Loading...
2014-05-15CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 15, 2014 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl — Chairperson, Darien Crimmin — Vice Chair, Heather Richter, Marilyn McCrory, Leland McDonough, Lincoln Williams, Robert Buchsbaum and John Thomson MEMBERS ABSENT: Henry Pizzo OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner; Ron Costa — Beverly resident and former City Councilor, Tim Smith — Mass. VFW representative and Peter Johnson — Beverly resident RECORDER: Amy Maxner The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Pearl welcomes members of the public who introduce themselves. Administrative Updates from Staff Maxner notes that the Hastings House application was missing some photos, and the applicant re- packaged the application, which are handed out copies to members. She notes that a letter of support for the Lynch Park Carriage House study came in and she provides copies to members. She notes that written public comment deadline is June 6, 2014. Maxner explains that Craig Schuster had to step down as minutes taker for the CPC as his schedule was too busy to continue. She notes that she will be taking and transcribing the minutes until a replacement can be hired. Williams adds that the Committee needs to discuss its position on bonding, how it impacts future CPA budgets and understand the logistics thereto. Discussion ensues as to the pros and cons of bonding and what percentage of future budgets should be committed to bonding. It is agreed that this topic should be further explored as review of the current applications progresses. Approval of Minutes Buchsbaum moves to approve the January 30, 2014 meeting minutes as presented. Seconded by Williams. The motion carries 8 -0. Members offer Maxner amendments to the April 17, 2014 meeting minutes. Buchsbaum moves to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by McCrory. The motion carries 8 -0. Pearl turns attention to the full CPA funding applications, which Maxner delivered to members on May 2" She asks if everyone had a chance to review the applications. Members note that they've done an initial review of most in anticipation of discussion this evening. Pearl suggests following the table that Maxner prepared and start reviewing per the order of the table. Everyone agrees there is not enough time this evening to discuss all of the applications, but multiple meetings will be necessary for that purpose. Additionally everyone agrees that these first conversations are intended to canvas members as to their initial impressions of the projects and applications. Essex Street Family Housing Roof Replacement — Beverly Housing Authority Pearl asks if members had initial thoughts on the project. Buchsbaum notes his concern that, although this was determined to be eligible, roof replacement seems to be maintenance, as roofs need replacement cyclically and does not seem to be in the spirit of what CPA is meant to accomplish. Williams would like to guard against projects that look for CPA funding that would be otherwise have funding elsewhere, or the normal operating budget. McDonough explains that this is State funded property, which is woefully under - funded for maintenance of buildings. Thomson inquires as to whether these units are income producing and shouldn't there be reserves placed aside for projects such as these. McDonough notes they are, but reiterates insufficient funding by the State. Discussion ensues as to fiscal interaction between the Housing Authority and the State. Pearl cautions that this discussion regarding financial history of an organization is not in line with the CPC's Evaluation Criteria. Discussion ensues as to leveraging of other sources of funding as a criterion, with members agreeing that this can be explored with the applicant. Members agree this project should be further considered and perhaps backup information requested and questions forwarded to the applicant, but tabled for now. Harborlight House, 1 Monument Street — Harborlight Community Partners Thomson recuses himself from this discussion and leaves the room. Pearl notes this is a $300,000.00 request for a $7+ million project, so leveraging of other funds is robust. Buchsbaum found it difficult to determine the current condition of the building and its use of space within (e.g. administrative, office, how much housing). Discussion ensues as to funding mechanism of bonding suggested by the applicant. McCrory notes that this project seems to hit a lot of the CPC's criteria and a very well prepared application, with Williams concurring. Pearl notes that she thinks it is a strong housing project, but weak on the historic preservation category. Pearl discloses that Harborlight Executive Director Andrew DeFranza is her daughter's kindergarden soccer coach. Buchsbaum notes that per the evaluation criteria, this is actually decreasing the number of affordable units, with McCrory noting that it is creating a different type of housing (i.e. independent living situations). Discussion ensues as to Beverly's current total housing units and the number of affordable over the 10 %, Pearl reads the numbers from MAHA chart found in the application, with 11.2% of affordable units in the City. Richter inquires if the State tax credit was not received, what would happen to the project. Crimmin notes that tax credits are so fundamental to the project that the project would not Community Preservation Committee 05 -15 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 happen without them, which would be known in June. Members agree that this is a good application, but additional information will be needed and further considered, but tabled for now. Pearl notes that the historic preservation piece will need to be better vetted as it does not seem to her that the publicly visible parts of the building will be worked on. Thomson returns to the meeting. Hale House Masonry Restoration, 39 Hale Street — Beverly Historical Society Williams discloses that he is a direct abutter to the Hale House, believes he can be impartial on this application and does not stand to financially gain from this project. Members are comfortable with Williams participating in discussing this project. McCrory, Buchsbuam and McDonough note their membership with the Historical Society. Pearl notes this is a very straight forward bricks and mortar project, noting that she would like to have seen the full phases slated for the entire property restoration, but it does not diminish the proposal. She notes whether an historic preservation restriction should be required, which would entail finding a 3rd party entity to hold the restriction. Crimmin notes there seems to be a need, but a third party report was not submitted as part of the application as to current conditions and whether these repairs are an emergency. Pearl notes that reports were done on the elements of the property but not included in the application. Crimmin thinks it would be helpful to see those reports and how the timing of repairs have been determined. Discussion ensues as to the phases of the multi -year plan for the property as described in the application narrative. Pearl agrees that a copy of the assessment should be obtained. Buchsbuam notes that the funding source leverage is not as strong as other applications. Members agree to request a copy of the Historic Structures report and the 2012 Conservation Assessment Plan. Historic Records Conservation Project 2014 -2015 - City of Beverly Clerk's Office Thomson notes that he prepared the Beverly Archives Project report through about a year's worth of work down in the basement of City Hall. Members thank Thomson for his work on this. Pearl notes that she felt this project was very important and showed leveraging of funds since CPA would only account for 50% of the cost. Williams and Buchsbaum concur. Pearl noted that perhaps this could be approved under an early decision, but this can be further discussed. There being no further comments, members move on to the next application. Hastings House Architectural Analysis for Rehabilitation & Preservation — Farms - Prides Community Association, Inc. Peter Johnson explains that he is a member of the Association and would like to sit in and answer any questions the CPC may have on this application. He notes that Kristin Ford the Association's Treasurer prepared the application. Members welcome Johnson to the discussion. Thomson asks if this is aimed to provide ADA compliance. Johnson notes that is part of it, but also to reconfigure the space to make it more usable as it is very compartmentalized inside the building. He Community Preservation Committee 05 -15 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 notes that the Association recognizes the need for the analysis, as members do not have the expertise to tackle this without compromising the historic aspects. Williams asks what percentage of the project CPA would go toward ADA compliance, historic preservation etc. Johnson notes that depending on the cost analysis, the Association would have to evaluate priorities, but that ADA compliance work would be a very large part of the budget. Pearl confirms that the plan would be for the publicly available spaces. Johnson confirms, noting that almost all of the work is inside. Crimmin asks if there is a sense of where the money for the work phases of this project will come from. Johnson states that is not known at this point, but a plan is needed to show any potential investors hence this step first. Pearl states her appreciation for the thoughtful approach to this project as the Association could have come in piecemeal. Extensive discussion ensues as to the level of public use the building experiences, membership to the Association, and functions operated out of the building. Pearl notes that she is not sure as to level of public access that can be obtained since public money is being used for the interior of the building. Discussion ensues as to the options to allow for public access short of rental or membership fees, as well as operations of analogous quasi - public buildings. Johnson agrees to gather additional information as to the public uses that have been provided. Sanctuary Floor Replacement — First Parish Church ADA Accessibility Improvements — First Parish Church Crimmin discloses that he attends this Church occasionally. Members are fine with that disclosure. Pearl notes her surprise that the Church submitted for both projects despite the CPC's encouragement for applicants to narrow down their projects. Williams notes he was impressed that there are a lot more public services conducted in that Church than he was aware of The budgets of both projects are reviewed, with Pearl noting that outside funding is being leveraged. McCrory did not see how the Church demonstrated their capacity to carry out the project or the flooring project's merits as an historic preservation project. Pearl and Buchsbaum note that the accessibility project seems a bit more urgent than the sanctuary flooring. Discussion ensues as to the flooring project, with Pearl notes that despite the historic designation of the building, there is no preservation of the original floor but rather replacement of it. McDonough notes that he believes both projects stand on their own merits. Discussion ensues as to elements of both projects relative to the CPC's evaluation criteria, with members agreeing that the accessibility project is a stronger application. The question as to how the replacement of the sanctuary floor qualifies as an historic preservation project, and whether this is a structural repair to maintain the integrity of the floor or just aesthetic fixes. Members agree to table these for now and move on. Community Preservation Committee 05 -15 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Lynch Park Carriage House Feasibility Study & Preservation Plan — Lynch Park Advisory Committee Thomson, Buchsbaum and McCrory concur that this seems to be an ideal project for CPA funding. Discussion ensues as to the logistics of what entity would receive the money and with whom the CPA funding contract would be established. Pearl notes her preference that the analysis include the surrounding grounds, retaining walls and other features of the property that needs preservation work as well, to ensure that the entire property is taken into account. Crimmin notes that the water -side of the carriage house is in great need of restoration as it is unsightly. Johnson notes that the Advisory Committee is well aware of that and has considered this as part of the restoration. McCrory notes that many of the applications haven't established the "community need" very well and perhaps the criteria needs to be revised so that applicants better address this criteria. Members agree. Pearl notes that it is 9:00, and the Committee has been able to review eight applications tonight. She asks if there are any other items of discussion. Crimmin and Williams inquire as to what ever happened to the Trustees of Reservations' Moraine Farm project. Maxner explained that the Trustees were not able to provide for immediate public access as expected by the City Administration, as there is a patchwork of ownership on the site, which could not be worked out very quickly. McCrory explains the Open Space & Recreation Committee's position relative to the Trustees' and Camp Paradise projects, which aimed to preserve open space CPA funds for true open space projects as they consider Camp Paradise primarily a recreation project. Next CPC Meeting Pearl explains that she will be arriving late to the meeting on May 29 as she has a commitment. She expects to arrive by 8:00 that evening. Members agree to start the meeting a bit later, at 7:30 p.m. and Crimmin agrees to chair the meeting until Pearl's arrival. Adjournment Thomson moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Williams. The motion carries 8 -0. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Community Preservation Committee 05 -15 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5