Loading...
HDC Minutes 3-12-20CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission DATE: March 12, 2020 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair Caroline Mason Wendy Pearl MEMBERS ABSENT: William Finch, Chair OTHERS PRESENT: Aaron Clausen (Planning Director, City of Beverly); Andrew DeFranza (Harborlight Community Partners); Thad Siemasko (SV Design); Monique Hall (BSC Group) RECORDER: Emily Hutchings LaMont calls the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 1. Application from Harborlight Community Partners for Briscoe Village for Living and the Arts (Briscoe Middle School, 7 Sohier Road) Clausen provides an overview of the application by Harborlight Community Partners (HCP), and what is being sought from the Commission. DeFranza introduces the project, stating that the building will be preserved, with the use being changed to senior housing with a few artist live /work spaces. The redevelopment includes the restoration of both the theatre and the outdoor greenspaces, the latter of which will be deeded back to the City as public open space. DeFranza states the project will use both federal and state tax credits, so the preservation standards will be high to comply with federal and state requirements. Pearl asks whether the senior housing will be income restricted, and DeFranza confirms that all units will be affordable at no more than 60% AML LaMont asks for confirmation that both the athletic field and the turf bowl will be deeded back to the City. DeFranza confirms that the City will end up owning both the field and the turf bowl. Architect Thad Siemasko describes the mission statement for the project, which emphasizes the project is local, respectful to the site's history, and environmentally sensitive. Siemasko states that HCP and Beacon Properties are partnering on the project, and have hired a team of consultants, including SV Design as architect, BSC Group as landscape architect, and MacRostie Historic Advisors LLC (with Kim Smith Barnett leading) as the historic preservation consultant. Siemasko describes the property's history, and shares historic renderings and photographs of the property and building, as well as historic construction plans. Siemasko further discusses the plan for the site, including the restoration of the historic turf bowl, the reorganization of parking and circulation, the development of senior housing units and support spaces in the old classrooms, the development of artist live /work studios in the old locker rooms, and the restoration of the auditorium for public use. The intent is to maintain the general layout and bring the building up to code (including accessibility) while respecting the building's history. Siemasko notes that sustainability is another major component, with the intent to have the building be LEED- certified. Classrooms will be converted to senior residential units; hallways and lockers will be maintained; the auditorium will be maintained with minor changes to ensure accessibility and the separation of uses to protect the privacy of residents. Two corridors will be maintained as passive use. Siemasko discusses the floorplan (part of the package submitted to the Commission), describing the uses and which features on each floor will change and which will remain the same. Siemasko describes minor work to the exterior of the building, including repointing and cleaning of masonry, the replacing doors to replicate original doors, repair and replacement of windows, and repair of side entrances to the building. Mason asks if the doors have to be metal to comply with the Building Code. Siemasko states he does not believe so. Mason asks what the existing doors are made of, and Siemasko and Pearl confirm they are metal, although the lobby doors — which will remain — are wood. Siemasko states they have begun cataloging the work that needs to be done, including window replacement, and states that the building is relatively well - preserved, with limited deterioration. Siemasko describes details to be addressed such as stairs and access, and describes how sustainability goals will be achieved with improved windows and insulation. Pearl asks which windows are original. Siemasko states that there are still some original windows facing the courtyard, but all exterior- facing windows are replacements. Pearl asks if the windows in the auditorium are original, and Siemasko states that some of them are. Mason comments that the profiles of the new windows should match the original windows. Siemasko states that they will get accurate window profiles once they have access to the building. Siemasko describes how the circulation pattern will be revised to improve access and aesthetics, and how the parking areas will be reorganized and improved. Mason comments on how the separation of parking areas with tree islands improves the site design. Pearl asks about the parking requirements based on the use, and comments that the site appears to hold a lot of parking spaces. Siemasko describes the parking requirements for the senior housing and notes that they will be requesting a reduction in the required parking as part of their special permit application to the City Council. Pearl reiterates that there appears to be a significant amount of parking. Clausen describes how the auditorium use is what drives the need for additional parking. Mason asks if the parking across Colon Street adjacent to the train tracks could be utilized to offset the required parking. Clausen confirms that that adjacent parking could be pursued by the developer as an offset. Pearl comments that she would like to see a little more breathing room and landscaping, and states she thinks landscaping and regrading could be used to solve the elevation issue at the main entrance, rather than having both a ramp and stairs. Landscape architect Monique Hall (BSC Group) states that such a design was explored (although it is not shown in the plans), and the problem remains accessibility between different areas close to the entrance. However, the issue, including grading and landscaping options, are still being explored. Siemasko describes the different landscaped areas on site, including seating areas for seniors, garden areas, and the turf bowl. Mason asks about studio versus one - bedroom apartments and asks whether parking can be reduced based on what is needed for studio apartments. Pearl comments that the ball field on the site will also be used by the public and will require parking. Pearl asks about the exterior lighting fixtures, and Siemasko states the historic fixtures will be retained. DeFranza comments on the general sturdiness and stability of the building, and Commission members agree that the redevelopment project fits well with the building. Pearl states that a primary concern is the remaining original windows, and that she would hesitate to agree that the redevelopment meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation if they were to be replaced. DeFranza states that they expect to keep original windows, and that the project will carefully meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. DeFranza describes how historic preservation consultant Kim Smith Barnett noted various historic features that would need to be retained when the team completed a walkthrough of the building, including numerous original windows facing the courtyard. Pearl asks if the light fixtures and the clock in the auditorium are original, and Siemasko confirms they are. LaMont asks what will be done with the seats, and DeFranza states that they are in extremely poor shape and will be replaced with slightly larger (and slightly fewer) seats. The Commission reviews the applications from Harborlight Community Partners, starting with an application for a Determination of Historic Significance. Pearl asks if HCP intends to go before the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) to apply for funding for the project. DeFranza states that yes, they will apply for funding through the CPC, but at a later date. Currently, HCP is applying for historic designation from the National Park Service. Pearl notes that the form was developed specifically for the CPC to review historic preservation applications. Clausen states that the form facilitates a determination of historic significance even if a property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Pearl states that the Commission could provide a letter to the National Park Service stating the property's historic significance, but the form was developed specifically for Community Preservation Act applications. However, the form could be used more broadly. The Commission confirms that HCP is also requesting a letter of support for the project to Beverly City Council and a letter of support for the project to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which would be submitted as part of HCP's application for tax credits. The Commission confirms that Planning Staff would write these letters based on the details of the motions made by the Commission. Clausen provides further description of the three items that the Commission will vote on, and discusses the provided supporting materials — including a historic resource survey on the property — that help frame the matter of historic significance. LaMont confirms that the historic resource survey inventory form has been revised to ensure sufficient background information for the application for historic rehabilitation tax credits. LaMont reviews the portion of the inventory form that describes how the property is historically significant and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Pearl moves that the HDC determines that the Briscoe school property is significant to the history, archaeology, architecture, and culture of Beverly, based on the inventory form pointing out its significance for its architectural qualities, and its importance in the history of the development of Beverly, and the recommendation that it [the property] be listed on the National Register under Criteria A and C at the local level. Mason seconds. All in favor. The motion passes 3 -0. Regarding the requested letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission pertaining to support for the application for historic rehabilitation tax credits, Pearl asks if the criteria for the tax credits was provided in the submitted supporting documentation. Clausen states that although the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation were submitted, the full guidelines used by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and National Park Service were not. Clausen notes that the full details of the project (to which the criteria can be applied) have not yet been submitted. Pearl notes that the submitted sample letter doesn't state that the project meets the criteria for tax credits, but states that the project is to rehabilitate a historically significant structure and meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Pearl states she doesn't feel comfortable making a determination regarding whether the project is eligible for the tax credits. LaMont states that the Commission received such a request for a separate project at the previous meeting, for which the Commission voted to draft a letter very similar to the provided sample letter. Pearl states that if the letter does not need to discuss tax credit eligibility, the letter should provide detail reflective of the high quality of the Briscoe rehabilitation project, noting the rehabilitation of the entire site and the creative adaptive reuse plan. Clausen confirms that there should be a vote to complete a letter and provides guidance on what language should be included in the motion. Pearl moves to request that Planning Staff draft a letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission describing the Beverly Historic District Commission's support for the application for historic rehabilitation tax credits, addressing (1) the fact that the Commission has voted the property to be historically significant; (2) that the Commission supports and endorses the adaptive reuse of the property, particularly considering the holistic approach to the site, the combination of affordable senior housing and artist work /live space, the integration of public use in the building, and the landscape preservation opportunity; (3) the rehabilitation is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; and (4) the Commission gives its full support to the project. Mason seconds. All in favor. The motion passes 3 -0. Mason confirms that the requested letter to Beverly City Council should be similar to the letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. LaMont reviews the aspects the letter should include and notes the letter should address whether the project meets the existing goals of the community, as well as the considerations noted in the previous motion. Clausen notes that the motion should also include a determination on whether the project is consistent with the Special Permit criterion to preserve municipal buildings, in light of the fact that HCP is seeking a Special Permit for the rehabilitation project. Pearl asks why a Special Permit is needed. Clausen states that under the current RMD zoning, only residential uses are allowed at a much lower density. Clausen describes the process by which such a project is allowed, noting that for the adaptive reuse of municipal buildings for a use other than what is permitted by zoning, a Special Permit by the Beverly City Council must be sought and received. DeFranza states that through this process, Site Plan Review is still required. Mason motions to write a letter to the Beverly City Council in support of the project, based on the facts that (1) the project meets the Special Permit criterion to preserve municipal buildings; (2) the property is historically significant; (3) the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; and (4) the project meets the historic preservation goals of the community, as articulated in the draft 2020 PlanBeverly Master Plan. Pearl seconds. Pearl asks if the Commission can find that it meets the Special Permit criterion, and notes that she would prefer that the Commission instead state that it is an appropriate adaptive reuse of a municipal building. Mason amends her motion to write a letter to the Beverly City Council in support of the project, based on the fact that (1) the project is historically significant; (2) the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; and (3) that the project is an appropriate adaptive reuse of a municipal building that meets the historic preservation goals of the community, as articulated in the draft 2020 PlanBeverly Master Plan. LaMont seconds. All in favor. The motion passes 3 -0. DeFranza thanks the Commission. Pearl asks how the community meeting went, and DeFranza states it went well; many questions were asked and answered, and the response was positive. DeFranza states that a website has been developed that is devoted to the project. Pearl asks if a traffic study will be done, and DeFranza confirms there will. 2. Approval of minutes: December 19, 2019 Mason comments that her name is misspelled on page 1. Pearl asks if the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) needs to approve the minutes, as the first portion of the meeting was a joint meeting. Clausen recommends that the Commission votes to approve these minutes and note the minutes will not be final until the CPC has also approved the minutes. Pearl states that the CPC may have their own minutes, and agrees there is no problem with the Commission voting on the minutes at this point. Pearl moves that the Commission accepts the minutes as amended. LaMont seconds. All in favor. The motion passes 3 -0. 3. New /Other Business /Other discussion or action items In reference to the Ward 2 Civic Association's application to the CPC for historic preservation funds to make improvements to Gillis Park, Pearl discusses other WPA projects that previously occurred. The Commission and Clausen discuss the projects. Historic Preservation Plan LaMont asks if the community meetings for the Historic Preservation Plans, scheduled for the week of March 16', will still occur, based on the Coronavirus outbreak. Clausen states that at the moment they are still scheduled, but may be cancelled. Clausen states that City officials will have a deeper conversation tomorrow about what is permitted to stay open and what needs to close or be cancelled to protect public health and welfare. Clausen states the Planning Department is discussing alternative outreach methods with the historic preservation consultant, as cancelled meetings would likely not be rescheduled for six to eight weeks due to the Coronavirus. LaMont asks about alternative outreach methods, and Clausen states that online tools may be an option, as would a recorded presentation that the community can view, a survey, etc. Pearl states that a survey that includes individuals sharing information about their neighborhoods may be beneficial. Clausen agrees, and states that the considerations are (1) public health, and (2) the meeting turnout based on current affairs. The Commission discusses potential attendance options, and Pearl notes that the Beverly School District does not want to have public meetings in schools. Clausen states that he expects a decision to be made tomorrow, and states that cancellation is likely. The Commission and Clausen discuss potential engagement options, how to provide specificity on historic resources, and the benefits of historic preservation. Pearl notes the importance of the Historic Preservation Plan to provide details on action items specified by the 2020 Master Plan and the importance of community input, even if the timeline for the plan needs to be extended. Clausen notes that the grant deadline will likely be extended in light of the current Coronavirus outbreak. Mason comments on the importance on providing recommendations that are more specific that the goals and recommendations of the 2020 Master Plan, citing the Sign Ordinance as an example. The Commission briefly discusses the signs that are allowed in Beverly, grandfathering, and design requirements. The Commission and Clausen discusses signs and enforcement for noncompliant signs. 4. Adjournment LaMont motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:18pm. Pearl seconds. All in favor. Motion passes 4 -0.