The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-01-17 SB-min SELECT BOARD MEETING January 17, 2024 A meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, via a hybrid meeting platform. Mr. Pato, Chair; Ms. Barry, Mr. Lucente, Mr. Sandeen, and Ms. Hai were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk; and Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Presentation – Housing Feasibility Report Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development, explained that the Housing Feasibility Study is funded through a State ARPA earmark to evaluate feasibility of constructing affordable housing on three Town-owned sites. Community input was received in the course of preparing this report. An invitation was sent to Town Meeting members, 500 abutters and owners, Lexington housing/ historic/economic development/tourism/retail committees, the Chamber of Commerce, financial committees, and others. LDa Architecture presented their preliminary findings and took comments on September 12, and September 26, 2023. Kim Barnett, LDa Architecture, and Brett Pelletier, Kirk & Co., presented the Affordable Housing Feasibility Study Report. They highlighted the feasibility of constructing affordable housing on three town-owned sites: Depot Lot, behind 1701-1751 Massachusetts Avenue, and 171-173 Bedford Street noting the challenges and benefits of affordable housing development at each site. Ms. Barnett explained that the three sites do have a few items in common. For each one the study considered a 100% affordable development at 60% AMI. The study tried to maximize the unit density by focusing on an all-residential use. The development for each site was focused on providing parking only for residents and visitors. The designs generally tried to be energy efficient and sustainable, but designs are fairly simple with regard to massing and development of the building to create economic efficiency. The study was able to find an affordable development that would be feasible on each site, but there are greater challenges to the Town Center sites (the Depot Lot, behind 1701-1751 Massachusetts Avenue). Ms. Barnett stated that each site has the opportunity to successfully support the development of affordable housing. However, as summarized in the following chart, she said there appears to be fewer challenges for affordable housing development on the 171-173 Bedford Street property (site C) provided that the town is able to reconsider plans to use the site as departmental swing space until 2031. Site Financially Challenges to Benefits to Development Feasible Development Development Depot Lot 100% Affordable Diminishes available public Optimal proximity to public transportation and (site A) at 60% AMI parking in town center. town resources. 92 residential Does not meet Multifamily Housing is an economic engine, bringing units overlay district housing into the town center can be a catalyst requirements for for commercial development. 152 surface commercial space. parking spots Historic District design review may increase construction cost to enhance massing and materials. History as train yard raises potential risk for contaminated soils that will increase construction cost. Presence of sewer easement raises potential risk for site development complications and additional permitting. Proximity to busy town center increases logistical challenges of construction. Lot behind 100% Affordable Similar challenges to Site A Similar benefits to Site A listed above. 1701- 1751 at 60% AMI listed above. Mass Ave (site B) 23 residential Parking lots and busy retail units entries and loading docks that surround the site create 23 surface a challenging environment parking spots for residential use. 171-173 100% Affordable Current town strategy to use Village overlay district provides flexibility to Bedford at 60% AMI site as departmental swing develop site with or without commercial space Street (site C) space through 2031 presents within the zoning bylaws. 85 residential a challenge to development units timeline. Site shape allows design focus on the Bedford Street facade. 102 surface parking spots Mr. Pelletier explained that, through the affordable housing study, it was determined that the most feasible and viable idea is to concentrate on dedicated affordable housing that maximizes impact. He presented highlights from the Executive Summary for housing delivery models, financial analysis process/conclusions, financial models/funding gap and estimated construction costs. Mr. Sandeen asked what the cost of retail on the first floor would be versus the economic benefit of having the rent from that development. Mr. Pelletier explained that in order to consider retail as contributing to the project, it would have to pay for itself. Regarding Site B, behind Mass Ave, it would be very difficult for ground floor retail behind a building with limited access to provide contributing value. Regarding Sites A and C, there is too much retail space square footage proposed, eating away into the residential development area, and increasing the amount of parking required. Mr. Lucente asked if any of the sites were considered for affordable purchases instead of affordable rental units. Mr. Pelletier stated that this would significantly reduce the. There are far more financing sources available for rental housing. Condominium units would require the AMI to be set very high and/or for these to be offset with market rate units. Mr. Lucente asked if the feasibility for Site B changes if more of the parking lot was used to put structure on top of. Ms. Barnett explained that versions of Site B were considered, such as with structured parking separate from the residential building, and parking under the first floor of the building. Parking below the building could be studied more closely but was eliminated from the cost estimate as placing parking under the building changes the structure of the building and significantly increases costs. A separate parking lot and fully wood framed building with housing on all four floors gave the best balance of units and construction cost. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen regarding how parking factors into these projections, Ms. Barnett explained that the group worked with a professional cost estimator and gave them a conceptual specification, regarding the anticipated structured parking either below grade or above grade. The cost per square foot is based off a precast concrete structured parking. The below grade parking did include some costs related to excavation and additional costs related to building close to the sewer easement. The above grade parking costs proposed on the Depot Lot dealt with it being a small lot with a constrained footprint. DOCUMENTS: Presentation, Final Report 2. Select Board Work Session - Discuss Select Board Report to 2024 Annual Town Meeting Mr. Pato stated that the Board is being asked to discuss drafting a Select Board Report to 2024 ATM to determine topic areas and assign scribes. The drafted scribed sections are due to Ms. Katzenback by February 27, 2024. The scribed sections will then be compiled into a rough draft to be included at the March 4, 2024, Select Board meeting packet. A final draft will then be scheduled for review and approval at the March 18, 2024, Select Board meeting. Ms. Hai suggested that the Board should discuss the significant housing law changes that previously occurred at Town Meeting. Mr. Lucente suggested a topic on budget and financial planning. Ms. Barry stated that she would like to see a topic regarding the fiscal policy for the High School building project. DOCUMENTS: 2023ATM Select Board Report to Town Meeting- list of topics 3. Select Board Work Session – Discuss Proposed Updates to Noise Committee Charge The Board reviewed a draft revised charge for the Noise Committee. The draft addresses the following objectives: expanding the membership to 5-7 members, setting an explicit quorum, clarifying the advisory role and relationship with other bodies and staff, outlining desired skill sets for the membership, and identifying a balance of resident protection and consideration of desirable noise producing activities. The Board discussed desired skillsets and expertise of the Noise Committee. The idea of balancing the committee with a range of skills for evaluating noise complaints was supported. DOCUMENTS: Draft Noise Committee Charge Revision, Redline Changes for draft charge ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded the Select Board voted by roll call 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary