HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSCC-rpt.pdf Report and Recommendations of the
Franklin School Conversion Committee
to the Board of Selectmen
Lexington, MA.
This committee was created and charged by the Selectmen on January 17, 1984,
to "prepare and review specifications for receipt of proposals for the purpose
of sale, transfer, lease, or other appropriate use of the Franklin School
Such review shall include but not be limited to consideration of the following
Town priorities 1) Tax stability; 2) Neighborhood compatibility; and 3)
Environmental compatibility "
In fulfillment of that charge, we recommend the following development/use
proposals, ranked to reflect the preferences of the committee overall (see
tally, Appendix A)
Assemblies of God Christian Center
Renaissance Properties
Greater Boston Community Development
This report is intended to describe the process by which criteria were
established; proposals solicited and reviewed; and the recommendations
formulated. Since the Selectmen have received copies of the second proposals
from all finalists, and a majority attended the presentation on November 8, no
detailed summary of the proposals will be attempted here
The committee, which was chaired by Selectman John McLaughlin, held an
organizational meeting on February 9, 1984, and to date has met a total of 13
times This includes a meeting on April 24, 1984, in Estabrook Hall to which
residents of the Franklin School neighborhood were specifically invited. Their
input was sought on threshold issues concerning use and control of the property
It has been a priority concern of the Committee throughout the process to notify
neighbors and, later, Town Meeting members, of meetings which would give them an
opportunity to review the proposals as they were presented. We felt this was an
important aspect of selecting a suitable developer who would be alert and
responsive to neighborhood concerns
Our early discussion evolved into the guidelines of the RFP, which included in
part the following
1 Uses must be compatible with current zoning These include
educational, residential, and religious uses
2 Achievement of some of the objectives of low and moderate priced
housing, congregate housing for the elderly, and/or other needed
housing not now being adequately provided in Lexington; the meeting of
recognized human service needs of residents of Lexington; and the
appropriateness of the use to an established residential neighborhood
will be considered Town priorities The Committee does not regard
creation of additional market rate condomuniums as an appropriate use
of this facility
3 Any non-residential uses proposed will meet identified needs of
Lexington residents and must be compatible with a residential area
4 The playground and ballfield will remain open and in Town ownership.
5 The building may not be razed; minimal alterations to the structure in
the way of changes in the facade, additions or partial destruction
would be considered.
6 The Committee will entertain proposals for either purchase or lease of
the building and site
One sketchy, incomplete and nonresponsive proposal was eliminated from the 13
received on September 14, 1984 The others were invited to present their
concepts to the Committee in public session on September 25, and October 2,
1984 Based on those presentations and the concept plans submitted, the
Committee eliminated a proposal for market rate rental housing; a school for
special needs students, a condominium proposal and a community activity center
While each of the concepts had merit, it was felt that the finalists were more
closely in line with the guidelines and/or had sounder development potential
The finalists, who were asked to expand their concept proposals with further
documentation, represented a variety of choices for the Committee lease vs
sale; housing vs educational/religious; elderly vs mixed age The development
entities were the Assemblies of God Christian Center (the present tenant at
Franklin School) ; Banani Corporation and Franklin House Associates (congregate
elderly housing) ; and Renaissance Properties and GBCD (below-and market-rate
rental housing) The committee found each to be of impressive quality, creating
the happy problem of choosing from strong interesting plans
The Committee would like to emphasize that one of our primary concerns has been
the traffic and parking that any prospective development would generate The
need for sensitivity to these factors has been stressed in all our dealings with
the proponents We believe that the five finalists all demonstrated in their
submissions that our message was heard, and their uses and parking demands can
be accomodated
The culmination of the process for the Committee was the meeting on November 17,
1984 Neighbors and Town Meeting members had been invited to the presentation
at Clarke; they were also notified of the subsequent meeting to let the
committee know their reactions and preferences Participation has been limited,
which has been a disappointment, but useful to us
Our first decision was to rank the proposals to help the Selectmen with their
final designation of a developer The discussion then returned to the issues
that have pervaded the process whether the Town should retain ultimate control
of the property and if so, how; what type of housing is best suited to the site;
how much weight should be attached to purchase price compared to other aspects
of the proposal When the committee took a poll, it became apparent that the
congregate elderly proposals had the least support from the committee This
seems to be due to the uncertainty as to the immediate need, given that three*
private facilities are proposing to locate in Lexington These, if built, will
generate a substantial number of units There is also an unwillingness to
* Since the Committee's meeting a fourth congregate proposal has surfaced,
according to Planning Board Chairman Smith.
commit the Town's asset in Franklin to this use without more certainty that the
services and facilities are tailored to a strong market that will mean the
project can operate successfully It was also noted that Franklin, being
somewhat distant from the center is not an ideal site
The three remaining proposals have a number of major differences, but one
important common element. Each offers a mechanism for ultimate Town control
The Christian Center by lease; Renaissance by a ground lease and repurchase
option; and GBCD by a built-in reverter
The two housing proposals have very different financing schemes Renaissance is
privately financed; GBCD employs a combination of subsidy and syndication funds
The rent levels GBCD's proposal generates are somewhat lower than those of
Renaissance
The Committee members will attend the Selectmen's meeting on December 3 to
answer questions and to amplify this report. The tally of votes taken on
November 17 and comments by individual committee members are appended hereto
Franklin School Conversion Committee
John F McLaughlin
John P Carroll
Marshall J Derby
1
Bessie R. Ezekiel
Robert A. Foster
Francis P McCarron
Howard A. Reynolds
Thomas E Shaw
Jacquelyn R. Smith
,
EXHIBIT A
Tally of Preferences 5 points for. 1st Choice
1 point for 5th Choice
Derbyl Ezekiel Smith Shaw
Ren 5 Ren 5 GBCD 5 LCC 5
GBCD 4 FHA 4 FHA 4 REN 4
BAN 3 LCC 3 LCC 3 GBCD 3
LCC 2 BAN 2 BAN 2 FHA 2
FHA 1 GBCD 1 REN 1 BAN 1
Reynolds McCarron Carroll Foster2. McLaughlin
LCC 5 LCC 5 LCC 5 5 REN 5
REN 4 FHA 4 REN 4 LCC 4 LCC 4
GBCD 3 REN 3 GBCD 3 REN 3 GBCD 3
FHA 2 BAN 2 FHA 2 FHA 2 BAN 2
BAN 1 GBCD 1 BAN 1 BAN 1 FHA 1
LCC 36 4#1 , 2#2's, 2#3's
REN 34 3#1 , 3#2's, 2#3's
GBCD 23 1#1 , 1#2 , 4#3's
FHA 22 0 3#2's, 0
BAN 15 0 0 1#3
1Derby-would move ICC to: #1 if• Town wants to retain control of building
He also points out that Renaissance presented separate proposals for market
rate vs below market rate rental , which should be evaluated separately
2Foster' s first choice was to raze the building and keep the entire site for
recreation