Loading...
CPC MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 21 2019-FINALDRAFT -CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Community Preservation Committee November 21, 2019 Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Heather Richter, Wendy Pearl, Derek Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Robert Buchsbaum, Christy Edwards, Nancy Marino OTHERS PRESENT: Denise Deschamps - Economic Development Planner, Planning Department, acting as Committee staff Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary Richter calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Consultation and Q and A with the CPC 7:00 -7:15 PM -The CPC encourages the public, potential applicants and other interested parties to bring their questions /comments to the meeting for this 15 minute period. There are no public applicants present. The meeting continues with the proposed agenda. CPC Memorandums of Understanding • Extension Request for Hale Farm Exterior Restoration Project Denise Deschamps explains that this will be the sixth necessary extension primarily due to the ongoing process of securing a preservation restriction from the MA Historic Commission (MHC). Deschamps notes that Emily Hutchings is working with the MHC on revisions to the application for a preservation restriction. The MOU expiration date was Oct. 30, 2019, and they are asking for an extension to October 30, 2020. Deschamps explains that there is not a specific problem, but that this is just a long process. Tom Bussone says that he is inclined to not renew until the project receives the Preservation Restriction. Wendy Pearl notes that it is MHC that is holding up the project's progress. Bussone wonders if a rejection for renewal by the CPC could act as a vehicle to expedite action by MHC, and Pearl states that she does not think this would have an effect. Marilyn McCrory notes that because the MOU has expired, it does not have to be extended, but that she is still in favor of granting this project an extension. Deschamps says an MOU does not have the power of an actual contract, but the MOU is a mechanism to allow the Committee to monitor projects. Heather Richter asks what specifically is holding up Mass Historic, and Deschamps answers that she has not been informed of the specifics. Deschamps says that the physical work is completed, and that the vendors have been paid. Deschamps has an email from MHC reporting items that they were reviewing (deeds) dated Nov. 21, 2019. Derek Beckwith asks if the Committee could grant the extension while indicating that this will be the last one, in order to generate some action. Bussone asks what leverage the CPC has since the work has already been paid for. McCrory asks if this is a round two project. Richter wonders if all of the funds awarded have truly been expended, or if the payment amount is just accounted for on the chart. Christy Edwards states that the MOU in place includes a clear expectation that has not been met and wonders if this could be used as a tool for the next project. Bussone says they must deal with the applicant as it is the only communication source, and that perhaps a good practice in the future would be to withhold a portion of the money until project completion. Nancy Marino asks why this was already paid. Deschamps acknowledges the complexity of working with Historic Beverly due to their limited funds. Pearl asks if the Committee has the legal ability to extend even though it has already expired, and Deschamps answers yes. Marino asks about possible incentives to push the project forward. Pearl discusses the difficulty of preservation restrictions. McCrory invites a motion of how to handle the request for an MOU extension. Bussone recommends that the Committee should agree to the extension, but with no disbursement until certain conditions are met. Beckwith asks if the Committee is working to set a precedent on projects that are completed and how this relates to other projects. Pearl says she is inclined to extend, but not for one year. Robert Buchsbaum states that six extensions seem problematic. McCrory restates that the majority of work has been done, with the exception of the last phase. Edwards recommends extension for a lesser time than one year. Beckwith suggests adding a clause to future contracts, allowing for a review at times of extension for the disbursement of funds. McCrory says that the Committee recommends not submitting all of the funds until all work is completed. Pearl motions to extend the MOU for this project for six months (until April 30, 2020) with no conditions. Beckwith seconds. The motion carries (7 -2) with Bussone and Buchsbaum abstaining. Extension Request for Beverly Golf and Tennis to Perform Complete Systems Assessment /Analysis Bill Lowd from the Beverly Golf and Tennis Association asks for an extension on their building project. Lowd provides images of the Clubhouse for the Committee's review, stating that while they did submit the schedule, it has proven a big project. The MOU goes to Jan 24, 2020, and in order to meet this extension request, Lowd wanted to give at least a thirty-day request notice. Lowd explains that the project received five bids, and that they selected Heery as the project manager. Lowd notes that Heery is the company who managed the new construction of the high school, middle school, and police station. Lowd states that in May 2019, a letter was sent from Mayor Cahill to Heery accepting them for the job. During the summer, Heery was committed to other projects, and in August, Lowd updated Denise Deschamps on their progress. In addition, Lowd states that the golf course manager's contract expired, so that they have committed an RFP for this, and hope to remedy before the end of December. Lowd explains that it is due to these many delays that he is asking for the Committee to extend the dates of the project until December 2020. Lowd shows the Committee the proposed project dates with the new schedule. In addition, Lowd states that the contract with Heery needs to be signed, although there is a request for additional funds. McCrory asks if there are any questions. Pearl asks if any of the building plans have changed. Lowd says that specifications are unknown until the project begins. Pearl indicates that the plans look different and 2 asks if there is support from city engineering. Lowd says that the contract is on the Mayor's desk awaiting his signature, and that the plans and specifications will be in the feasibility report. Beckwith confirms that action steps will happen, but may be called out differently, and requests that the new report will have these details. Edwards requests confirmation that this is the same project that the Committee agreed to fund. Lowd says that the architect will create the next phase with the feasibility study, and that it is in the MOU that McCrory possesses. Bussone reads the MOU to the Committee, and Lowd says they are not changing the scope. Pearl asks if there is a scope for the architect for bid, and Lowd says yes. Pearl asks if the money from the Committee is being used to hire the OPM and the architect. Lowd answers that the Committee funds will pay both until they provide plans and specifications, and that the schedule should have the same deliverables as the original documents. Lowd will update his report and give to Deschamps. McCrory agrees and asks for the terminology in the updated schedule to not change. Bussone suggests that Lowd returns to the original document and just change the schedule dates. Bussone recommends that the Committee wait for the updated schedule and then vote on it at the next meeting. Pearl asks if the OPM called the report a feasibility report versus plans and specifications, and is concerned that the language differs. Lowd says that specs include feasibility. McCrory asks if Pearl feels comfortable verifying that the deliverables are, in fact, what was the original expectation in order to move forward. Deschamps restates for clarification. McCrory clarifies that the CPC will require evidence that milestones are reached. Bussone says that milestones must be achieved on the schedule provided. Otherwise invoices will not be paid. Deschamps wants to make sure that all parties are in agreement about the milestones identified and who should really be determining if they are met. Pearl states that the Committee should review the MOU to see the requirements, and that she is not sure if it is a reimbursement process or milestones funding. Lowd collects the new document, and agrees to return it to the old language with revised dates. Pearl asks if the Committee should vote to extend the MOU knowing the condition of the changes, or if the Committee should wait to vote until the December meeting. Richter suggests they vote on the extension of the old schedule with a new end date of September 2020. He suggests that they write this date on the old schedule, and then amend and vote. Lowd makes this date change on the old document with the extension date to September 30, 2020. Lowd initials this change. A motion is made by Edwards to extend the agreement to Beverly Golf and Tennis until September 30, 2020. Pearl seconds. The motion carries (9 -0). • Extension Request for Green's Hill Trail Improvements Aaron Clausen will speak to this as the MOU expired. While the trail is operating, it is problematic that the neighbor's parking area encroaches on the city's trail. The Committee agrees to hold the extension vote until it hears a report from Clausen (to be held later during this 11/21/19 meeting). The Committee moves forward with the next business. Review of Pre - applications for Round 7 CPA funds 3 The pre - application copies are passed to all Committee members, and McCrory confirms that the Committee has reviewed all applications. McCrory frames the discussion's purpose: to determine the projects' eligibility to be considered for funding, referring to the matrix provided by the MA Department of Revenue. She notes that the Committee will make note of who owns the property and whether or not it is the applicant, and if not has the property owner expressed support for the project. The CPC will also confirm receipt of a determination from the HDC on a project's historical significance, and take into account other eligibility criteria. McCrory also cautions that not every project is eligible for CPA funding. She notes that not every application may propose a great project so it is acceptable to reuse or reject a project. McCrory had asked Deschamps to hand deliver to the Committee members all of the full applications when they are received since there may be quite a bit of material. With this note of caution, McCrory asks the Committee to begin its review of the pre - applications (in no particular order). Solar Now: McCrory reviews this proposed design for these historic solar panels located at Beverly High School. Deschamps notes that this funding group has been in discussion with the Mayor for approval. Pearl states that the Committee can vote if the project is eligible for preservation and rehabilitation restoration. She states that this project has also received a finding of historic significance from the Beverly Historic District Commission. Pearl informs the Committee that this site, from 1981, is the only remaining solar panel project from the President Jimmy Carter administration. The plan is to remove one or two panels and preserve them for educational purposes. It is noted that traditionally a site would need to be 50 years or older in order to be deemed "historical," but that there can be exceptions when something is deemed significant for other reasons. The project aims to preserve the record of this 1981 solar panel site that has successfully powered the Beverly High School. Pearl explains that a section of panels will be moved to an area of viewing for educational purposes. She notes that while the Inverter House is not historic, that the site itself is, as it showcases Beverly on the cutting edge of green energy back in 1981. Bussone questions if the Committee can fund to preserve the artifacts. Pearl states that the design is for a display of the historic panels on the site. McCrory confirms that the whole property is deemed historic in its green energy production since 1981. Edwards feels it is eligible as historically significant and should meet the criteria for eligibility. McCrory states that they can better determine if this project qualifies for funding with some more information provided, that reveals the specifics of the plans. Pearl states that this group is new to this funding process and could benefit from coming in to speak with the Committee to better develop their plan. Beckwith adds that while the reconstruction of the Inverter House cannot be funded, funds could be given to memorialize the site. Marino encourages the Committee to provide guidance to the project proponents so that they can better articulate their request. A motion is made by Buchsbaum that the pre - application be eligible for preservation. Pearl seconds. McCrory notes that the project, as described, is not eligible for restoration, yet the applicant could make a case for approval with more project details. Bussone suggests using the language that the Committee is inviting a full application. Buchsbaum motions to approve for the project to be eligible in the historic preservation category. Pearl seconds. The motion carries (9- 0). 0 Gillis Park Staircase: McCrory confirms that this project to restore a stone staircase has been deemed historic via its location at Pleasant View Park. McCrory asks if this funding group has spoken to the Historic District Commission and also to Mike Collins. Deschamps states that a bid was requested and received by the project applicant, but that it is not included with this application. Deschamps notes that there is a willingness on the part of the City to undertake and oversee this project, as it provides access from the playground to the beach, making it a significant feature of this recreational area. Deschamps received photos of the stairs from the project proponent(s) and asked if the Committee would like to receive copies of the photos. McCrory asks if this project fits with allowable uses and this is confirmed. Marino motions that the project is eligible in the category of historic preservation. Edwards notes that the project falls into two categories: recreational and historic. Bussone seconds. The motion carries (9 -0). Beverly Farms Cemetery Restoration: McCrory states that this project falls into the historic preservation category in its request to preserve a historic fence. Deschamps states that this fence resides on city property and that contact has been made with Mike Collins. This location by Hale and Hart Street is a significant and historical cemetery. Pearl states that the paths, fences, walls, shrubs, and buildings are all historic. Cassidy Brothers Forge is set to preserve the original wrought iron in their shop. Edwards motions that the restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery fence is eligible in the historic preservation category. Beckwith seconds. The motion carries (9 -0). Aaron Clausen joins the meeting. 4. City Hall Records: McCrory reviews the project for the Committee and states that this is a continuation of activity. It is noted that this project applicant had been previously requested to submit a plan, and yet no documents are included with the proposal. Beckwith suggests that the Committee should see a list of the collection of documents to be funded, and asks about project eligibility. Bussone states that the project is eligible, but that the Committee should see a projected plan. Edwards states that an inventory and summary of materials should be requested. Beckwith suggests that the Committee can provide clarity of what they want to see during the full application process. Bussone wants to know the specific documents that are to be preserved. Deschamps adds that the City Clerk did report that the project recommended for funding by the CPC in Round 6 has not yet been bid out. The mayor must still review and approve of the bid documents. Aaron Clausen states that as soon as the RFP is released, this information can be added as a part of the application. Deschamps asks if the Committee is aware of what items have been preserved in the past. Beckwith affirms seeing a past list, and McCrory notes that deliverables may be in the files. Bussone thinks that the Committee should check for the historical significance of the documents as it would be feasible to determine the need for the preservation of different types of records. Pearl notes that the letter from the (Massachusetts State) archivist states the age of documents that should be considered for preservation. Bussone 5 feels more clarification needs to be presented with the application and that the Committee should provide clear requirements for the application to ensure the project is the best use of CPA funds. McCrory states that this pre - application should be eligible, but that they will need the full application with specific details in order to determine any funding. A motion is made by Bussone for this pre - application to be eligible under the historic category. Buchsbaum seconds. The motion carries (9 -0). McCrory asks the Committee what guidance they should provide to this applicant and the following requests are made: 1. A project description to be included with the application that identifies all documents under the stewardship of the Clerk's office, of those documents a list of those that have already been preserved /conserved and a list of the remaining documents to be preserved /conserved in order of priority. Also, specify which of these documents are in bound books and what type of action needs to be taken to preserve /conserve the documents and potentially the bindings. 2. A note that it should not be assumed that CPA monies previously awarded but that remain unspent will be rolled over into this project. [The CPA has never rolled over funds.] 3. A running record of what work has been completed. 4. A reference to the notes from previous CPC meetings and what has been previously requested of the applicant. 5. An RFP for the work approved in Round 6, in addition to a detailed plan and inventory of completed versus non - completed work. This should include unique items. McCrory recommends a pause in the meeting for Aaron Clausen to report on the Extension Request for Green's Hill Trail Improvements The City created a trail connection extending from Bridge Street to Green Street. After hearing from Clausen, the Committee discusses an extension of the MOU instead of initiating a new application process. Clausen explains that the City Council recently authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with the property owner. A remaining issue, however, it that the owner of the adjacent property has been parking their car on city -owned property for 20 years. Clausen explains that a HUD foreclosure happened at the time of the creation of the trail, so that it was worked out with the property owner to reach a settlement. This settlement states that the owner may park on the corner (easement) that the city owns. The city will put up a split rail fence with a pathway, to accommodate the property owner, so that they may retain this parking space. A second easement settlement was signed and approved, and it is noted that the city has been working with the property owner for two years. With the agreement to install the split rail fence and add additional landscaping at the access point, Clausen notes that the project is able to move forward with an estimated spring completion date. He states that this agreement was settled with the property owner and city with no need for court action. The request is to extend the project date until summer 2020. McCrory asks for a motion to extend the date to June 30, 2020. Beckwith moves to extend the MOU to June 30, 2020. Richter seconds. The motion carries (9 -0). The Committee returns to the Review of Pre - applications for Round 7 CPA funds A Beverly Public Library: This pre - application request falls under the historic preservation category. The request is to digitize the newspaper records currently on microfilm. Beckwith confirms that this is not in digitizing the actual newspapers, but to digitize the microfilm and create an online, digitized index for people to easily access articles, photos, or public notices. Pearl shares the Beverly Historic District Commission discussion, in that these films are the only record formats left for these newspapers. McCrory confirms that this process is not to preserve or restore, but to make the data accessible, perhaps not justifying the Committee to be the right source of funding for this project. Edwards asks if this project could qualify under restoration and rehabilitation in order to make the information an asset functional for its intended use. After a brief discussion, the Committee determines that the CPC is not the right source for funding. While it is acknowledged that this project is worthy, it is decided that it is not eligible for CPA funding as presented. Bussone notes that the Committee would still welcome a full application. Beckwith states microfilm lasts for 500 years, so that this project would not fall under restoration or preservation. A motion is made by Bussone that this project is not eligible for funding. Second by Buchsbaum. The motion carries (9 -0). 6. The Cabot lobby restoration: This pre - application is requesting funding to restore the high vaulted ceiling and original rose window in The Cabot lobby. This applicant owns the property, and (since 2014) holds the Beverly HDC's designation as a historically significant property. The Committee discusses the qualification of this request under both the preservation and restoration allowable uses, noting that the request to the Committee is funding only for the ceiling and the rose window. Edwards motions that this project is eligible in the historic preservation category as both a restoration and preservation allowable use. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). Roger Conant Roof Replacement: Pearl suggests that the applicant first determine if the roof is under warranty. It is noted that this application falls under the housing category as a preservation activity, and that in the past the Committee has approved roof repairs as eligible for funding. Beckwith notes that this falls under the structural protection of property, and that the City Council has supported this in the past. Bussone agrees to check the warranty, but agrees that this pre- application is eligible based upon past approvals of the same type of project. Bussone makes the motion to approve this project as a community housing preservation. Marino seconds. The motion carries (8 -0). Note - Pearl left the meeting at 9:05 and was not present for the vote. Approval of Minutes The approval of the following minutes will be moved to the next meeting: • September 19, 2019 • October 10, 2019 (Informational Public Hearing) 7 Date of Next CPC Meeting The next meeting of the CPC Committee is scheduled for December 19, 2019 in Beverly City Hall. Before this meeting, Deschamps will send out letters to all of the applicants for Round 7 Grants, informing each of the Committee's decision regarding their pre - application. Beckwith requests that the Solar Now organization come to the December 19th meeting in order to provide more information to the Committee regarding their request. The Committee decides to meet on December 19th, from 6pm - 6:30 pm, jointly with the Beverly Historic District Commission, to hear from a consultant visiting from Pennsylvania regarding the development of an historic preservation plan for Beverly. The joint meeting will adjourn at 6:30 PM and the CPC meeting will convene to meet with the requested Round 7 funding applicants. The Committee will then relocate the meeting to SOMA at 8pm. Adjournment Bussone motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Edwards seconds. The motion carries 8 -0. N