HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-14-PWSC-rpt-v2.pdf rsins
MogN 41Q
I S2
< e lel ^2
ur
NGT°�
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN
APRIL 6,2003
Final Draft
RECOMMENDED"BEST POSSIBLE USE"FOR 201 BEDFORD STREET
The DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-Evaluation Committee,with only one dissenting member,
recommends that the"best possible use"of 201 Bedford Street be as a site for a new Senior
Center and for a residential development by a private developer.
The Committee finds that building a new DPW facility at the Hartwell Avenue landfill site,
coupled with a new Senior Center and private development at 201,Bedford Street,meets the
Committee's criteria for "best possible use." This scenario would:
■ Have minimal adverse impact on DPW's services to the community,yet create
opportunities for efficiencies and productivity gains within DPW's operations that might offset
annual incremental operating costs estimated to range from$42,000 to$75,000;
• Allow the Town to make progress toward some of the goals expressed in Lexington's
shared vision for the year 2020, including:
.1 Expand eldercare services
✓ Preserve the physical character of residential neighborhoods
/ Provide increased housing options to promote diversity of income and age
.1 Increase protected open space
v' Create alternative revenue sources
• Generate up to$525,000 in net annual incremental revenue,depending on the extent to
which incremental town service costs offset incremental real estate taxes,payments in-lieu-of
taxes,or annual lease payments;
• Result in one-time revenue ranging from$1,000,000 to$14,677,000 from the sale of
201 Bedford Street,depending on the types of development and the extent to which private
developers might assume costs of environmental cleanup and/or contribute to building a new
Senior Center or new DPW facility.
• Create alternative revenues sources that will avoid the need to rely entirely on debt
exclusion overrides to finance the costs of a new Senior Center and new DPW facility.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
(Final Draft) April 6,2003
Page 2 of 8
ARTICLE 25 RESOLUTION
Under Article 25,the Committee recommends that the Board of Selectmen present a resolution
endorsing the Committee's "best possible use"to invite comment from town boards,committees,
commissions,town meeting members,citizens,and other interested parties. The Committee recognizes
that such a resolution would not commit the town to this scenario,but town meeting's discussion and
action on the resolution would signal clearly whether or not the Town should pursue this recommended
"best possible use."
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Committee developed and applied the following criteria for determining the"best"possible use for
201 Bedford Street:
• Consistency with Lexington's core values
• Consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan
• Net annual financial implications of the project for the town
The Committee considered such factors as annual tax revenue,revenue from lease of property,
incremental DPW and other town operating costs,and other economic costs and benefits.
• One-time financial implications of the project for the town
Factors considered included proceeds received from sale of the land parcel,site-specific capital
costs,DPW and Senior Center construction costs,capital costs defrayed by the developer,etc:
(The net cost or benefit to the Town will also depend on the costs to build a new DPW facility.
and Senior Center. Current conceptual estimates are $10.6 million and$6 million,
respectively. The Town has not yet determined size, scope, and cost of these two projects.)
• Impacts on abutters and the neighborhood
How would the proposed use affect traffic,noise,views of the site,and the character of the
neighborhood?
• Community support for the proposed use
Any change of use for 201 Bedford Street will require broad support from Town Meeting and
the community. As set forth in the Selectmen's charge to the Committee,the Committee
conducted public information sessions to hear community reactions to the proposals. The chair
of the Committee also wrote two letters to neighbors inviting feedback by phone and email.
LESS DESIRABLE USES
The Committee evaluated two other options for 201 Bedford Street and found them to be less desirable:
Continued exclusive use as a DPW Operations facility,whether by demolishing
existing buildings and building new or renovating some existing facilities and building new.
Building both a new senior center and new DPW facilities on the 9.6-acre site,most
likely by placing the senior center closest to Bedford Street,with DPW structures and yard
operations behind.
Exhibit C summarizes the Committee's evaluation of the siting options for a new DPW facility.
•
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
April 6,2003 (Final Draft)
Page3of8 '
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES
BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The"best possible use"of 201 Bedford Street is to sell a portion of the parcel to a developer who
would build mixed residential housing and preserve a site for a new Senior Center.
The Committee received 14 responses to its request for interest(RFI) in developing 201 Bedford Street.
Most developers proposed residential uses,with between 43 and 154 units and buildings ranging from 2
to 4 stories high. Several developers suggested that over-55 housing would be most appropriate.
Exhibit D provides information on the RFI and summarizes the responses to the RFI. These responses
suggest that the Town would derive the following benefits from the sale of 201 Bedford Street:
1.One-time sale proceeds ranging from$1 million to nearly$14.9 million,averaging$5.5
million. The sales price would reflect the density the Town would allow on the site,proportion
of affordable housing units,whether the developer would contribute to a Senior Center,and
whether the Town or the developer would be responsible for any environmental cleanup.
2.Incremental annual real estate taxes ranging from$175,000 to$525,000,averaging
$337,000. While some developers expressed a willingness to lease the site,none proposed an
amount for annual lease payments.
•
3.A site reserved for a new Senior Center.
4.Partial or full funding for a new Senior Center.
Some responses indicated an interest in collaborating with the Town in designing and building a
Senior Center, including the possibility of building it at no cost to the Town. A private
developer could build a Senior Center to town specifications at a lower cost than the Town
could and then transfer ownership to the Town.
. 5.Opportunities to include some number of affordable housing units.
201 Bedford Street represents one of the few remaining parcels in Lexington that could add 10
or more units of affordable housing as part of a residential development. Thus,building
housing on this site could ensure progress toward the statutory goal of 10% affordable units.
Most developers indicated a willingness to discuss affordable housing with the town.
6.Opportunities to develop open space within or adjacent tothe development. The North
Lexington Brook meanders back and forth under the Minuteman Bikeway that borders this site.
While development close to this stream is regulated,the town could place conservation
restrictions on some parts of the parcel. For example,the Town could develop a linear park
along the Bikeway by placing conservation restrictions on the 25-feet adjacent to the bikeway.
Neighbors and other interested citizens generally supported a residential development within
parameters that the Town would establish through a formal disposition process. During public
information sessions conducted by the Committee on March 11 and 13,residents living near 201
Bedford Street and other interested townspeople voiced several concerns about the prospect of
residential development at 201 Bedford Street. Neighbors were particularly concerned with traffic
impacts—increasing traffic on Bedford Street,adding one or more access/egress roads to the site,and •
compounding the difficulty of entering Bedford Street from Sunny Knoll Avenue.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
(Final Draft) April 6,2003
Page 4 of 8
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES(CONTINUED)
BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(Continued)
Creating open space as a buffer to the Bikeway and to abutters and internal to the development was
deemed desirable. Maintaining the residential scale of the neighborhood rather than building four-story
buildings was deemed important. Advocates for affordable housing encouraged consideration of the
Town requiring the developer to set aside a percentage of the development as affordable units.
One developer proposed a retail development anchored by a 60,000 sq ft grocery store,allocating the
rear of the site for a new Senior Center. Consistent with the concerns expressed above,those in
attendance preferred a residential development built within parameters that the Town would establish in
a formal disposition process. Reaction to an over-55 housing development was split,with some
favoring a more diverse development and others supporting the need in Lexington for such housing.
Consolidating DPW operations in a new facility at the Hartwell Avenue landfill site is the best of
the four options for building a new DPW facility. (See Exhibit C,"Evaluation of Site Options for
a New DPW Facility.")
A majority of the Committee believes that the benefits of this approach outweigh any adverse service
impacts and incremental operating costs of this relocation to this site more remote than 201 Bedford St.
Increases in productivity and efficiency due to consolidated operations at a single site may well offset
the estimated increases of$42,000 to$75,000 in annual DPW operating costs. The Committee
reviewed two estimates prepared by Camp Dresser&McKee(CDM)of incremental annual operating
costs resulting from consolidating DPW's operations at Hartwell Avenue:
• In its January 2001 report titled "Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Department of Public
Works Facility,"CDM compared operating costs of alternative DPW locations. The analysis
suggested that a consolidated facility at Hartwell Avenue would result in incremental costs of
$42,000,consisting of the following:
✓ $20,000 as the estimated annual maintenance cost of a methane gas collection
system to trap and collect landfill gases;
✓ $15,000 in additional labor costs due to additional travel time from Hartwell
Avenue to and from work sites as compared to 201 Bedford Street;
✓ $7,000 in incremental truck operating costs and increased fuel costs resulting from
these greater travel distances.
• In November 2002 this Committee asked CDM to review this analysis. One committee
member logged mileage and travel times to many of the over 30 work sites used in the January
2001 analysis. Further,the Committee recommended assuming an average travel speed of 15
mph rather than the 30 mph assumed in the original analysis. In January 2003 CDM reported
that the incremental travel costs might be$54,800 rather than$22,000,consisting of:
✓ $47,400 in additional labor costs due to additional travel time and
✓ $7,400 in incremental fuel and truck operating costs.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
April 6,2003 (Final Draft) •
Page 5 of 8
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES(CONTINUED)
BEST POSSIBLE USE: NEW SENIOR CENTER AND PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(Continued)
For FY 2003 DPW has 88 full-time employees and an operating budget of$20.4 million. If the
Hartwell Avenue location were to add$75,000 to DPW's operating budget,the increase would be less
than 0.4% of DPW's $20.4 million budget,equivalent to less than two full-time employees. The
Director of Public Works has identified several economies that would result from a consolidated
operation at Hartwell Avenue. While these savings are difficult to quantify,he believes that reducing
annual operating costs by$75,000 is a realistic and achievable goal.
Even with the addition of DPW operations,the Hartwell Avenue landfill site offers development
opportunities with the potential to financially benefit the Town.
The 25-acre Hartwell Avenue site is more than adequate to add a new DPW operations facility
(requiring 9 acres)to the existing composting operation(10 acres)and household hazardous waste
facility(1.5 acres). A space-efficient site plan would leave 5-7 acres for other town use or private
development.
In its report to the 2003 Town Meeting,the Selectmen's Electric Utility Ad Hoc Committee(EUAHC)
described the market forces and site attributes that make Hartwell Avenue well-suited as a site for a
power generation facility. A 90-megawatt plant costing$50-$60 million to build would require a site of
about six acres. Such a facility would create the following economic benefits to the Town:
1.Proceeds from the sale or lease of a portion of the Hartwell Avenue site. The sale of six
acres at Hartwell Avenue might bring$15 to$3 million.
2.Incremental revenues from real estate taxes or payments in-lieu-of taxes (PILOT). In a
March meeting with the EUAHC and DPW staff,one potential developer suggested an annual
PILOT payment of$300,000. At the estimated FY 2004 commercial tax rate of$22.42, a
power generation station assessed at$50 million would yield$1,121,000 in incremental tax
revenue. $1.1 million would support an$11 million bond issued for 20 years at 5% interest.
3.A financial contribution or in-kind services for a new DPW facility and/or facilities for
a municipal electric utility. Some developers might negotiate with the Town to build a DPW
facility to meet town requirements in exchange for a reduced purchase price or a PILOT
agreement. A private party could also build a DPW facility to town specifications at a lower
cost than the Town could and then transfer ownership to the Town.
Using the 201 Bedford Street RFI as a model,the Committee recommends that the Town issue an RFI
for Hartwell Avenue to invite interested parties to respond to the opportunity to purchase or lease some
or all of the Hartwell Avenue site. The RFI could declare the Town's preferences for relocating DPW
operations and for preserving the composting and hazardous waste facilities,but solicit any and all
proposals for developing the site. This RFI process would provide the Town with an indication of the
potential benefits of different types of development and identify the cost of missed opportunities, if any,
of relocating DPW to this site.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
(Final Draft) April 6,2003
Page 6 of 8
LESS DESIRABLE USE:DPW RETAINS EXCLUSIVE USE
A majority of the Committee finds that allowing DPW to continue its exclusive use,whether in a
completely new or partially new and renovated facilities,does not optimize the value of 201
Bedford Street.
The Committee considered two options for allowing continued use of the site for the exclusive use of
DPW:
• Demolishing existing DPW facilities and building new to optimize the layout of new
facilities
• Salvaging and renovating existing facilities to the extent possible and building any
needed new facilities
Please see Exhibit C for the Committee's evaluation of these two options.
The Committee found that DPW's exclusive use would be less than optimal because such use would:
• Require designating another site,possibly Town open space,for a senior center. If 201
Bedford Street is not designated for a new Senior Center,then the Council on Aging has
indicated that it will ask the Selectmen to reconsider the North Street and Worthen Road sites.
• Continue a use inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood
• Do nothing to provide increased housing options
• Provide only very limited opportunities to increase protected open space
• Generate no incremental revenue,thus requiring that a new DPW facility be paid for
entirely by a debt exclusion override -
The Committee did ask the Director of Public Works to investigate the potential cost savings of
renovating and expanding the existing facilities at 201 Bedford Street to provide adequate and
appropriate space to meet DPW's needs. In a February 2003 letter,CDM highlighted two findings:
• CDM estimated the value of using the existing buildings to range between$450,000 and
$655,000,only 4%to 6%of the projected construction costs of$10.6 million to build new
facilities at this site.
• CDM observed that the increased costs of construction in and around existing structures or
the need to create"swing space"for DPW operations would likely offset these apparent cost
savings. (CDM's January 2001 construction cost estimate for a new facility at 201 Bedford
Street includes$514,000 as an "Allowance for Continued Operations"during construction.) By
building a new facility at Hartwell Avenue rather than renovating and expanding at 201 Bedford
Street,the Town would avoid these costs and potential service disruptions.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
April 6,2003 (Final Draft)
Page 7 of 8
LESS DESIRABLE USE:DPW AND A SENIOR CENTER TOGETHER
While it might be possible to accommodate both a new DPW facility and a new Senior Center at
201 Bedford Street,the Committee unanimously recommends that the Town should not pursue
this approach.
At this early stage of project development,the COA indicates that a new Senior Center site may require
between 2 and 3 acres to accommodate a 32,000 sq ft building and 150 parking spaces. DPW now
occupies and uses the entire 9.6-acre site. Thus,DPW would have only 6.6 to 7.6 acres to meet its
requirements. Neither facility would have any opportunities for expansion on the site. Some citizens
have expressed concerns that these two uses would be incompatible and result in less than satisfactory
facilities for both parties.
While this option would enable the Town to expand elder services,the Committee found that co-
locating both facilities at 201 Bedford Street would do little else to make progress toward other Town
goals. This combined use would also be less than optimal because:
■ DPW's continued use would still be inconsistent with the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
• No progress would be made toward providing increased housing options.
• The intensive development of the site required for both uses might limit opportunities
to increase protected open space.
• Since the continued use of 201 Bedford Street for town purposes would generate no
incremental revenue,voters would have to approve a debt exclusion override for building
both a new Senior'.Center and new DPW facilities.
FINANCING MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS: NEW MODEL REQUIRED?
The Town's recent practice has been to issue bonds to finance major capital projects,requiring
the Town's voters to approve debt exclusion overrides. The sale of portions of 201 Bedford Street
and Hartwell Avenue might allow the Town to finance the new DPW facility and Senior Center
without a debt exclusion override.
To address the Town's many major capital needs,the Board of Selectmen has adopted a capital
financing model relying on voter approval of debt exclusion overrides every three years. If the Town
continues with this model,then voters will next be asked to approve a debt exclusion override in spring
2005. The projects under consideration for this override might be the substantial renovation or new
construction of two elementary schools,construction of a new DPW operations facility,and
construction of a new senior center. Total project cost for these four projects could exceed$50 million.
DPW Facility/Senior Center
Re-evaluation Advisory Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
(Final Draft) April 6,2003
Page 8 of 8
FINANCING MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS: NEW MODEL REQUIRED? (CONTINUED)
Rising Town employee health insurance costs,anticipated reductions in state aid,little or no growth in
local receipts, and diminished "Free Cash"are the major drivers of the significant gap between
estimated revenues and projected operating expenses for the 2003-04 fiscal year. To close this gap,the
Board of Selectmen has indicated that it will propose a$5 million operating override in spring 2003.
Given the fiscal realities outlined by the Town Manager and the Appropriation Committee at this year's
Town Meeting,the Town will have to reconsider how to finance major capital projects going forward.
In this fiscal environment,the Committee believes that it will be necessary to find alternatives to debt
exclusion overrides to finance major capital projects.
The Committee finds the fiscal benefits of its recommended uses of 201 Bedford Street and Hartwell
Avenue to be most compelling. A developer might be willing to purchase 201 Bedford Street for$7-$8
million to build a medium-density residential development with a proportion of affordable units. The
annual incremental real estate taxes from such private development might generate$340,000.
Assuming a 5% interest rate and a 20-year amortization schedule,$340,000 could support a$3.4
million bond issue. Together,these two revenue sources could finance a$10-$11 million capital
project. Current project cost estimates suggest that the new.DPW facility might cost$11 million and
the new Senior Center at 201 Bedford Street$6 million.
NEXT STEPS
A majorityof the Committee recommends that the Board of Selectmen take the following actions:
■• .Introduce and support a resolution under Article 25 at the 2003 Town Meeting to allow
Town Meeting to debate and endorse the Committee's recommendation:
A Senior Center and private residential development as the "best possible use"of
201 Bedford Street and
Relocation of DPW operations to Hartwell Avenue;
• Issue a Request for Interest(RFI)for the Hartwell Avenue landfill site to determine the
opportunities for the sale or lease of some or all of the site,while outlining the Town's
preference for expanded use for DPW operations;
• Appoint a committee to recommend development guidelines for disposition of 201 Bedford
Street. At a minimum,this committee should include representatives from the Planning Board,
Conservation Commission,Fair Housing and Human Relations Commission,LexHab,and the
neighborhood,including Precinct 8 town meeting members.
® Schedule a special town meeting for fall 2003 to confirm the disposition of 201 Bedford
Street and of the Hartwell Avenue landfill site,to establish financing strategies for building a
new DPW facility and Senior Center,to appropriate funds for design of the two facilities,and
to take any related actions.
The Committee looks forward to your comments on this report and to a discussion by Town Meeting of
the Committee's recommended "best possible use"of 201 Bedford Street.
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TABLE OF EXffiBITS
EXHIBIT A: BOARD OF SELECTMEN'S CHARGE AND COMMITTEE ROSTER
EXHIBIT B: COMMITTEE PROCESS
EXHIBIT C: SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY
Evaluation of Site Options for DPW Facility
Alternative Site Plans for DPW Facility at Hartwell Avenue:
Camp Dresser & McKee, Sheet 2
Camp Dresser & McKee, Sheet 3
Site Plan for DPW Facility at Bedford Street: Camp Dresser & McKee, Sheet 1
Site Plan for Senior Center and DPW Facility at 201 Bedford Street: Camp
Dresser & McKee
EXHIBIT D: 201 BEDFORD STREET REQUEST FOR INTEREST:
Table of Contents
Questions Asked of Interested Parties
Submittal Requirements
Summary of Specific Responses to Request for Interest
Site Plan Submitted by Homes Development Corp. for Proposed Development
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Letters to Neighbors
Notes Taken at March 11 and 13 Public Information Sessions
EXHIBIT F: STATEMENT FROM FAIR HOUSING AND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT G: BIBLIOGRAPHY/CHRONOLOGY OF PRIOR DPW AND SENIOR CENTER STUDIES
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ext]Brr A
BOARD OF SELECTMEN'S CHARGE
"This committee will examine the economic and the practical implications of the future use of the
201 Bedford Street property occupied by the Department of Public Works. The committee will examine
various land use options on the 201 Bedford Street property through Requests for Information from various
potential developers. Land use options will, at a minimum,include the exploration of the sale/lease of the
land to a private party with a Senior Center developed as part of this process and the development of a new
DPW Facility at the Harwell Avenue landfill site,and the exploration of a joint DPW/Senior Center Facility
at the 201 Bedford Street site. The committee will identify the costs and benefits of the various options of
the re-use of 201 Bedford Street. Through a series of public hearings on the various uses of 201 Bedford
Street, the committee will gather citizens' input about the proposals. The committee will report back to the
selectmen by February 1,2003, the best possible reuse of 201 Bedford Street that will allow the Town the
opportunity to build a new Senior Center and a new Department of Public Works Facility and determine
the financing strategies that might be pursued."
The Board of Selectmen adopted this charge and appointed members on October 7, 2002.
COMMITTEE ROSTER
SELECTMEN'S APPOINTEES TOWN STAFF
Name Affiliation Name Position
Donald Chisholm COA Bill Hadley Director of Public Works
Michelle Ciccolo Citizen Heather Sweeney Director of Social Services
Marshall Derby Citizen Kelly McKay Zeoli Public Works Management
Analyst
David Eagle Citizen
Donald Graham COA
Steven Hurley Citizen
Peter Kelley Citizen
Bill Kennedy Selectman
Jeanne Krieger Selectman
Paul Lapointe COA, Committee Chair
Barbara Lucas Citizen
John McWeeney Citizen
Committee Liaisons ,
John Rosenberg Capital Expenditures
Sheldon Spector Appropriations
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Err B
COMMITTEE PROCESS
The Committee met twelve times from October 2002 through March 26, 2003, at 7:45 AM on every other
Wednesday morning. The Committee alternated its meeting site between the DPW Operations facility at 201
Bedford Street and the Senior Center at 1475 Massachusetts Avenue. Other interested parties attended these
meetings and contributed to the Committee's work,including selectmen; representatives of the Fair Housing and
Human Relations Committee; affordable housing advocates; neighbors of 201 Bedford Street; citizens; the Town's
economic development officer, Mary Jo Bohart; the director of public works operations, Brian Gilbert; the
assistant town engineer, David Carbonneau; and Bruce Haskell, PE, Camp Dresser&McKee, Inc.
To ensure the appropriate focus on the essentials of the Selectmen's charge, the Committee organized itself into
four working groups, and developed a scope of work for each group:
DPW Working Group
Refine architectural program and optimal operating characteristics of a new DPW facility, assess
Hartwell Avenue and 201 Bedford Street locations, relate 201 Bedford Street development proposals to.
DPW facility options, and recommend facilities and location(s).
Senior Center Working Group
Define preliminary architectural program requirements for a new Senior Center, reevaluate site selection
criteria, relate 201 Bedford Street development proposals to Senior Center needs, and recommend
building program and location.
Request for Interest(RFI) Working Group (for 201 Bedford Street)
Research, develop, and issue RFI inviting potential developers to indicate interest in developing 201
Bedford Street, develop criteria to evaluate and rank responses, and recommend whether or not to pursue
a site disposition process involving outside developers.
Decision-making Criteria Working Group
Develop criteria for defining "best"in "best possible re-use" of 201 Bedford Street and facilitate the
Committee's efforts to apply these criteria to yield Committee recommendations.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:201 BEDFORD STREET
Shortly after the New Year, the Committee issued a Request for Interest(RFI)inviting interested parties to
propose private development of this 9.6-acre parcel: The RFI invited interested developers to visit the site on
January 15, submit letters of interest by January 22, and respond to the RFI by Monday, February 10. The RFI
stated that no response would bind either the Town or the developer to any process or follow up action. Over 30
interested parties attend the site visit, 22 submitted letters of interest, and 14 submitted responses to the RFI.
Exhibit C presents three excerpts from the RFI: the Table of Contents, questions asked of proposed developers,
and submittal requirements. Exhibit D presents a summary of the seven most complete responses and two site
plans proposed for residential developments. The complete RFI is available at the Town's website at
http://ci.Lexington.ma.us./socialsery/dpwfacility.htm.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Committee sent letters to neighbors of 201 Bedford Street on January 21 and March 3 informing them of the
Committee's work and inviting their participation. The Committee conducted public information sessions at the
National Heritage Museum at 7:30 PM on March 11 and at 8 AM on March 13. Approximately 45 people
attended these sessions.
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EDIT C: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY
Build DPW Build New DPW Renovate DPW DPW and Senior Center
Criteria 0 Hartwell Avenue 0 201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford a 201 Bedford
SITE CONSIDERATIONS More than adequate Adequate Adequate Workable, not desirable
Size of site 25 acres 9.6 acres 9.6 acres 7+ acres for DPW
2+ acres for senior center
DPW site 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting 10 acres for composting
requirements 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations 9 acres for operations
1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household 1.5 acres for household
hazardous waste hazardous waste hazardous waste hazardous waste
Meets program Site large enough for site Adequate Existing structures limit Workable, with
requirements? plan to maximize service Existing operations remain layout improvements; underground parking at
and efficiency and address at Hartwell Ave adequate, if existing Senior Center and other
compost odor concerns operations remain at adjustments
1 Hartwell Ave
Opportunities for Yes
No No No
expansion or other use
OPERATIONS AND Slightly Negative Neutral Neutral Slightly Negative
SERVICES IMPACTS .
Positives One-stop service; some Some efficiencies Limited efficiencies; new Reduced yard area behind
efficiencies, productivity resulting from new layout dictated by existing senior center may
improvements with staff, facilities, better layout facilities compromise efficiencies
equipment at one location and service improvements
Negatives Longer trips by staff to Missed opportunity for Missed opportunity for Missed opportunity for
most service sites one-stop service and one-stop service and one-stop service and
Longer trips for some efficiencies at one location efficiencies at one location efficiencies at one location
citizens to DPW
Final Draft Page 1 of 3 4/6/03
.
DPW FACII.TTY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHMIT C: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY
Build DPW Build New Renovate DPW and Senior Center
Criteria 0 Hartwell Avenue 0 201 Bedford
@ 201 Bedford 0 201 Bedford
RESPONSE TO 2020 Progress No progress No progress Some progress
RECOMMENDATIONS
Expand eldercare Releases 201 Bedford for No progress; No progress; Adds Senior Center on
services Senior Center and requires another Senior requires another Senior tight site; missed
potential "over 55" Center site Center site opportunity to improve
residential development housing options
Preserve physical Removes use inconsistent Continues use inconsistent Continues use inconsistent Continues current
character of with residential with residential with residential incompatible use; adds
residential neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood senior center traffic
neighborhoods
Provide increased Creates opportunity at 201 Status quo; Status quo;
Status quo;
housing options to Bedford to expand housing missed opportunity missed opportunity missed opportunity
promote diversity of options, including
income and age affordable housing
Increase protected Creates opportunity at 201 Tight site will limit Tight site will limit . Intense development
open space Bedford for linear park opportunities to add opportunities to add needed to meet program
along bikeway and other protected open space protected open space needs: buildings, parking,
protected open space circulation, service yard
Create alternative Creates opportunity at 201 Status quo; missed Status quo; missed Status quo; missed
revenue sources Bedford for one-time sale opportunity; all project opportunity; all project opportunity; all project
proceeds and incremental costs must be raised by costs must be raised by costs must be raised by
property taxes revenue debt exclusion override debt exclusion override debt exclusion override
Final Draft Page 2 of 3 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT C: EVALUATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY
Build DPW Build New DPW Renovate DPW DPW and Senior Center
Criteria 0 Hartwell Avenue 0 201 Bedford @ 201 Bedford 0 201 Bedford
COSTS AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL IMPACTS
Increased DPW $(42,000 - $75,000) None None None
operating costs (CDM, 1 101 and 1/03) None
Savings from DPW $42,000 - $75,000 None None
efficiencies (Offset cost increases)
Incremental property $175,000 - $525,000 None None None
taxes: 201 Bedford (RFI average:$337,000)
Costs of town services $(0 - $225,000) None None None
for 75 housing units (75 units @ $3,000)
Net Annual (Cost)/Benefit $(50,000)-$525,000 $0 $0 $0
SALES PROCEEDS
Sell 201 Bedford $1,000,000 - $14,877,000 None None None
(RFI average:$5.5M)
Environmental cleanup ($200,000 - $1,000,000)
Net One-time Benefit $0 -$14,677,000 $0 $0 $0
i DPW PROJECT COSTS
Construction $11,369,000 $9,514,000 $9,514,000 $9,514,000
(CDM, 1/01)
Design fees $847,000 $861,000 $861,000 $861,000
(CDM, 2/10/03)
Environmental cleanup 0 $100,000- $200,000 $100,000 -$200,000 $100,000 - $400,000
Potential savings for 0 ($450,000 - $655,000)
using existing buildings (Savings per CDM, 2/03)
Architectural details, 0 $100,000 - $200,000 $100,000 - $200,000 $100,000 - $200,000
vegetative buffer, etc
DPW PROJECT COSTS $12.216M $10.575M - $10.675M $9.920M -$10.325M $10.575M - $10.875M
Final Draft Page 3 of 3 4/6/03
-•
, ,,- __,--,
1 1
,,,,,,/ r- , ,..,..,
,..._
I . ///
...,-- .,.• ---
_ .....
„-,-;.'->''' !,11 11 ! I tni 1 i , 11 ili il .• I lilli.,,,
'
/ ,
. ,
.
,,vi ,, / ,., ,..1
---
,.. 1\eA
ij
/,1 i"I /
7 A
,
. 1 i
L il ! . 1,
1 // /
\
•_ 1111 i 11,I( 1.
/'
III 1 1 ,
i
I la. k
4
, ,
‘ 1/1
) ,
. . .,1._.1-
- (
, , , (_>
4 .,.
P .e
II , ,/ = A
,,/ -. ..,..;..,- . -• -
.— . _.
/ • ,.: ... _.------- .‘„ _
\,--,---
H -1:---7 .t.- -,: .,----,: -.>- I,'-'4--,'::::---.-‹:_,..,.,'/:,
. . ,
l' s
•-• -"Gib' _,.....,.............---:flit.,--..._. ---'1 ' - --, - Waillil4:
* -----------J ./.
,
. . , //::\b /7--.1.::----.1--
I
'......."":"••••••.fthr......, .
4 . .\
/Fij s
\4. , 4-1/11
' r --- ---, i .1, 4 ..........-1-,...•••••• C:Zz:,
oft,c :::•••••
r...cz:7..... ---_,
--'--
AIT • 1
ft""C:Z7......, . ----:::
---- •
V •
)) .,
/if C2..... •........
1 , litrllillia0r...,..CZZ.Z.. .:s
ror,,.. ,., 5:;0ag 1 11111 lilt"
/ N......ft.....ftf
fir I
/
\ ,....,:, s.
___ _ .___ I lk,
:0,0......,,,,,,
.......,.,_
,.....::, 1
.....„
,,,,,, ,,, •
.....,----...
\ .,, _____:- ;;,,,,,.._.. ,....,, --; :-_- er--\ -,4, •
... _.
. ...._.,_ ........._ . .,,,„.. ......,„:7
c:,.......
.....
,.. _...... ..,
,, , \ ----. ,•• ' • ....._ ..„.:\
; J.Ii / . '..--H• \..,..... -_---\\46_ , I,..,..,.., ,
I 1,1 f Him.
00000g4 "HIM I ir'
\
V----( S
\
; .
N._.
•
/ , \
:i
; . .
• . , ,., ._____.
, .
-„_
•
..........,__________
GRAPI.M: ;TALE ".•-•,.. - -
•414....
,.... •' \
/
:. "....s.
. ' ' " .. .....„..
. . ,..
II.
•••,....
,....
'........ I ...,.................,.... ..,
ZilfCALC1 °TR\f'.;
! •
. WO.ff- -.1•212W CO1,11111111111C..„0.4ere•MCKCI 1114 Lix71:1114°F LEXI"TCINEn1eCHEW`'' T/C DESIGN
2
HARMS/AVENUE WEI K.
DEPART/4MT OF PUBUO WOMB
. _
1 . ,r.. fler MOM <8.19 • ."... 7....,, 0 0,
1 '. . 4 K•VW.
. .,
...
.•
. .
.. .
•
• •
•
...... • ---- _—
-
• ' - —->
• _.
....,,---2; • _ illpw , ' - "
1 , .;,......,-
. -'.. ------ .
1111111111,M1?1111111111111
\I
. ...- • ..
I I I 1 2,;;; •' l'...-. .,. ,...•• • 1 • .-- . 111111:11fillitiiii1{11111111:1: '\-
,,,.‘•:' / ,-'•.. - ,. . •. e
E r
•.., 1 . . .
.. ' .m...0
".....0 lom
_,==_.
No. ' /'
7.....,-;:..,..j-;.----
„.,;,, . (,, . •..........._„.„.„____.
i. / . ---:-- --- .---_ ---- ; , • 1 1 LBlit.n. _ 7.. .......,=zi— A .
•'-''''''''' -- ..„.:,. ,' ,------.-
cli______I. 1.-- k.N.
,,„:.... ii,/,, ,.,,,.... .......... 0.,__ ,• , ;/
. ,,. =,,. ..=,=
../
.,i ; it ,. /
13 , 4.\ .,. 03,
/,:•'/.1
,
) •.......,
______
4-*
\ "..
.......... " _ ,,,, „....
.. .,
, , ,..... ,,. .... .. ,
,•,, ,, \ ...,, ,--- ,
.,-,...,....-.....,,,,._, ___ .
i \..
- .,,, .,•_.,...„-_,., ,--,-----,' ...\.„‹., \ ,,,,,.,- ,.''., .. .. .- ...• , . • 7 . ...---"ir I 1
rig ' i .
--, . 2,.. -
\,- .• . \--,_.--\ . 7,- •
',-,\,__ •-•-:\-\. • \.'••
I fill 1 I
. i ,/,,,.
N,, .'''\• -'-c.----7. , , :., .: . - E
rear----„.,---V‹•., •- 'N 1
.._%„).___-11" -.
1 , - ---4
/ \ \ ,,, \:\\•,.....,..., /
\ _ .. , • / • ./..1
II ,
\..., ,.r.'. ..c‘
''.S.,':...__,_---.....__ss.__._._.___±:-l----<____II_,......--1,..<7'„,;•••,--""1-%-----H----.. ...I .
3 --..,...
,... ....„-, „..... . .
3 ........„_
,........„_ .,•,- ..
:::iN,PIT i•;!3r2.11:,4 —........ ..-;- .../. /,
-.......,s / /
... ,,*
. . -4 ....,...s. -------•---,________.--..._.---- •
,.....-:4 ' ........
. ......... ..' -,-........ . .•, I i
„..176.• / /
........s ,
-........s '
•••••.....‘ :::?=;Mftris"."
COM CM,Dia.(6.Mao Inc. TOWN OF LECNOTON SCHEMATIC DESIGN
=NOTCH,MASSACHUSETTS
I
DRTMET OF PUBUCINO '.'-ii::F.,. '62.44•,•!:!:4.74,#,...,,
3 , .........._
EPANRIO3 -2.•.'.01'- . :...:-
• .---,,,--?•,;,A,-,; -::..-:-.,.•.-::::-...:.-7.,,,,i
.:.•:;,14..0v.;,r-••-•••::.,::i,:.''',..":4, ,Lik.'.
. . .
" .. . . .
.......... 2. . . . ' 1
•.: .
——- ---,-,
*AI MIoldir
, OW MIMI'
40
froj.A. I
NM Ifv.... 1! rang,
r......-•••••••+---------.1 i
Oa,11.••••• ,
1 .,.....
to a it .
,..0 0.., • •
. .g,
....At,.
•
_....,
I,,'
;Room pommy:
V----10c=
1 it=31 ' 110000 0000014
=11 -.
I 1.11.11===
MEM C=E:=1 ; X V,I 7
mac 1 IC
• le
/
am et .; ll 1
•i•I 1 . ICI
/i. r ___ __ _
/ MEM I =
if Nom 1 11 1
INININI C=1= — •.--
/ •-- —-
/' =NC If I • -, -- —
age A' --
/' . .
A/ ,--,,7,-..-7-i-r.-,-,--,,7-•-77;-, ! ! I
r;
—' InInIn
.!-- -
11
V• - " ' LIILIILI .
I /1
/ . li r millii_ iiIIIIIIL. .
.....,...._ _._,
i d
L/
e ;.#.4'* e,
'-'-'2i2:-:r...- '%f "-;•?.--- T-------- i ---- ----=---- ----------7::-_:74.= ..
-Z _:. ii. _,,:1:17-____z_.------r- ,-- ,‘---; - -----------Hi -_ ..,-if ,--'-..."1-- ........w _,_i f ,..,-
,,.(,/, ;.:51:••...,"..,
fr ,
- •'
:11 4
4,
("I ;: i--.:-7-•:,-.—.-•7:
, 1 --.-.1_, 1 ••
-is • t ...
' 1: ••
. . .
GRAPHIC SCALZ
i mom.Vi A.
....s..........•••• .10404
ANESENNEIMINO. ..---- .11040*
ot4 opow4
A.
TOWN OF LEXINGTON sommATIC DESIGN ...-
LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS BEDFORD STREET
1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
, .... . . - - ' ''''''--'''',,`1"--,;'',er7.0SW:i4.-1..VW,...,L,A.K•s.. .
-:- ::,"!•_,, trA431:tli'D:ii'
AIDBNIEENISSNMEieisftuzfsaawswMkSfifdnaelengnfggEIESSIIEMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT C: SITE OPTIONS FOR DPW FACILITY
SITE PLAN FOR SENIOR CENTER AND DPW FACILITY AT 201 BEDFORD STREET
BY CAMP DRESSER MCKEE
My apologies! The original of this site plan is a 24 x 36 colored sheet that I
could not get reduced and inserted in this final draft for distribution on
Sunday, April 6.
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMIIIITTEE
ExmrnT D
EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
201 BEDFORD STREET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REQUEST FOR INTEREST 3
ANTICIPATED PROCESS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 5
TOWN OBJECTIVES: 6
OVERALL OBJECTIVES: 6
DISCUSSION: 6
SPECIFIC RFI OBJECTIVES: 7
SELECTION CRITERIA 7
QUESTIONS "
---- 8
RFI-SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 9
APPENDIX A-SITE INFORMATION .... 10
SITE OVERVIEW
AERIAL PHOTO
VHB/VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.,RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT,"FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS,"MARCH 1999
APPENDIX B—CHARGE OF COMM11TFE 11
APPENDIX C—ZONING ... 12
APPENDIX D—CAMP DRESSER&MCKEE INC.(CDM)REPORT.. 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,JANUARY 2001
APPENDIX E—LEXINGTON CORE VALUES .... 15
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT D
EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
201 BEDFORD STREET
Questions
In attempting to evaluate potential private development projects, answers tothe following questions are
requested. The questions are non-binding and are asked in an effort to facilitate further discussions and
to assist the Town in developing the best possible reuse scenario.
Please tell us under what conditions you would engage in further discussions:
1. Purchase of the fee title of the property? Yes No
Range of potential price you are willing to pay to obtain fee ownership of the entire parcel:
2. Long-term lease of the property?Yes No
Range of potential price to be remitted to the Town for an annual lease:
3. Lease term Minimum: Maximum:
4. Co-existence with the Senior Center: Yes No
If co-existing with Senior Center, what are your minimum space needs:
5. Would you be willing to purchase or lease the site with present structures thereon:
Yes No
6. Would you be willing to purchase or lease the site "as is" and prior to any environmental
remediation or clean up: Yes No
7. Would you require existing buildings to be removed by the Town? Yes
No
8. Would you consider constructing all or a portion of either the DPW facility or Senior Center
facility in conjunction with your proposed project? Yes No
9. If your answer to Question 8 is yes, please describe the extent of your intended participation in the
narrative portion of your Letter of Interest.
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Exil:err D
EXCERPTS FROM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
201 BEDFORD STREET
RFI - Submittal Requirements
Please tell us as much as you can about your proposed project.
Be specific where possible:
1. Size
2. Configuration (number of floors, number of buildings proposed on the site)
3. Type of use (ie: retail, housing, commercial office, etc.)
4. Who would it benefit? (ie: public use, private use, etc.)
5. How much traffic is the project likely to generate?
6. Overall goals of the project
7. Site Plan
8. If possible, please provide a conceptual or schematic rendering or photographs of similar projects..
Please tell us about your company:
1. Who comprises the company / development partnership
2. Years in business
3. Primary type of development
4. Fiscal health of company
5. Examples of similar projects
6. Provide references
Final Draft 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT D: SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR INTEREST
f Archstone Archstone Conroy Debco Homes Maggiore North Shore
Communities Communities Development Properties Development Companies Construction
(Option 1) (Option 2) Corp.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Project Overview Mixed Mixed Town homes "Over 55" "Over 55" "Over 55" Two separate
residential and residential; no and senior condos and condos and condos and condo
senior center senior center center senior center senior center senior center associations,
"Over 55" and
conventional,
and senior
center
#of Housing Units 124 154 48 75-80 99 43 46
#of Buildings 6 5 12 15 8 34 10
Project Description 3 apartment 4 apartment 12 clusters`of4. . . 9 duplexes, 25 18 "Over 55"
buildings(112 buildings, 1 homes: 10 one- free standing condos; 28
units); 3 two- community bedroom, 38 condos townhouses,
story town center for two-bedroom with 11
houses(12 units) residents "affordable"
units
Tallest Building Height 4 stories 4 stories 2 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories
Minimum Site Needs 9.6 acres 9.6 acres 7 acres 9.6 acres 9.6 acres 7.65 acres 6.6 acres
Affordability Provision 20-25% 20-25% Yes Yes 10 units No response 11 units
Traffic Impacts: "Modest" 500 trips/day 150 trips/day
AM peak hour trips 29 trips/hour , 45 trips/hour
PM peak hour trips 34 trips/hour 50 trips/hour
Final Draft Page 1 of`3 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT D: SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR INTEREST
Archstone Archstone Conroy Debco Homes Maggiore North Shore
Communities Communities Development Properties Development Companies Construction
(Option 1) (Option 2) Corp.
ECONOMICS
Purchase Price Range:
Low $3,500,000 $4,368,000 $1,000,000 $7,000,000 $13,460,555 $4,300,000 $5,000,000 _
High $3,500,000 $4,659,000 $1,200,000 $8,300,000 $14,877,450 $6,450,000 $5,500,000
Annual Tax Revenue $525,000 $275,000 $175,200 _
Purchase with existing Yes Yes Yes
DPW structures?
Purchase"as-is," No No Yes No No No
prior to environmental
cleanup?
Long-term lease? No response No response No No Yes No No response
SENIOR CENTER
Description Clubhouse/senior No senior 7,000 SF, one Not described 25,000 SF, 30,060 SF, 3-acre site for
center of 20,000 center story, 24 two stories three stories, senior center
SF, two-stories, parking spaces 139 parking
100 parking spaces on 1.95
spaces acres
Cost to Town $2,250,000; Town to build Would build in Debco offers $0 $4,500,000 Developer will
developer builds, conjunction preliminary Homes to build (paid for from convey 3-acre
but developer with proposed architectural and donate sale proceeds); site to town;
entitled to credit project and site senior center remaining town to build
of 75% of planning for proceeds for
construction cost both senior new DPW
center and new facility
DPW site
Final Draft Page 2 of 3 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMNIlTTEE
EXHIBIT D: SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR INTEREST
SUMMARY OF OTHER GENERAL RESPONSES RECEIVED
Atlantic Development
50,000 to 100,000 SF of mixed-use space, including housing and/or retail; one-three floors in one-two buildings; potential purchase
price, $1,000,000 to $3,000,000; potential annual lease payments, $100,000 to $300,000; willing to purchase site "as-is;" would consider
constructing all or portions of either DPW facility or senior center.
Chatham Development Co.
125 units of"over-55" housing on seven acres; no purchase price offered; not interested in long-term lease; Town responsible for
demolishing existing structures and for environmental cleanup, if required; "primary goal to incorporate Senior Center within the project."
Duffy Bros. Management Company, Inc.
Luxury multi-residential development, apartments or condos, targeting senior residents, possibly age-restricted; no purchase price due
to numerous unknowns, including environmental and wetlands impacts; willing to purchase site "as-is;" not willing to lease long-term.
JPI/GE Capital Services
Multifamily residential community; purchase price range: $1 million to $8 million; willing to purchase site "as-is;" willing to consider
99-year lease; willing to consider constructing all or a portion of either the DPW facility or senior center.
Leggatt McCall Properties
Multifamily housing, including an affordable housing component; interested in being the "fee developer" for building both senior center
and DPW facility at Hartwell Avenue; purchase price would be reduced by cost to demolish existing structures and perform environmental
cleanup; willing to lease, with 75-year minimum and 99-year maximum term; no purchase price offered.
Princeton Properties
Multifamily housing, 72-90 residential apartments in 2-4 garden-style apartment buildings, 34 stories high with 24-40 units per
building; business and social center and other recreational amenities for exclusive use of apartment residents; open to several different types of
housing: market rate apartments, "over 55" market rate apartments, affordable housing, et cetera;no purchase price offered.
RK Associates
Neighborhood shopping center anchored by 60,000 SF grocery store; senior center on no more than three acres to rear of property;
offer to purchase for $5,000,000; willing to purchase with existing structures, but town responsible for environmental cleanup, or deduct cost
from purchase price; not willing to lease long-term; willing to consider constructing all or a portion of either the DPW facility or senior center.
Santangelo Development Group
Small commercial warehouses and office units to allow small companies opportunities to expand their businesses in town; would require
at lest half the property, or 4.5 acres; might consider reusing existing structures, but not willing to purchase or lease prior to environmental
cleanup; possibility of integrating DPW facility or senior center into development; no purchase price offered; willing to consider 99-year lease.
Final Draft Page 3 of 3 4/6/03
•
\. .___ -. _______. .4r — . ... ,.8„ ,.. , Go 1
J, 1• \-.1kHSIIII)
i boy
� , ,80.5 a
"P lifff!W ilt
x
Aidit,d1
v ?y .rte
0:,....../...i--,
WII9
t t® ! �` . s� <r \. {. - ,,.,r ) _. •�a�� "... /96.7 � •j' ��
'of h x i,4 tr � i i r kD, t l 1 R) ,;t nY ,' iv t ��� ` di
+m, k Je .. r { r •
.� S.. 1 i :' x, F SRI 21, \ h —� .� +- .4041 —
4I z�,psY:t - ,• � ) I a \,+ L t` rn i y �\.-
r �'r� I,w'1J 7s�x �I. 4z ate k .,. r\i 73,n ';7 _, . •
fay V..!,,•1•6:4,.,.
,.:::::6.7.,
-1{\cqw'`��Sly- F '`6 f r ..:l...,:.,::::,:::,1,3' '.-,,,. *'2;.`,).??,.- '' ,
_ iii
�� � r.�t i s x .,v�E ` ` a+� �:z�.* '� ' G 3� t �r Aa �+i; \
4‘.
\ j &' e S ty
��$� b\°�'6 \� l y A 4'fM t t s- yt IeS`��y� • i
\�j]Y lll� �w 1,K �. r `� •'\(,,,..4%.,:"'
iy ^� i fi� ',2,r_ � .. 4 (1.:4:,•,.. - 1' `� l�
�4 y" {.2 ! t .......051,000,,;:-
d t � i �'�Ltn'�.'"'C70`k f 1t .;., y !� ri r 1 'r C \ y"►�����r 00
X10 - �Y:.eu K! ;;.-Ii‹ d�' ',rY .f1' f• Y ///-7_.....;,�
�` 'm . r� \ �4. ,° �I f,. ,c c iq /^/ /26, _
t9 � n} Y. (� V� tt t 1 .,,',,".('-.4:.-.1. ...40,.
t I q y v;/1 y� a x
♦ .• ut1" ?'Lr,,f .: +�..F t -* r 6`.x1M /'4 •yy} R
X/ ........
d j Y , lr ; s r
, to T" 1 F e '. ,, J
wi•
i ®. • e rr '� t •
No.
` �2. �m< y>"�s���`�4„;.s}Y, 203.E ,t r> ���� 1 2
08-3
1" ,,p, fit.,:_;.....'' "t ,r.:. p
JAM6k_..171(t- %A 1higuitIllik
%Yr"( ,
\ - oitk
\ ......
\,,,,. : \ . er,,,,, /98.5kik , l
c,
`\ \ , Conceptual Site Plan
\ 2 01 BEDFORD STREET
\ '� , ( LEXINGTON
3/ASSACHUSETTS
N. PREPARED FOR
' / - I \\ HOMES DEVELOPMENT CORP.
It--
.,,i, 200.6 2 7 SCALE 1'.10' DATE 02/10/02
.\'_ \ t . /� � _ \ ll 4 ENGINEERING, INC,
1Y Rt14S10W3 ovn'w;"r"uumi°�n a�u .mionaven:w°rxRean�=mi°iuri
4ktnnnXG In011f�•�,i0 uu+n<nG(>0;0)111]0]I
OW n. Whn1! NO. art _ 003Cm.rtpX,�. er ann SHEET No. 1 OF 1 PROJECT No. pi.;
B32
.Vg MORN,
•Q`‘ I775 4'0
Y Town of Lexington
(
I Department of Public Works
a 6 0.. Administration
APAIL
<E-Xin ,t P
Tel: (781) 862-0500 x252
Fax: (781) 863-2350
January 21, 2003
Dear neighbors of 201 Bedford Street:
Last October the Board of Selectmen appointed an advisory committee to examine various land use options for 201
Bedford Street. As chair of the DPW/201 Bedford Street Advisory Committee, I am writing to advise you of the process
the committee has undertaken and to invite your participation. I have enclosed the Selectmen's charge to the committee
and a committee roster.
While this Committee is building on the work of prior committees that studied potential sites for DPW operations and for
a new senior center, the selectmen directed this committee to also test the feasibility of private development of 201
Bedford Street. Thus, the committee has prepared and issued a request for interest(RFI)to invite developers to suggest
options for developing 201 Bedford Street.
Shortly after the New Year, the committee publicized the availability of the RFI and invited prospective developers to
visit 201 Bedford Street on January 15.,. [A copy of the RFI is available at the DPW Administration Offices and at the
town's web site at http://ci.letington.ma.us./socialserv/dpwfacility.hmq Approximately 30 developers were represented,
at this site visit. The RFI asks interested developers to submit letters of interest by January 22 and to respond to the RFI
by Monday, February 10. None of these responses will bind either the Town or the developer to any process or follow
up action.
To solicit public input, the Committee will conduct public information meetings in February or March before reporting to
the Selectmen. I will notify you of the dates and locations of these information sessions. The warrant for the 2003 Town
Meeting may contain one or more articles related to the DPW operations facility, the senior center, and the disposition of
201 Bedford Street. While the Committee will likely report its findings to Town Meeting, it is not clear at this time
whether Town Meeting will be asked to take action on any such articles.
The committee has met every other Wednesday morning since November and has scheduled meetings at 7:45 AM on the
following dates at the locations indicated:
January 29 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue
February 12 DPW Operations, 201 Bedford Street
February 19 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue
All committee meetings are posted at Town Hall. You are welcome to join us. You may also contact me at 781-861-
9545 or at paulepaullilapointe com with comments and questions.
Very truly yours,
Paul H. Lapointe
Chair
Enclosures as stated
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420
•
` , MOgh0
Ins 40
Town of Lexington
t Department of Public Works
'e' Administration
APPIL
'ERIN S (�
Tel: (781) 862-0500 x252
Fax: (781) 863-2350
March 3, 2003
Dear neighbors of 201 Bedford Street:
As chair of the DPW/201 Bedford Street Advisory Committee, I am writing to report briefly on private developers'
responses to our Request for Interest(RFI), update you on the committee's progress, and invite you to attend the public
informational sessions scheduled on March 11 and 13.
On February 10, 14 developers responded to the Committee's RFI inviting non-binding proposals for the purchase or
lease of 201 Bedford Street. Of these 14, 12 developers proposed housing developments of various kinds. Offers to
purchase the property ranged from$1 million to over$13 million. Most developers expressed a willingness to include a
new senior center in the development at no expense to the town. These responses suggest that there would be
considerable interest in purchasing or leasing this parcel should the town initiate a formal disposition process. The
developers' responses are available for public review at the Public Works administrative offices, Room 206, at Town
Hall.
While the Committee discussed these responses at its February 26 meeting, the Committee has not yet voted on specific
recommendations to forward to the selectmen. However, the committee will make every effort to issue at least a
preliminary report before town meeting begins on Monday, March 24, and will report to the selectmen no later than
April 1.
Inviting public comment is an important step in our process of developing fmal recommendations. To that end, we have
scheduled two public information sessions in the Farr Conference Center at the National Heritage Museum at 33 Marrett
Road:
Tuesday, March 11, at 7:30 PM Thursday, March 13, at 8 AM
At each session we will outline the recommendations that the Committee is considering and provide an overview of the
responses received from developers. You are also welcome to attend either of the Committee's March meetings
scheduled for the following.Wednesdays at 7:45 AM:
March 12 DPW Operations, 201 Bedford Street
March 26 Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue
You may also send your comments by phone or email directly to me at 781-g61-9545 or at panlgnpanlhlapnintP_com. All
committee meetings are posted at Town Hall. You are welcome to join us.
Very truly yours,
Paul H. Lapointe
Chair
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Public Comments from Public Meeting
March 11, 2003
7:30 PM to 9:017 PM
Address/
Name Affiliation Comment
Eric Olson 3 Hill St. He was concerned about the potential costs of environmental cleanup
at Bedford Street associated with new use.
Charlie Flammer 52 Reed St. What is prompting this process? PL responded that need for new a
DPW and senior center is driving the process.
Ephram Weis Lowell St. What is the space need and costs of the senior center? PL responded
that the senior center will need 30-32K SF with 150 parking spaces;
Cost @$200/SF$6 million. EW said that the senior center should
allow for expansion and questioned why we are also building
housing on site. PL said that housing provides a revenue source.
EW believes the town should support a senior center with or without
a revenue source.
Sheldon Specter Appropriations For clarification, he requested that PL provide the existing senior
Committee center program. PL said that Mill Street in Lincoln has 2K SF and
Muzzey has 9,700 SF.
Dianne Garcia Precinct 8 She requested details on the 55+ requirements for housing. John
McWeeney replied that 55+ housinghas a statutory basis in MA
zoning regulations. 55+ tends to be easier for communities to
approve because of the lower service requirements(no students).
Traffic generation from 55+ housing averages 3 trips per day per
unit versus 6 trips per day for a typical housing unit.
Sherry Gordon School Concerned about properly integrating the Bikeway. Also concerned
Committee that the area already has a lot of traffic congestion.
David Kaufman 152 Burlington The Conservation Commission wishes to preserve a buffer or park
St. around the brook that runs through the Bedford Street property.
Deb Marion Liberty Ave. She asked if the RFI was silent on conservation issues and traffic
generation. Michelle Ciccollo replied that the RFI asked
respondents to state the traffic impact of their plans.
Gil Bhengiat 5 Sunny Knoll Project should be consistent with the scope of the neighborhood(not
Ave. a large shopping center). Layout is also important when determining
the merits of a project. Some higher density projects can actually
appear less dense than lower density projects due to the layout. PLP
said that there were considerable differences in proposed density.
The midpoint appeared to be 78-80 units.
Page 1 of 2
Final Draft Page 1 of 5 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COM1iiTTEE
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Public Comments from Public Meeting
March 11, 2003
7:30 PM to 9:00 PM
Address/
Name Affiliation Comment
Anne O'Niel 6 Vaille Ave. It is currently very difficult to exit from Sunny Knoll onto Bedford
St. Development may make this situation worse. Lights at the
Bikeway complicate signalization of Sunny Knoll.
Guy Garland 21 Preston Road The project should have as much green space as possible.
Affordable housing would also be good.
Faith Slocumb Road Believes this is a good place for a senior center but that housing
should not be limited to 55+.
Carolyn Cicomont Ledgelawn Ave. She asked why strip malls and other commercial developments
weren't included on the list distributed at the meeting. Michelle
responded that commercial respondents provided very little
information and foi that reason weren't considered worthy of further
analysis at this time.
Gil Bhengiat 5 Sunny Knoll He is concerned that retail would generate a lot of traffic. He like
Ave the concept of 55+ housing.
John Cole Whipple Road How much is DPW impacted by moving 1 mile out of town? Bill
Hadley said that CDM completed an operational impact cost
analysis, which showed an impact of around$30,000 per year.
David Kaufman 152 Burlington What is the current trip generation for the DPW?
Street
Dan Smith Lexington He believes the work force in Lexington would benefit from
Worker affordable housing.
Eph Weis Lowell St. He asked if co-locating the Fire Department and DPW at 201
Bedford St. had been considered since the Fire Department also
needs a new building.
Eric Olson 3 Hill Street Has anyone looked into costs of building on the landfill? David
Carbonneau said that CDM quantified costs of necessary foundation
supports and methane venting systems. The cost was around
$300,000-$400,000.
Deb Maugher Would it be possible to have a joint presentation to the Selectmen of
all concerned parties so the process would not be piecemealed?
Page 2 of 2
Final Draft Page 2 of 5 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Public Comments from Public Meeting
March 13, 2003
8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
Address/
Name Affiliation Comment
Denise Dube Sunny Knoll& What is the possibility of having 1 entrance/exit for senior center and
Globe NW 1 for residents? PL responded that that would be a future
consideration in the actual design phase.
Ingrid Klimoff 75 Reed St. Asked which parcel of land might be transferred to the Conversation
Commission? PL pointed out a parcel that is outside of the 9.6 acres
showed to developers. It is adjacent to the bike path at the back of
the DPW lot.
Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Asked how many acres would be available?
Jack Fucci 37.Ledgelawn So can the parcel be developed?
Leo McSweeney BOS Chair& If the parcel is transferred to conservation, could that negatively
435 Lincoln impact this process?
PL's response to last 3 questions: The committee does not want that
parcel transferred at this time and would prefer the decision wait:
until after this process is complete. It is up to Town Meeting to.
decide how many acres could be developed.
Olga Guttag 273 Emerson What if the Town moves the DPW to Hartwell Ave and years.from
Road now finds out the site is hazardous? Where will the DPW go? :Also,
what will happen to the composting operation there? She is afraid
the DPW will lose employees because the composting smells. She
believes the location of a service facility is critical in the operating
budget—what impact would there be if the DPW were moved
further from the center of town? PL responded that the capping of
the landfill would allow for an industrial type facility at that location.
David Carbonneau said that there would be some changes in the
current composting operation. The old landfill never had a lot of
waste. PL added that David Eagle on the committee looked at 15-20
service points around town to compare service delivery distances and
CDM studied this as well. Estimates show the extra cost for the
distance could be$30-50,000, which is very little in respect to the
overall DPW operating budget. Also, there would be cost savings in
efficiencies and enhanced services due to a consolidated department.
Paul Hamburger 18 Cooke Road Asked about how the capping process works. David Carbonneau
explained that hot spot materials will be removed and that the town
has done a very detailed survey of this. The state has approved it.
Page 1 of 3
Final Draft Page 3 of 5 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Public Comments from Public Meeting
March 13,2003
8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
Address/
Name Affiliation Comment
Olga Guttag 273 Emerson Believes it is important to be able to dispose of yard waste and how
Road would moving the DPW affect the composting service for residents?
PL explained the site is 25 acres and the DPW would only need 9-12
acres.
Anne Frymer 64 Asbury Questioned how over 55 housing would affect community since
many of the proposals are 55+. John McWeeney explained that
there is less impact on the schools than if families Iived there. Said
that tax revenue for condos would twice that for apartments.
Anne Frymer 64 Asbury What are the requirements on homes? Who could buy them? JM
responded that they would probably be open to everyone, though
affordable housing has stipulations.
Anne Frymer 64 Asbury Believes it would be fair to have them open to Lexington residents
first and then to everyone. JM said that that would be a constraint
on the market place and doesn't know if developers would agree to
that. PL also said that specifying that type of guideline is not within
the charge of the committee.
Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Said the CDM report makes sense because`there would be better
access of entry onto Hartwell Ave. 201 Bedford St.is appropriate
for a senior center, though she would like to see it set back a little
more. Thinks the town needs affordable housing and that the town
should lease the land and not sell it. JM said that selling the land
and having housing other than just affordable housing would bring in
a cash flow to help pay for capital needs.
Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Believes the town could benefit from affordable housing and that tax
benefits should not be the only consideration. JM replied that most
developers are not interested in leasing. Furthermore near the end
of a lease capital improvements tend to stop. Also,it is hard to get
back the land for other town purposes.
Bob Heingartner 53 Ledgelawn Would the land for the senior center be sold or retained? PL thinks
the town would want to retain the land, but doesn't know at this
time. Bob feels residential use is preferred.
Cathy Abbott 38 Eldred St. When Town Meeting makes a decision on the disposition of land,
could they require a senior center be built there? PL said that the
committee would make that recommendation to the BOS and T M,
however, the BOS and TM would have to decide if they want the
senior center there and then offer 201 up for development.
Page 2 of 3
Final Draft Page 4 of 5 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT E: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
Public Comments from Public Meeting
March 13, 2003
8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
Address/
Name Affiliation Comment
Leo McSweeney 435 Lincoln How have the neighbors reacted?
Jack Fucci 37 Ledgelawn Does not want the redevelopment to be outside the norms of the
town. Worried about number of stories or density, but housing and
senior center are ok. Spoke with other residents and they feel the
same. Bob Heingartner also worries about high density.
JF asked who has oversight over the set backs, brook, conservation
land etc. PL said that the Conservation Commission wants a linear
park along the bike path. The town could make restrictions over
open space ideas. The parcel would probably have to go through a
re-zoning process and go in front of the ZBA. At the meeting on
Tuesday,residents were also concerned about increased traffic and
noise.
Ingrid Klimoff 75 Reed St. She thinks there has not been enough time. She also favors
affordable housing and is concerned about traffic, cutting down trees
and that DPW trucks could be stuck on Hartwell if there is a major
emergency regarding Hanscom
Paul Hamburger" 18 Cooke Rd. What question did the committee ask to get a price from developers?
PL said that the committee asked what they would be wiling to pay.
PH asked if the committee's charge required enough revenue to
come in for payment of a new DPW. Is the committee looking for
more density in order to bring in more money. PL said that is not
part of the charge and increased density for more money has never
been a consideration.
Olga Guttag 273 Emerson She is afraid that residential units would push the traffic capacity of
Bedford St., which would also affect the DPW services traveling
down Bedford St. Have any traffic studies been done? PL said that
there are traffic studies of DPW, but no new ones have been done.
He said it is unlikely the senior center would have that much impact
on traffic because most of it would not be during peak periods.
Jack Fucci 37 Ledgelawn Could new developers participate in an RFP? PL said yes and that
an RFP is a more stringent process.
Jackie Davison 86 Spring St. Did any developers say they would put more affordable housing on
the land if they didn't have to purchase it? PL said no.
Page 3 of 3
Final Draft Page 5 of 5 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT G
BIBLIOGRAPHY/CHRONOLOGY OF PRIOR DPW AND SENIOR CENTER STUDIES
"Proposal for a New Senior Center." The Council on Aging report to Town
Meeting, March 2000.
A product of 20 months of research, the report detailed the need for a new Senior
Center, demographics, current size constraints, and successes in other communities.
"Space/Building Assessment Advisory Committee Report," April 3, 2000. An 11-
member committee and a liaison from Capital Expenditure and one from Appropriations
appointed by the Selectmen in October 1999. The purpose of the Committee was to take a
comprehensive look dt space needs throughout the town and to make recommendations as to
how the identified needs could be met in the future. The committee evaluated the usability of
many Town buildings and properties, as well as some privately owned sites that might be
advisable for the town to purchase.
"Report to the Selectmen's Senior Center Siting Committee." The Social Service
Department's Space Analysis Committee, August 3, 2000.
This group of 29 citizens met during May of 2000. This committee distributed
questionnaires to current senior center users and also interviewing these users.
Camp Dresser & McKee(CDM) Report "Evaluation of Alternative Sites for
Department of Public Works Garage Facility", January 2001 The Town retained CDM to
review the Hartwell Ave and Bedford Street sites for a new DPW Facility. The study included
architectural and structural evaluation of the existing facility, an evaluation of the space and
facility needs for the DPW, the development of conceptual site and architectural plans for the
two sites, and an analysis of the comparative cost of construction and operation at the two sites.
"Senior Center Siting Committee Report" The Selectmen's Senior Center Siting
Committee report to the Selectmen, April 2, 2001.
The 12-member committee formed in May of 2000 was made up of a combination of
interested town meeting members and liaisons from other town standing committees, Capital,
Recreation, Appropriations and Conservation. They examined possible 15 sites for a new Center
visited 6 other Senior Centers.
"DPW Facility Site Working Group, February 4, 2002" This group consisted of
eight members of the community and four staff Their mission was to look into the economic
and practical implications of renovating the current DPW facility versus constructing a new
DPW Facility and the economic advantages of the 201 Bedford Street site versus the Hartwell
Avenue site.
"Capital Expenditure Committee Report to the 2002 Annual Town Meeting and
the 25 March 2002 Special Town Meeting," page 18. The Capital Expenditures Committee is
a five-member board appointed by the Town Moderator to consider the relative need, timing,
and cost of capital expenditure projects proposed for the ensuing five-year period.
Final Draft Page 1 of 1 4/6/03
DPW FACILITY/SENIOR CENTER
RE-EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT F:
STATEMENT FROM FAIR HOUSING ANT)HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
The following is from the Lexington Fair Housing and Human Relations Committee,
for consideration by the DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-Evaluation Committee for
inclusion in the Committee's report:
The Lexington 2020 Vision report states that it is one of Lexington's goals
to "create strong incentives to maintain and expand affordable housing. "
This view is reinforced in The Lexington We Want, a document developed
by the Planning Board in conjunction with a variety of town organizations
and citizens. The Lexington We Want concurs with the 2020 Vision report,
saying that, "Lexington seeks to have a socially and economically diverse
community"but notes that in recent years the Town has failed to act on that
goal. The report goes on to recommend that when acting in the disposition
of public land, Lexington should give priority to using the land for
"diversity-serving-housing" (and for preservation of open space).
This committee supports the goal of a socially and economically diverse
community. To that end, and in keeping with the 2020 Vision report and
The Lexington We Want,this committee recommends that:
• Proposals for residential developments must include
affordable housing units;
• Where proposals are otherwise similar,preference be given
to those that have a greater percentage of affordable
housing units;
• The Town accept a price for the sale or lease of the 201
Bedford Street land which allows the developer to make a
fair return on a residential development with affordable
housing units, noting that affordable housing, by definition,
generates less revenue than market rate units.
Harriet Cohen
Fair Housing and Human Relations Committee
March 19, 2003