Loading...
CPC mtg minutes from 01.16.2020-Final (1)CITY of BEVERLY COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 Phone (978) 921 -6000 Fax (978) 921 -6187 Mayor Michael P. Cahill Chairperson Marilyn McCrory Vice Chairperson Heather Richter Members Derek Beckwith John Hall Robert Buchsbaum Nancy Marino Thomas Bussone, H Wendy Pearl Christy Edwards CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEEXOMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Community Preservation Committee January 16, 2020 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 Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. McCrory notes that Wendy Pearl will arrive late. She also states that due to the heavy meeting agenda, the Committee will review the November, December, and January minutes at the next meeting. Review of Grant Applications for Round 7 McCrory introduces the scoring process for the proposed projects. She explains that the CPC Committee bases early evaluations on some of the following criteria: clarification or more information needed on application, how well the application meets the criteria for the allowable uses matrix, if the project is consistent with the CPC plan, and if the budget estimate for the project provides adequate data. McCrory explains that during this round all applications will be discussed and ranked. Page 1 of 7 Heather Richter distributes a scorecard as a tool to help the Committee determine project prioritization. Richter explains that the scorecard evaluates how each project fits the required application criteria, and that the highest scoring projects will be reviewed first. Using this scoring guide, Committee members individually review the evaluations. Denise Deschamps notes that she met with Bryant Ayles on Wednesday (1/15/2020), and that he provided her with new financial data. Deschamps passes this information to the Committee to add to their review. Robert Buchsbaum informs the group that his family member is working as an intern with one of the applied projects, and he offers to step back in the voting if necessary. McCrory states that if he feels he can be objective, his voting participation is permitted. Project Review in order of Rankings 1. Restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery Christy Edwards opens the discussion stating that this application is strong in its organization and in the applicant's ability to both raise funds and implement the project. She also states that this applicant is working with a reputed vendor, has a strong cost estimate, and possesses a strong amount of community support. Edwards appreciates that the cemetery is a historic and visible part of Beverly. Tom Bussone values the presentation with its specific commitment and well- organized plan. Derek Beckwith appreciates that this expensive project includes other sources of funding. Buchsbaum asks if a site historical qualification also gives specific designation to the fence. Bussone states that the application indicates that the fence is designated historic, meeting the qualifications of a historic preservation project. Marino compliments the thorough application, but asks about matching funding amounts reported in the application. Edwards states that this project includes three phases, showing the financials for each, and that $209,400 is the total source of funding. McCrory confirms with Deschamps that the city is not providing any money contribution. Edwards asks if the final disbursement for CPC funds (for phase two) will be dependent upon phase three of the work being completed, and it is agreed that the applicant should not have to wait until project completion for the CPC funds. Beckwith asks if CPC funds would to the city or directly to the applicant. McCrory requests information on the project manager and who will manage the money. John Hall asks if the city will have any role, and Beckwith notes that the city did review the project. Deschamps does not currently know the assigned project manager, but states that the city will need to designate someone. Deschamps also states that the usual process includes a contractor sending the invoice, with the CPC directly paying the contractor. Deschamps says that she will confirm the city's plan. Page 2of7 McCrory agrees that this is a strong application with many letters of support and adequate private fundraising. She also requests information on a project manager and notes that the CPC funds (phase two) cannot begin until this part of the project is approved. Richter questions the date written on page two of project date (2021 instead of 2020). McCrory requests updates to all of the Committee's questions prior to the next meeting. 2. Beverly Housing Authority Buchsbaum notes that while this project requests important and necessary work, that the specific work may qualify as maintenance and not preservation. Hall agrees with this assessment. Bussone responds that this is the first time the Housing Authority notes its importance with City Council to distinguish maintenance. Bussone feels that this project qualifies as preservation because there is no other money available and would result in a loss of the units. Beckwith states that he rated this project as a high level priority, as the CPA could cover the roof, making it eligible. Edwards says that this is a total replacement, qualifying it beyond maintenance. McCrory states that it may depend upon the types of projects proposed. When past warranties are discussed, Bussone shares that the Canadian roofing company is no longer in existence, and that there is no existing warranty in the United States. McCrory states that this is a strong case for both structural and preservation argument, strongly meeting the CPC criteria. Buchsbaum explains that the Housing Authority has a list of priorities for state funding and that this is not at the top, encouraging this applicant to apply with the CPC. Marino references the many steps of the project. Wendy Pearl joins the meeting at 7:43. McCrory says that she does not see the details of the cost estimates. Bussone states that the last three projects probably helped determine the bid estimates. Beckwith agrees that these estimates should be included. Buchsbaum has a budget question of total costs versus itemized numbers and asks for this clarification. McCrory explains that some of each itemized number will be funded by CPA, but not all. Beckwith is looking for a demolition line item, and Richter identifies this line item on the back of the report. Deschamps asks if they want her to confirm the itemization, and McCrory states that it is okay as is, showing just a part of what is eligible to the CPC. McCrory asks about the schedule, noting that the project cannot begin until the CPC makes a decision. Pearl suggests that soft design work should be able to begin as the CPA funds are all for construction. There are no other questions regarding the Housing Authority Project. "Short return discussion to the Restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery Page 3of7 Pearl asks who has site control on the project, and why the CPC wouldn't just fund all of the fence. McCrory likes that it is in phases and seeks multiple sources of funding. Beckwith asks if this is a city project. It is noted that the group has met with the city and that the city has reviewed the project. Pearl also wonders where the bricks are going in the brick fundraiser to keep the landscape character of the cemetery. 3. Gillis Park Staircase Buchsbaum asks if this applicant included a letter regarding criteria and Beckwith indicates that it is on the back of the application. Beckwith states that while this project is highly rated, few funds are coming from other sources. Marino reports that the applicant also applied with the Recreation Department but were denied, as Recreation funds were designated to the basketball court project. Marino also states that she is pleased that the CPC is reviewing this request as a way to properly restore this structure. Bussone notes that the CPC is the only real source to preserve these stairs. Hall states that he went to the site to view the area, and deemed it as a strong candidate for CPC funds. Bussone adds that the funding request is a small amount. Richter asks about the materials and the effect of rising sea levels. Marino explains that there is a wall before the stairs, with little impact of seawater to the brick and mortar. The Committee discusses the materials requested for the project and that any new brick must resemble the original. Edwards states that a letter noted a past renovation that added brick to existing granite, questioning what the replacement material should be for both historic preservation and safety. McCrory suggests that the applicant confirm the original materials. Pearl states that she approves of this project as it supports waterfront progress, connecting it to CPC goals. McCrory wants to know who will manage the project and oversee the standards. Pearl says that the Historic Commission should review both the project and the bids. Bussone suggests that this project could be funded under recreation. Marino notes that the stairs are not ADA required at this time, and therefore disqualify the project as recreational. Pearl adds that this project will add a hand -rail to the stairs to increase accessibility. Buchsbaum states that while a handrail is not historical, it is necessary. Pearl suggests that a hand -rail can be added that is compatible with the historic design. The Committee then discusses if this project should be funded under the recreational or historic category, or both, and states that it is open to what is best. Pearl adds that if the tread shows granite as the original material, it could increase the cost. She also notes that the brick also now qualifies as historical. Buchsbaum suggests that it qualifies as both historical and recreational. McCrory asks if granite is a better choice due to the seawater. Marino reports that the stairs Page 4of7 have never before flooded. Richter notes rising sea levels and the possible effects. It is noted that the cost for granite is three times the amount of brick. McCrory asks if the Committee feels that the applicants need to attend a CPC meeting, or if these questions can just be solved through writing. Pearl suggests that the groups are given a choice to answer questions in person or in writing, and the Committee agrees. 4. The Cabot Lobby Restoration and Renovation Pearl feels that this is a transformational project with a well -written report that suggests good financial support (with the CPC only funding 30% of the cost). Buchsbaum also is in favor of this project but asks how the CPC ensures that this establishment remains a nonprofit. Marino notes that she did ask about this and was told that the CPC could hold a temporary lien, so in the event the property was ever sold, the city could be reimbursed for the money. Hall asks the source of this concern, and Marino explains the concern that it change from a nonprofit to a for - profit. Hall notes that this is highly unlikely, but Marino suggests that preventive action could be taken to protect the city's investment. Pearl suggests a sliding restriction (a short-term loan) with a goal to protect the public investment. Beckwith notes that this investment could increase the building's value and that this could be reimbursed. Edwards asks for a review of the project narrative which includes CPC funding of the arch - ceiling, the rose window, and the walls. She wonders if remaining items may not be eligible based upon the information the applicant provided. Pearl notes that the request may include the design fund. McCrory reports that the applicant did not provide the funding eligibility form, and that they will need to add a budget and schedule form. McCrory wants to ask the applicant if the CPC funding is for only the items highlighted in yellow, and if so, what is the difference between the $275,000 amount and the total funding request. Beckwith asks if possible funds are going to the elevator. Pearl suggests that request is in rehabilitating the lobby, but notes that the applicant needs to be specific in the funding items. The Committee discusses which items are deemed eligible. Pearl shares that some new features are a part of renovating. Bussone states that giving a private enterprise money challenges him unless the public has access. Pearl says the window and chandelier may be viewed from the outside, yet Hall says the marquis blocks the window. McCrory feels they make a strong case for The Cabot and its benefit to the people of the city. Pearl notes that Historic Beverly is not that different from this private group as both are nonprofits. Marino suggests a plan in place to protect the public funds (such as a temporary lien). A memorandum of agreement with a sliding recapture was suggested by Pearl, keeping them responsible in their agreement with the city. Bussone suggests that this funding be recorded in the registry of deeds. Page 5of7 Beckwith notes the public benefit of The Cabot. He suggests that it means much to the downtown, and that this group does host free events for the public. Buchsbaum states that many nonprofits charge for entry, and while it is noted that there is no private owner, it is asked that this be clarified. Edwards asks about the letter from the architect. She states that at the end of paragraph two, it states that no filing of the project will go to Mass Historical. She asks if this is required, and Pearl says it is not required. Pearl suggests that the Committee consult with the Historic Commission to see if the project needs more ongoing oversight, or even if the Historic Commission could contribute a consultant to oversee. Edwards notes the application's openness for review and supports the idea of the Historic Commission's involvement and guidance. The Committee requests specific information of CPC funding. The project's ranking is decreased because they did not include the required forms and specify the items to be funded. Marino thinks an in- person visit is needed, and Beckwith asks if the applicant could provide the deed. 5. Solar Now, Inc. Beckwith suggests that the application lacks information such as visiting plans after project completion, other funding sources, and the role of the city's involvement. Hall feels strongly that this project should be preserved, but agrees with the vagueness of the application. He questions if the inverter house qualifies for funding. Marino supports the funding of this project. She suggests that the application process can be difficult for new applicants, and that this project is enthusiastically embraced by the community. She also notes that not having other funding sources shouldn't deter from the application. Marino states that she visited this site to better see and understand the value of this project. Buchsbaum is also in favor of funding this project and notes its Historic Commission approval. He acknowledges the vagueness of the application and requests that the applicant add more letters of support. Pearl states that the application does not indicate what work will be done on the inverter building. Edwards favors the project and overall vision, yet shares concerns that the scope of the project does not qualify for CPC funding. She says that more details are needed in the application such as specific items for funding and the repair and building status. Marino suggests that these specific requests be addressed and sent to them in writing, Richter confirms that Solar Design Associates are the vendors who will be designing the project and receiving the funds. McCrory asks about the city's role as this site is on city property. She would like to know who is overseeing the project and the status of ongoing maintenance commitments from the city. If Solar Now, Inc. is overseeing the project, McCrory would like it to see the agreement authorizing them as project Page 6of7 managers on city property. McCrory also notes that this application is missing the signature page and acknowledges concerns that this applicant is not bringing any money to the table. Hall requests information on the plan for the panels not preserved in this project. Beckwith requests information on Solar Now's type of nonprofit status. Deschamps will ask applicant if they have requested funding from other sources. Beckwith would also request information on the educational component of this project. 6. Beverly City Hall Historical Records Conservation Project Due to time constraints, the review of this project will be postponed until the next meeting of the CPC. Closing Discussion Edwards asks about the timeframe for project approvals, and McCrory reviews the schedule noting that approved projects are sent to the Council in May. Due to the February scheduled meeting date conflicting with school vacation week, the next regular meeting of the CPC is scheduled for February 27th, at 7pm. Buchsbaum suggests that the CPC meet one more time before the regular meeting to discuss the last application, and a special meeting is scheduled for January 30th, at 7pm for one hour. At this meeting the Committee plans to approve past minutes and discuss the last project application. It is stated that February 20th is the deadline for applicants to respond to requests. Edwards moves to adjourn the meeting. Bussone seconds. The meeting adjourns at 9:10 pm. Page 7of7