Loading...
2015-06-18CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: June 18, 2015 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl — Chairperson, Marilyn McCrory — Vice Chair, Heather Richter, Leland McDonough, Jon Paddol, Robert Buchsbaum, Henry Pizzo, Darrien Crimmin MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomson OTHERS PRESENT: Environmental Planner Amy Maxner, Golf and Tennis Commission Chair William Lowd, Director of Planning and Community Development Aaron Clausen, Joel, Sam and Melissa Friedman, Ward 2 City Counselor Estelle Rand RECORDER: Aileen O'Rourke Pearl calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Consultation and Q& A with CPC (7:00 p.m. -7:15 p.m.) Pearl has all members of the CPC committee introduce themselves as well as members of the public. There are no questions from the public, but only here to observe the meeting. Buchsbaum, Pizzo, and Crimmin arrive. Administrative Business FYI Budget Review & Approval Members review the FYI budget spreadsheet provided by Finance Director Bryant Ayles who could not attend the meeting this evening. The Committee members agree the budget looks good. Buchsbaum motions to approve budget. McDonough seconds the motion. The motion carries 8 -0. Master Planning Discussion with Aaron Clausen Clausen discusses the planning efforts currently underway as they relate to the Master Plan and other areas. He notes the Master Plan was developed in 2001 -2002 and adopted in 2002, explaining that it lays out the City's vision for land use, open space preservation, transportation, economic development and historic preservation from a 20 -50 year horizon. It is supposed to be updated every 5 years on a rolling basis but the City is a bit behind on that effort. Clausen is trying to find funding to initiate the process but will likely not be funded for at least 6 -12 months. He explains the process takes up to 2 years to complete with a consultant but an in- house staff could take much more time with all necessary public outreach and input needed. He notes that though there are new ways to engage the public by way of social media it is still labor - intensive. He notes that at this point, because the plan is so old, he would consider this a new master plan as opposed to an update, though there are still some relevant parts in the old plan as it relates to economic development and mixed use near downtown and near transit, cultural tourism around Cabot Street and Rantoul, and conserving edges of the town with recreation in the inner -city. It also does a good job of laying out the vision and rallies support since the public is involved in the process and the decision - making. There are criteria written into the ordinances that reference the Master Plan however Massachusetts does not have a legal requirement to link zoning with the master plan although he thinks it should. Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) Clausen explains the Open Space and Recreation Committee is currently updating the OSRP, a draft will be done by July but it won't likely be adopted until the fall. In order to participate in the State PARC and land grant programs, the OSRP needs to be current and approved by the Division of Conservation Services. The OSRP identifies existing conditions (what is the current situation, who owns what, is it recreational open space or conservation) and creates an inventory of lands that merit protection. McCrory states the plan does not specifically address active recreation, but more so land protection and passive recreation such as creating pathways and connections for hiking, etc. Pearl wonders why it does not include recreation when there are so many CPC applications that deal with recreation and the Committee has a hard time prioritizing multiple recreation projects. McCrory notes there is a template provided by the State that is used to develop the plan. Clausen notes the Parks and Recreation department does not have a formal plan, but rather a list of parks with conditions and priorities for updates. Clausen notes that public comments tend to focus on passive recreation such as pathways along the waterfront, so that's why Beverly's plan focuses on conservation. Clausen suggests they could do another public survey about parks to get input. There is a yearly comprehensive report on all the parks in Beverly with their current state. Pizzo states Parks and Rec usually receive only negative feedback which then prioritizes actions. Housing Plan Clausen notes the housing plan is 10 years old and thinks a new plan will help create a community vision around affordable housing and prevent unwanted 40B developments from coming into the City. Beverly currently has 12% affordable deed restricted, 10% is the requirement, under which 40B kicks in but he doesn't think that is enough, and believes there is a need to look at affordable housing as an economic development and quality of life issue. The Committee learned from Shelly Goehring at the April meeting that CPC funds can be used to develop a new housing plan. Clausen estimates it will cost around $40K to develop. Pearl asks if this would be a part of the Master Plan process. Clausen suggests the housing plan be built into the master plan when that's completed. Historic Preservation Plan Clausen notes the historic preservation plan has not updated since 1994. He believes a new plan can build more support and understanding for why it's beneficial to preserve historic resources. Community Preservation Committee June 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 215 Clausen notes that one of the first steps, as part of the MHC and matching CPA grants awarded recently, is to hire a consultant to do the historic survey and inventory properties at least 50 years or older such as municipal properties -- firehouses, schools, libraries, see where mapped and what neighborhoods are underrepresented and develop a strategy to fill in the holes. Buildings that could qualify now have not been inventoried since the last plan. Pearl notes the work done under this grant will lay the foundation to do the preservation plan perhaps in -house with the HDC. Discussion ensues as to historic properties that have lost their integrity and their their ability to convey their history because original clapboards, windows, chimneys, etc. no longer present would be lower on the priority list. CPA Master Plan Discussion ensued regarding the CPA master plan. Clausen thinks this may be duplicate work if the City updates their master plan. Richter thinks there is a requirement for the Committee to create a yearly plan. Members discuss whether the CPA plan could simply reference other existing plans. Pearl thinks there are aspects in certain plans not relevant to the CPA for instance not everything in the Housing plan would be CPA eligible. Clausen suggests perhaps create an annual action plan to reiterate the Committees goals and show how funds are attributed to different categories. The Committee agrees a CPA plan should be developed. Members discuss other communities' plans and agree to look at the Town of Canton's CPA Plan. Clausen states the Planning staff will likely not be able to produce in -house as they are busy updating other plans so may need a consultant to pull this together. McCrory suggests this be revisited in September. Clausen asks if the Housing plan could be an out -of -cycle CPC application. Pearl asks if it can be done by January, Clausen thinks likely not but perhaps done around this time next year for Round 3. Pearl notes the CPC prefers when applications can leverage other forms of funding so perhaps the City can contribute towards the cost. Administrative Updates Maxner reports that grants agreements for the Recreation Department have been signed, and she has asked for progress reports on projects underway /completed. She notes that Bruce Doig has made contact with Allison Crosbie to get on the DRB agenda for the exterior Lynch park bathrooms, likely in early July though the building may already be completed by then. Maxner will obtain a 50% completion report and whatever bids that have come in along with the DRB approval before distributing funds. Maxner has not seen any documents yet, will not release funds until these conditions have been met. Pearl wonders if the CPC should amend existing regulations to state that expenses incurred before grant agreement executed not eligible for funding? Members discuss this with no decisive action resulting. Review & Approval of Meeting Minutes Community Preservation Committee June 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 315 Members review the April 16, 2015 meeting minutes and offer minor edits. McCrory motions to approve April meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Richter. All in favor, the motion carries (7 -0 -1 with Buchsbaum abstaining). Members review the May 28, 2015 meeting minutes and offer minor edits. Paddol motions to approve May meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by McCrory. All in favor, the motion carries (7 -0 -1 with Crimmin abstaining). Round 2 applications Review Pearl suggests starting with Community Housing and Historic Preservation projects bieing reviewed tonight, starting with the highest scoring listed first. Paddol agrees to email Maxner with scores for remaining projects. City Clerk Records Preservation Pearl notes this is a relatively inexpensive project and scored the highest with 43 out of 45. Members agree this is a valuable project which is multi - phased. Discussion ensues as to the budget. Members agree that an updated budget sheet is needed to accurately reflect the cost of this phase and other funds leveraged. McDonough motions to approve this project contingent upon receiving an updated budget sheet. Paddol seconds. All in favor, the motion carries (7 -0 -1 with Buchsbaum abstaining). Maxner will obtain a new budget sheet. Buchsbaum notes he would like to hold off on voting before the extent of spending and available budget for this round can be determined. Members review FY 16 budget and discuss potential funds from left over of FYI 5. GAR Hall Feasibility Pearl notes this project received a score of 42 out of 45. Committee members agree this is a strong project with a solid proposal. Counselor Rand offers her full support, noting that the Ward 2 Civic Association is a well- organized and diligent. Members are all in agreement this can be voted on tonight. Crimmin makes motion to approve this project. Pizzo Seconds. All in favor carries unanimously 8 -0. Beverlv Golf and Tennis Club Members agree the Clubhouse is a valuable asset and the work needs to be done but there are questions on the budget numbers and the nature of some of the work qualifying under CPA. Total project cost - $360,800, asking for $345,800 in CPA funding. Pizzo notes this is a collection of different projects, some of which could be code compliance issues, some considered maintenance costs but need to distinguish between maintenance and rehab costs. Paddol wonders why the costs are so high considering that this is a revenue generating business for the City and asks if some of the work can be done in stages. Lowd states the Golf and Tennis Building is outsourced to a management company (GFMI), it's a 5 year contract, currently on the Community Preservation Committee June 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 415 2nd year. Revenue goes to the management company with revenue - sharing with the City for memberships when it reaches a certain level. Currently there are 250 members. Committee would like to know how the budget is allocated. Lowd explains on -going capital improvements projects around $75K last year, this year recommending $55K. Bond awarded for updating the clubhouse, the pro shop and a new maintenance building. Pearl asks if the revenue from the upstairs function space goes to the City. Lowd notes it goes to GFMI. Pizzo asks if GFMI could contribute some matching funds. McCrory is concerned about eligibility of some of the pieces such as the veranda, railings, and roof and the high cost as this project takes up a large chunk of the CPC budget. Lowd notes the exterior was painted on 3 sides with the capital improvements project. Shingles were replaced to the roof line only. 2 lifts were recently installed, and increased number of events from a total of 50 last year to 50 just in the last quarter so far this year. There are also events held there for local non - profits. Members inquire if this project could be phased. Lowd notes that it could should the CPC decide to fund it in increments. Members agree to table discussion on this project until next meeting. Maxner asks that the CPC look closely at all of the projects' budgets as there may be elements listed that are not eligible for CPA funds (i.e. advertising, bid acquisition etc...). Members agree to look budget items more closely. Members agree to schedule the next CPC meeting for July 16, 2015. There being no further business before the Committee McCrory moves to adjourn. Seconded by Pizzo. All in favor, the motion carries unanimously 8 -0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Community Preservation Committee June 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 515