
h
K
.L
h
x
J • rt. G
r r L
r
ti
.. rt.
.y
• L.
.y
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/housi... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
Nil
MAL
am
mom uiiR
C'
Y
L l• a
L
}
_ Lti I
1
• x S
L'
r
i
v— n•
Y � _
y =
{
tee.
I
s
} I
JC 0
�{ F
1
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/lex_c... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
��{•{{ r
.s
t
a
i
I h
T
WNW-
f
k }}yy
_ •y
t
� I
_I
y.
1
I
I
r r2
{ t70r `L
.y
• J — r
m
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/hayd... 8/19/2010
Page 1 of 1
¢ r:
i
LS
y.
1 —
y
F
{
S
• r k a_
f Y
F
J
•x '
y _
}
trio • • L � •Y'Wn t
V+
y
r i
http:Hfranklin/Planning/Documents/ComprehensivePlan/First%20Four%20EIements/hartw... 8/19/2010
The Lexington We Want
Transportation Element
Project History And Context
Existing Conditions
Strategies
Implementing Actions
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD LEXINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Anthony Galaitsis, Chairman Glenn Garber, Planning Director
Thomas Harden, Vice Chairman Maryann McCall-Taylor, Assistant Director
Karl Kastorf, Clerk Elissa Tap, Administrative Assistant
John Davies Elizabeth Machek, Planning Intern
Sara Chase
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Howard Muise, Project Manager
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................i
CHAPTER I: PROJECT HISTORY AND CONTEXT..........................................................1
CHAPTER II: EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................7
CHAPTER III: STRATEGIES ........................................................................................31
CHAPTER IV: IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS...................................................................65
APPENDIX A: ARTICLE XII OF THE ZONING BYLAW...............................................79
APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY.........................85
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC COMMENT...............................................................................97
ZZAa�
On June 2, 2003, a special election was held to determine whether the citizens would
approve an override of Proposition 21/2. The override did not pass, with the result that
funding for the LEXPRESS in-town bus service and the position of Transportation
Coordinator was eliminated. This has drastically changed the range of transportation
services available for fiscal year 2004 and will delay the implementation of
recommended strategies. This Transportation Element is part of a long-range (20-year)
plan and is being published with the assumption that this funding will be restored in the
future, at least in some form. This occurrence in no way invalidates the substantive
content of this document and its proposed implementation actions. On the contrary,the
plan, as produced, stands as a signpost for where the town needs to be to begin
meaningful transportation mitigation.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Map 1: Roadway Network........................................................................................10
Map 2: Problem Intersections Analyzed...................................................................13
Table 1: Intersection Accident Summary 1999-2002 .................................................18
Map3: Bus Routes....................................................................................................21
Table 2: LEXPRESS Ridership by Rider Type ..........................................................22
Table 3: Alewife Shuttle Ridership, 2002, Lexington Stops .....................................24
Map 4: Bike Routes and Trails, Existing and Proposed ...........................................28
Map 5: Sidewalk Inventory.......................................................................................29
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Evaluation...........................................................35
Map 6: Regional Transportation Network: Major Roads and Commuter Rail.........40
Table 4: Highest Scoring TDM Commute Trip Measures..........................................44
Table 5: Other High Scoring Commute Trip Measures..............................................45
Table 7: Highest Scoring TDM Non-Commute Trip Measures..................................45
Table 8: Other High Scoring Non-Commute Trip Measures .....................................45
Table 9: TDM Measures By Trip Type ......................................................................49
Map 7: Town Center Locus Map ..............................................................................56
Map 8: East Lexington Locus Map ..........................................................................57
Map 9: Hayden/Spring Locus Map ...........................................................................58
Map 10: Hartwell Avenue Locus Map .......................................................................59
Map 11: Bedford/Route 128 Locus Map ....................................................................60
Map 12: Marrett/Waltham Locus Map .......................................................................61
Map 13: Battle Rd/2A Corridor Locus Map ...............................................................62
Map 14: Countryside Locus Map ...............................................................................63
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Table 10: Implementation Time Frames ......................................................................66
Betterment District- A betterment offers a means for the municipality to be reimbursed
for the cost of constructing capital improvements in the infrastructure, particularly those
of a linear nature, such as a street, sidewalk, sewer or water line. Abutting private
properties, each in their fair share, are assessed payments on some kind of regular
schedule.
BID - Business Improvement District
CARAVAN for Commuters—A statewide commuter services organization funded by
MassHighway and the Federal Highway Administration
Carsharing—A program that allows for short-term rental of a distributed network of
automobiles, usually on a membership basis.
Channelization—A traffic planning term referring to the separation of turn lanes from
through lanes by traffic islands or pavement markings.
CTPS—Central Transportation Planning Staff—A technical and policy-analysis group
for Boston Metropolitan area transportation planning
DPW —Department of Public Works
FAR—Floor-Area-Ratio—A measure of density that compares the total square footage
of a building to the size of its lot.
Guaranteed Ride Home- A Guaranteed Ride Home program ensures that employees
will be able to get home even if they have to leave in the middle of the day or work late,
thus missing a shuttle bus or carpool departure. Such services may be provided by taxi
vouchers or an on-call paratransit service.
HATS—Hanscom Area Towns Committee—A committee comprised of four members
from each of Hanscom's four abutting towns: Concord, Bedford, Lincoln, and Lexington.
LOS—Level of Service—A measure of traffic volumes by the road's capacity used in
traffic planning. LOS ranges from A to F, with F being failure. An LOS of A or B is not
desirable, as it indicates that the road has excessive capacity for the volume of traffic that
it serves.
LBAC—Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
MAGIC—Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination—Lexington's MAPC
subregion
MAPC—Metropolitan Area Planning Council—The regional planning agency for the
Boston Metropolitan Area
MPO—Metropolitan Planning Organization—The regional transportation planning
agency for the Boston Metropolitan area, established to carry out federally funded plans
and programs
Neckdown—Reduced lane width at intersections or mid-block crossings to facilitate
pedestrian movement and safety. Also known as bulb-out or curb extension.
Overlay District—a zoning district that adds an additional layer of land use controls
without replacing the underlying zoning. The overlay may or may not be contiguous with
preexisting zoning districts.
Paratransit— `Paratransit' covers a range of services which fall somewhere between
public transportation and private transportation. Paratransit services typically do not have
afixed route or schedule and include taxis, dial-a-ride,jitneys and others.
PUD—Planned Unit Development
SOV— Single Occupancy Vehicle
SPGA—Special Permit Granting Authority
TEAC—Transportation Element Advisory Committee
TDM—Transportation Demand Management
TMA/TMO—Transportation Management Association/ Organization
Traffic Calming—A method of using physical infrastructure to moderate driver behavior
Traffic Platform—A traffic calming device. Similar to a speed bump, but significantly
wider, a traffic platform both calms traffic and causes less damage to automobiles than
traditional speed bumps.
VMT —Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZBA—Zoning Board of Appeals
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION
This document is the sixth element in the Town of Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, produced
by the Planning Board in the past 2 '/2 years. The previously adopted elements as defined by the
state planning statutes (section 81D of Chapter 41 of the MA General Laws) include: Land use,
Natural and Cultural Resources, Housing, Economic Development and a detailed
Implementation plan that integrates the preceding elements.
This document can stand on its own, however, as a long range transportation policy plan for the
community.
The Transportation Element was accompanied by extensive and broad-based public
participation, in the form of the Transportation Element Advisory Committee (TEAC), which
included citizens, public officials and key committee members, relevant town employees,
representatives of business, various guests, and the Planning Board. Working with the consulting
team from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), staff organized five structured workshops focusing
on the transportation modes, between September 2002 and January, 2003. Following this,the
TEAC had extensive input into the actual drafting of the document.
This document is structured around and driven by goals and objectives pertaining to the broad
issues of quality of life and public services and facilities. These goals and objectives were
articulated in three sources: 1)the previous elements of the Comprehensive Plan; 2)the
Selectmen's Vision 2020 project that preceded it; and 3) modifications to the preceding from the
TEAC, emanating from the public participation process.
The Vision for Alternative Transportation
It is important at the outset to understand the inspiration and assumptions for this document. It is
emphatically not a study for upgrading the town's street and highway system, although some
infrastructure improvement is unavoidable over time. Instead, it is an attempt to identify and
think through feasible implementation measures that will offer a real alternative in the coming
years and decades to relentless automobile dependency. The following is an excerpt from the
2002 Request for Proposals for the consulting services that were employed to assist this project:
The issue of traffic and its impact on the quality of life in Lexington is not a new concern. It is
merely a worsening one here, and nearly everywhere else in populous regions. The hope in
establishing a transportation element is to make available policies, programs and regulations
that can provide transportation alternatives (to single occupancy vehicular trips) which, if
implemented extensively enough over time, can improve the quality of life by reducing vehicular
trips to at least a discernible degree The transportation element (is intended) to be a document
that explores aspects of how Lexington can help to shape its future...A (Transportation Element)
will require a truly regional approach, as traffic does not begin and end at Lexington's borders,
but rather, is the result of a complex network of people traveling to and from work, to and from
schools and shops, as well as those passing through Lexington on longer trips... .This element
should propose bold but feasible implementing measures that start from the premise that traffic
difficulties do nothing to improve the community's well being, benefiting neither the
environment, the economy, public safety, family life or efficiency ofpeople circulation, and that
this reality is both local and regional in nature.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The consultants and planning staff gathered data from the US Census, MassHighway, the
Lexington Police Department, the MBTA and other sources, and conducted interviews with
relevant officials, committees, and interested parties. The results were analyzed to gain an
understanding of the present status of transportation service and infrastructure in Lexington
today. This data forms the basis of the strategies and actions proposed in following chapters and
summarized at the end of this section.
Traffic Patterns
Lexington is predominantly a residential community with pockets of retail, office, and light
industrial development. Major sources of traffic generation in Lexington include the Town
Center, Hartwell Avenue, and Hayden Avenue/Spring Street employment centers, public
schools, the Minuteman National Historical Park, and the Lexington Battle Green historic area.
Of Lexington residents who are working, approximately 24%work in Lexington, with the result
that more than 75% commute to jobs outside of the town.
Lexingtonians have the option to travel by walking, biking, local or regional bus, paratransit, or
taxi. The predominant means of transportation in Lexington, however, is the private automobile.
This is increasingly the case throughout the country; the number of vehicles miles traveled by
passenger car in the United States rose 12% during the 1990s.1 Automobile ownership has
increased as well: 24% of households now have more vehicles than licensed drivers.2 The result
is clear: approximately 80% of Lexingtonians commute to work, whether within or beyond
Lexington's borders, by driving alone.
Roadway Network
The town is located at the intersection of two major limited access regional highways: the I-
95/Route 128 circumferential highway and Route 2, a major radial highway emanating from
i Bureau of Transportation Statistics: "National Transportation Statistics 2002"
2 2001 National Household Transportation Survey ��rr
�.a�e tir ��xeerr.�uie cJnUm�ira/�
Boston. Other state-numbered roadways through town include Route 2A and Routes 4/225.
Route 2A is a generally east-west route connecting Arlington to Lincoln. It follows Summer
Street, Lowell Street, Maple Street, Marrett Road, and Massachusetts Avenue. Route 4/225 runs
between Route 2 near the Arlington town line and I-95/Route 128 and the Town of Bedford. It
follows Watertown Street, Pleasant Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue, which begins in Boston and continues out towards Central
Massachusetts,functions in Lexington as the town's main street.
Various traffic data were analyzed to produce a list of intersections to be studied for
improvement. Data sources included accident records, recent traffic studies for individual
development projects and conversations with the Department of Public Works regarding
operating conditions, including congestion, delay, queuing and levels of service. Proposed
improvements were later debated in public meetings; those that were advanced for inclusion in
the plan appear at the end of the `implementing actions' summary below.
Map 2.
sk Problem
/ Intersections
Analyzed
2
X17 X 13 1.6 dt n1 Stand Hartwell Ave
z Bedford S[and Eldred St
3 Mass A eoOltl Mass AvexWood St
4 B ct cold
Worthen Rd
d` 128 q 5.M A ndWebuinRd
R' 6 Made S[ d LoWll
ZStrue St and Mar Rd
fl Waltham S[and Manet[Rtl
V 9 Maple S[and Mass Ave
V 10 Mass Aveand Plwasanta
11.W Itl1 StandOchre Ave
v9�4 12.PleasantS[ tl Watertown St
j(14 16.Bedford St a Rod 128
X16 14.aff d St a[Manual Rd and Hancock St
X1S (.3yy.moaM•'v" j is w IM St and Hayden Ave
16.Lowell St Woburn St
mum 6 iP.Hartwell Ave and Mad Rd
X16 1 i8 MalAve da iIs a
28
9.M AV Mass Ave/Mal
20 boost
St and East St
21 lassAve and Grant St
door" sp 6
w 'a*7 *9 Legend
hd� y
irf y� mmy,q SWtiv ln[2ISPCtlnns
proposed improvements
X13 -*12 X analned,no improvement proposed
app, do,
2000 iu
�1
® 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
Preparetl by Lexington Planning oepartrnent source MassGls,Twvn of Lexington
Transit
Lexington's transit service consists of MBTA intercity bus service (via Route 62/76),the
LEXPRESS in-town bus service, some demand-responsive van services for the elderly and
disabled, and a commuter shuttle operated by the 128 Business Council, a transportation
management association. Of these, MBTA Route 62/76 carries by far the highest number of
passengers. LEXPRESS attracts fewer riders in total, but carries a large number of Lexington's
youth and elderly.
While Lexington has a number of options for a town of its size and population density, the
existing transit network is limited in its usefulness. LEXPRESS ends operations by 7:00 P.M. at
the latest on weekdays, which is a handicap in attracting commuters who keep irregular hours.
The relative infrequency of transit service during the hours in which it operates further reduces
its attractiveness. Another limitation is the lack of Sunday service by any public transportation
provider in the area. Most residents cannot depend wholly on existing public transit and maintain
their current quality of life. For those who cannot or do not wish to drive, however, the existing
public transit system is immensely valuable.
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) is a set of policies and strategies that focus on the
reduction of transportation demand and the provision of alternative means of travel to driving
alone in a car. Lexington has both a Transportation Demand Management Bylaw and Policy,
which provide developers with the option of creating a TDM plan as a mitigation for negative
traffic impacts of a development. Many fulfill this condition by joining the 128 Business
Council, a Transportation Management Association serving the Route 128 area The 128
Business Council operates the Alewife Shuttle, which is an employer-subsidized shuttle from the
MBTA Red Line Alewife station to offices on Hayden Avenue and Spring Street.
The Lexington Transportation Coordinator heads local TDM efforts, as well as coordinating
LEXPRESS, municipal parking, and paratransit service. Since 1996, Transportation
Coordinators have made three attempts to establish a TMA on Hartwell Avenue area. The most
recent effort began in the autumn of 2001 and continues. Current Hartwell TMA planning is a
joint effort of the Transportation Coordinator, Economic Development Officer, and the 128
Business Council.
Walking and Bicycling
Lexington has a network of bicycle trails and designated routes and sidewalks that facilitate
bicycling and walking not only as a form of recreation but also as a mode of travel. These modes
not only function as environmentally and health-friendly transportation options in their own
right, but also facilitate the use of public transportation. The Town is fortunate to have the
Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), which has done much to expand the bicycle
network and inventory the sidewalk network. More generally it provides active support and
encouragement of bicycle use and walking.
The existing bicycle network is divided into off-road bicycle trails and on-road recommended
routes. The latter are generally, but not always, marked with road signs. Recommended routes
are judged to be both relatively convenient to major destinations and fairly safe, although caution
is urged at all times. Bicycle trails are generally on town-owned land or easements through
private land and offer access to recreational facilities and open space.
�.s2 �, �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe zt 2DD3
The most well known bicycle facility in the community is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway
which runs generally north of, and parallel to, Massachusetts Avenue through much of the town.
The Bikeway is a production of the Rails to Trails program and follows the former B & M rail
corridor.
Map 4.
Bike Routes
and Trails,
Existing and
Proposed.
�� � porth 61�e 128 *a 9
S
Recommendedrecommended
Roles adswhile
WM1ICM1
i 10 � ended for cyclistspaths
Bay Trails are off matled vehicles
g links
tllRmdtszeetwork s.
d Many e exist
proposed neWdtl:
S S tld Top yet eesL
tin
xkl
dhml y
�C xM4P
ec
Legend
Recommended hordes
BL%CIe T215
o /�
......� Future Poles
b _ _ Futurerra,ld
® 2000 0 2000 Feet
Rrepdred by Lexington Planning oepdronerrt.Source MdssGl s,row dr ngmn
Sidewalks are concentrated in the town center and nearby neighborhoods and adjacent to public
schools. The presence of sidewalks in other areas is less uniform with some lower density
residential areas having few if any sidewalks.
IMPLEMENTATION
Analysis of the existing conditions led to the proposal of a slate of implementation measures,
which constitute the body of the plan. The measures that are included were selected after debate
by the TEAC.
Implementation of the recommended measures over a considerable period of years is entirely a
function of the collective will of all the "actors" involved with these issues. Their willingness to
focus on these complex but important policies and to devote time and resources to them will
determine if significant parts of the Element are implemented. There is no single entity, whether
the Planning Board, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee, Traffic
Safety Advisory Committee, Public Works Department, Board of Selectmen,the business
community, or whomever, that possesses sufficient capacity, authority and resources to carry this
effort forward unilaterally. It will take a determined cooperative effort to achieve some success.
Below is an abbreviated summary of the implementing actions proposed by the TEAC. Actions
are assigned to primary and secondary implementers, as well as to one of four timeframes—
Ongoing, Near Term, Intermediate Term, or Long Term. As intersection improvements are
numerous, they appear separately at the end of the section. A list of designated actors follows for
reference purposes. In the full document, all relevant actors are assigned to specific
implementation measures.
Designated Actors
Board of Selectmen Economic Development Officer
Planning Board Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
Board of Health Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
Zoning Board of Appeals Transportation Advisory Committee
128 Business Council Historic Districts Commission
Town Manager Design Advisory Committee
HATS Capital Budget Committee
MPO Representative Transportation Coordinator
Business Community Department of Public Works
School Committee MAGIC Representative
Implementation Time Frames
Category Ongoing Near Term (NT) Intermediate Long Term (LT)
Term IT
Difficulty Varies Least Constraint Medium High Constraint
Constraint
Initiating Time Continuous 1-2 years 2-5 years 5+years
Frame
Cost Varies Low Medium High
Ongoing
o Seek easements from public and private landowners to extend bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
o Rigorously implement the Town's TDM Policy and Article XII, Traffic, of the Zoning
Bylaw.
o Promote use of LEXPRESS for transportation from after-school activities
o Maintain consistency in pedestrian and bicycle facilities
o Enforce snow removal policies
o Incorporate bicycle needs and priorities in roadway projects
o Coordinate with Boston MPO and MPO Advisory Committee to monitor regional
projects.
o Monitor Hanscom/Massport transportation impacts
o Communicate directly with abutting towns on traffic aspects of developments of regional
impact
o Participate in MAGIC'S regional transportation planning efforts
Near Term
o Initiate limited bus service between Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail
Line at Anderson RTC in Woburn.
o Initiate bus service between Waltham Center and Lexington Center to access the
Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line
o Incorporate bicycle route plan in Comprehensive Plan and update regularly
o Update bicycle route signage
o Encourage pedestrian and bicycle amenities at key locations
o Identify satellite `park and bike' locations
o Define flexible standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities that respect community
character
o Develop and implement zoning regulations to support walking and bicycling
o Review and revise Article XII of the Zoning Bylaw for better enforcement and
monitoring
o Support carpooling by Lexington residents and by employees working in Lexington
o Provide information on alternative commuting choices.
o Work with other officials to enhance the transportation section of the Town's website
o Provide small-scale services in office parks
o Pursue an education, encouragement, and enforcement program for students and the
larger community in walking and biking
o Implement a pilot Safe Routes to School program
o Investigate feasibility of providing incentives for students to commute by walking,
biking, bus, or carpool
o Initiate planning for long-term roadway improvements at the intersections of Marrett
Road and Waltham Street and Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue.
o Write and adopt policy on importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks for safety,
health, and mobility.
o Update and maintain sidewalk inventory
o Develop prioritization strategies and screening criteria for sidewalk improvements
o Plan for the future of the former Raytheon site (141 Spring St).
Intermediate Term
o Investigate feasibility of extending the hours of operation and increasing frequency of
service of LEXPRESS.
o Provide incentives for alternative modes of travel
o Establish TMA services; assist employers in joining existing and new TMA's.
o Investigate providing improvements by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue
o Study existing parking regulations to assess impact on transportation choice
o Provide incentives to reduce parking demand and automobile use
o Consider identifying criteria for roadways where sidewalks may be constructed on only
one side
o Create Task Force to study a retrofit of Hayden Avenue and the commercial areas of
Spring Street and Hartwell Avenue with non-automotive infrastructure
o Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues in the Town Center
o Create an Overlay District in Hartwell Avenue that ties density to traffic management
o Allow small-scale, service-oriented commercial uses in office parks
o Investigate feasibility of establishing mixed-use development at commercial nodes.
o Encourage transit and pedestrian-friendly redevelopment in East Lexington along the
Massachusetts Avenue commercial corridor
o Promote greater use intensity at the commercial node on Bedford Street north of Route
128
o Plan for the future of the StrideRite site (191 Spring Street)
o Initiate revision of home occupation permitted uses in the Zoning Bylaw
o Initiate action to establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories in the Town Center
and East Lexington.
Long Term
o Initiate bus service between Winchester Center (Lowell Commuter Rail Line) and
Lexington center; connect to MBTA routes.
o Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route #78 to Hayden Avenue and route # 77 to
Lexington Center
o Advocate for increase in frequency of service on MBTA bus routes in Lexington.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Near Term
Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street
• Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide separate phases for the eastbound Hartwell
Avenue and westbound Bedford Street jughandle approaches.
• Allow right turns from the southbound jughandle approach.
Waltham Street and Marrett Road
Install a"Yield" sign at the channelized right turn on southbound Waltham Street.
Maple Street and Lowell Street
• Paint gore (zebra) striping around the islands with signal posts to better delineate the
islands
• Paint a left-turn lane on Maple Street(lane is already in operation).
Worthen Road and Bedford Street
• Paint a crosswalk across Camelia Drive (sidewalk and ramps already in place).
Intermediate Term
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Consolidate driveway access at Gulf Station on southwest corner and provide sidewalk.
• Install signal ahead sign on southbound Waltham Street due to limited sight distance.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phasing on northbound Lowell
Street approach and pedestrian crossings.
• Upgrade pedestrian crossings to be ADA-compliant.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phases on Waltham Street.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install an island on northbound Spring Street to better channelize vehicles entering and
exiting Spring Street.
• Extend northwest corner of Spring Street to reduce the width of eastbound Marrett Road
and to improve channelization.
• Extend curb from one-way Bridge Street toward Marrett Road to reduce the amount of
pavement and to better channelize vehicles.
• Investigate the feasibility of providing a separate left-turn lane on westbound Marrett
Street within the existing right-of-way.
Worthen Road at Bedford Street
• Provide an exclusive left-turn lane on northbound Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install bulb-out on Woburn Street to reduce amount of pavement at the intersection and to
slow and better channelize vehicles exiting Woburn Street onto Massachusetts Avenue.
Extend island westward to prohibit vehicles from crossing
Long Term
Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
• Widen the jughandle approach to provide three lanes (a shared left-turn/through lane, a
through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane).
• Widen the Hartwell Avenue approach to four lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and two
exclusive right-turn lanes)
• Widen the Bedford Street approaches to two full lanes in each direction.
• Upgrade traffic signal equipment and implement new phasing and timing(including a
split phase for Hartwell Avenue and the jughandle).
Bedford Street at Eldred Street
• Install traffic signal and coordinate with signal at Hartwell Avenue.3
• Widen Bedford Street northbound approach to three lanes.
• Install detectors to monitor queues from the southbound I-95/Route 128 exit ramp.
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Re-stripe the Waltham Street northbound and southbound approaches to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane.
• Provide two approach lanes on eastbound Marrett Road (an exclusive left-turn lane and a
shared through/right-turn lane).
• Upgrade the signal equipment, including installation of pedestrian signal heads, and
adjust signal timing and phasing.
Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal.
• Consider signalizing Marrett Street at Massachusetts Ave and coordinating the two
systems.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Investigate limited widening of Lowell Street approaches to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane in each direction and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or
no impact to adjacent properties.
• Investigate limited widening of Winchester Street approach to provide an additional lane
and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or no impact to adjacent
properties.
• Reconfigure channelized right-turn lanes to slow traffic and provide easier pedestrian
crossings.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Widen westbound Concord Avenue to provide two lanes. Additional traffic analysis will
be necessary to determine the appropriate lane utilization for the widened approach.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install modern roundabout
There is concern that this will attract cut-through traffic to Eldred St,which could impact its status as a proposed
bicycle route. Any signalization project should study this possible and its impacts.
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Streets should not be efficient traffic sewers. They are places for human encounter
Robert Campbell, Boston Globe
Iffreeways solved transportation problems, Los Angeles would be heaven"
Paul Basha, Scottsdale's Traffic Engineer, in The Arizona Republic,
... she comes pulling out in a Blazer. I start pedaling and she comes up and she whacks me and
she's goes 'Ohhl'She got all like scared and everything, and then tells me that I should watch
where I'm going. It's a tough town if you don't got a car. Can't get around.
Ed Martinez, a bicycler,from the film
Making Sense Of Place, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
With such thoughts in mind, but tempered by a pragmatic viewpoint of what is attainable, the
Lexington Transportation Element held its kickoff meeting on September 9, 2002. An intensive
program of public participation occurred over the next several months, fueled by the extensive
research that staff and consultant were assembling in support of this process. Education and
research efforts funneled into discussions about alternative transportation policies and mitigation
measures.
It is important to understand that the Transportation Element is a part of a larger comprehensive
planning effort that was begun by the Planning Board, at the behest of Town Meeting, at the end
of the year 2000. These efforts have continued to date. With the adoption of the first part of the
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Board on January 30, 2002consisting of four elements
(Land Use, Natural And Cultural Resources, Housing and Economic Development,plus part of
the Implementation Element that integrates in detail all of these topical sections)—this
transportation piece, with its related implementation measures, completes the Comprehensive
Plan for Lexington. These six elements are required in the state planning statute, Chapter 41,
Section 81D. On August 22, 2002, the adopted elements received official certification by the
Commonwealth as an acceptable community development plan, under the Executive Order 418
planning and housing initiative originally signed by Governor Cellucci in January, 2000.
It is equally important to discuss the Board of Selectmen's Vision 2020 process, an intensive,
citizen-driven visioning project that involved scores of residents and which took place over a
period of approximately 18 months throughout 1999 and into 2000. Vision 2020 pursued a slate
of community goals and objectives in five topical areas, one of which was transportation. The
conceptual framework and consensus that emanated from Vision 2020 has been drawn upon
directly and extensively throughout the Planning Board's comprehensive planning work, both in
the multiple elements adopted in 2002, and in the present transportation element. The Board's
Comprehensive Plan became the ideal, more detailed follow-up to the more conceptual Vision
2020, with each complementing the other in a well timed segue.
In summer, 2002, the engineering firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), of Watertown, MA,
was hired to assist the Board and staff with this complex and technical transportation project.
After a contractual scope of services was established, a broad-based advisory committee was set
up to drive the process. This group, referred to as the Transportation Element Advisory
Committee (TEAC) included representatives of business, key departments of town government,
pertinent committees, particularly the Transportation Advisory committee, and the full Planning
Board. The TEAC participated in five themed, structured workshops organized around the
different transportation modes;these workshops were: 1) Overview and Analysis of the Existing
Transportation System, all modes; 2) Transportation Demand Management and the Land Use
Connection; 4) Traffic Analysis/Infrastructure Improvements; 5) Bicycle/Pedestrian Modes.
Following this phase, the TEAC worked interactively with staff on the drafting of each part of
the document, offering detailed comments throughout the drafting process. All such comments
were incorporated or otherwise addressed in the multiple revisions of the chapter drafts by staff
and consultant.
The Transportation Element is organized as follows:
CHAPTER I: PROJECT HISTORY AND CONTEXT
Important background information on where the Transportation Element fits into the larger
long-range planning activities of the Town of Lexington. Includes a brief summary of
process, participants and the workshops and meetings that drove the effort.
CHAPTER II: EXISTING CONDITIONS
A detailed description and critical analysis of the local and regional transportation system in
all travel modes automobile and roadway network; transit and paratransit; transportation
demand management; bicycle and walking.
CHAPTER III: CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES
The key planning phase connecting the analysis of existing conditions with the detailed future
implementation plan. It is driven by the goals and objectives of the public participation
process and structured around debate over alternative transportation improvement and
mitigation measures in all modes, as well as land use policies.
CHAPTER IV: IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
The final slate of recommended implementation measures offered by the TEAC and Planning
Board, organized strategically around goals and objectives,prioritized in terms of ease of
implementation (and secondarily by time duration), and identifying likely primary and
secondary players who might logically lead the effort around each proposed transportation
measure.
APPENDICES
Various helpful information too detailed, lengthy or peripheral to the process to warrant
inclusion in the main body of the document, but still necessary to provide to afford greater
depth to the Plan.
Composite Goals and Objectives from Vision 2020 and Comprehensive Plan (original, pre-
process version)
The following composite goals and objectives are included for background reference, to make
clearer the conceptual wellsprings of this Element. They are provided in their original, unedited
form, as they appeared at the beginning of this transportation planning process. To see how they
were incorporated, modified or expanded in this document, see the chapters further on entitled:
Consideration of Transportation Strategies, and Implementing Actions, chapters three and four,
respectively.
COMPOSITE GOALS& OBJECTIVES FROM VISION 20/20& COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. Preserve the quality of life in Lexington through improved traffic management.
• Reduce peak hour commuter traffic and tie-ups
o Improve transit services
o Promote public transportation
o Pursue TDM/trip reduction techniques
• Monitor and attempt to mitigate impacts from all proposed development and air travel
expansion at the Hanscom civil airport
o Ensure that Lexington will stay in the information loop on all Hanscom matters.
o Require tie-in of expansion with road improvements and environmental
coordination.
• Improve traffic safety in high-accident locations
2. Increase transportation alternatives available to single occupancy vehicles
• Increase availability of public transportation (local, regional and intercity).
o Increase number of routes to major work sites and circumferential highways.
o Better coordination of routes (with neighboring towns, "T", commuter rail).
o Work to establish more employer-based transit links & shared transit links.
• Increase use of bicycles.
o Educate public.
o Encourage students to bicycle to school through incentive programs and secure
bike parking.
o Designate a bicycle route system and implement it.
• Increase employer based transportation demand management programs and employee
incentives to use them.
• Increase pedestrian activity.
o Improve infrastructure.
• Increase school bus usage and reduce traffic at schools. Discourage driving to school by
providing incentives to use other modes.
3. Use parking strategies to help achieve transportation goals at certain locations
• Amend parking requirements so as to avoid excessive parking requirements for
commercial and industrial uses.
• Reduce vehicular trips from High School.
o Increase parking fees (yearly fees, add parking meters).
o Encourage use of buses and alternative modes; provide early education in the use
of Lexpress.
4. Improve and better maintain the infrastructure
• Institute a capital improvements plan for traffic calming at strategic locations.
• Improve road conditions.
o Adhere to town study for 5-year repair and reconstruction plan.
o Repair in a timely fashion.
• Improve and expand sidewalk network.
o Survey conditions and prioritize repairs.
o Repair in a timely fashion.
o Survey existing network and develop plan for expanding network.
• Improve bicycle path conditions.
o Survey bicycle path conditions and prioritize repairs.
5. Involve Lexington in local and regional transportation planning
• Adhere to the process to evaluate Lexington's transportation infrastructure.
o Use the existing infrastructure survey process consistently.
• Increase Lexington's involvement in regional planning.
o Participate in regional planning organizations (HATS, MAPC/MAGIC, MAPC,
Minuteman Group or other inter-local coordination).
o Establish intermodal transportation routes connecting Lexington with
transportation centers.
• Improve access and coordination with regional transportation centers and airports (i.e.
Woburn, Alewife, Route 128)
6. Investigate Land Use Policies that can assist with Transportation Goals
o Identify nodes and areas served by public transportation that might be logical for
prudent planned development designations and greater mix of uses.
o Update home occupation provisions in zoning, to reflect changing economic
activity and eliminate commuters (but with protective controls).
o Consider feasibility of adding limited housing uses at certain non-residential
locations.
PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Initial Planning Board Meetings on Comprehensive Plan
May 6, 8 and 15; June 15 and 19; August 7 and 21, 2002
Planning Board and Transportation Element Advisory Committee Thematic Workshops
September 9, 2002 Kickoff Meeting, Discover Perspectives, Look for Common Themes
October 15, 2002 Transportation Demand Management/Land Use-Transportation
Connections
November 14, 2002 Transportation Demand Management/Transit
December 18, 2002 Traffic/Infrastructural Improvement Program/Policy Development
January 22, 2003 Bicycle-Pedestrian Improvement Program/Final Land Use/Transportation
Policies
External Groups
November 20, 2002 Presentation to the Annual Meeting of the South Lexington Transportation
Task Force
February 4, 2003 Presentation to the Lexington Business Partnership
Active Participants
Planning Board and Staff
Sara Chase, John Davies, Anthony Galaitsis, Thomas Harden and Karl Kastorf, Planning Board;
Glenn Garber; Elizabeth Machek, Maryann McCall-Taylor; Elissa Tap, Planning Staff, Mary Jo
Bohart, Economic Development Officer; David Carbonneau, Assistant Town Engineer; Gail
Wagner, Transportation Coordinator; Michael Young, Management Intern
Consultants
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Watertown, MA: Howard Muise, Project Manager; Heidi
Richards; Susan Sloane-Rossiter; Steve McNeill; William Cranshaw; Ken Schwartz and Galeeb
Kachra
Transportation Element Advisory Committee (TEAL)
Residents: Lawrence Belvin, Robert Burbidge, Julian Bussgang, Richard Canale, Jacquelyn
Davison, Thomas DeNoto, Elaine Dratch, Ed Ganshirt, Donald Graham, Ed Grant, Marita
Hartshorn, Stewart Kennedy, Jeanne Krieger, William Levison, Wendy Manz, Michael
Schroeder and Jerry Van Hook
Business: Charles Kalauskas, BSC Group; Alison McLaughlin, F. W. Dodge; Peter Nichols, The
Beal Companies; Melissa Riccio, Ipswitch, Inc.; James Rosenfeld, Boston Properties; Roger
Sudbury, MIT Lincoln Labs
"' 6 � �t�f2ylCd nttt
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION
Overview
This chapter describes the existing transportation system in all modes automotive travel and the
street and highway network supporting it;the available transit and related services;transportation
demand management(TDM)programs to reduce vehicular trips among employees in town; and
non-vehicular modes walking and bicycling. In explaining this network and all of its
component parts, deficiencies as well as positive opportunities in the system will become
apparent.
While some of the movement associated with the different travel modes is internal to Lexington
(beginning and ending within town borders), it is also important to note that the transportation
system is integrated into a vast regional system in Greater Boston, whereby the origin or
destination of automotive,transit, TDM and even pedestrian trips involves a geographic area that
is metropolitan in scope. Ultimately, however, from the viewpoint of residents and workers in
Lexington, the issue is one of quality of life, largely as it is negatively impacted by traffic
congestion. The utter dominance of the automobile as a single occupancy vehicle in the existing
transportation system presents a great challenge to the community.
Lexington residents have the option to travel by walking, biking, local or regional bus,
paratransit, or taxi. The predominant means of transportation in Lexington, however, is the
private automobile. This is increasingly the case throughout the country; the number of vehicles
miles traveled by passenger car in the United States rose 12% during the 1990s.t Automobile
ownership has increased as well: 24% of households now have more vehicles than licensed
drivers.2
While the automobile offers flexibility and convenience for individual users, it has negative
personal and environmental impacts when used en masse. Exhaust gases,time spent in traffic
congestion, noise pollution, and fossil fuel consumption are just a few of these. Recently, the
Center for Disease Control, along with other public health organizations, has begun to study the
role of the private automobile in the rise of obesity in the United States.
i Bureau of Transportation Statistics: "National Transportation Statistics 2002"
2 2001 National Household Transportation Survey
In Lexington, the repercussions of automobile dependency are being felt by residents stuck in
traffic, neighborhoods experiencing high traffic volumes on local streets, and by schoolchildren
whose parents feel it is too dangerous to allow them to walk to school. Existing road networks
are nearing capacity, many intersections fail in level of service for hours each day, and there is
no community support for the construction of major new roads. Even if there were,there is
relatively little land available in this mature suburb.
To better understand the nature of the problem, we began with a survey of existing conditions in
Lexington. This data forms the basis of the strategies and actions proposed in following
chapters.
Travel Patterns
Lexington is predominantly a residential community with pockets of retail, office, and light
industrial development. The major residential type is multistory single-family homes. There is a
growing number of condominium developments, and a stable number of multifamily homes, and
apartments as well. There is some small-scale retail in the Town Center, as well along
Massachusetts Avenue toward Arlington and at scattered sites throughout the town, including the
intersections of Bedford Street and Worthen Road and Lowell Street and Worthen Road. The
major centers of employment are the Hayden Avenue/Spring Street area and the Hartwell
Avenue/ Hanscom area. Both have easy access to major highways. The latter is home to the
Hanscom Air Force Base and the Massport-run Hanscom Field Civil Airport, which together
generate more than 13,000 vehicle trips each day. The Town Center also contains a significant
number of employers, although on a smaller scale. The Town Center is also home to the Battle
Green and several buildings of historical interest. Along with the Minuteman National Historical
Park and the National Heritage Museum, Lexington Center is a major tourist destination. The
major attractions, which include schools and recreation areas, tend naturally to generate the most
traffic.
People make many different kinds of trips during the course of a day. These include commuting,
shopping, attending events and functions, socializing, running errands and many others. While
commuting accounted for only 14.8% of all travel in 2001,3 an analysis of commuting patterns is
still a useful way to understand the dimensions of the problem in a given area. Since the home-
work trip typically occurs on a regular schedule, it is also the easiest kind of trip to address
through transit or transportation demand management. The decennial Census includes questions
about commuting under the heading `journey-to-work'. The following paragraphs summarize
Census 2000 journey-to-work data for Lexington and compare it with 1990 data.
From 1990 to 2000, the total number of workers living in Lexington decreased from 15,082 to
14,482, yet the average length of the commute trip increased from 24.87 to 28.75 minutes. This
could be due to increased traffic volumes,further separation of the home and workplace, or both.
The mode of transportation data from 1990 to 2000 was relatively unchanged. Approximately
80% of Lexingtonians commute to work by driving alone. The biggest change percentage change
3 National Household Travel Survey, 2001,both shopping and family/personal trips were more frequent
�.s2 �, �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe zt 2DD3
over the period was in the number of people working at home (and thus not commuting), an
increase of 2.3%.
Of the 14,482 workers living in Lexington in the year 2000, 23.91%worked in Lexington;
76.09% outside of Lexington. 27.1% of workers living in Lexington worked outside of
Middlesex County.4 These numbers are fairly similar to those recorded in the 1990 Census. The
total number of people who both live and work in Lexington has declined slightly, from 3,700 to
3,463. The total number of those living in Lexington but working outside of Middlesex County
increased slightly, from 3,412 to 3,638.
As of this writing(April 2003), detailed (place-to-place) commuting data from the Census 2000
had not yet been released.s Data from the 1990 Census has been examined to give some
indication of commuting patterns to and from Lexington. The general similarities noted above
give some hope that these patterns are indicative of current conditions. Knowing where people
who work in Lexington live, and where people who live in Lexington work, can be helpful in
deciding what measures might be effective in addressing peak hour travel demands.
In 1990, 24,042 people worked in Lexington and 15,082 workers lived in Lexington. The largest
employment destination of people living in Lexington was Lexington (24.9%),followed by
Boston (13.6%), Cambridge (11.5%), Waltham (7.3%), and Burlington (6.1%). The largest
group of people working in Lexington also lived in Lexington (16.4%), followed by those living
in Arlington (4.9%), Waltham(4.2%), Bedford (3.9%), and Boston (3.8%). While the majority
of workers living in Lexington worked in the state, their workplaces were scattered among some
100 different Massachusetts cities and towns. People working in Lexington lived in 171
Massachusetts cities and towns, and 88 out-of-state locations.
These numbers indicate there is no very large concentration of employees coming from one
particular community. Further analysis of the data indicates that workers commuting to
Lexington from any one particular community work in a variety of places throughout the town.
A focus on programs for residents of Lexington is likely to make more of an impact than a focus
on programs for workers commuting to Lexington from other communities. Not only are there
larger numbers of people going to the same area, but Boston and Cambridge, the second and
third most common destinations, have strong public transportation systems.
ROADWAYS
Roadway Network
The Town of Lexington is located about 11 miles northwest of Boston at the intersection of two
major limited access regional highways: the I-95/Route 128 circumferential highway and Route
2, a major radial highway emanating from Boston (see Map 1). The Town's location allows for
4 The Census data that has been released to date is restricted to place,MSA, county, and state level data.
5 If the Census Transportation Planning Package is released in time, detailed data from the Census 2000 will be
included in this Element.
LL
a--i O
+� 0
N
z' O
O
i 4-0O U
O 0) m °'
J Q
7 � Cl)
Q (a �, X Cl)
� 0 Zz ® o
O
0
4
J
t
of �
t warL�`%f
c]
o
Q
B
N
A
Q
N
easy highway access. I-95/Route 128 provides access to all major radial highways from greater
Boston, including Route 3 to Cape Cod, I-95 to Rhode Island and points south, Route 24 to New
Bedford/Fall River, the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90)to the west, and I-93 and I-95 to New
Hampshire and points north. Route 2 provides access to Boston and points west of Lexington.
Other state-numbered roadways through town include Route 2A and Routes 4/225. Route 2A is a
generally east-west route connecting Arlington to Lincoln. It follows Summer Street, Lowell
Street, Maple Street, Marrett Road, and Massachusetts Avenue. Route 4/225 runs between
Route 2 near the Arlington town line and I-95/Route 128 and the Town of Bedford. It follows
Watertown Street, Pleasant Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and Bedford Street.
There are several other significant roadways through and within the town. Massachusetts
Avenue, which begins in Boston and continues out towards Central Massachusetts, functions in
Lexington as the town's main street. It is the main roadway through the Town Center and is the
location of the Town's major retail area and Town government offices. It is generally a two-lane
roadway but widens to four lanes through the Town Center.
Waltham Street, Bedford Street, and Woburn Street are all two-lane roadways that connect
Lexington Town Center with the centers of Waltham, Bedford and Woburn, respectively.
Important roadways providing access to major employment centers include Hartwell
Avenue/Maguire Road, which borders Hanscom Field, and Hayden Avenue, which parallels
Route 2.
Intersections
The focus of roadway improvements in the Lexington Transportation Element is to provide for
more efficient utilization of the existing roadway infrastructure. The first step in developing a
roadway improvement action plan was to identify a list of intersections to be considered for
improvements. This list was developed through discussions with the Town's Planning and
Engineering Departments and an assessment of the safety characteristics of the intersections
within the Town. To better understand the magnitude of the traffic issues at the study
intersections, the following traffic data were collected and reviewed:
o Accident data for the most recent three-year period
o Physical characteristics
o Geometric conditions
o Adjacent land uses
o Current operating conditions
o Traffic volumes (where available)
In order to identify accident trends, safety concerns, and/or roadway deficiencies, accident data
were obtained for the three and a half-year period from January 1999 to mid-2002,the most
recent data available. The Planning Department and VHB collected this information from the
Police Department records. A summary of the accident data is presented in Table 1. Typically an
accident(crash)rate is also calculated for each intersection. The rate represents the ratio of the
number of accidents to the total volume of traffic traveling through the intersection. This is
usually an effective tool to measure safety hazards. As part of this study, however, traffic counts
were not conducted at the study intersections and therefore a crash rate cannot be calculated.
There is, however, a rule of thumb that 5 or more accidents per year establish that an intersection
should be reviewed for safety issues. The traffic thresholds for the possible installation of a
traffic signal or four-way STOP control use the 5 accidents per year as a factor in determining if
installation is warranted.6
Other data sources were recent traffic studies for individual development projects and
conversations with the Department of Public Works regarding operating conditions, including
congestion, delay, queuing and levels of service.
This list identifies those intersections that were evaluated and indicates whether or not they were
considered for capital improvements. Specifics of proposed improvements appear in Chapters III
and IV.
1. Bedford Street(Route 4/225) at Hartwell Avenue is a signalized "T" intersection with a jug-
handle provided along Bedford Street northbound for U-turns and left turns onto Hartwell
Avenue. There is extensive queuing on Bedford Street during the peak hours, particularly on
the southbound approach. Next to the Bedford Street interchange with I-95/Route 128,this
intersection is the highest accident intersection. There were 83 accidents recorded in a three
and one-half year period and many of the accidents are likely due to the limited sight distance
on the Hartwell Avenue approach. Vehicles approaching the intersection from Hartwell
Avenue, which has a green signal indication at the same time as the jug handle approach,
have difficulty seeing the approaching traffic from the jug handle. Field observations
revealed many near collisions of vehicles making a left turn from Hartwell Avenue with
vehicles going straight from the jug handle. Bedford Street is a state numbered route but is
under Town jurisdiction.
2. Eldred Street at Bedford Street(Route 4/225) is a"T" intersection with Bedford Street as the
major roadway. As at the previous intersection, Bedford Street at this location is a state
numbered route but is under Town jurisdiction. Eldred Street connects to the residential area
east of Bedford Street and north of Route 128. The Eldred Street approach, which is under
STOP sign control, consists of one shared left-turn/right-turn lane. Left turns from Eldred
Street onto Bedford Street are currently prohibited during peak hours. Bedford Street
provides two lanes in each direction. The intersection is also one of the highest accident
intersections. Because of heavy volumes and relatively high speeds along Bedford Street it is
difficult for traffic to exit Eldred Street. Southbound Bedford Street traffic turning left into
Eldred Street must use the left-through lane, another potential cause of accidents.
3. Massachusetts Avenue at Wood Street is a three-legged intersection with Wood Street under
STOP Sign control. The intersection falls within the Minuteman National Historic Park.
I-95/Route 128 is approximately 150 feet to the east of the intersection with Massachusetts
6 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device;Millennium Edition;Federal Highway Administration;Washington DC;2001.
C � L.arz arz�
Y
U 2
u o v
IA a 42
lL
C: O
m v w O
O O
> K a a O
U /D vaQY i�//�. i� > N
N _ V/�/� N aa��2���2Ea mm� m� °�aaa a° 8 m O
LL mmOmOO mm Ovm 6' v >,Q 0 O
^` 7n 7n�7n v10 m > E Ein
C/}U� VJ aaQa Qm m moo to `o `Ot- 3 dN N T
\V 4—j a s m a m am—-a m m w w w m o m
L
v vvv vv m m 3:EL m3 J=����
� \� O�NM V N(Dh NTpp
co
11�t�< J� �0
X N SIG N
axi
C
lts �
F
T U)
a`
� O
f N
X r {r
: 00 l5 We4l�e�X TY N
M 8
0
ti
a> �� m
s
a ' v
&a N Xe r
a T o� m
M co
X " a
m s
r O
T
N
l0
n
N
a`
Avenue spanning the interstate highway. The intersection of Old Mass Avenue and Wood
Street is approximately 300 feet north of the intersection. Old Mass Avenue is used as a cut-
through from Hanscom Airfield. Vehicles travel at fairly high speeds along Massachusetts
Avenue making it difficult to exit Wood Street onto Massachusetts Avenue. The Wood Street
approach provides one lane and is fairly narrow, making it difficult for right turning vehicles
to squeeze by left-turning vehicles.
4. Bedford Street at Worthen Road and Camellia Place is a four-legged signalized intersection.
The traffic signal operates with the Bedford Street approaches moving together and Worthen
Road and Camellia Place moving at the same time. Bedford Street southbound approach
provides an exclusive right turn lane and a through-left lane. The northbound Bedford Street
approach and Camellia Place each have only one general lane. Camellia Place is a low
volume road that operates more as a driveway. The Worthen Road approach provides two
approach lanes (neither of them striped). The traffic signal is equipped with an Opticom
emergency preemption system for the fire station located approximately 100-150 feet south
of the intersection. There are several retail establishments on the corners of the intersection.
There are crosswalks provided on the Bedford Street and Worthen Road approaches and the
traffic signal has an exclusive pedestrian phase available with push-button control.
5. The intersection of Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street, Winthrop Street and Fletcher
Avenue has STOP sign control on Winthrop Street, Fletcher Street and Woburn Street.
Massachusetts Avenue is uncontrolled. There is a large triangular traffic island with two-way
traffic permitted on all sides. All approaches have a single general lane and there is parking
permitted along both sides of Massachusetts Avenue to the west of the intersection. Winthrop
Street enters Massachusetts Avenue from the south and provides a cut-through for traffic
coming from Waltham Street headed north or east, avoiding the intersection of
Massachusetts Avenue at Waltham Street. The movements from Winthrop Street, across
Massachusetts Avenue, to Woburn Street are dangerous, with difficult sight distance out of
Winthrop Street and higher speed traffic on Massachusetts Avenue. There is an expanse of
pavement where Massachusetts Avenue and Woburn Street connect. Two-way operations on
all sides of the island create several locations where there are conflicting and potentially
confusing traffic movements.
6. Maple Street at Lowell Street is a signalized four-legged intersection with very large
channelized right turn lanes on the Maple Street eastbound approach and the Lowell Street
southbound approach. These channelized right-turn lanes allow drivers to make turns at
relatively high speed, posing a hazard to pedestrians trying to cross the Maple Street
eastbound approach.
7. The Spring Street at Marrett Road intersection is an unsignalized intersection. Marrett Road
extends east-west with Bridge Street and Spring Street intersecting it adjacent to each other
along the south side. Both of the side streets are controlled by STOP signs. Bridge Street
operates one-way northbound into Marrett Road. Marrett Road is designated as State
Route 2A and is under state jurisdiction. There are generally residential properties along
Bridge Street and east of the intersection along Marrett Road, while there are commercial
developments west of the intersection. This intersection is open, with a large expanse of
pavement. According to a traffic analysis conducted in 1997, this intersection operates at
Level Of Service (LOS) F during both the morning and evening peak hours.7 This condition
applies to northbound Spring Street traffic, which has difficulty exiting onto Marrett Road.
8. Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Waltham Street is a four-legged signalized intersection. Marrett
Road is state numbered Route 2A and is under state jurisdiction. Marrett Square, a small
retail center, is located on the northwest corner of the intersection, a Dunkin Donuts is on the
northeast corner, a Gulf gas station and Mobil gas station are on the southwest and southeast
corners, respectively. Each of the approaches to the intersection is striped as one lane with
the exception of Waltham Street southbound, which has athrough/left-turn lane and a small
channelized right-turn lane. Because of the roadway width, vehicles are able to operate in
two lanes (a left-turn lane and athrough/right-turn lane) on both Waltham Street approaches.
The curb cuts along the Gulf gas station property are wide open with confusing right-of-
way/direction of vehicular travel. The pedestrian crossing signal equipment is outdated and
consists of pedestrian buttons that trigger the traffic signal to turn yellow and red
simultaneously. There are no pedestrian signal heads. There are fairly long queues on
Waltham Street and Marrett Road eastbound during peak hours.
9. Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue is a"T" intersection with the Maple Street approach
under STOP sign control. Maple Street is designated as State Route 2A and is under state
jurisdiction. Massachusetts Avenue is designated as State Route 4/225 and is under local
jurisdiction. There is a large circular island in the center of the Maple Street approach. All
vehicles approaching Massachusetts Avenue from Maple Street travel on the west side of the
island while all vehicles turning from Massachusetts Avenue to Maple Street travel on the
east side of the island. The correct direction of travel at this intersection is unclear and the
high accident rate may reflect driver confusion. There is peak hour queuing on the Maple
Street approach because of the high volume of traffic on Massachusetts Avenue and the high
number of vehicles turning left from Massachusetts Avenue eastbound onto Maple Street.
Vehicles slowing to make this move block vehicles trying to exit Maple Street.
10. Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue and Follen Road essentially operates as a rotary
with STOP sign control on the Pleasant Street and Follen Road approaches. Each of the
approaches provides one general purpose lane with the exception of Massachusetts Avenue
westbound which provides as an exclusive left turn lane and a through lane. During the peak
hours, it is difficult for vehicles to exit Pleasant Street and Follen Road onto Massachusetts
Avenue. Pleasant Street generates long queues during the peak hours. Pedestrian crossings
within the vicinity of this intersection are difficult. There is a large expanse of pavement
within the limits of this intersection adding to driver confusion and the difficult pedestrian
crossings.
11. Concord Avenue at Waltham Street is afour-legged signalized intersection located
approximately 1,000 feet south of the Route 2 Waltham Street ramps. Each approach to the
intersection provides a single general through lane although both Waltham Street approaches,
which are approximately 43 feet wide, are used as two lanes. The southbound approach is
used as a left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound approach is
7 Office Expansion, 55 Hayden Avenue Lexington,Massachusetts,Abend Associates, January 10, 1997.
used as a shared through/left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The traffic signal
operates as a semi-actuated, two-phase operation. Land uses that abut the intersection
include a day care center, a gas station, medical offices and residential. Crosswalks are
provided on all approaches.
12. Pleasant Street at Watertown Street is a"Y" intersection with the Pleasant Street southbound
approach forming the base of the Y. The northbound Pleasant Street approach is STOP sign
controlled at a traffic island. The island essentially directs traffic to and from the southern
Pleasant Street leg to and from Watertown Street and creates driver confusion for vehicles
traveling through the intersection. The southern Pleasant Street leg enters Watertown
Street/Pleasant Street at a sharp angle that creates sight distance issues for vehicles exiting
Pleasant Street northbound. Field observations revealed that vehicles queue up along Pleasant
Street northbound and can block vehicles attempting to enter Pleasant Street southbound
from Watertown Street.
13. Bedford Street at Route 128: Bedford Street at Route 128 was rated as the highest accident
location in Lexington with 134 accidents over the three and one-half year period analyzed
(see below). This location is a full cloverleaf interchange providing only right turns onto and
off of the Route 128 ramps to and from Bedford Street. There are no traffic signals at any of
the ramp junctions. Because the interchange is under MassHighway jurisdiction, it was not
reviewed for improvements as part of the Town's Transportation Element. The intersection
of Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue was reviewed for possible improvements that could
also have positive impacts on the 128 interchange.
14. Bedford Street at Harrington Road/Hancock Street: This is afour-way intersection adjacent
to the Battle Green. Bedford Street is the main street with Harrington Road and Hancock
Street controlled by STOP signs. Exiting the side streets can be difficult during periods of
heavy traffic flow on Bedford Street. Because the intersection is on the National Register of
Historic Places and is within the Historic District, it was not deemed a desirable location to
make improvements.
15. Waltham Street at Hayden Avenue: This intersection is a T-type intersection adjacent to the
Route 2 interchange with Waltham Street. Hayden Avenue provides access to and through a
major business area along Route 2 between Waltham Street and Spring Street. Hayden
Avenue is STOP-controlled at Waltham Street. Because the intersection is very close to the
Route 2 westbound off-ramp to Waltham Street northbound, it creates a difficult maneuver
for traffic exiting Route 2 and turning left onto Hayden Avenue. Channelization
improvements were implemented in 1999-2000 and the intersection was not reanalyzed as
part of this study.
16. Lowell Street at Woburn Street: This is afour-way intersection with commercial land uses
on each corner. It is signal controlled and was recently reconstructed. As a result it was not
analyzed for improvements as part of the Transportation Element.
17. Hartwell Avenue at Maguire Road: This is a T-type intersection in the middle of the
Hartwell Avenue/Maguire Road business area. Maguire Road is STOP-controlled at Hartwell
Avenue and exiting Maguire Road can be difficult during busy times. The intersection is a
short distance from the Minuteman Bikeway crossing of Hartwell Avenue. Design and
permitting for intersection improvements were complete prior to this study; however, no
funding is currently available for construction.
18. Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Route 128: This location is a full cloverleaf interchange
providing only right turns onto and off of the Route 128 ramps to and from Marrett Road.
There are no traffic signals at any of the ramp junctions. Because the interchange is under
MassHighway jurisdiction, it was not reviewed for improvements as part of the Town's
Transportation Element.
19. Massachusetts Avenue at Marrett Road: This is a four-way intersection with the fourth leg
providing access to the Minuteman Vocational Technical School. It is a signalized
intersection operating at generally good levels of service. The intersection had a lower
number of accidents. Because of these two factors it was not analyzed for improvements.
20. Lowell Street at East Street: This fully signalized intersection in a single family residential
area has pedestrian on-demand crossings, sidewalks with granite curbing on Lowell and one
side of East, and a channel island facilitating the right hand turn movement from southeast-
running Lowell onto East. Lowell becomes a major commercial arterial,the Middlesex
Turnpike,just over the nearby Burlington town line, while East is a significant feeder from
central and northwest parts of Lexington to the Turnpike retail and employment areas.
Accident data reveals that the intersection functions with a fairly high degree of safety due to
the controls.
21. Massachusetts Avenue at Grant Street: This is a T-type of intersection in the Town Center. It
is unsignalized, with STOP control on the Grant Street approach. Massachusetts Avenue has
four travel lanes in this section. Exiting Grant Street can be difficult during times of heavy
traffic flow on Massachusetts Avenue. The traffic signal at Waltham Street and
Massachusetts Avenue sometimes provides breaks in traffic flow that can make it easier for
vehicles to exit Grant Street. This intersection had a lower number of accidents and was not
analyzed for this study.
� t � m 17
9 q d
9 d
y r O S
f L y 2r
_ A E
r y v c ro ml
y S Q
A y 5
O
A � —
N � d
N
X
d 9 2 y
r
S y E
Q C
N rn W y Q m rn m o m o Q co o co o m
O -E
N `O `� o
�
� m
9 A 9 C
cR m y W y
cC
C �
9 q y N
y L U 2 4
V o
d .
� dL_
d
3 V
T � N
C a O
R O y
L
N L E O O LL o N
T
O E O T - C cOi D o m U O
R d
y A O O
N
§ }) }& ! `
! a| ® !
\
CD 0
CD m
ƒ }) \k } `
k
§
\ E LE a
� _ _ } � m0 0 -
TRANSIT
Lexington's transit service consists of MBTA intercity bus service, the LEXPRESS in-town bus
service, some demand-responsive van services for the elderly and disabled, and a commuter
shuttle operated by the 128 Business Council, a transportation management association. Of these,
MBTA Route 62/76 carries by far the highest number of passengers.
While Lexington has a number of options for a town of its size and population density, the
existing transit network is limited in its usefulness. LEXPRESS ends operations by 7:00 P.M. at
the latest on weekdays, which is a handicap in attracting commuters who keep irregular hours.
The relative infrequency of transit service during the hours in which it operates further reduces
its attractiveness. Another limitation is the lack of Sunday service by any public transportation
provider in the area. Most residents cannot depend wholly on existing public transit and maintain
their current quality of life. For those who cannot or do not wish to drive, however, the existing
public transit system is immensely valuable.
MBTA Transit Service
The MBTA operates the Route 62/76 service through Lexington on weekdays and Saturdays.
Both routes operate between the Town Center and Alewife Station. Route 62 operates between
the Center and the Bedford V.A. Hospital while Route 76 operates between the Center and
Hanscom Field and the Air Force Base (AFB).
The routes provide weekday service between the Center and Alewife Station from 6:00 AM to
10:00 PM. Both routes operate on 30-minute headways during peak hours, providing 15 to 20-
minute frequency between the Center and Alewife Station. Off-peak service is hourly on each
route, with 25 to 35-minute frequency between the Center and Alewife Station. Scheduled travel
time between the Center and Alewife Station is typically 22 minutes. Saturday service is
provided hourly, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. There is no service on Sundays.
In addition to the connection to the Red Line at Alewife Station, the MBTA bus service provides
limited connections to other bus routes. The Route 62 bus travels through Arlington Heights and
connects to the terminus of Route 77 and Route 79, which serve the Massachusetts Avenue
corridor through Arlington and into Cambridge.
A 1998 ridership survey performed by the MBTA found that out of 2,050 trips/day on the Route
62/76 bus, 1368 had their origin or destination in Lexington. The 76 branch carried somewhat
more of these trips-778 than the 62, which carried 590. Inbound and outbound trips were fairly
well balanced.
Map 3 : Bus Routes
Legend
T 5L— LEXPRESS Bus Route
To Bedford V.A. Hospital �..fem
Tv —62 MBTA Bus Route
( Transfer Point
'. '"� � Burlington Mall
or
� M,r
Ou
62
0
12 ya U
76 i
,6 4 6
� \ sepal 5
vr� � e r Square ,,r'
nee{ts
Mssszc �"" urn
�chel
ro
4
r(
� sz
�
1 Haydeo ,.—...t Ts / To Arlington Heights
andNevafe
2
t � 7s
To AIM*
Wafthan
® Line
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet
Connections
Budington Mall.Burlington&Line,LRTA,lexpres,MBTA Rt 350/351
Depot Square `express,MBTA R 6B]6
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department. Source: MassGIS, Town of Lexington Waltham❑ne Lexp,ess,Waltham Colors
LEXPRESS Transit Service
LEXPRESS is a Town supported in-town service created in 1979 amidst growing concerns over
the fuel crisis and energy consumption. Since its inception, LEXPRESS has been an especially
important resource for children and the elderly, who may otherwise have significant difficulty in
getting around town. Scheduling incorporates the provision of transportation for students who
participate in after-school activities.
The LEXPRESS service uses three minibuses operating on three pairs of routes. The routes are
circular through various neighborhoods and to the Burlington Mall. Each routes takes 30 minutes
to complete and the use of one bus to serve two routes results in hourly headways on each route.
Buses operate out of a hub at Depot Square in the Town Center. The MBTA bus routes described
above have stops at Depot Square. LEXPRESS weekday routes start at 6:45/7:15 AM and end at
6:00/6:30 PM. Saturday routes start at 10:00/10:30 AM and end at 5:00/5:30 PM. There is no
Sunday service and no Saturday service during July and August.
LEXPRESS provides limited connections to bus services in neighboring communities. There are
connections at the Burlington Mall (Route 6)to the Lowell Regional Transit Service and to
Burlington's B-Line. The connecting times are 20 to 30 minutes. The Route 2 bus provides
connecting service to the Waltham Citibus at Avalon at Lexington on Waltham Street.
Connecting times to Waltham are 15 minutes and connecting times from Waltham are 10
minutes. Travel time, including connections, is 45 minutes to Waltham Center and 35 minutes
from Waltham Center.
LEXPRESS carries over 300 passengers each weekday and approximately 80,000 passengers
annually. Ridership rebounded in fiscal year 2002 after a steady decline the previous three years
(see Table 2). The majority of passengers (61 percent) are students. Eighteen percent are seniors
and 21 percent are adult riders. There are typically 10 to 15 transfers each day between
LEXPRESS buses and one or two transfers each day between LEXPRESS buses and the
Waltham Citibus or the Burlington B-Line service.
Table 2
LEXPRESS Ridership by Rider Type
Rider Type FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02
Adults 19,423 21,971 17,161 16,537
Students 51,075 40,042 43,929 47,323
Seniors 15,822 15,246 13,841 13,787
Children 1,265 1,257 511 424
Total Ridership 87,585 78,516 75,442 78,071
As of this writing, LEXPRESS funding for the fiscal year 2004 is in jeopardy. If the budget
override is not approved by residents, LEXPRESS will lose its funding. Securing adequate
funding is a perennial concern in public transportation. Budget uncertainties complicate the
process of maintaining and strengthening service. Currently, 25 percent of LEXPRESS's budget
is dependent upon the tax levy. Grant money from the MBTA and fare collection account for 25
percent each of the total budget, while another quarter comes from municipal parking revenues.
The loss of nearly a quarter of the budget would likely necessitate the suspension or, possibly,
termination of service. If service were interrupted, reinstituting it would be a politically complex
and expensive prospect. The Town of Lexington was an area leader in recognizing the
importance of local transit service and it is to be hoped that residents will continue to support this
valuable service.
Paratransit Service
In addition to the MBTA-run "Ride",two other paratransit services are available to Lexington
residents. The Chair Car complements the LEXPRESS service for those physically unable to
access the fixed route service. The other service is a volunteer-run program known as "FISH"
(Friendly Instant Sympathetic Help).
The Chair Car program operates Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:30AM to 2:30PM. Ridership
was 834 in FY2001 and 382 in FY2002. The majority of ridership occurs on the weekly
shopping trip to Stop & Shop.
The FISH program provides occasional rides to doctor's offices and grocery stores.
Commuter TMA Service
The 128 Business Council is a regional transportation management association (TMA) of firms,
residential complexes and office parks. The Council operates six commuter shuttle routes for its
member companies which subsidize the service. Employees can ride free or purchase tickets,
depending on the amount subsidized by the company.
Several Lexington locations are served by the 128 Council's Alewife Shuttle. The route
provides service between the Alewife MBTA Red Line station in Cambridge and
Waltham/Lexington companies along the Spring Street and Hayden Street corridor. The service
operates nine runs between 6:40 and 10:05 AM, and has four trips in the evening between 4:15
and 7:15 PM. Travel time between Hayden Avenue and Alewife station is approximately 15
minutes.
Table 3.Alewife Shuttle Ridership,2002,
Lexington Stops
Total An examination of Alewife Shuttle ridership
Ridership, Daily data for the year 2002 clearly shows that
Address Stop 2002 Average existing programs are having relatively little
33 Hayden Ave Mercer 1287 5.148 impact on the total volume of personal
45 Hayden Ave Spyglass 891 3.564 automobile trips. While the Shuttle is not
Hayden totally ineffective, current usage is not of a
55 Hayden Ave Woods 159 0.636 scale to significantly improve traffic
65 Hayden Ave Cubist 4245 16.98 conditions.
92 Hayden Ave HCP 743 2.972
92 Hayden Ave Other 177 0.708
Fresenius
Medical
95 Hayden Ave Care 2464 9.856
95 Hayden Ave Other 20 0.08
95 Hayden Ave Verbind 180 0.72
191 Spring St StrideRide 3175 12.7
128 Spring St Phylos 1097 4.388
All Lex. Stops 14438 57.752
Liberty Ride
While tourism has many benefits for Lexington, the issues of parking availability in Lexington
Center, and a lack of appropriate parking for tour buses in particular, can be problematic. To
address these issues, as well as to support tourism,the Liberty Ride, a shuttle bus offering on-
board narration and stops at multiple tourist destinations, was instituted in the summer of 2002.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management(TDM)focuses on providing alternative means of travel to
driving alone in a car. The purpose of TDM is to enhance mobility by providing an expanded
array of travel options and to reduce the demand for roadway improvements by reducing
automobile travel. The latter is accomplished by inducing drivers to shift to non-driving modes
or by encouraging people who drive alone to share a ride. TDM programs support and
encourage ridesharing, transit use, walking, and bicycling. TDM programs are often
implemented by groups of employers with a large number of employees in an identifiable area.
Employers often pool their resources by establishing a Transportation Management Association
(TMA), which can be the vehicle for delivering TDM services.
TDM Bylaw and TDM Policy
Unlike many other communities in Eastern Massachusetts, Lexington many years ago recognized
the need to consider the transportation impacts of new development and to encourage and
support the implementation of TDM measures.
Article XII of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, Traffic, sets out minimum
criteria for requiring traffic studies and mitigation of traffic impacts caused by a proposed
development. For applicable developments, building permits shall not be granted until the
SPGAs has determined that there is adequate traffic capacity for the new development.
Applicable developments include commercial establishments over 100,000 square feet, new
housing developments with 25 units or more, and other activity that generates 50 or more new
vehicle trips per day, Where negative impacts occur, a variety of mitigations, from signalization
of intersections to membership in a Transportation Management Association, can be required.
In addition, in March 1997, the Planning Board adopted a TDM Policy, which is much more
detailed than Article XIL The thresholds for TDM are the same as those triggering traffic impact
studies. Developers must provide a written TDM plan, which includes measures selected from a
variety of transportation services outlined in nine categories in the policy. These include site
design, transportation information, and connections to transit. A reporting component is detailed
in the policy.
Monitoring and enforcement of special permit conditions under Article XII have been
complicated by the lack of a clear and funded enforcement responsibility in the municipal
organization. While Article XII and the TDM Policy are fairly clear on the reporting procedure,
special permit conditions as actually written have varied significantly from case to case. As some
developers are instructed to submit annual transportation reports to multiple departments, no one
department has taken responsibility for ensuring that reports are submitted promptly and in
sufficient detail. Similar confusion surrounds other special permit conditions. The result of this is
that many existing developments are not fully complying with special permit conditions.
Transportation Management Association
e Special Permit Granting Authority—The SPGA is usually the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals.
The 128 Business Council operates employer shuttles in the 128/West area and assists employers
with their employee commuting needs. In Lexington, the 128 Business Council has worked with
employers on Spring Street and Hayden Avenue to establish transportation options, including
shuttles, Guaranteed Ride Home programs, establishment of carpools and vanpools, hold
transportation awareness fairs, and assist the designated employer transportation coordinators for
individual firms.
Since 1996, Transportation Coordinators have made three attempts to establish a TMA on
Hartwell Avenue area. The most recent effort began in the autumn of 2001 and continues.
Current Hartwell TMA planning is a joint effort of the Transportation Coordinator, Economic
Development Officer, and the 128 Business Council.
The need for such an organization is clear. The Hartwell area is comprised of more than 140
businesses. Approximately 10,000 commuters travel to and from the area daily. By and large,
these commuters drive single-occupancy vehicles. Traffic is problematic during peak commute
hours, particularly at the intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street. A TMA presence
would be a great boon to the area.
Other TDM Related Measures and Information
The success of TDM measures depends heavily on the existence of complementary services and
infrastructure. These include a well-planned and maintained sidewalk and street network,
provision of local and regional transit, and complementary land uses that provide increased
opportunity to walk and bicycle, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. If these services and facilities
are limited or non-existing, TDM support measures will be limited or ineffective For employees
to be able to use private shuttle buses, they will first have to get to the shuttle—perhaps by train
or bicycle. If there are shops and services within walking distance of their workplace, employees
will be more willing to commute by alternative means of transportation.
�.s2 �, �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe zt 2DD3
BICYCLING AND WALKING
Lexington has a network of bicycle trails and paths and sidewalks that facilitate bicycling and
walking not only as a form of recreation but also as a mode of travel. The Town is fortunate to
have the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), which has done much to expand the
bicycle network and inventory the sidewalk network. More generally it provides active support
and encouragement of bicycle use and walking.
The existing bicycle network is divided into off-road bicycle trails and on-road recommended
routes. Recommended routes are judged to be both relatively convenient to major destinations
and fairly safe, although caution is urged at all times. Bicycle trails are generally on town-owned
land or easements through private land and offer access to recreational facilities and open space.
The most well known bicycle facility in the community is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway
which runs generally north of, and parallel to, Massachusetts Avenue through much of the town.
The Bikeway is a production of the Rails to Trails program and follows the former B & M rail
corridor. The Bikeway runs from the MBTA Alewife Red Line station in Cambridge to Bedford.
It traverses Lexington from Arlington just north of Massachusetts Avenue to Bedford just north
of Maquire Road. It runs through Lexington Center just behind Depot Square. It is a heavily used
facility that draws large summertime crowds to Lexington Center. In the wintertime, it is not
plowed so that it can be used by cross-country skiers. While ridership figures are unavailable for
the Minuteman Bikeway, it is generally reputed to be among the most successful rail trail
conversions in the country.
The town has developed additional off-road paths and on-street routes to link Lexington
neighborhoods with the Town Center and the Minuteman Bikeway. Map 4 shows a plan of
existing bike routes and bikeways in town.
The LBAC is continually involved in efforts to identify and secure additional routes with an
emphasis on serving major in town attractions such as public schools. This is made difficult both
by Lexington's physical form and political tradition. Lexington is a mature suburb, and as such,
has relatively little space for infrastructure expansion. Streets are typically narrow, houses are
fairly close to the street, and much remaining undeveloped land is reserved for conservation. The
question of whether bike trails are appropriate uses in conservation areas has not been fully
settled. In addition, certain neighborhoods have opposed the construction of sidewalks or bike
lanes in the past. Future efforts will need to clearly state the need for such improvements and
work to gain community support.
A recent major effort of the committee focused on a sign inventory. The purpose was to identify
where signage needed to be replaced or added to make sure there was clear identification of the
existing bike route system.
The town has also been using Geographic Information System to develop a sidewalk inventory
which is shown on Map 5. Sidewalks are concentrated in the town center and nearby
neighborhoods and adjacent to public schools. The presence of sidewalks in other areas is less
uniform with some lower density residential areas having few if any sidewalks. The Town has no
LL
U_
LL
Vw �
OOs
W` ^ � 3 O
}/ 2
N
70
OA T 0 O f�/1 C F Df O
I U) 3 0 0 E O O U 3 3
0' � 0 A5 � J m o
O
S.L W dE@� ym
5� Co- I I I 1/0 E0 ~ TyN
L
JS
N �
In w h 6I
'�, )91Pvle F
� � N
GY..
m•
N
� � N
a
0
a
N
(6
Q
N
a`
Map 5 : Sidewal Inventory
Legend
Sidewalks
t .
128
JA _
whi le we believe this map
to be substantially correct, it
4000 0 4000 ® 8000 Feet should be noted that it has
not been field-checked.
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department. Source: MassGIS, Town of Lexington, MassHighway, B ston Edison
capital program or plan for expanding the sidewalk network. Subdivision regulations establish
requirements for sidewalks in new development but with much of the Town already developed, a
plan and program will be needed to insure the expansion of sidewalks into areas which need
them or should have them.
The opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements are many. Bicycling and walking are
low-cost, healthy, environmentally friendly means of transportation and recreation. They also
play an important role when other modes of transportation are used, whether one bikes to the bus
stop or walks from a municipal parking lot.
CONCLUSION
In general, Lexington is fairly well-provided with transportation options. It is nevertheless
experiencing growing traffic congestion and associated problems. This is due in some part to
larger social and regional trends, and in some part to the choices that the town has made.
Nationally, people have been making more trips,traveling longer distances, and spending more
time behind the wheel. Regionally, the high cost of housing has pushed residential development
further and further out, creating longer commutes. Locally, Lexington has failed to advance a
proactive agenda to make alternative transportation a more attractive prospect. Major sidewalk
improvements,for example, have been repeatedly postponed over the last 20 years. An
investment made in 1983 could have resulted in a more walkable community by 2003.
While limited funding and political realities will make hard choices necessary,the threat to
quality of life in Lexington needs to be addressed. Improvements must be made in order to allow
greater access to existing transportation options,to improve the quality of those options, and to
mitigate safety and operational problems with the roadway system. These improvements cannot
be made by the municipal government acting alone. The transportation system is of such
complexity that collaboration with private businesses, community groups, and regional, state,
and possibly federal authorities is necessary. In the following chapters, we analyze possible
strategies and develop recommended courses of action.
In this section, analysis is translated into a set of proposed actions. After examining existing
conditions in the transportation network for all modes, the Transportation Element Advisory
Committee (TEAC)then began the next phase of its work, which was the consideration of
alternative strategies for addressing the transportation problems identified. The intent, as with all
planning processes, was to modify and narrow down that list, eventually ending up with a final
set of priority recommendations.
The section is generally organized by transportation mode (transportation demand management
(TDM), transit, bicycling and walking, and roadways, as well as land use), each of which was
considered by the advisory committee. The measures were developed in consideration of the
existing transportation system and services in Lexington, as well as the land use and travel
patterns (see Existing Conditions). For each mode, emphasis was placed on complementing
existing services or making more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The data were analyzed
to determine where new or expanded transportation services might fill a need and be at least
somewhat competitive with automobile use. Greater detail is offered below.
Not all actions discussed in this section were deemed by the TEAC to be of sufficient priority in
relation to the other proposed measures to proceed into the final Implementing Actions Plan
outlined in the last section of this document. This exclusion in no way precludes their
consideration for future action.
ROADWAYS
The Selectmen's 1999 Vision 2020 project, along with the 2002 ComPlan, set forth a strategy
that has informed this transportation planning process—that the road network should only be
`fixed' where doing so is unavoidable. Transportation planners maintain that the construction or
improvement of new roads can only temporarily improve traffic conditions. The improved travel
times, safety, or accessibility of new areas created by improved infrastructure induce greater
travel demand, which quickly consumes the new vehicular capacity. In this plan, this concept has
led to a focus on the intersections where level of service failure and safety are so problematic
that there is little choice but to make improvements wherein traffic flow and safety may be
improved. The assumption has also been that excessive increases to intersection vehicular
capacity, as well as construction of grade-separated intersections, were to be avoided.
Potential roadway improvements were identified based on a strategy of maximizing the efficient
use of existing roadway infrastructure. This strategy complements another important one of
restraining traffic growth and the need for roadway improvements, by providing alternatives to
driving alone, such as TDM and transit. A key objective in all of this is to maintain the existing
community character of Lexington. Asa result, no new roadways or major roadway widenings
were considered. The types of improvements considered included:
❖ Lane use changes at intersections
❖ Intersection geometry improvements
❖ Traffic signal timing and phasing changes
❖ Addition of new traffic signals
❖ Traffic calming measures, including roundabouts, bulbouts, and traffic islands
Traffic calming is a method of using physical infrastructure to moderate driver behavior. It
generally slows vehicle speeds by carefully introducing features such as roundabouts,
neckdowns, traffic platforms, curves or other measures, which creates a safer environment for
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
Since traffic calming measures slow vehicle speeds,they can be ideal solutions to the problem of
through traffic on local streets, or `cut-throughs'. Consistent congestion on arterial roads can
divert fast-moving commuter traffic to local streets, creating both quality-of-life and safety
issues for residents. Many residents demand that their streets be made one-way, or closed
entirely to non-local traffic. Not only do both of these solutions create new problems on other
local streets, but the latter might also create legal issues. A public street network cannot be
selectively privatized. The best solution is to reduce the systemic traffic congestion, which would
then remove the incentive for commuters to use local streets. Where this is not possible,traffic
calming can be introduced to slow vehicle speeds. This both increases safety and reduces the
attractiveness of the local street as a `cut-through'. This must be done cautiously, however, so as
not to unduly impact other local streets.
Traffic signals have only been proposed after much thought. Transportation engineers maintain
that, for an intersection with ongoing level-of-service failure, signalization is preferable to stop-
sign control and police control in both safety and traffic operation. Stop-sign control can be
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, �.aee./ 2OD3
dysfunctional and dangerous with high vehicular volumes. Police detail control offers a quick
traffic control mitigation but is subject to human inconsistency and error, the vagaries of weather
and the uncertainties of personnel availability. While some residents may object to signalization
based on the perceived nuisance impacts of traffic queuing, these concerns can be partially
allayed with optimum signal timing that is demand-triggered.
Criteria for selecting intersections to be analyzed for possible improvement included: incidence
of accidents at the location; peak hour delays and queues; and geometric deficiencies. The
number of intersections that could be reviewed for possible improvement as part of the
development of the Transportation Element was limited. The twelve intersections listed below
were advanced for review based on their accident history and the other statistical measures, as
well as discussions with the Town of Lexington Planning and Engineering Departments.
The remaining intersections listed, although important locations with a variety of traffic issues,
were not proposed for improvement at this time. Some of these secondary intersections have
been the subject of earlier analyses and planning efforts. Others did not rank as high in the need
for improvements but might well be strong candidates for consideration for upgrading at a later
time.
Intersections Reviewed For Possible Improvements
1. Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
2. Bedford Street at Eldred Street
3. Maple Street at Mass. Avenue
4. Lowell Street at Maple Street
5. Bedford Street at Worthen Road
6. Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
7. Marrett Road at Waltham Street
8. Woburn Street/Mass. Avenue at Fletcher Avenue
9. Pleasant Street at Mass. Avenue
10. Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
11. Old Mass. Avenue/ Mass. Avenue/ Wood Street
12. Marrett Road at Spring Street
Intersections Reviewed But Reason
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementation
1. Bedford Street at Route 128 Highway interchanges
2. Bedford Street at Harrington Road National Register, historic district
and Hancock Street
Bedford Street at Route 128 was rated as the highest accident location. This location is a full clover-leaf
interchange and is under MassHighway jurisdiction. This interchange was not reviewed for improvements as part of
this scope ; however it is recognized that the number of accidents warrants further review. It is also recognized that
this intersection has impacts on the intersection of Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue and vice versa. The
intersection of Bedford at Hartwell will be reviewed for possible improvements and those improvements could have
positive impacts on the interchange.
3. Waltham Street at Hayden Avenue Channelization improvements
implemented 1999-2000
4. Lowell Street at Woburn Street Reconstructed
5. Hartwell Avenue at Maguire Road Design and permitting complete.
No funding for construction
6. Marrett Road at Route 128 Highway interchange
7. Mass. Avenue/ Old Mass. Avenue/Marrett Road Lower number of accidents
8. Lowell Street at East Street Lower number of accidents
9. Mass Avenue at Grant Street Lower number of accidents
The criteria used to evaluate the improvements considered as part of the screening process
included:
❖ Roadway safety/accident record
❖ Vehicular capacity
❖ Cost of likely improvements
❖ Impact on or constraints imposed by community character
❖ Pedestrian and bicycle safety
❖ Impacts to adjacent land uses outside of the existing right-of-way (ROW)
❖ Maintenance requirements
Each action was identified as a near term, intermediate term, or long term action item for
implementation. The time line utilized for these recommendations is as follows:
Table 3 lists the actions considered for each intersection,the likely timeframe for each action,the
number of accidents at each intersection, and the evaluation of each improvement. The time
frames are defined as follows: Near Term— 1-2 Years; Intermediate —2-5 years; Long-Term—
5+years.
Near Term Action improvements are low in cost and can be quickly implemented. Intermediate
Actions require more time to implement and involve greater cost than Near Term Actions.
Long-Term Actions entail high capital investments, might involve additional major players at
every step (e.g., MassHighway), or may have a longer process to be planned, designed, permitted
and constructed. Such projects are likely to involve further complications such as Environmental
Impact Reports. For some intersections, different improvements were identified in separate time
frames.
Most of the actions were carried into the plan with minor changes and reference Goals 4.A and
4.13. Any improvements at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Wood Street were
eliminated because of concerns about adverse impacts on the Minuteman National Historical
Park.
� E
C _ Eom
- -
ov Aa
JGa ❑ x •
Ga
a
Al.
o E ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X
A6�pa>
a�JT$ as sy�� E a ❑ 0 0 ❑ X ❑ ❑ X
SaJ a��'tS
gay°� 9 X ❑ ❑ 0 X 0 ❑ X ❑
ea -
'rJa '
..ayJaaJ6 m- -
X X X X ❑ 0 X
E � E
s00 o 9 m E
9
T�Ja as
Ta�A r, ssa A6 r E0 ❑ ❑ X X ❑ ❑
sa o
�o E
o
E ❑ ❑ ❑ X X X ❑ ❑ ❑
- E
o
O Ny
C _
qvE
E
E
o eE o - _
U) z Q Eo- E
> ❑ x • aE
Y _ - 9 N
(6 a E o 3 -o _
L _ - o-E
Y 3m 01EP cE m _ - NEE - o
-o a c P _ E N N - o w 3
Q y �= _ _= E - -
oa=a= -
d E v
o _ a
E o o >
o
o
t- a a9� Av
B A � E moA _
_ E�� �� E tea' oo`9c' _ ;o;mEm w -
PE9m'o oE m.E
� q
mEa ma'am �go 8 o 2 p E
•O 9 9 6 3 E 3 o
U a N o a o a v
U) D U) D E o N o
Q _
E o E o oo o
0_ 3
wEmo = E 3
l0 N o3n�>
o F N "O N N N U a ENNNE tl N a -
o � a
N C N
azEo N-
c
o
� 3
N _
boo _ � o ` c3q_a � m �
ifs aQ� 3 a o
a
JGa ❑ x 0
Al. `a�`/a� 9 E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
a/JTJ/ as aa�/ E ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑
9iGS
SaJ a/„�s
gay°� 9 v0 X ❑ X X ❑ ❑ ❑ X X ❑
ea -
'rJa '
m X X X X X ❑ ❑ X X X X
E E
El El X X X X El El El El
9 X
sj
Va/
9
T/Ja oa
Ta �sassaAaJ r r E • X ❑ ❑ ❑ X • • X ❑ ❑
�'.OaoYfa� 'J6
ago � v 9
X X ❑ ❑ ❑ X 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
p �N
� C
n a o o m
E a v m N
U
W Z Q
> ❑ x
Y _m m m m
aQ w3q _
Q
Yo _ q I q
o
C� �+ •v - 3 E w o _ _
C -
O
U _ �E E9 o_-m vv ww3E aq `w wE °' m - wP� 3 ESj
Co ocE m - -- -` aEE
q - wov q - Evp _ -
' o o a "o
Y 9 9
U a a
G1
N a U) U) U)
L � 7
y Q C VI
� � O
N
FN (n (n c O "O Y
N N 00 N
N D Q D N 0 ' N
� � min U min
N E
N 3 3
E - a-
E vE
o m
JGa ❑ x •
Ga
3G m
. � v
Al. �aS a� a X X ❑ ❑ ❑ x x x x x x ❑
Ja�,p�G o E
bay a�
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X X X X X X X
!9iG�OS
SaJ aJ�s
`ado m X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X
ea -
'rJa - -
..ayJaaJ6
E E
• El El El El El El •
°' o x X X x ❑ • • • • • • X
9
T�Ja as
Ta�Q r, ssa A6 r E ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X
sa7.0���� E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X
p �N
N C
n d co ro m
E a N
U
W Z Q
> ❑ x
Y
mm `o ®v amp G
Q E
N a3w
ol
U a w E
� 3v- a Aar _ vE of
Y 9 9
U a a
G1
y a C N
� � O
O N O N N J
� Q' � in in am � Q' a min � Q' in
§
\
\� \ �
j ❑ x x x ❑ x
\ \ -
- _ \ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ x x
® \ j x ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑
-
� � \ } � ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑
00 ` ! x x x x
- { x x x x x ❑
) \ -
o -
7.0
ee,l : ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
E
w � � : . .
ZZ ;
( 0 -
|
q\ \
� ) { \
�.smr�P2e�iva , �zC° orz r, �.aee./ 2 eu
TRANSIT
Strategies
While the MBTA is the major provider of transit service in the area, it cannot be relied upon to
significantly increase service to Lexington in the near future. This is due both to the MBTA's
current financial struggles and Lexington's relatively low population density and outlying
position in the MBTA service area. Consequently, transit strategies that could be implemented
locally have been emphasized. The actions listed below generally focus on making connections
between existing transit nodes, employment centers, and other activity centers. Those
connections could be made by a variety of services, which could be anything from an expanded
LEXPRESS service to a sub-regional transit provider,to privately funded services like the
existing Alewife Shuttle.
The transit strategies considered include:
❖ Establish Regional Commuting Links to Lexington
Establish links to Lexington from regional transit services to provide additional transit
alternatives for regional commuters to Lexington. These alternatives could be established
by providing connections to commuter rail stations in nearby communities.
❖ Improve Commuting to Lexington from Nearby Communities
Improve connections between Lexington and nearby communities to provide additional
transit options for commuters from nearby towns.
❖ Expand Commuting and Non-Work Trip Options for Lexington Residents
Provide additional services within Lexington to enhance non-automotive travel options
for work and non-work trips for Lexington residents.
Based on the transit strategies described above, as well as analysis of relevant data, potential
actions were identified and evaluated for inclusion in the Transportation Element. The following
sections describe the actions listed above and indicate whether the TEAC supported inclusion of
the measure in the plan.
Potential Actions—Regional Commuting Links
❖ Establish Link To Lowell Commuter Rail Line at the Anderson Regional
Transportation Center in Woburn
This measure would establish shuttle service between the major employment center on
Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail Line. The measure would provide
service between the town's major employment center and a major regional catchment
area along the I-93 corridor in northern Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This regional
O
O
O
O
cu 0
O W
O
70
LO
(a i
}� (a ^`
L O -O mo O
a m
Q � t OE E
CO O W O i _ o
Q C O LO
(a �
v „ .
w OJ-ID
_ 7
� W IE vm
J J
`v
U U
a
o w
iA L
W U
T
C
X
N
J
O
F
N
N
N Qj
m �
M L (n
N �
N
N �
N N
d
N
0
m
C
l0
a
0
o�
� axi
� J
a � T
L n
� a
LL J
a
m
a`
�.smr�P2e�iva , �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 20D3
advantage will increase when Lowell commuter rail service is extended to Nashua, New
Hampshire. One potential drawback is that the shuttle must travel in heavy traffic on
Route 128. The town's Transportation Coordinator is investigating the possible use of
buses that currently are deadheading from Woburn in the morning and returning in the
evening. The committee supported this concept because of the large workforce in the
Hartwell Avenue area and the number of commuters from the north. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.1.
❖ Establish Link To Lowell Commuter Rail Line at Winchester Center
This measure would establish shuttle service between the Lexington Town Center and the
Lowell Commuter Rail Line. It would serve local areas in Lexington (Countryside) and
Winchester. It would entail less travel through traffic congestion than the Woburn
connection but would require a longer train ride for suburban commuters. It would
benefit from the extension of the Lowell Line to Nashua, New Hampshire. The
committee accepted this measure as a long-term action. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal2.A.4.
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Lincoln
This would establish a connection from the Lincoln Commuter Rail station to Hartwell
Avenue and Lexington Center. It would provide the best connection to the Hartwell
Avenue area from the Fitchburg Line but would not provide any other transit connections
or service for local residents. This measure would have little impact on traffic conditions
in Lexington because it would serve commuters coming from the west to Hartwell
Avenue. Because of its limited transit connections and limited impact on traffic
conditions within the town,the committee did not support its inclusion in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Waltham
This would establish a direct connection from the Waltham Commuter Rail station in
Waltham Center to Hayden/Spring and Lexington Center. Currently, riders between
Waltham Center and Lexington Center must transfer between LEXPRESS and the
Waltham CitiBus. This action would also provide connections to other transit services in
Waltham Center and would serve a significant local catchment area in Waltham. It could
provide all day service to Lexington Center and peak hour service to Hayden/Spring. The
committee believes this measure provides the most promising link to the Fitchburg
Commuter Rail Line and supported its inclusion in the plan. In addition, it could enhance
transit service along Waltham Street for Lexington residents (see Use Commuter Rail
Connection to Waltham Center to Provide Local Service to Waltham). Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.2.
The process of a train
rr or bus returning empty(with no passengers)to the yard or garage.
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Belmont
This would establish a connection from the Waverly Commuter Rail station in Belmont
to Hayden/Spring and/or Lexington Center. Because this measure would provide
connections to limited transit services in Waverly Square and would entail a longer train
ride to reach Waverly for commuters,the committee did not include it in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Establish Link To Worcester Commuter Rail Line from Auburndale
This would connect Auburndale (Riverside Station intermodal facility)to Hayden/Spring
and Lexington Center. This could involve apossible extension of the Waltham
connection described above. Since not all trains stop at Auburndale and there are no other
transit connections available, the committee did not include this measure in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
Potential Actions—Links to Nearby Communities
❖ Provide Connection To Green Line at Riverside
This action provides service between the Riverside Green Line stop and Hartwell Avenue
or Hayden/Spring. It could serve reverse commuters from Brookline and Boston as well
as a local catchment area in Newton. Because the shuttle bus would compete with auto
traffic on local roadways and there would be no "guaranteed connection" due to the
uncertainty of the Green Line schedule this measure was not adopted by the committee.
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Extend MBTA Bus Route 478 (Arlmont Village—Harvard Station)
Extend MBTA bus route #78 to Hayden/Spring during peak hours. Since this measure
would be similar to the 128 Business Council TMA Alewife Shuttle service which
currently provides peak hour service to Hayden/Spring, it is included in the plan in the
event the 128 Business Council service is reduced or eliminated. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.5.
❖ Extend MBTA Bus Route 477 (Arlington Heights—Harvard Station)
Extend MBTA bus route #77 to Lexington Center to provide more direct service for
Arlington residents. This measure is an extension of an existing route and would be
simple and relatively inexpensive to implement. The committee recommended this
action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.6.
❖ Use Proposed Connection to Commuter Rail at Waltham to Provide Local Service
To Waltham
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2 eu
The Waltham Center—Lexington Center Connection (as described above) could provide
local service to the Lexington Street/Waltham Street corridor including a connection with
other buses in Waltham Center. This measure was included in the plan because it uses
one service to support regional commuting as well as improve service for residents.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.2.
❖ Use Proposed Connections To Commuter Rail at Winchester Center to Provide
Local Service To Winchester
The Winchester Center—Lexington Center Connection(as described above)would
provide limited local service and very limited service to other buses. As a result, the
committee did not include it in the plan. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing
Actions.
Potential Actions—Expand Options for Lexington Residents
❖ Extend Hours of Operation for LEXPRESS
Extended hours for LEXPRESS could provide an option for Lexington commuters who
need service before or after existing service hours. Commuter use may be limited by the
need for transfers. The potential increase in ridership might not offset the increased cost
of operating this service. Because of current fiscal limitations, the committee included
this measure as a long-term action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.3.
❖ Expand Frequency of Service for LEXPRESS
More frequent service would provide greater flexibility for Lexington commuters and
non-commuting riders. Commuter use may be limited by the need for transfers and the
potential increase in ridership might not offset the increased cost of operating this service.
As with extended hours of operation,the committee recommended this measure as a long
term action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.3.
❖ Provide Express Buses from Lexington Center to Boston
This measure would resurrect a service that was once provided. It would require
expanded parking in the Town Center or an extensive neighborhood collector bus service
to the Town Center(see LEXPRESS service improvements above). This may not provide
faster service to downtown Boston than existing connections to Alewife or proposed
connections to commuter rail and it would compete with existing service to the Red Line
at Alewife station. As a result,the committee did not include it in its recommendations.
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) is an array of strategies and actions that focus on
supporting and encouraging the use of alternatives to driving alone. These include a wide variety
of measures to promote carpools, vanpools, mass transit, bicycling, walking, and more. They
also include actions to reduce the total amount of travel, especially during peak travel times.
Table 9, at the end of this sections, provides a list of common TDM measures and the type of trip
they can effectively serve. A number of TDM measures are already being implemented in
Lexington (see Existing Conditions section) and some TDM measures are not particularly
applicable to Lexington's needs. The emphasis in this plan is on reinforcing or strengthening
existing actions and implementing new actions that can reasonably be expected to have an effect
for this community.
Due to the fact that existing programs in Lexington are quite limited, and that many strategies
under the TDM umbrella are available, the participation process delved into these alternative
transportation policies in considerable detail.
To determine the appropriate measures for Lexington, the TEAC began by brainstorming
answers to the question, "What would it take to get you out of your car?" To avoid limiting the
discussion to preconceived ideas, this was done before the formal presentation of the "toolbox"
of TDM measures generally available. Two lists were developed: one for commute trips and one
for non-commute (all other)trips. Once the lists were developed, the group then voted for the
five measures they thought should be the highest priority for Lexington, and prioritized them. In
the next session, the survey results were used to guide a group discussion of a range of common
TDM measures and their suitability to Lexington. For both the commute and the non-commute
trip, frequency and reliability of service were highly ranked.
TDM Measures— Survey Results for Commute Trips
A total of 27 suggestions were made for discouraging single-occupancy vehicle commuting.
Each member voted for five measures, assigning them a value between 1 (low priority) and 5
(high priority). The number of votes reflects how many committee members voted for the
measure and the score reflects the total value assigned to the measure by the members voting on
it. The top five suggestions by both frequency and priority are listed in Table 4. Other measures
with one or more scores of"4" or"5" (the highest priorities) are listed in Table 5. Four of the top
five measures suggest improvements to transit service; the fifth suggests more convenient
ridesharing. While the top four measures are perhaps directed at mass transit,they also suggest
improvements for paratransit services such as shuttle buses and vanpools.
Table 4. Hi hest Scoring TDM Commute Trip Measures
Measure Votes Score
❖ Frequent service for flexibility 13 48
❖ Better access to transit 10 27
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2 eu
❖ Reliability 8 28
❖ Reasonable time 7 22
❖ Close carpooler 5 19
Table 5. Other High Scoring Commute Trip Measures
Measure Votes Score
❖ Information about choices 5 15
❖ Public priority 4 15
❖ Increase in parking costs 5 14
❖ Door to door service 3 13
❖ Shower at work 5 11
❖ Transit link to commuter rail 4 9
❖ Safe bike route 4 9
❖ Financial incentive 3 8
❖ Employer leadership 2 7
❖ Regular work hours 3 6
❖ Control over own schedule 2 6
❖ Work at home 2 5
❖ Live closer to work 1 5
TDM Measures— Survey Results for Non-Commute Trips
A total of 15 suggestions were made for TDM measures related to non-commute trips (all trips
other than trips to work). The measures with the most votes and highest scores are listed in Table
6. As with commute trips, there was a desire for more frequent transit service but there was also
a focus on mixed land use to facilitate shorter, non-automotive trips. Other measures with one or
more scores of"4" or"5" (the highest priorities) are listed in Table 7.
Table 6. Highest Scoring TDM Non-Commute Trip Measures
Votes Score
❖ Frequency of service 15 67
❖ Variety in town center 12 37
❖ Pick-up and delivery 10 28
❖ Live closer to shop and errands 8 26
❖ More/off-peak park and ride 6 26
Table 7. Other High Scoring Non-Commute Tri Measures
Measures Votes Score
❖ Night service to entertainment 10 25
❖ Sunday Service 7 20
❖ Safety on the T 6 16
❖ Urban ring/circumferential transit 6 15
❖ Convenient and secure bike facilities 7 13
Potential Actions
Based on the results of the exercise, existing TDM measures in Lexington, and the range of
measures generally available, the following strategies and actions were recommended for
implementation by the TEAC.
❖ Provide Information on Commuting Choices
A continuing theme with the TEAC was the need to educate the public, especially
commuters, on the options available and the advantages of those options. This strategy
focuses on helping commuters and others make informed decisions about their travel
modes. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.3.
o Work with the Transportation Coordinator and other officials, as well as private
sources, to establish an effective and comprehensive marketing program utilizing:
1. Flyers 4. Information kiosks
2. Posters in the Town Center, 5. Posters in office lobbies
Community Centers, Public 6. Flyers mailed with bills
Buildings, etc. 7. Lexington Minuteman or
3. Transportation fairs other newspapers
o Work with the Transportation Coordinator and other officials to enhance the
Transportation section of the Town's Website. Provide all transportation measures
and services in addition to LEXPRESS schedules and maps. Include links to
other resources including MBTA, CARAVAN, the Route 128 Business Council,
etc.
❖ Strengthen Article XII (Traffic) of the Zoning Bylaw
Article XII, (Art. XII, 135-71-73), while a commendable tool, is unclear as to the
enforcement and monitoring of special permit conditions that are established under it. A
revised policy would give the Town more `teeth' vis-a-vis TDM, traffic mitigations, and
private developers. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.1.
❖ Support Carpooling
The emphasis in this strategy is to take immediate, low cost action to foster increased
ridesharing. The actions build on existing efforts and focus on education and providing
formal support for carpoolers. Many people reject carpooling because they perceive it as
inconvenient, or are unaware of potential carpoolers in their area. Building on existing
public and private programs to support carpooling extends scarce resources. One
relatively new option is carsharing, which provides convenient, short-term rental of an
automobile for subscribers. Rentals may be from anywhere between 30 minutes and 24
hours. Zipcar, a private company in the Boston, DC, and NYC areas, uses the internet to
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, �.aee./ 2 eu
manage rental of a network of cars stored at reserved parking places in urban
neighborhoods and at transit stations. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.2.
o Begin by incorporating and building upon existing local initiatives by the town of
Lexington and private sources.
o Promote ridematching services offered by CARAVAN for Commuters and/or the
Route 128 Business Council.
o Collect information, conduct outreach and implement marketing strategies.
o Seek financial incentives for carpoolers/vanpoolers.
o Serve both Lexington residents and Lexington employees.
o Explore options for carsharing programs such as Zipcar
❖ Provide Financial Incentives for Alternative Modes of Travel
Other financial incentives to alter automobile use and shift to other modes of travel also
exist. A few strategies are listed below. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.5.
o Create a town-wide program that encourages alternative travel using credits
and/or lotteries.
o Extend credits through employers or retail establishments to those who do not
drive alone. Credits can be used for actual gifts or for a regular lottery drawing.
o Obtain gifts or lottery prizes from sponsors and from the Town. Should include
transportation-related gifts including bicycles, sneakers, T-Passes, LEXPRESS
tickets, gas coupons for carpoolers, etc.
o Have program work on an honor system with the disincentive for cheating being
the advertising of the winners.
o Explore alternative sources of funds for financial incentives.
❖ Establish TMA Services
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are alternative transportation
implementing groups that take advantage of economies of scale among employers who
wish to provide supportive service for commuters who do not drive. Employers
contribute funds and provide other kinds of support (from office space to internet
services)to a central organization, which in turn may provide ridematching services, run
shuttle buses, organize a Guaranteed Ride Home program, or distribute bicycle maps.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.6
o Encourage or mandate all employers (over a threshold number of employees)to
join a TMA
o Encourage formation of Hartwell Avenue TMA to serve Hanscom Field,
Hanscom AFB, and area businesses.
A Guaranteed Ride Home program ensures that employees will be able to get home even if they have to leave in
the middle of the day or work late,thus missing a shuttle bus or carpool departure. Such services may be provided
by taxi vouchers or an on-call paratransit service.
17
❖ Provide Small-Scale Services in Office Parks
This strategy focuses on providing opportunities to reduce the incidence of vehicular trips
or eliminate the need to travel by car altogether and to allow travel needs to be served by
walking. Some commuters may feel that they need to use their automobile during the
workday. Providing a range of on-site or nearby options for lunches, dry cleaning, day
care, and convenience shopping will remove one constraint to using alternative modes.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.7.
o Establish mixed use districts and associated zoning changes as a long-term
measure.
o Encourage small businesses to use lunch trucks to bring lunch to the employees
rather than employees going to lunch.
o Provide a number of trucks, offering a variety of cuisines, which visit a different
office park or Town Center daily, providing variety to the employees.
❖ Provide Incentives to Reduce Parking Demand (and Automobile Use)
This strategy is aimed at providing financial incentives to reduce automobile use by
focusing on paying commuters not to park instead of subsidizing their parking. One
`hidden subsidy' to SOV commuting is the provision of free parking. The employer
nearly always pays the cost of obtaining land, constructing parking lots or garages, and
maintaining them. If employees are given a choice of receiving this benefit in the form of
a parking space, a significant cash payment, or other attractive benefit, they will have a
further incentive not to drive. Restricting the total parking supply reinforces this
incentive. In addition, Lexington's regulations should be examined to ensure that they do
not create unnecessarily large numbers of parking spaces. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 3.A.1 and Goal 3.A.2.
o Establish a parking cash-out'program for employers.
o Explore Federal, State, or Local tax breaks or other sources of funds for
reimbursing employers based on actual cash-back.
o Review minimum parking standards in the Zoning Bylaw
4 Parking cash-out refers both to a California state program and to a project under the Federal Commuter Choice
program. Both establish standards for employers to offer employees a choice of cash or a free parking space.
sluapisa'd
uojfuixaZ-uoN)sduZ�IioM
(aIa
`jenogeaiaai�sun01)iaglo
sdu L loogoS
(S6b apis;no)U049 01
apeslno sdul InAA,
(ease uogsog)u049uwo
apeslno sduZ JioM
(sOIJILM uoa
Xgieau)uolguwol Yr Yr '.Yti Y".Yr
apeslno sduZ JioM
u012uixa-IuTsdul IIoM Yti ',Yr Yr '.Yr .Yr Yr Yr '.Yr 'v'.Yr
sduZ I1eIa2I ?r Yr Yti Yr Yr Yr '.Yr ✓'v'.Yr
'y
v
� U
v< m
¢ � b4 Y tl5
,x h
o bb
U h 3 sv s
15 on
ba
} v O v q�q y inn
1
0, ha ° � OAaG '� tiw TCsro ° f
bq ^t3 m N ^vi ui m we b y L1 p,
v
0a .a 0 0: x.spa .
C7 U c7'.0. W U u�'.cG t9 Ca E.'.F~ . e-a'.W W
BICYCLING AND WALKING
An early-morning walk is a blessing for the whole day. Henry David Thoreau
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all
the medicine and psychology in the world. Paul Dudley White
In addition to the land use changes described above that would foster walking and bicycling,the
TEAC also considered improvements to sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle paths that would
provide increased opportunities for walking and bicycling. The principal thrust of this was to
consider incorporation of previous work of the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee into the
Transportation Element, including the bicycle network plan and the sidewalk inventory
developed by the committee. The element would support the further expansion of the Town's
bicycle network and sidewalks consistent with the network plan and sidewalk inventory.
Development of formal on-road bike lanes and off-road trails is constrained in Lexington, as the
Town is nearly built out. With this in mind, incremental infrastructure improvements, regulation,
and educational programs are urged.
One excellent educational program is offered by Safe Routes to Schools, an international
organization devoted to creating safe routes for children to walk or bicycle to school. Their aims
are to increase children's health and fitness and decrease traffic congestion created by parents
driving their children to school.
The group also considered several additional actions, including the following:
❖ Confirm and Support Townwide Bicycle Network
The existing network of routes,trails, and paths provides opportunities for recreational
cycling, dog-walking, inline skating, a convenient way to get to work or school, or to
provide the first or last leg of a multi-modal journey. There are many neighborhoods,
however, which are `land-locked' by busy intersections, highways, or conservation lands.
The proposed additions to the network have been chosen to create pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly links between neighborhoods, elementary schools, and major employment and
shopping areas. Included in Implementing Actions; Goals 2.13, 4.C, and 4.1).
o Update bicycle route signage—The Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee has
recently completed an inventory of existing signing to allow for upgrading and
expanding network signs.
o Develop "spot" improvement program—The network plan can be used to identify
locations where specific physical improvements can be made to eliminate
deficiencies in the network
o Incorporate bicycle "needs" in roadway projects—Roadway improvements should
explicitly recognize and consider the needs of bicyclists.
o Use bicycle needs to help prioritize roadway improvement—Incorporating bicycle
needs into roadway improvements should be a factor in establishing priorities for
roadway improvements.
�.smr�P2e�iva , �zC° orz r, �. ,me ,,� 20eu
o Maintain synergy with neighboring communities—coordination with adjacent
communities will allow for an integrated regional network.
o Encourage bicycle amenities (bike racks/lockers) at key locations—it is important
to provide storage and other amenities to facilitate the use of bikeways.
❖ Adopt Townwide bicycle and sidewalk standards and policies
Consistency in bicycle and pedestrian facilities is important both for safety and
aesthetics. Sudden changes in the width or texture of a path or sidewalk could throw a
user off balance, creating a potentially dangerous situation. A sidewalk that abruptly ends
may force a pedestrian to walk on a busy road. Maintaining design consistency also
creates a more aesthetically pleasing environment, in harmony with Lexington's existing
character. Included in Implementing Actions; Goals 2.13.7,2.13.8
o Write and adopt policy on the importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks
for safety, health, and mobility
o Define standards for various bicycle facilities—Minimal standards should be
established for various types of facilities to assure that no substandard segments
of the network are created.
o Maintain consistency between facilities—establishment of minimum standards
will provide for consistency between facilities of the same type and increase
safety by removing sudden changes in quality of facilities.
o Enforce snow removal policies —where appropriates, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities should be kept clear of snow to facilitate year round use.
❖ Develop prioritization strategies for sidewalk improvements
When planning sidewalk improvements, the prioritization system typically reflects the
confluence of the physical condition of the sidewalk with its area or townwide
importance as a pedestrian link. The Lexington Department of Public Works, in its
annual capital budgeting process, employs a system that functions along these lines, but
the methodology could be standardized for maximum consistency. The selection process
also can be greatly aided by keeping the sidewalk inventory up-to-date and considering
the impact of surrounding land uses and traffic conditions. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goals 4.C.2 and 4.C.3.
o Update sidewalk inventory—The sidewalk inventory should be kept up-to-date to
facilitate avoiding breaks in the network.
o Develop screening criteria—criteria should be developed for establishing what
sidewalk improvements should be made.
5 There is some debate between clearing bike paths so that bicycle commuters can use them year-round, as opposed
to leaving them snow-covered for cross-country skiing. A compromise may be possible, so that more isolated paths
(which are less suitable for commuter use)are reserved for skiers and major paths cleared for other users. There
needs to be dialogue around this issue, possibly with the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee playing a key role.
❖ Vigorously implement the Town's Transportation Demand Management Policy and
Traffic Bylaw to support walking and bicycling in and around public and private
development and redevelopment sites.
When a property being developed meets the thresholds set by Article XII, Traffic, of the
Zoning Bylaw, appropriate pedestrian and bicycle mitigations may be required, to the
degree practicable. This is of benefit to both the town and the developer, as the former
receives improved infrastructure and the latter is able to reduce the traffic impacts of the
development. In addition,the marginal costs of constructing sidewalks, recreational trails,
bike racks, or showers are relatively low. Included in Implementing Actions; 2.13.2.
❖ Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and
bicycling.
Zoning and subdivision regulations govern the physical infrastructure that can either
encourage or discourage walking and bicycling. In general, wider streets, a lack of
sidewalks and crosswalks, and large building setbacks tend to make a `pedestrian-
unfriendly' environment. Compared to newer suburban communities, Lexington's zoning
bylaw is fairly supportive of alternative modes. Improvements could be made in many
areas, however. Some examples are listed below. Included in Implementing Actions;
2.B.8.
o Require that bike lockers and showers be provided for employees in new
commercial buildings over a certain size.
o Limit waivers for sidewalks in new construction.
❖ Pursue 3E Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) in support of
walking and bicycling.
Education for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians is a simple and inexpensive way to
increase safety for all. Programs may be taught in schools, community centers, or other
civic and social facilities. Included in Implementing Actions; 2.D.2.
❖ Develop local Safe Routes to School program
Safe Routes to School is an international program that works to develop safe walking and
biking routes to elementary through high schools. The program is designed to both
decrease traffic congestion and increase children's health and fitness. Included in
Implementing Actions; 2.E.2.
o Consider pilot program—establish a pilot program to test the feasibility and
public acceptance of the program as a pilot for possible townwide adoption.
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� Meu
❖ Keep informed of emerging technologies
o In addition to these actions,the committee also discussed the potential for human
transporters (i.e. the Segway)to impact the transportation system. While
acknowledging the possibilities,the committee felt that the transporters are in an
early stage of development and no consensus has emerged among experts as to an
appropriate role for them in the transportation system. The committee agreed that
the evolution of this invention should be monitored and appropriate actions
should be included in updates of the plan when the functions of transporters
become more clearly defined. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing
Actions.
LAND USE
Land use and transportation are incontrovertibly linked. The availability of transportation affects
how land develops and the prevailing land use affects what transportation systems and services
can be effective and where improvements will be situated. One common example of the
relationship between land use and transportation is the highway interchange. When first built,
interchanges were typically located in rural locations surrounded by large amounts of vacant
land. The sudden increase in accessibility to these areas eventually made them desirable
locations for shopping centers, office parks, and light industrial growth, as well as the sprawling
subdivisions ringing the commercial nodes. The zoning that was put in place in mid-20 century
America usually reinforced this pattern rather than controlling it.
In reaction to increasing traffic, longer commutes, and the sprawling development style that is
largely dependent on the automobile, communities around the country have begun to reexamine
their policies on land use and transportation. The typically rigid and land-consuming separation
of residences from employment, commercial and institutional uses, induces the maximum use of
automobiles. In response, some localities, in areas where it makes sense to do so, have begun to
implement creative approaches to zoning that are more likely to mix uses, link to transit, and/or
be designed so as to minimize traffic generation, by encouraging complementary changes in land
use. The effects of such regulatory strategies are very gradual and incremental, but they should
not be ignored as a component in the transportation tool kit.
Highway interchanges are only one type of location where changes in land use policy might be
considered. Another example is offered by the central business district, where the zoning could
be changed to allow apartments on the upper stories of commercial buildings,thus providing
built-in customers and placing those people where there is transit. A third hypothetical location
might involve modernizing the list of allowed home occupations,to remove commuters from
local streets. A fourth would be to liberalize the creation of small-scale commercial service and
food businesses in districts where the land use is predominantly large scale office or research and
development use, for the purpose of reducing mid-day car trips or to minimize the incentive to
bring an automobile to work in the first place.
Other types of land use policies that impact transportation might involve community
improvement programs, accompanied by modifications to design standards, such as street
widths, setbacks, sidewalks, parking lots, and density, all of which have an effect on the
`walkability' of a place. Lexington Center, with its mix of commercial uses, wide sidewalks,
pedestrian amenities, frequent crosswalks, and traffic-calming design, is often bustling with
pedestrians and cyclists. Hartwell Avenue, by contrast, with extremely high traffic volumes, no
sidewalks, and deep building setbacks, is clearly auto-dominated.
Under any circumstance, it is important to see the retrofitting of land use at certain nodes or
locations as a secondary transportation and planning tool, one that helps only over time and in a
modest way. This is due to the fact that Lexington is a mostly built-out community, a mature
suburb where the development patterns are largely established, in contrast to more outlying
localities that are only partially developed and where growth might often occur at a more
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2 eu
sweeping scale. The objectives with these kinds of land use/transportation strategies are more
modest for an established community.
Further, any policies of this type that are considered for Lexington must be bound by some
precautions. Smallness of scale and compatibility with neighborhood character must be primary
considerations, and the link to transportation objectives must be present. The proposed changes
must be acceptable to those in the vicinity and to the community and seen as a benefit.
The Transportation Element planning process considered several actions involving land use
decisions that would support the goal of providing alternatives to driving alone. These actions
involve encouraging a mix of uses within certain nodes to reduce the need to travel by
automobile and allow greater use of walking, bicycling, transit, or TDM measures such as
ridesharing. Eight land use nodes were identified as locations where greater mixing of uses
would be both desirable and possible. The TEAC incorporated recommended land use changes in
each of these areas in the Implementing Actions for the plan. Descriptions of these areas and
potential actions are described in the sections that follow.
LAND USE NODES
Town Center
Map 7:
Town Center g Town Center
Lexington,
Massachusetts°8 �De9 ag og Locus Map
o ° ° Pao ma00 po a° °
� o a
Q.Q � e ➢ tl000 e6e Q o
O a ° a° ebpo°eA o b e
at
Issues/Observations
• Follows traditional New England town center form (scale, uses, etc.).
• Local and regional attractions (shopping, bikeway, restaurants, theater, historic sites)
• Multi-modal village:
o LEXPRESS transfer point at Depot Square
o MBTA bus routes
o Minuteman bike trail
o Extensive sidewalks
o Parking
• Traffic congestion.
• Lack of appropriate parking for tour buses
Potential Actions
• Establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories. Pursue this initiative in the next
year or two, because it will be years before the resultant market activity actually has an
impact. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.C.
• Introduction of new residential uses may require expansion of parking. Consider benefits
of structured parking as a catalyst for residential use and for the Center in general
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.C.
• Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues, among others. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.2.
East Lexington (Massachusetts Avenue)
Map S:
East East Lexington
Lexington, o '
Massachusetts B, Locus Map
el
e'+
w� a9 0
Issues/Observations
• Offers more urban character than most of Lexington.
• On MBTA and LEXPRESS bus routes
Potential Action
• Encourage housing as an allowed use in upper stories. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 6.A.6.
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2DD3
Hayden Avenue and Spring Street
Map 9:
Hayden Ave& 9 p o Hayden and Spring
Spring St, _ s
Lexington, Locus Map
Massachusetts vy`
o`
2
a
128 o
a
a p
o °
Q a a
o°
I
Issues/Observations
• Range of density and intensity along Hayden/Spring(high) and Spring Street(low).
• Large front setbacks along Spring Street; variable setbacks along Hayden/Spring.
• Automobile focused.
• Lacks sidewalks.
• Dominated by two large corporate uses (Raytheon, Stride Rite).
• Address future of Raytheon parcel (6 of 96 acres zoned residential)
• Route 128 Shuttle Bus to Alewife Red Line station.
• Served by LEXPRESS.
• No MBTA bus service.
Potential Actions
• Retrofit with non-automotive infrastructure: Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.3.
o Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
o Reduce front setbacks, both by way of zoning and physical retrofitting to allow
for transit, TDM and pedestrian facilities.
o Orient building entrances to street
o Provide bus pullouts and shelters
• Establish a mixed-use node along Spring Street and Hayden/Spring tied to CD rezoning
process and traffic mitigation (via Overlay District as a regulatory incentive or enhanced
base zoning). There is a generally more land area along Spring Street to accommodate
mixed development than along Hayden/Spring. Not specifically identified in
Implementing Actions but is suggested by Goal 6.A.4.
• Plan for near-term future of Raytheon parcel: potential for mixed-use development
(office, limited commercial, conservation/recreation and housing). Consider cohesive
mixed-use development approach. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.1.
• Plan for long-term future of Stride Rite parcel: mixed use with or without housing.
Consider cohesive mixed-use development approach. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 6.A.8.
Hartwell Avenue
Map 10:
Hartwell Ave, eyA Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, uHzB® Locus Map
Massachusetts
Q xe
F "
.9,
® L eo
Issues/Observations
• Low density, automobile focused development area.
• Large front setbacks from street.
• Lacks sidewalks.
• Significant employment area(over 2,000 employees have addresses along Hartwell
Avenue, plus additional employees on Wood Street, Hanscom AFB, Hanscom Field).
• Lack of transit service to the area(No LEXPRESS service, no MBTA service, except on
Saturday)
Potential Actions
• Retrofit with non-automotive infrastructure: Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.3.
o Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
o Reduce front setbacks
o Orient building entrances to street
o Provide bus pullouts and shelters
o Provide for on-site multi-passenger vehicle drop-off/pickup areas
at individual businesses.
�.smr�P2e�ivar, ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2OD3
• Provide improvements possibly by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• Create an Overlay District that allows a modest floor area ratio (FAR) increase if tied to a
commitment for an overall TDM strategy. Allow small density increases with mitigation
tied to transportation improvements (i.e., TDM, fixing the Bedford Street/Hartwell
Avenue jug handle intersection, etc.). Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• As an alternative or complementary policy, businesses wanting to add space along
Hartwell Avenue would be required to pay a fee that goes towards a fund dedicated to
implementing transit programs and/or infrastructure improvements along Hartwell
Avenue. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• Allow secondary commercial uses (day care, restaurant, small service businesses, etc.)to
create synergy between employers and service-type uses and to reduce auto trips.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.4.
Bedford Street/Route 128
Map 11:
Bedford St a'� Bedford and 128
&Route 128, ✓ 4 '�, °
Lexington, a u o Locus Map
Massachusetts o e Ij
O�o� OC7 a • r *q
Issues/Observations
• Excellent regional highway access.
• Significantly underdeveloped, given location and access.
• Area of significant untapped potential.
• Served by MBTA bus
• No LEXPRESS service
Potential Action
• Promote greater use intensity, if town chooses to take such action for economic
development/tax base enhancement purposes. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.7.
Marrett Road (Route 2A)/Waltham Street
Map 12:
Marrett Rd o° Marrett and
&Waltham St, o°o° ° °a o°Oe,ovo o ° °
° °, o o pd4°�ao 9 Waltham
Lexington, aeoep °c° ° ¢ a a° a o- mno q o
Massachusetts °®o° Locus Map
p nbpQ °QO �A ® O°O
ov * o e
Issues/Observations
• Automobile-oriented retail node (Dunkin Donuts, gas station, etc.)
• Poorly functioning parking/circulation pattern.
• Traffic congestion—intersection improvement planned.
• Served by MBTA and LEXPRESS transit.
Potential Action
• Implement physical access improvements to reduce direct access to parking spaces from
street. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 4.13.3.1.
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2DD3
Battle Rd/2A Corridor
Map 13:
Battle Road o o o p o „° 1' o , Battle Rd/2A
Corritlor Near
Minuteman Locus Map
National
Historic Park
2 y
1H A 1�
M CHOSET
0
O �
� r �
00
l 'Q o
Issues/Observations
• Heavy through-traffic volumes
• Significant traffic to/from Massport-Hanscom AFB
• Possible expansion of existing commercial development(hotel, office park, Minuteman
Voc-Tech)
• Popular with cyclists
Potential Actions
• Support National Park Service efforts to provide alternative transportation, particularly a
corridor shuttle bus. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions;
recommended for future consideration
• Monitor development proposals and resultant traffic impact at Massport/Hanscom,
coordinate responses and negotiation with other underlying towns. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 5.B.
• Monitor trip generation impacts of proposed developments in area. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 5.A.2.
61
Countryside
(Lowell Street/Woburn Street)
Map 14:
Marrett Rd o° Countryside
&Waltham St, po° i°Qo ao°o 0 0o o p°
° a, °6 ° o o pd4°�ao Locus Map
Lexington, ao®ep o 0o a ° oQ¢° P a ono q°
Massachusetts °coma°
a d o a ° op0 a e o o a a
p nbpQ °QO DA � oDo
°uao a o
o E
� o
Issues/Observations
• Limited retail development area, with some office and abutting attached housing.
• On LEXPRESS route.
Potential Action
• On a small-scale basis create more uniform zoning pattern, with regulatory incentives to
have more campus and less strip-mall development over time. Not designated for
inclusion in Implementing Actions.
Land Use Measures Applying Townwide
(no specific geographic location)
The following measures were discussed in the transportation planning process as land use actions
that might have a long term positive impact on traffic management:
• Modernize Allowed Home Occupations in Zoning Bylaw, to encompass contemporary
home based business types and technology. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.13.
• Study the viability of a regulatory amendment linking the floor area entitlement in large
scale commercial development to traffic trip generation, with the possible outcome of
establishing formulas specific to relevant zoning districts. Not designated for inclusion
in Implementing Actions.
Other Upcoming Land Use Issues
�.s2 �' �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe�ue�zt� 2DD3
201 Bedford Street: Now occupied by the Public Works Department, a town-solicited concept
proposal to sell the site, move the department to its Hartwell Avenue property, and develop 201
for mixed income housing and a new town senior center, was recently debated at town meeting.
The nature of a senior center is such that accessibility for all seniors, whether they can drive or
not, is important to its operation. The 201 Bedford St site is located on an MBTA bus line,
LEXPRESS Route 4, and is near the Route 128 interchange. Bedford St itself has sidewalks, but
they are less common in surrounding neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Implementation is a critical piece of any planning study. All too often, plan recommendations are
ignored in day-to-day decision-making. To ensure that the research, analysis, and consensus
building that went into this plan inform policy at multiple levels, we have set out the action items
that emerged from this transportation planning process
The slate of short, medium and long term measures laid out in this document requires
collaboration between constantly shifting sets of actors. We have attempted to identify primary
and secondary actors for each action item. No single set of collaborators on a given measure is
necessarily complete or ideal, but these designations are at least a start in identifying the
"players" who can make it happen.
This section also is organized around the strategic goals and objectives that emerged from the
process. This strategic aspect is the bond that ties all of the actions together, that allows the
collective set of measures to make sense and work cohesively. Finally,the actions are further
organized into time frames that represent the degree of constraint involved in getting the measure
underway; some items can be achieved in a year or two, while some might take a decade or
more. It does not mean that short term items are more important as public policy than the
medium or long term ones; it simply makes sense to set the more easily achieved measures in
motion. These time frames are further explained below.
Implementing actions in the Transportation Element are listed under four time frames for
implementation: Ongoing, Near Term; Intermediate Term; and Long Term. Ongoing actions are
those of a continuous nature with no set end date. Some of these measures might already exist, at
least to a degree. Near Term actions are relatively simple, low cost measures, which can be
undertaken in a short period of time with a limited amount of planning and permitting. Included
with Near Term actions also are steps to initiate the planning and permitting processes required
to implement Intermediate and Long Term actions. Intermediate Term actions are somewhat
more costly and more difficult to implement than Near Term actions. Some design and
permitting may be needed before they can be implemented. Intermediate Term actions could be
implemented within a two to five year time frame. As with Near Term actions, some
Intermediate Term actions may include initiating the development of Long Term actions.
Actions anticipated to take longer than five years to bring to fruition are Long Term actions.
They generally are higher cost actions requiring more extensive study, planning and permitting.
Because of the long lead time required to complete these actions, initiating the process to
develop the actions may be included as a Near Term or Intermediate Term action.
It should be noted that the time frames in this element are somewhat longer than those in the first
four elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as transportation improvements tend to not only
involve multiple parties, but also complex land assembly and engineering and extensive public
process.
Table 10. Implementation Time Frames
Category Ongoing Near Term (NT) Intermediate Long Term (LT)
Term IT
Difficulty Varies Least Constraint Medium High Constraint
Constraint
Initiating Time Continuous 1-2 years 2-5 years 5+years
Frame
Cost Varies Low Medium High
Implementing actions are identified by goal, by implementing actor, and by time frame. The
boards or officials that would best be responsible for initiating the action are identified in italics,
followed by the time frame. These boards and officials include the Board of Selectmen,the
Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the Town Manager,the Transportation
Coordinator, and the Department of Public Works (DPW). Interested committees include the
Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, the
Transportation Advisory Committee, the Historic Districts Commission, and the Design
Advisory Committee. Under each board or official and within each category of action, actions
are listed in order of priority, as established by the transportation planning process. The actor or
actors in bold should be considered the lead in implementation.
It should be noted that these Implementing Actions assume an increased staffing level in the
Transportation Services Section of the DPW. In the past, the section has been staffed by afull-
time Coordinator and a half-time assistant. At that level, they were fully occupied by a wide
range of duties -from municipal parking to paratransit. The Transportation Coordinator position,
along with the LEXPRESS bus service, was eliminated for fiscal year 2004. Consequently,
many of the action items listed below will need to be postponed until Transportation Services
funding is again available.
1. GOAL: PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN LEXINGTON THROUGH
IMPROVED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
A. Reduce peak hour commuter traffic and tie-ups
B. Improve traffic safety in high-accident locations
�.s2 �, �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe zt 2DD3
The preceding two objectives are presented as they were articulated in the Vision 2020 process
and the first four elements of the Comprehensive Plan. While important goals, they are so broad
in scope that they encompass the majority of implementing actions below. To avoid redundancy,
those actions are not repeated here.
See: Goals, Objectives, and Actions to follow throughout this section.
2. GOAL: INCREASE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TRIPS.
A. Increase availability of public transportation (local, regional and intercity).
1) Initiate limited bus service between Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail Line at
the Anderson Regional Transit Center in Woburn to test the feasibility of providing more
extensive service. This could be combined with the route suggested in#4. Transportation
Advisory Committee, Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, Transportation Coordinator,
MPO Representative, Planning Board; NT
2) Initiate bus service between Waltham Center and Lexington Center to provide access to the
Waltham stop on the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line; to provide peak hour service to Hayden
Avenue and all day service to the Waltham Street/Lexington Street corridor; and to provide
access to MBTA buses in Waltham Center. Transportation Advisory Committee,
Transportation Coordinator; NT/IT
3) Investigate the feasibility of extending the hours of operation and increasing frequency of
service of Lexpress to serve a larger share of the town's population, including commuters.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator;IT
4) Initiate bus service between Winchester Center and Lexington Center to provide access to the
Lowell Commuter Rail Line, which is planned to be extended to Nashua, New Hampshire;
service to Countryside, Lexington Center and some Winchester neighborhoods; and connect
with Winchester MBTA bus routes. Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation
Coordinator,MPO Representative, Business Community; LT
5) Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route #78 to Hayden Avenue during peak hours in the
event the 128 Council TMA Alewife Shuttle service is reduced or eliminated.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator,MPO Representative; LT
6) Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route #77 to Lexington Center to provide service for
Arlington residents who work in Lexington. Transportation Advisory Committee,
Transportation Coordinator, MPO Representative; LT
7) Advocate for an increase in the frequency of service on MBTA routes 62 and 76, particularly
during peak hours,to improve access between Alewife station and Lexington.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator,MPO Representative; LT
� e �/ 67
B. Increase use of bicycles.
1) Seek easements from public and private landowners to extend bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. LBAC, ZBA, Planning Board; Ongoing
2) Rigorously implement Town's Transportation Demand Management Policy to support
walking and bicycling in and around new development and redeveloped sites.
Transportation Coordinator, LBAC, Planning Board, ZBA, Town Manager; Ongoing
3) Incorporate bicycle route plan map in the Comprehensive Plan and update regularly to reflect
changing needs and opportunities. Planning Board LBAC; NT
4) Update bicycle route signage. DPW and LBAC; NT
5) Encourage pedestrian and bicycle amenities, such as benches, bike racks, and bicycle lockers,
at key locations especially along the Minuteman Bikeway. LBAC,Planning Board, ZBA,
DPW; NT
6) Identify satellite "park and bike" locations on the outskirts of town along the Minuteman
Bike Path to relieve parking demand in the Town Center. LBAC, Planning Board, DPW,- NT
7) Define flexible standards for various types of bicycle and sidewalk facilties that are tailored
to reflect the character of the community Design Advisory Committee and LBAC, DPW, PB,
Historic Districts Commission; NT
8) Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and bicycling.
Planning Board LBAC, Economic Development; NT
C. Increase employer based transportation demand management programs and employee
incentives to use them.
1) Review and revise Article XII of the Zoning Bylaw' for better enforcement and monitoring.
Planning Board ZBA
2) Support carpooling by Lexington residents and by employees working in Lexington.
Transportation Coordinator and Business Community, Transportation Advisory
Committee, Planning Board; NT
• Expand on existing area programs
• Promote ridematching services offered by CARAVAN for Commuters and/or the 128
Business Council
• Collect information, conduct outreach, and implement marketing strategies.
• Seek financial incentives for carpoolers/vanpoolers.
Article XII, Traffic, sets thresholds for development,beyond which traffic studies, mitigations, and TDM measures
can be required.
6f
3) Provide information on alternative commuting choices. Transportation Coordinator and
Business Community, Route 128 Business Council; NT
• Work with other officials, as well as private sources, to establish an effective and
comprehensive marketing program utilizing a variety of methods.
4) Work with other officials to enhance the Transportation section of the Town's Website.
Provide all transportation measures and services in addition to Lexpress schedules and maps.
Include links to other transportation resources, including MBTA, CARAVAN, and the 128
Business Council. Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee,
Business Community, Route 128 Business Council,MIS; NT
5) Provide financial and non-financial incentives for alternative modes of travel by offering T-
passes, Lexpress tickets, gas coupons or preferential parking for carpoolers, or other means.
Transportation Coordinator and Business Community;IT
6) Establish TMA Services: assist employers in joining Transportation Management
Associations or forming new ones where appropriate. Transportation Coordinator and
Business Community, Transportation Advisory Committee, 128 Business Council; IT
7) Provide small-scale services in office parks. Business Community, Economic Development
Officer, Planning Board; NT
• Encourage small businesses to use lunch trucks to bring lunch to employees to
provide an option to driving to lunch.
• Encourage small businesses, such as day care, ATM, dry cleaning, snacks and
sundries to locate within office parks. (see also Goal 6, Objective A)
8) Investigate providing improvements by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road. Board of Selectmen and DPW, IT
D. Increase pedestrian activity.
1) Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and bicycling.
Planning Board LBAC, Economic Development; NT
2) Pursue a 3E (Education, Encouragement and Enforcement)program for students and the
larger community in support of walking and bicycling to encourage a comprehensive
approach. School Committee, LBAC, Transportation Coordinator, Board ofHealth; NT
See also: Goal 4, Objective C
E. Increase school bus usage and reduce traffic at schools. Discourage driving to school by
providing incentives to use other modes.
1) Promote use of LEXPRESS for transportation from after-school activities. School
Committee, Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator; Ongoing
2) Implement a pilot Safe Routes to School Program to test the concept for possible adoption of
atown wide program. School Committee andLBAC, Transportation Coordinator, Board of
Health, PTO; NT
3) Investigate feasibility of providing incentives for students to commute by walking, biking,
bus, or carpool through preferential dismissal or other means. School Committee, PTO,
Transportation Coordinator; NT
3. GOAL: USE PARKING STRATEGIES TO HELP ACHIEVE TRANSPORTATION
GOALS AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS
A. Amend parking requirements so as to avoid excessive parking supply for commercial
and industrial uses.
1) Study existing parking regulations to assess impact on transportation choice; consider
revision. Planning Board, Business Community; IT
2) Provide incentives to reduce parking demand and automobile use. Planning Board
Transportation Coordinator; IT
• Explore federal, state, or local tax breaks or other sources of funds for reimbursing
employers based on actual cash-back
• Establish a parking cash-out program for employers.
B. Reduce vehicular trips from High School.
See: Goal 2, Section E
4. GOAL: IMPROVE AND BETTER MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Institute a capital improvements plan for traffic calming at strategic locations.
See: Goal 4, Objective B, particularly as regards roundabouts, bulb-outs, and crosswalks.
B. Improve road conditions.
1) Initiate planning for the following long-term roadway improvement(DPW, Board of
Selectmen, Capital Budget Committee; NT):
• Improvements at Marrett Road and Waltham Street(currently underway)
• Improvements at Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue (see description under long-term
improvements)
70 � e �/
2) Implement traffic improvements at the following intersections (DPW, Board of Selectmen,
Town Manager):
Near Term
Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street
• Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide separate phases for the eastbound Hartwell
Avenue and westbound Bedford Street jughandle approaches.
• Allow right turns from the southbound jughandle approach.
Waltham Street and Marrett Road
Install a"Yield" sign at the channelized right turn on southbound Waltham Street.
Maple Street and Lowell Street
• Paint gore (zebra) striping around the islands with signal posts to better delineate the
islands
• Paint a left-turn lane on Maple Street(lane is already in operation).
Worthen Road and Bedford Street
• Paint a crosswalk across Camelia Drive (sidewalk and ramps already in place).
Intermediate Term
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Consolidate driveway access at Gulf Station on southwest corner and provide sidewalk.
• Install signal ahead sign on southbound Waltham Street due to limited sight distance.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phasing on northbound Lowell
Street approach and pedestrian crossings.
• Upgrade pedestrian crossings to be ADA-compliant.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phases on Waltham Street.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install an island on northbound Spring Street to better channelize vehicles entering and
exiting Spring Street.
• Extend northwest corner of Spring Street to reduce the width of eastbound Marrett Road
and to improve channelization.
• Extend curb from one-way Bridge Street toward Marrett Road to reduce the amount of
pavement and to better channelize vehicles.
• Investigate the feasibility of providing a separate left-turn lane on westbound Marrett
Street within the existing right-of-way.
Worthen Road at Bedford Street
• Provide an exclusive left-turn lane on northbound Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install bulb-out on Woburn Street to reduce amount of pavement at the intersection and to
slow and better channelize vehicles exiting Woburn Street onto Massachusetts Avenue.
• Extend island westward to prohibit vehicles from crossing
� e �/ 71
Long Term
Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
• Widen the jughandle approach to provide three lanes (a shared left-turn/through lane, a
through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane).
• Widen the Hartwell Avenue approach to four lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and two
exclusive right-turn lanes)
• Widen the Bedford Street approaches to two full lanes in each direction.
• Upgrade traffic signal equipment and implement new phasing and timing(including a
split phase for Hartwell Avenue and the jughandle).
Bedford Street at Eldred Street
• Install traffic signal and coordinate with signal at Hartwell Avenue.
• Widen Bedford Street northbound approach to three lanes.
• Install detectors to monitor queues from the southbound I-95/Route 128 exit ramp.
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Re-stripe the Waltham Street northbound and southbound approaches to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane.
• Provide two approach lanes on eastbound Marrett Road (an exclusive left-turn lane and a
shared through/right-turn lane).
• Upgrade the signal equipment, including installation of pedestrian signal heads, and
adjust signal timing and phasing.
Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal.
• Consider signalizing Marrett Street at Massachusetts Ave and coordinating the two
systems.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Investigate limited widening of Lowell Street approaches to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane in each direction and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or
no impact to adjacent properties.
• Investigate limited widening of Winchester Street approach to provide an additional lane
and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or no impact to adjacent
properties.
• Reconfigure channelized right-turn lanes to slow traffic and provide easier pedestrian
crossings.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Widen westbound Concord Avenue to provide two lanes. Additional traffic analysis will
be necessary to determine the appropriate lane utilization for the widened approach.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
2 There is concern that this will attract cut-through traffic to Eldred St,which could impact its status as a proposed
bicycle route. Any signalization project should study this possibility and its impacts.
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install modern roundabout
C. Improve and expand sidewalk network.
1) Write and adopt policy on importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks for safety,
health, and mobility. Planning Board and Board of Selectmen and DPW NT
2) Update and maintain sidewalk inventory DPW,- IT
3) Develop prioritization strategies and screening criteria for sidewalk improvements DPW, IT
• Include consideration of major pedestrian generators such as schools and senior centers.
• Consider pedestrian safety.
4) Consider identifying criteria for roadways where sidewalks may be constructed on only one
side. Planning Board,LBAC, DPW;IT
5) Create Task Force to study retrofit of Hayden Avenue, the commercial area of Spring Street,
and the Hartwell Avenue commercial area with non-automotive infrastructure. Economic
Development Officer, Board of Selectmen, Business Community, DPW;IT
• Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
• Reduce front setbacks to encourage transit, TDM and pedestrian use
• Orient building entrances to the street
• Provide bus pullouts and shelters
• Provide for on-site multi-passenger vehicle drop-off/pick-up areas at individual
businesses.
D. Improve bicycle path conditions.
1) Maintain consistency in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. DPW and LBAC, Ongoing
2) Enforce snow removal policies and provide periodic sweeping of such facilities. Town
Manager, DPW,private abutters; Ongoing
3) Incorporate bicycle needs in roadway projects. DPW, Capital Budget Committee, Planning
Board, LBAC; Ongoing
4) Use bicycle needs in weighing priorities for roadway projects. DPW, Capital Budget
Committee, Planning Board, LBAC; Ongoing
� e �/ 73
5. GOAL: INVOLVE LEXINGTON IN LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
A. Increase involvement by Lexington in regional planning.
1) Coordinate with Boston MPO and MPO Advisory Committee to monitor regional projects.
MPO Representative; Ongoing
2) Monitor Hanscom/Massport transportation impacts. Planning Board HATS; Ongoing
3) Communicate directly with abutting towns on traffic aspects of developments of regional
impact. Planning Board; Ongoing
4) Participate in MAGIC3 regional transportation planning efforts. MAGIC Representative,
Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee; Ongoing
B. Improve access and coordination with regional transportation centers and airports (i.e.
Woburn, Alewife, Route 128)
See: Goal 2, Objective A: "Increase availability of public transportation (local, regional, and
intercity."
C. Coordinate local planning efforts.
Coordinate implementation and updating efforts with the Selectmen's ongoing Vision 2020 long-
range planning effort. Planning Board,Board of Selectmen, 2020 Vision Implementation
Committee; Ongoing
6. GOAL: INVESTIGATE LAND USE POLICIES THAT CAN ASSIST WITH
TRANSPORTATION GOALS
A. Identify nodes and areas served by public transportation that might be logical for
prudent planned development designations and greater mix of uses.
1) Plan for the future of the former Raytheon site (141 Spring St)with potential for a cohesive
mixed-use development including office, limited commercial, R&D, and
conservation/recreation uses. Economic Development Officer,Planning Board; NT
2) Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues, among others, in the Town Center. Economic Development Officer,Board of
Selectmen, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber of Commerce, Traffic Safety Advisory
Committee;IT
3 Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, a subset of the Boston Metropolitan Planning
Organization
74 � e �/
�.s2 �' �� -& o r a.�r, .aeeQe zt 2DD3
3) Create an Overlay District for Hartwell Avenue Area that allows a modest Floor-Area-Ratio
(FAR) increase if tied to a commitment for an overall TDM strategy and improvements at the
Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue intersection. As an alternative or complementary policy,
businesses wanting to add space along Hartwell Avenue would be required to pay a fee that
goes towards a fund dedicated to implementing transit programs and/or infrastructure
improvements along Hartwell Avenue. Economic Development Officer, Planning Board,
Massport, USDept of Defense, Business Community, HATS; IT
4) Allow small-scale, service-oriented commercial uses in office parks to create synergy
between employers and service-type uses to reduce auto trips. Planning Board Business
Community: IT
5) Investigate feasibility of establishing mixed-use development at commercial nodes. Planning
Board, Business Community;IT
6) Encourage redevelopment in East Lexington along the Massachusetts Avenue commercial
corridor that is transit and pedestrian friendly by supporting reduced setbacks and parking
behind buildings. Economic Development Officer, Planning Board; IT
7) Promote greater use intensity at the commercial node on Bedford Street north of Route 128.
Planning Board and Business Community;IT
8) Plan for the future of the StrideRite Site (191 Spring St); explore potential for a cohesive
mixed use development with or without housing. Planning Board and Economic
Development Officer; IT
B. Update home occupation provisions in zoning, to reflect changing economic activity and
reduce commuting (but with protective controls).
1) Initiate revision of home occupation permitted uses in Zoning Bylaw to reflect changing
work patterns and technologies. Planning Board;IT
C. Consider feasibility of adding limited housing uses at certain non-residential locations.
1) Initiate action to establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories in the Town Center and
East Lexington. Establishing housing in the Town Center requires expansion of parking. The
benefits of structured parking as a catalyst for residential use and for the Town Center in
general should be considered. Planning Board and Lexington Center Committee, Traffic
Safety Advisory Committee;IT
76 � e �/
�j
A. Article XII of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington
B. Transportation Demand Management Policy
C. Public Comment
ARTICLE XII, Traffic [Added May 5, 1987j
§ 135-71. Objectives and applicability.
A. The provisions of this article are intended to achieve the following purposes:
(1) To permit vehicular traffic on Lexington streets to move in an efficient manner
without excessive delay or congestion;
(2) To permit emergency vehicles to reach homes and businesses with a minimum of
delay;
(3) To reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents on the town's streets;
(4) To consider and allow for safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and
bicyclists;
(5) To promote cleaner air and to reduce automotive exhaust emissions caused by
vehicles standing and idling for an excessive time;
(6) To promote the efficient use of the town's arterial and collector streets so that use
of local and neighborhood streets as shortcuts can be discouraged;
(7) To avoid excessive traffic demand on town streets that necessitates extraordinary
town expenditures to maintain adequate and safe traffic flow;
(8) To maintain a balance between the traffic-generating capacity of dwellings and
businesses in the town and the traffic-carrying capacity of streets and
intersections;
(9) To encourage alternative methods of transporting people, through public
transportation, car pools and van pools, bicycling and walking, rather than near
exclusive reliance on single-occupant automobiles;
(10) To encourage the use of good traffic engineering principles and design standards
consistent with a predominantly residential suburban town;
(11) To encourage the positive management of traffic flow consistent with the town's
other stated objectives;
(12) To encourage private sector participation in dealing with the town's traffic
problems;
(13) To expand the town's inventory of data about traffic conditions on town streets.
B. No building permit shall be granted for the erection of a new building or the
enlargement or renovation of an existing building with the result that there are
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 there are 50 or more dwelling units, or their equivalent, in a
development, including any existing dwelling units,the number of parking spaces
is increased by 25 or more and there are 50 or more parking spaces, including any
existing parking spaces, on the lot, unless a special permit with site plan review
has been granted and the SPGA has made a determination that the streets and
intersections affected by the proposed development have, or will have as a result
. 00eu �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt �.s�a�O2efiz, , /Z%',
of traffic improvements, adequate capacity, as set forth in § 135-73,to
accommodate the increased traffic from the development. The requirement for a
special permit with site plan review (SPS) does not apply to a religious or
nonprofit educational use, as described in § 135-9E(1). [Amended 4-6-1988 ATM
by Art. 38; 3-27-1991 ATM by Art. 30; 3-30-1998 ATM by Art. 38]
§ 135-72. Traffic study required.
A. A traffic study shall be submitted with each application for a building permit,
special permit or special permit with site plan review to which § 135-71B is
applicable, or where required by any other provision of this By-Law.
B. The traffic study shall be conducted by a traffic engineer who will certify that
he/she qualifies for the position of member of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
C. For the purposes of this analysis, the terms below shall have the meaning
indicated. The morning and evening "peak period" shall usually be the two hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
respectively. The morning and evening "peak hour" shall be that consecutive
sixty-minute segment within the peak period in which the highest traffic count
occurs as determined by traffic counts of the peak period divided into fifteen-
minute segments. For uses which have an exceptional hourly, daily or seasonal
peak period, the SPGA may require that the analysis be conducted for that
extraordinary peak period. 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% 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% or more to the approach volumes. [Amended 4-6-1988 ATM by Art. 38]
D. The traffic study shall include:
(1) An estimate of trip generation for the proposed development showing the
projected inbound and outbound vehicular trips for the morning and evening peak
periods and a typical one hour not in the peak period. Where there is existing
development of the same type of use on the site, actual counts of trip generation
shall be submitted. Trip generation rates may be based on:
(a) [Amended 5-8-1996 ATM by Art. 29] The "Trip Generation Manual, Fifth
Edition" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; and, if applicable,
(b) Data about similar developments in Massachusetts; or
(c) Data from professional planning or transportation publications, provided the
methodology and relevance of the data from Subsection D(1)(b) or(c) is
documented.
(2) An estimate of the directional distribution of new trips by approach streets and an
explanation of the basis of that estimate. Where there is existing development of
the same type of use on the site, actual counts of trip directional distribution shall
be submitted.
(3) An assignment of the new trips to be generated by the proposed development to
the segments of the Town street network, which shall include state highways in
Lexington, which are likely to be affected by the proposed development(see
Subsection C).
(4) Average daily traffic (ADT) on the streets likely to be affected by the
development(see Subsection C), counted for a twenty-four-hour period.
(5) Intersection turning movement counts of the morning and evening peak periods at
the intersections likely to be affected by the proposed development(see
Subsection C). In special circumstances where the peak traffic impacts are likely
to occur at times other than the usual morning and evening peak periods, the
SPGA may require counts for those other peak periods.
(6) An inventory of roadway characteristics of the principal approach streets adjacent
to the development site and of the streets in the intersections at which turning
movement counts are taken showing the width of the right-of-way and of the
traveled way, traffic control devices, obstructions to adequate sight distance, the
location of driveways or access drives within 500 feet of the entrance to the site
for uses that are substantial trip generators, and the presence or absence of
sidewalks and their condition.
(7) In the case of a development in an abutting city or town which will have a traffic
impact on a street or intersection in Lexington which is one that is likely to be
affected by the proposed development for which the traffic study is being
prepared,the traffic impact of the development in the abutting city or town shall
be included in the traffic study provided:
(a) That traffic impact is equal to or greater than that set forth in the test in
Subsection C;
(b) The development has been approved by official action of that abutting city or
town but has not opened for use prior to the date that the traffic counts required by
this section were taken; and
(c) Data on the traffic impact of that development, comparable to that required by this
section, is available.
(8) An analysis of the effect on the capacity of those intersections in the Lexington
street system likely to be affected by the development(see Subsection C) during
peak periods of:
(a) The additional traffic generated by the development; and
(b) Additional traffic from other developments previously approved by the Town of
Lexington for which a traffic study was required, or by an abutting city or town as
provided in Subsection D(7) above, which have not yet been opened for use prior
to the date that the traffic counts required by this section were taken. Analysis of
the capacity of intersections shall be based on traffic levels of service as described
in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 Edition" published by the Transportation
Research Board. This analysis may include an intersection of an access drive
serving a development and a segment of the Lexington street system.
(9) Where mitigating measures or trip reduction programs are proposed, they shall be
proposed by the applicant and shall accompany the traffic study at the time of
filing of the application. Where the proposed mitigating measure is the
construction of a traffic engineering improvement, evidence, such as letters of
support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract, may be
. 00eu �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt �.s�a�O2efiz, , /Z%',
submitted to show that construction of the traffic improvement is likely to occur.
[Amended 4-6-1988 ATM by Art. 38]
(10) An estimate of the time and amount of peak accumulation of off-street parking.
The counts referred to above shall have been taken within the 12 months prior to
the filing of the application. Upon request, the traffic engineer shall furnish an
explanation of the methodology of the traffic study and additional data, as needed.
§ 135-73. Adequate traffic capacity.
A. Prior to granting a special permit or special permit with site plan review in those
cases covered by § 135-71B or as may be required elsewhere in this By-Law, the
SPGA shall determine that the streets and intersections likely to be affected by the
proposed development currently have, or will have as a result of traffic
improvements, adequate capacity, as defined in Subsection B. In making its
determination of adequate capacity, the SPGA shall consider at least the
cumulative effect on a street or intersection likely to be affected by the
development, as provided in § 135-72C, of:
(1) Existing traffic conditions;
(2) Estimates of traffic from other proposed developments which have already been
approved in part or in whole by the Town of Lexington for which a traffic study
was required, or by official action of an abutting city or town, which have not yet
been opened for use prior to the date that the traffic counts required by this article
were taken; and
(3) Estimates of traffic from the proposed development.
B. Adequate capacity defined by level of service. Adequate capacity shall mean level
of service "D" or better as described in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985
Edition" published by the Transportation Research Board. If the level of service
that would result from the cumulative effect, referred to in Subsection A, is "E" or
below,the SPGA shall determine there is not adequate capacity and shall deny the
application.
C. Mitigating measures to improve capacity. [Amended 4-11-1988 ATM by Art. 38]
(1) The SPGA shall consider that various traffic engineering improvements, or other
method of positive traffic control, such as a traffic control officer, can improve
the traffic-carrying capacity of an intersection or street and improve the level of
service rating to a higher and acceptable value. The SPGA shall consider such
improvements, or other method of traffic control, in its determination and may
make a conditional determination that adequate capacity is dependent upon the
construction of the traffic engineering improvement, or other method of traffic
control.
(2) The SPGA may make a condition of its approval of the special permit or special
permit with site plan review that the start, or any stage, of the construction of the
development, or the occupancy thereof, is dependent upon the start or completion
of the traffic engineering improvement or of the start of another method of
positive traffic control, such as a traffic control officer, on a permanent basis. A
conditional approval shall be dependent upon at least a start of the physical
construction of the traffic engineering improvement or the execution of an
agreement with the Town of Lexington for another method of traffic control.
�.smr�P2e�iva ' �zC° orz r, .aeeQe zt� 2 eu
Letters of support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract are not
considered as a start of construction. However, as the basis for making a
conditional determination of adequacy, the SPGA may consider as evidence that
the traffic-carrying capacity will be improved to a higher level of service, such
letters of support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract for
construction of the traffic engineering improvement, or a proposed agreement
with the Town of Lexington for another method of traffic control.
D. Trip reduction requirements. [Amended 4-4-1990 ATM by Art. 36]
(1) As a condition of its approval of a special permit or a special permit with site plan
review,the SPGA may require 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. Such actions
and programs may include:
(a) Providing a pass to employees for use on a public transportation system that
serves the development site;
(b) Use of car pools and van pools;
(c) Scheduling of hours of operation such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and
spread scheduling that reduces trips during peak traffic hours;
(d) Preferential parking locations and arrangements for vehicles other than single-
occupant automobiles;
(e) Restrictions on access to, or egress from, off-street parking areas during peak
traffic hours; or
(f) Bicycle parking facilities and other measures such as locker and shower facilities
to encourage bicycle commuting.
(2) Where such conditions are included,they shall include a reporting system which
monitors the effectiveness of the trip reduction program. The SPGA may make a
condition of the granting of the special permit or special permit with site plan
review that:
(a) Such monitor be directly responsible to and report to the Building Commissioner
or designee; and
(b) The applicant be responsible for the cost of providing such monitoring system.
(3) If the Building Commissioner or designee determines that the conditions of the
special permit or special permit with site plan review are not being met, he/she
shall order the applicant to bring the development into compliance or shall take
such other corrective enforcement action as may be needed to ensure compliance.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY
Adopted by vote of the Planning Board, September 16, 1998
Originally adopted 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:
3. reduce the cost of operations for Lexington companies and establishments
caused by delays in vehicular traffic,
4. expand the pool of potential employees who can reach places of work in
Lexington more easily and economically,
5. employ a more efficient and satisfied work force less concerned at the work
place by the frustrations of transportation, particularly commuting,
6. permit potential customers and clients to reach places of business in Lexington
more easily and economically,
7. provide transportation services more effectively in collaboration with other
businesses and with the Town.
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.
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.
This does not apply to residential developments in cluster subdivisions with fewer
than 25 dwelling units that are permitted under Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Another consideration is that some cluster subdivisions may have a higher density, as
measured by the number of dwelling units, but not have a greater impact in vehicular
trips than a conventional subdivision otherwise permitted by right
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.
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.]
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).
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.
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-rime 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-rime 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.)
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
•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.
j ; �
On June 4, 2003,the Lexington Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the Draft
Transportation Element. Mr. John Davies, Mr. Karl Kastorf, Mr. Tom Harden, and Mr.
Anthony Galaitsis were present, as were staff members Garber, McCall-Taylor, and
Machek. There were 10 people in the audience, including 5 members of the
Transportation Element Advisory Committee.
Mr. Galaitsis began by welcoming the audience and asking Mr. Garber to briefly
summarize the Draft Transportation Element. After Mr. Garber did so, Mr. Galaitsis
turned to members of the Board for their comments.
Mr. Davies began by stating the need to amend the plan in light of the June 2 vote on the
override. It was decided that a narrative would be inserted at the beginning of the plan to
note that funding for the LEXPRESS bus service and transportation coordinator position
had been cut. He went on to note that the numeration of Map 2 did not match that of the
accompanying text and that Alewife station should be labeled as a Red Line station.
Mr. Harden suggested that the transportation aspects of the possible DPW relocation
from 201 Bedford Street should be discussed in the plan.
From the audience, Mr. Richard Canale asked how often the Element would be updated.
Mr. Garber replied that it had not yet been decided, but that 5 years had been discussed in
the Land Use Reform Act group. Also, various initiatives from the plan will be
implemented over the next few years.
Mr. Stewart Kennedy commented that labeling the intersection of Hayden Avenue and
Spring Street as "Hayden/Spring& Spring" is confusing. It was decided that that label
would be changed. He also asked about the term `betterment district." Mr. Garber defined
the term as a means of abutting landowners to reimburse the town for a linear capital
improvement. It was decided to add the term to the glossary.
Mr. Ed Ganshirt asked if termination of the LEXPRESS bus service would invalidate the
TDM Bylaw. Ms. Machek answered that it would not, as developers would be able to
contribute to privately-run Transportation Management Associations or make physical
improvements.
Mr. William Levison asked about the term Overlay District. Mr. Garber defined the term
for him and it was decided that the term would be added to the glossary.
Ms. Elaine Dratch stated that she feels that all references to LEXPRESS and the
Transportation Coordinator should remain in the plan, as she believes the town should
return to its past level of service in the future.
Mr. Michael Martignetti stated that he believes traffic constraints to be a major obstacle
to commercial development in Lexington and inquired into the study of problem
intersections that Mr. Garber had spoken of at Town Meeting. He also stated that he
believes the current FAR limits are too restrictive. Some discussion of FAR followed.
Mr. Garber responded that the intersection study was included in the plan and that
implementation of the significant portions of the plan in regard to alternative
transportation will make business expansion more feasible.
Ms. Dratch asked whether the plan included links to the recent Vision 2020 meeting. Mr.
Garber responded that the chief connection to Vision 2020 is that the transportation goals
and objectives are much part of this document. Mr. Harden added that the Vision 2020
Implementation Committee is also considering an update of the goals and objectives, and
Mr. Garber indicated that links to Vision 2020 Implementation needed to be established
for the comprehensive plan in general.
Mr. Canale added that he had asked about the updating schedule because of things like
the Governor's Smart Growth initiatives.
Mr. Kastorf moved that the Transportation Element be adopted with changes discussed
that evening. Mr. Harden seconded the motion. It was voted unanimously to adopt the
Transportation Element.