Article 49, Permitted Uses and Definitions - Responses to Mr. Daggett
Bob Creech
Changes in definitions: Currently we classify "restaurants" and "fast-food services" in different ways, which seems to largely regard if food services have waited table service or self-service, where they are allowed, and how they are permitted . The Planning Board report states that, "Coffee shops, tea houses, smoothie places, and fast-food type venues would now be considered restaurants", and that the article, "Removes all references to fast-food because fast-food is now categorized as a restaurant." This information helps to understand what is being proposed to change under this article, but doesn't help to under stand the why -- e.g. what is the problem with our current definitions, why we need to collapse these uses into a single definition, and what are the potential benefits and downsides of classifying these different businesses and service types as the same thing.
We are combining food establishment uses into one definition and allowing them in more locations than permitted in today. Article 49 also proposes to allow restaurants by special permit in the CN, CS, and CLO zoning districts. The problem with our current definitions is that they prevent desirable businesses from being able to open in Lexington. We’ve had interest from some places that don’t have the wait staff server business model interested that have to go through the special permit process or aren’t allowed if categorized as fast food. The benefit is more business opportunities for food establishments. We regularly hear feedback from residents that they’d like more destination places where they can eat and gather.
Changes in permitting process: In reading the permitted use table it looks like fast-food businesses are currently allowed as-of-right in one commercial district, by special permit in 5 other districts, and are prohibited in the last 2 districts. If the proposed definition of "restaurant" is adopted, these fast-food businesses would now in effect be allowed as-of-right in four districts and by special permit in the other four. Our current bylaws suggest that the town has been exercising additional discretion and review processes for fast-food establishments, many of which would be relinquished through a switch to an as-of-right process. What are the potential benefits and downsides of expanded as-of-right permitting for these uses? For example, if I am understanding these changes correctly, if franchisee wanted to open say a Chipotle or a McDonalds in Lexington center this would require a special permit, but if Article 49 is adopted this would be allowed as-of-right -- is that correct?
Potential benefits are more business opportunities. We’ve changed the permit process in some cases because usually many of these uses are approved at the ZBA special permit level. For example, Panera was considered a fast-food and went through the special permit process. The Planning Board discussed the McDonalds scenario and determined that the McDonalds business model includes a drive through service and a lot of parking. Drive-throughs are still prohibited in all districts in town and typically McDonalds wants a drive-through so the drive-through prohibition and lots of parking don’t make Lexington desirable for this type of use.
Maximum Restaurant Size: According to the use table, restaurants are currently are limited to 7,500 SF Gross Floor Area, but the motion removes this size limitation. This change is not mentioned in the Planning Board report and is an asterisk on one presentation slide but is not discussed in the video dialog. What is the rationale for removing the limit on restaurant size? Additionally, how does this size change interact with the expanded definition of "restaurant" to include "cafeterias"?
We were not clear on what the original rationale was for a 7,500 sf limit in the first place – perhaps, this may have been an attempt to limit monopolizing commercial space by a small number of businesses or intended to prevent large retailers in a small business area on the south side of Marrett Rd. We didn’t think the 7,500 sf limit itself serves a valuable purpose but a restaurant will remain as requiring a special permit use in the CSX district.
The restaurant definition was expanded to include cafeterias because it has become more common for customers to order at a counter and then eat at tables.
Visibility of food services in commercial buildings: In the table of permitted accessory commercial uses it states: "Cafeteria, dining room, conference rooms, function rooms, recreational facilities; the use shall be conducted primarily for the employees or clientele of the principal use" but the motion proposes removing the second part of this sentence which adds "...and not for the general public and shall be conducted entirely within the principal building with no evidence of the existence of the use from the street or from any lot line." What is the purpose of this change and its impact, as it's not covered in the Planning Board's report or presentation? Would this change, along with the allowance of restaurants in all commercial districts, mean that the Town would allow something like the Tuscan Kitchen in Burlington, where a restaurant extrudes from the bottom of a commercial office building? (please see the attached image)
We are proposing removing the prohibition from disallowing the general public from being able to access a cafeteria/dining room area in a building as an accessory use because we don’t think that prohibition is necessary. We believe accessory cafeterias will still be used primarily for the employees of the principal use but this article removes the prohibition for non-employees. With the new Revolution Lab building at 1050 Waltham Street there is a food place that is most likely used by the employees but a non-employee could walk in.
A Tuscan Kitchen or other similar restaurant use could be allowed with office or residential uses above or on the same lot. Activating business fronts in commercial spaces has been discussed for several years. If a residential development proposal materializes in any of the new overlay districts or on Hartwell Ave. we think that will help activate the public realm. A mix of uses helps attract employers and employees.
Outdoor food operations: According to the table of permitted uses, restaurant operations conducted in part or in whole outdoors during operating hours requires a special permit, but under Article 29 this would no longer be restricted. What is the purpose of this change and its impact?
I’m not sure which change you are referring to. If this is about action 5 in Article the cafeteria is about accessory uses and removal of that last part would allow it to be open to non-employees and would not have to be entirely within the building.
Outdoor equipment and product storage: According to the table of permitted uses, outdoor storage of restaurant equipment during non-operating hours requires a special permit and outdoor storage of restaurant products is prohibited, but under Article 29 outdoor storage of equipment and products would no longer be restricted in this way. What is the purpose of this change and its impact?
We are trying to allow restaurants and eating establishments in business districts in town and they may include some outdoor seating areas.
Private postal service: Could someone please describe or provide an example of what a "private postal service" is, why it has been disallowed in Lexington center until this point, and why the center committee requested this change be inserted into Article 29, as mentioned in the video?
A private postal service is defined in the Zoning Bylaw as a retail use which may include private postal box rentals or mailing services. It is not a distribution center and shall remain as a retail convenience store for consumers. The Lexington Center Committee recommended this change and the Planning Board didn’t see any issues with it. An example that was used was a Walgreens that had a mailing service. We view this as a retail service use with a postal service as an accessory use.
Matt
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1080613509.4081547.1712602017530%40mail.yahoo.com.