2022-12-08-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 should not favor historical preservation projects to this extent in the future. He mentioned the approval of the Affordable Housing Trust and the initiative to revamp LexHAB with regard to future community housing requests. Ms. Walker asked Mr. Malloy about whether the Committee was voting to finance the entire project or just the first phase, and asked if there could be greater clarification in the future. Mr. Malloy stated that the Committee is being asked to vote on the first phase only, and that the new associated design costs for this first phase have reduced the FY24 request from $1,000,000 to $400,000. Mr. Horton asked Mr. Malloy to comment on the content of the letter from Mr. Howry’s group. Mr. Malloy responded that the letter had reached his office on this day and that he had not had the opportunity to review it. Mr. Howry, former chair of the Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee, commented that he believed there was a disconnect between the plans presented to the CPC and the former committee to investigate uses for the Stone Building. He offered to meet with Mr. Cronin and Mr. Malloy to create a better understanding on details that may have caused confusion. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee conducted a roll call vote in a straw poll (6-1-2) to support the project. Munroe Center for the Arts: Cristina Burwell, the Executive Director for the Munroe Center for the Arts, returned to answer the Committee’s questions and presented revised costs after the “sticker shock” from last week’s meeting. Brian Healey, the MCA’s architect for the project, commented that the plans for Munroe Park in the rear of the building was not included on this current set of plans, with the new focus being placed on accessibility. This change, coupled with other reductions, reduced the total project cost from $8.4 million to $5.7 million, representing a considerable potential savings. Mr. Beuttell stated that he supported the architectural changes but was concerned that the park would be disturbed with no site budget to repair the park for public use. Mr. Healey then clarified that the site design would be modified to avoid any park disturbance. Mr. Creech stated that he supports the architectural changes but was concerned about the costs of site work. Mr. Creech asked about the renovation of the bathrooms at the site. He added that he came to the meeting prepared to support costs for the addition, bathroom renovations and the HVAC replacement. Mr. Healey stated that the bathroom renovations would continue. Mr. Healey restated responses made in writing to written questions about the proposed new structure. Mr. Pressman asked if the proposed new structure, outside of the footprint of the existing building, would include any elements replacing elements within the existing structure. Mr. Healey cited bathrooms and explained that the space freed up would provide access to the new structure. Ms. Walker commented about writing a grant letter to the Massachusetts Cultural Council and whether some of the costs like HVAC can be covered by writing for grants from outside organizations. Ms. Walker said that in 2021 she had been in contact with Ms. Burwell about the possibility of writing a letter in support of the Munroe Center to the Massachusetts Cultural Council (she did not ultimately write such a letter.) She then asked about the possibility of the Munroe Center applying to the MCC for grants to supplement funding from the Town. Mr. Poltorzycki explained how the MCC reviews and rewards grants. Mr. Poltorzycki commented that the Center had received a grant but it was limited in scope to design work only and would not cover