Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-19-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Public Hearing Monday, December 19, 2011 7:30 PM Cary Auditorium Cary Memorial Building Present: Board Members: Wendy Manz,Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice-Chair, Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Sandy Shaw and Betsey Weiss. Administrative Assistant : Nathalie Rice Also in attendance were David Kanter and Shirley Stolz of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC), Town Meeting Member David Kaufman, and Town resident Bob Pressman. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:34 pm. by Ms. Manz. 1.Buckman Tavern Historic Structure Report/Restoration Plans – Ms. Susan Bennett, Director of the Historical Society, presented this request for $65,000 in CPA funding for a Historic Structure Report and Restoration Plans for the Buckman Tavern. She explained that the funds would be used for a Historic Structure Report on the human and architectural/structural history of the building, definitive dating of the Tavern, a building needs assessment and renovation plans and specifications for the restoration work. Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee noted her support of the project. Mr. Kanter of the CEC questioned Ms. Bennett on the magnitude of the FY14 renovation costs for the project. Ms. Bennett responded that she expected the proposed renovation costs to be lower than the Hancock-Clarke restoration ($1.1M) and the Munroe Tavern ($820K). She explained that she would return to the CPC for funding for a portion of the renovation costs, and would seek grants for this phase of the project. She noted that the likelihood of a grant for the Historic Structure Report is minimal, and only slightly higher for the restoration work. In response to a question from Ms. Fenollosa, Ms. Bennett explained that the Town had formerly carried the insurance on the Tavern, but that under the new lease (which was presently being prepared), the Society would pay insurance costs. A question arose about the need for public bidding for the project, to which Ms. Bennett replied that the Society had prepared its response to this question, which was now with Town Counsel for consideration. Mr. Adler was interested in the level of detail in the dating of the building and asked Ms. Bennett to explain the process of using dendrochronology to date buildings. Ms. Bennett explained that by examining 1 tree rings in the lumber in the Tavern, a dendrochronologist can match the wood to local lumber of a known date. This technique, she explained resulted in dramatic re-dating of the Buckman and Munroe Taverns. The estimate for this work was approximately $3,000. 2.Historical Society Historic Records Conservation – Ms. Bennett presented this request for $77,268. She explained that the Society is the steward for important historical records, most notably the original records from the First Parish Church dating back to 1696. The Society also has early records from Lexington, in varying states of disrepair. She explained that all records will be conserved, digitized and archived, and that all Historical Society records will then be available through the Town’s portal. Mr. Adler questioned where the original copies of the Society’s records would ultimately be housed, to which Ms. Bennett explained that they would reside in the climate controlled archives in the Hancock-Clark House. 3.Archives and Records Management/Records Conservation – Ms. Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, presented this project which is the Year 5 request of a 5- year project to conserve the Town’s historic records and documents. She explained the progress to date, noting that Year 4 work was presently underway. She noted that as the work from years 1-4 come to a close, attention will focus on the design and “construction” of the Town’s digital exhibit. She said in future years, her applications will be for $20,000 a budget she felt she could stay within. There were no questions regarding this project. 4.Center Playfields Drainage – Implementation, Phase III – David Pinsonneault, Director of Operations at the DPW, presented this request for $605,718 for the third year of drainage work in a 3-year project. He explained that work will include drainage improvements to the practice field along Worthen Road, the little league field/JV softball field, and the center track area. He explained that the work will be similar to that completed in years 1 and 2, where soils were removed, amended, and drainage work undertaken. He expected the Phase III work to be completed in the summer of 2013. 5.Battle Green Master Plan Implementation, Phase II – Mr. Pinsonneault introduced this request for $143,845 for improvements to the Battle Green. Ms. Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee was also in attendance. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the FY13 funds would be used primarily for the stabilization of the sand paths which ring the Battle Green and for the stabilization of paths to certain monuments. (Work also includes restoration of some of the granite paving, and the repair of fencing at Ye Old Burying Ground.) There were no questions on this proposal. (The amount of this project was shown incorrectly on the handout to both the public and CPC. This has since been corrected.) 2 6.Visitor Center Renovation/Expansion – Ms. Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee commenced this presentation. She was joined by Mr. Colin Smith, architect and Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, and Ms. Mary Jo Bohart, Executive Director of the Chamber. The proposal before the CPC was for $177,731 for design funds for the renovation of the existing Visitor Center. (The CPC had previously established that CPA funds could not be used for design or construction of the new section of the Center.) Ms. McKenna presented a series of slides which highlighted the importance of the tourist industry in Lexington. She cited a statistic from the State which indicated that $50 million in funds came into Lexington during the 2010 calendar year. She also noted that $478,000 had been received from the meals and hotels taxes in the last year. Mr. Smith then presented a series of slides, which showed the proposed improvements to the Visitor Center. He noted that the Center had been constructed in 1974 when the railroad was active, and as a result, did not have a welcoming front to the present-day Bikeway. Renovations to the building would include a welcoming entrance on the Bikeway, increased meeting and exhibit space, and additional meeting rooms on the second floor. Construction would follow LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver guidelines. He said the entire job is presently estimated at $1.6M. The requests for design and renovation funds for the historic section of the building are $177,731 for FY13 and $599,755 in FY14. Mr. Adler questioned the egress to the second floor, and whether there was only an outdoor access to the top floor. Ms. McKenna explained that there will be separate outdoor access to the second floor, (allowing access to the Chamber office and meeting rooms after hours), but that there is also an interior stairwell. Rooms on the first floor can be closed off, she noted, if the upper Chamber of Commerce rooms are in use after hours. David Kaufman, Town Meeting member, asked how the Visitor Center qualified as an historic building. Ms. Fenollosa responded to this question, explaining that the Center is on the State and National Register of Historic Places, and as such, qualifies under the CPA statute. Mr. Kanter questioned when the final Visitor Center Report would be complete. Ms. McKenna responded that the Tourism Committee is meeting th with the Selectmen on January 9, and said that she is planning to have the report finalized by that point. There was a brief discussion of the possibility of the Chamber or individual businesses contributing to the cost of the renovation, but Ms. Bohart, Executive Director of the Chamber felt there was little likelihood that either could contribute. She noted that the Chamber presently covers the cost of staffing the building, and the Town covers its maintenance. 3 7.Paint Mine Barn Preservation – Karen Mullins, Director of Community Development, and Administrator of the Conservation Commission, presented this project for $34,770 for the restoration of the Paint Mine Barn, located on the Paint Mine Conservation Area off Mountain Road. She showed a locus map and slides of the structure, noting that the building is 80’ by 20’ and contains seven stalls. She said the building had been assessed by the Building Inspector, Gary Rhodes and by Pat Goddard, Director of Facilities. She said the structure would be used to store conservation equipment and tools. In response to a question from Mr. McSweeney, she explained that the building has power, but no water. The question arose about security and Ms. Mullins explained that the building would be locked and alarmed. Mr. Adler questioned whether Conservation equipment could be housed in the new Public Services Building, to which Ms. Mullins replied that there was not enough space. Mr. Kanter asked the CPC to explain the historic status of the building, and Ms. Fenollosa replied that the barn had been placed on the Comprehensive Cultural Resources Inventory (the “Inventory”) for further study. Once on the Inventory, (even on a “pending” basis) Ms. Fenollosa stated that the Paint Mine Barn is afforded the same level of protection as those properties which have received full study. To elucidate this point, Ms. Mullins added that a request to demolish the building would trigger the Demolition Delay By-law. 8.Conservation Land Acquisition - Ms. Mullins spoke to this request, which had been submitted by the Conservation Commission. She stated that there had been no progress on this acquisition, and that any discussion of the acquisition was being handled in Executive Session. Mr. Kanter questioned whether there was any anticipated time-line for the project, to which Ms. Mullins said there was not. She added there was some question as to whether it would come before the CPC for FY13. 9.Land Acquisition – Wright Farm – Mr. Cohen reported that negotiations were ongoing, and that there was a slight possibility that the acquisition might need to be postponed until next year. He added that the Wright Farm has been on the Conservation Commission list of properties of interest for the last thirty to forty years. Ms. Manz added that the CPC had authorized the release of $9,000 in CPA funds to pay for two appraisals on the property. 10.Muzzey Senior Center Upgrades – Patrick Goddard, Director of Facilities, presented this project for $561,518. The project was initially submitted to the CPC with an estimated cost of $82,000 for design development and construction documents. After review by the Board of Selectmen, the design funds were amended to include important safety upgrades, which Mr. Goddard explained included a communicating stair, a limited use elevator, and upgrades to lighting. He noted that the infill in between floors and the HVAC work would be postponed until FY14. He said the total cost of the 4 upgrades would remain at $1,040,444, with $561,518 requested for FY13 and $478,926 requested for FY14. Ms. Manz asked if the Year 2 work could be easily “severable” to which Mr. Goddard replied that it could be deferred if needed. There were no other questions on this project. 11.Cary Memorial Building Upgrades – Mr. Goddard, Director of Facilities, presented this project request for $550,000 for the development of design and construction drawings for improvements to the Cary Memorial Building (as recommended in the 2011 Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building Evaluation). Of the many items suggested in the report for improvement, he noted that the most important were acoustical improvements, renovations of the HVAC system, upgrades to the bathrooms, accessibility upgrades, and a lift to the Bird Room. Phase 2 costs for this project are estimated at $7.2M. Mr. Goddard recognized that the FY14 project was very high, and noted that there was an option for a 4-year phased approach to the project. This would necessitate a 20% premium on construction costs, however. He suggested that the CPC decide upon an amount that would be reasonable for the FY14 project, and that he could “work within” the CPC budget. There was a general discussion of this approach, with members discussing the various aspects of the building that they felt most needed repair. It was generally agreed that the acoustics, the HVAC and bathrooms were priorities. Ms. McKenna made the point that the Town should not eliminate the “historical aspects” of the building while trying to preserve its history. She noted that items like the bathrooms, were an important historical element in the building and should be considered for preservation. She also noted that it would be a valuable exercise to compare the present project with an earlier one to upgrade Cary Memorial Hall for a performance center. Ms. Manz clarified this issue, stating that the previous study only examined Cary Hall as a self-supporting performance center, a standard to which the current project did not aspire. Town Meeting member David Kaufman, noted that the bathrooms and HVAC system would benefit from energy upgrades. In response to a question from Ms. Shaw, Mr. Goddard noted that the renovations to the acoustical system would be in the range of $200,000 to $250,000. Mr. Kanter suggested Mr. Goddard return to the CPC with a modified project for FY14 that prioritized the various upgrades for the Cary Memorial Building. 12.White House Stabilization – Mr. Goddard presented this proposed project which sought $202,000 in CPA funds for the exterior stabilization of the White House. Mr. Goddard reported that there was no Board of Selectmen support for a previous amendment to the project, which called for modest interior stabilizations to the interior, so that it could be used by those utilizing the Conscience Land (such as the Farmer’s Market patrons) and by the 5 Liberty Ride. He said he had brought forward “Scenario #5”, of the Historic Structure Report of the White House, which called for the demolition of all sections of the building except the original house (referred to as the Main Block). Mr. Adler brought up the issue of the replacement of the storm windows on the White House, which were specified in the Report as being aluminum. He said he felt this would be unacceptable, given the CPC’s stand on the Muzzey Condominium window renovation project in FY12. Mr. Goddard said that the storm windows could be addressed in the design review process. Ms. Fenollosa added that the Historic District Statute calls for “replacement in kind” for historic renovation projects, which would necessitate wooden storm windows. Ms. Manz asked Mr. Goddard if the Town is in agreement with Scenario #5, which necessitates the demolition of the remainder of the structure. Mr. McSweeney also questioned whether there were any thoughts of moving the structure. Mr. Goddard did not elaborate on the Town support for the present proposal, but did indicate that moving the building had been discussed. Ms. McKenna stressed the point that historic buildings must be protected in Lexington, and that what is often considered “unsavable” is in fact part of the fabric of the Town. Ms. Weiss stated she felt that the Stone Building exterior renovation had been a successful project and a perfect example of the use of the Community Preservation Act. She also suggested that Mr. Goddard show the “before and after pictures” of the Stone Building at Town Meeting, which had received an exterior renovation with CPC funding in FY11. 13.LexHAB Set-Aside Funds for Affordable Housing – Mr. Bill Kennedy, Chair of LexHAB, presented a request for $500,000 in up-front funds for the purchase of affordable units in Lexington. He discussed the history of LexHAB in Lexington, stating that the non-profit has 67 units of affordable housing, which house 179 people, 80% of whom are Lexington affiliated. He discussed the recent LexHAB purchases, particularly the Wilson Road home acquired with FY12 CPA funds. The house sold for $365,000 Mr. Kennedy explained, and would need $35,000 to $40,000 in renovations. When questioned why LexHAB was requesting $50,000 more in funding than requested in FY12, Mr. Kennedy stated that the increase was to offset anticipated energy-saving renovations and replacements. He added that the Guidelines established by the CPC for the purchase of affordable units by LexHAB would be followed in FY13 if funding were granted. There was a brief discussion of the lottery system used by LexHAB, and of the cooperative work of LexHAB and the Lexington Housing Authority to meet the low and moderate housing needs of the Town. 6 14.Greeley Village – Construction of 4 Accessible Housing Units – Mr. Steve Keane, Director of the Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), presented this project for $1,110,673 to design and construct four accessible units at Greeley Village. Mr. Keane explained that there were no accessible units at Greeley Village, despite a need for them. He added that Greeley Village is out of compliance with the State’s requirement of 5% accessible units. He presented the Committee with two letters; one from Minute Man Vocational Technical School agreeing to help construct the units, and a second, from the Department of Housing and Community Development, which stated that although the Department supported the LHA initiative, it could not commit funds at the present time. Mr. Keane said he would have a better sense of the State’s position on funding before Town Meeting. Mr. Cohen questioned whether Minuteman Vo-Tech might be committed to other projects (such as Leary or Busa) in coming years. He also noted that the construction of the units by the Town might make them ineligible for future State or Federal maintenance dollars. Ms. Fenollosa questioned whether renovations could be made to existing units to make them accessible, to which Mr. Keane reminded Ms. Fenollosa that LHA had submitted such an application a couple of years ago, which Town Counsel had deemed ineligible. Mr. Keane added that the LHA had received State funding for the renovation of two common rooms to make them handicapped accessible. 15.Debt Service Payments – Ms. Manz addressed this item, stating that the CPC had two debt service payments to make in FY13. These are; (1) the debt service for Busa Farm of $930,300, and (2) the debt service payment for Cotton Farm of $1,000,000. Both represent the final years of payments on the projects. 16.Administrative Budget – Ms. Manz also addressed this item, stating that the CPC sought $150,000 in Administrative funds, $50,000 of which included planning monies for land acquisition. The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 PM. The following documents were presented at the hearing: (1)“FY13 CPA Projects and Account Balances (for CPC Meeting of 12/19/11), dated December 19, 2011. (2)“Greeley Village Accessible Housing Project” (project amendment), dated November 11, 2011. (The date had not been amended.) (3)A letter dated 12/19/11 from Steve Keane, Executive Director of the Lexington Housing Authority, noting the attachment of two letters; a letter from Minute Man 7 Vocational Technical High School pledging support for student construction of the four accessible units described in Mr. Keane’s proposal, and a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development stating their inability to commit to any funding support for the four units at this time. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 8