Loading...
HDC Minutes 1-23-20CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission DATE: January 23, 2020 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Chair Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair Caroline Mason Wendy Pearl OTHERS PRESENT: Emily Hutchings, Associate Planner; Peter Lutts, Owner /Applicant; Doug Kelleher, Epsilon Associates, Inc. RECORDER: Amy McDonough Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 1. Request for Letter of Support: Application for Historic Tax Credits for 275 -283 Cabot Street, Peter Lutts Peter Lutts, Owner /Applicant and Doug Kelleher, tax credit consultant from Epsilon Associates, Inc., are present. Lutts talks briefly about the project, stating that a significant amount of the work will be interior work to convert the second floor into a dormitory for Montserrat students. Lutts states he is proposing a large - scale project to change the corner and bring it back to life. A large packet of documents, primarily consisting of the draft application for historic rehabilitation tax credits, has been given to committee members for review. Kelleher speaks briefly about the building's history, stating that it was constructed circa 1890. Kelleher passes out images of the building's changes over the years, and notes there were many renovations in the 1950s through the 1970s. Kelleher further describes Lutts' plan is to make the upper floor dormitories. For exterior improvements, the current windows will be replaced and the existing metal awning will be replaced with an awning reflective of the awning that existed in the 1970s. Lutts states that the entrances will be rebuilt and a new entrance built. Lutts emphasizes that the building does not create the most attractive corner, and it needs to be redone. As part of college plan, it is a good time to do the whole building at once. Lutts states he also owns building across the street by the Atomic Cafe, which also recently underwent facade improvements. Lutts states he is here because part of the historic rehabilitation tax credit process, which requires a letter of support from the local historic commission. Hutchings states for record that Beverly Main Streets has provided a letter of support. Finch says there are significant questions about the application. Finch notes that the facade and building improvements would be an asset to the downtown, but there is a question of whether the improvements can be considered historic rehabilitation. Finch states that currently, there is nothing present having to do with the original building, and what is there is a hodgepodge of things that occurred in the 1970s onward. The fact that there is nothing present from original building is problematic regardless of HDC's opinion of the project. Additionally, Finch states that just replacing the windows and awning may raise questions. Finch asks about how redoing the storefront could fit into the historic tax credits requirements. Finch agrees that the project is good, but there could be problems with the historic tax credits. Kelleher says despite alterations the bar for contributing to this district and qualifying for historic tax credits is low. Kelleher states that the building does retain its original form regardless of modifications, and it does contribute to the proposed extension to the downtown historic district. He believes the applicant is in a position to make a good argument for the tax credits. Lutts says his understanding of the purpose of tax credits is to give the financial ability to make improvements that property owners would otherwise be unable to do without the tax credits. Finch says, in general, as you deal with buildings 50 -75 years old, you're looking for outstanding examples to receive tax credits. Kelleher disagrees. Finch says applications are easier to judge with a building and district that does not have so many alterations, regardless of age. Lutts says that if you drive down Cabot Street, buildings are of all ages and styles. Finch says he is not arguing with that, but instead questioning whether the project meets historic preservation criteria. Lutts says that he is not looking for a decision from the HDC about meeting the criteria, but for a letter of support for the project. Pearl states that a letter would inherently support both. Pearl states the building and hodgepodge reflects the evolution of the building from the 18t to 20t centuries. Pearl states she thinks the building meets four out of the seven factors of the National Register Criteria. However, Pearl states she is concerned about the interpretation of what qualifies for tax credits, and there will be questions on the application. LaMont wants clarification the requirements for the requested letter from the HDC, and asks if the HDC is supporting (a) the concept /project, (b) the area being put on the National Register of Historic Places, or (c) the tax credits to be applied for specific improvements. Kelleher states the request is for a letter of support for the project as a historic tax credit project, and the they will be returning to the HDC for separate support when they move to nominate the district (including the project property) to the National Register of Historic Places. Mason says it is a worthwhile project, but questions whether it is eligible for tax credits. She states that the project may not rise to that level, as there is so little resemblance to the original building. Mason states that due to this minimal resemblance, the project fails to meet the criteria, and she would not be able to support the project for tax credits. Finch discusses the Cabot Street Extension historic district, and says that City rejected it stating it would be adverse to future development. Finch says he would support a letter that supports the project in general, as the rehabilitation would be an asset to the downtown, but he would steer clear of making any determination about the project's historic significance, or of saying the project meets any criteria for tax credits. Kelleher says the letter does not need to comment on the specific work being proposed, but could comment on supporting the project in concept. Kelleher asks if that is an option rather than commenting on the proposed scope of work. Pearl states she would support the project, as the scale is unusual, and preserving the mass and scale is a benefit to the district. The project involves rehabilitation rather than removal; there is benefit to the city and she could support the project and the tax credit if it is found to meet the criteria. Finch states he supports the project, but would not comment on whether the project meets the criteria for tax credits. Mason asks what the Planning Department thinks. Hutchings said after reviewing the proposal, it is understood that the rehabilitation of the building would be a benefit to the area. Hutchings states that based on her analysis, the proposal doesn't meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and she is not certain the proposal will qualify for tax credits. Although the project has been met with enthusiasm, the project does not involve restoration or historically appropriate rehabilitation. Hutchings emphasizes that this project is more of a general rehabilitation and not a historic rehabilitation. Lutts says they will make improvements where they can. Finch says a rehabilitated storefront, with a more attractive and cohesive design, would have a significant benefit the downtown. The Commission discusses what elements could be improved, and what restrictions historic tax credits place on aspects of improvement. The Commission continues to discuss whether the work qualifies for tax credits. Kelleher says that without receiving tax credits, less work will be accomplished; for example, the existing windows may not be replaced. Lutts asks what the Commission's determination would be if a demolition permit were to be applied for, and whether the building would qualify for a demolition permit delay under the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Some members answer yes, a delay would likely be placed on the demolition permit. Hutchings notes that in this case, her interpretation is that the role of the HDC is to determine whether they want to provide a letter of support regarding historic nature of the project. The letter can speak to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, or what historic integrity the building has retained. Kelleher discusses the application deadline, and notes that a letter from the local historical commission is required as part of the application for tax credits. Pearl suggests providing a letter of support for the project without mentioning the tax credits. The letter could describe the thoughtful treatment of the building and the general benefit the project brings to the community. Finch states he can support that the building is important in scale and mass to the district, and that in general he supports a rehabilitation. Mason agrees with Pearl's suggestion on letter of support, and states she can support the project if not the tax credits. Hutchings notes that as a local historical commission, a letter of support to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) may imply supporting tax credits. Mason is not willing to support tax credits. Finch says the letter is accompanying the package and it will be viewed as support of the tax credits unless the Commission explicitly states it is not supporting (or making a judgment on) the tax credits. Mason recommends drafting a letter not passing judgment on the tax credit issue. Kelleher says that a letter of support is required from Beverly HDC as part of the application. Pearl confirms that a letter of support is required for state historic rehabilitation tax credits application. Pearl asks for clarification on whether the property is in a National Register historic district. Kelleher says the property is in the Cabot Street Extension District, which was surveyed and recommended to be eligible for the National Register. MHC must review the application and determine whether the district is eligible. Kelleher states he is confident that they will find it eligible. Before a motion, Lutts asks the HDC not comment on whether they believe the project qualifies for tax credits, but just to comment on the general rehabilitation project. Pearl moves that the HDC prepare a letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission stating that (a) the Commission supports the proposed project for Collins Corner, which is important to the City of Beverly as it will revitalize a portion of the downtown and maintains the scale and massing of the building within an area of Beverly's downtown that has been cited as eligible for a National Register historic district in the Massachusetts Historical Commission's Survey Form A, BEV.AP for the Cabot Street Extension Area; and (b) the Commission notes that no finding has been made relative to the project's eligibility for State Historic Tax Credits. Mason seconds. All in favor. Motion passes 4 -0. 2. Historic Preservation Plan: Review draft documents For the ongoing historic preservation plan, draft sections of the plan have been provided for the Commission's review. The Commission reviews and discusses the document by section. Comments and edits are provided to Hutchings to relay to the consultant developing the plan. The following draft sections are reviewed: • 1.2 Model Preservation Plans • 1.3 Introduction to Preservation Planning • 1.5 Annotated List of Stakeholders Hutchings says there is a steering committee for preservation plan. Hutchings states that Pearl and LaMont have been requested to sit on the committee, particularly as Pearl is the Commission's representative to the Community Preservation Committee and LaMont has played such an active role in the Ward 2 Civic Association. Pearl says she would like to devote some future meeting time to what's going on in this preservation plan process and make sure everyone is very involved. Hutchings states she is in the process of developing a plan for stakeholder and steering committee meetings in February. 3. Approval of minutes None 4. Updates on Projects Powder House Hutchings states the City is finalizing the contract with Louis C. Allegrone, Inc. (the contractor); once the contract is passed through the proper channels, physical work can start. S. New /Other Business /Other discussion or action items None 6. Adjournment LaMont motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:18pm. Pearl seconds. All in favor. Motion passes 4 -0.