Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-21-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Monday, November 21, 2011 3:00 pm Legion Room Cary Memorial Building Present: Board Members: Wendy Manz,Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Sandy Shaw, Betsey Weiss, Dick Wolk. Administrative Assistant : Nathalie Rice Also in attendance were David Kanter and Shirley Stolz, of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC), Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, and Town residents Nancy Adler and Bob Pressman. The meeting was called to order at 3:02 pm. by Ms. Manz. 1.Minutes – The minutes from the meeting of 10/24/11 were approved as written. Regarding the minutes of 11/7/11, Ms. Shaw noted that she did not question Mr. Pinsonneault regarding whether borings were taken under the school track. (this question had been raised by Ms. Stolz.) The minutes of 11/7/11 were then approved as amended. 2.Muzzey Senior Center Upgrades – Mr. Goddard, Director of Facilities presented this project, which sought $82,000 in CPA funding. Charlotte Rogers, Director of Human Services was also in attendance. Mr. Goddard noted that the Upgrades Project was the second phase of the Muzzey Senior Center applications, the original project having commenced in FY 12 with an Improvements Study. He summarized the work to be undertaken in Phase 2, which included; the installation of a new stairway, infilling areas between the two floors, upgrades to the HVAC system, lighting upgrades, a wheelchair lift and the correction of MAAB (Massachusetts Architectural Board) violations. He said there were several issues of safety, such as unequal stair treads, which needed correction. In response to a question from Mr. Wolk, Mr. Goddard explained that he did not know if the Muzzey Condominium Building would be the ultimate home of the Senior Center, but that the improvements were very necessary from a safety standpoint. He noted that the Senior Center serves up to 100 people a day, many of whom have limited access issues. Mr. Adler noted that the project may benefit the Muzzey Condominium owners since it involves upgrades to the main entrance, and questioned whether the project qualified as an affordable housing project. There was some discussion of this point, but the CPC felt the work should remain in the 1 historic “bucket”. Mr. Kanter noted, however, that the Muzzey Condominium Association must “sign on” to the project, which is located in their building. He suggested the CPC receive written approval from the Association prior to the granting of any approval of the application. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Goddard said that he Board of Selectmen had not yet approved the Muzzey Senior Center Upgrades project. Ms. Manz stressed that approval of any project that seeks CPA funding is contingent upon Selectmen approval. 3.White House Stabilization and Reuse – Mr. Goddard presented this project, th which was initially submitted at $202,000. On November 15, the CPC received an amended application, which sought an additional $300,000 for the project, due to the addition of interior renovation work. The project request presently stands at $502,550. Mr. Goddard described the project, noting that in addition to the exterior stabilization, the interior was now proposed to be upgraded to serve as a starting point for the Liberty Ride and to provide restrooms for those using the Conscience Land (such as the Farmer’s Market). Mr. Goddard discussed the work on the White House, which would include removing the “L” and the barn, then stabilizing the original Hosmer Home or what he termed “the Main Block”. This work was outlined in the Hammond A. Hosmer House Historic Structure Report, dated November 30, 2010, which was approved by the CPC for funding for FY11. He said the alternatives for renovations to the White House had been discussed with the Historic Districts Commission, and that the Commission had endorsed this option, referred to in the Report as “Scenario 5”. The specific work to the Main Block would include resetting stones in the foundation, installing aluminum storm windows, striping and painting, replacing soffits and fascias, replacing shutters and gutters and repairing the chimney. He added that the original porch on the house would also be rebuilt, an element of the project to which the CPC reacted quite favorably. Mr. Goddard then described the proposed interior work, which involved replacing the stairs and landing, providing a handicapped entrance, replacing the roof, installing life safety systems, restoring interior surfaces and finishes, installing basic HVAC and installing a handicapped restroom. The Committee was interested in the breakdown of the project elements. Mr. Goddard explained that the total stabilization cost was estimated at $361,000 and the renovation work at $304,000, but that the demolition portion was not being requested for funding with CPA funds. He said it was difficult to estimate from the initial application the costs that would be attributable to the 2 interior work. Mr. Kanter said it appeared from his calculations that the interior cost was $198,550 and demolition, $162,450. Mr. Goddard noted that there was a generous contingency cost in the proposal, and that in fact, he hoped that project could be completed for less than $500,000. Mr. Kanter asked if the Liberty Ride did not occupy the building whether the interior would be used by other groups. Mr. Goddard responded that it was his decision to determine the use of the building, only to supervise the renovation work. Mr. Wolk questioned how much the interior renovations were prompted by the Liberty Ride’s interest in the White House. Ms. McKenna responded to this question, explaining that the Liberty Ride component was not driving the interior renovations. She explained however, that it would be very convenient for the Ride to commence at the White House. The ride presently starts at the National Heritage Museum, she noted, which is not open during some of the weekend hours that the Ride is in service and does not have restroom facilities. In response to a question about parking, she stated that there are approximately 10 cars for each Ride. Mr. Goddard added that the Selectmen have approved the “process” he has followed to date regarding the White House project. 4.Cary Memorial Building Upgrades – Mr. Goddard also presented this project, which sought $550,000 in FY 13 for design and engineering work, with a projected rehabilitation cost in FY 14 of $7.2 million. Mr. Goddard distributed the Executive Summary from the Issac Harris Cary Memorial Building Evaluation, (dated June 1, 2011) to the Committee. The CPC had previously received the Summary, and had been notified that the full report was available on line. Mr. Goddard explained the recommended upgrades to the Cary Memorial Building, and noted that the intent was to return it to its 1927 grandeur, but with modern technology that improved its use as a performance space, meeting hall, and location for smaller meetings for Town-affiliated groups. Upgrades included: accessibility upgrades, interior structural repairs and modifications, fire protection improvements, plumbing improvements, HVAC upgrades, acoustical improvements, stage improvements and auditorium and support space upgrades. Mr. Goddard noted that he would be recommending a additional custodial position be added so that the Town did not have to pay overtime for weekend custodial work. He said that funding of the entire project (both FY13 and FY14) were very much “open for discussion”, and that he would be willing to work with the Committee to tailor the project to suit the availability of CPA funds. Ms. Manz commended the level of detail in the lengthy Building Evaluation Report, but questioned whether everything in the report had to be accomplished. Mr. Adler later echoed this sentiment, saying that “needs” 3 might be addressed now, and “wants” could be postponed. There was a general discussion of how the work on the Cary Memorial Building could best be accomplished, given (1) the large scope and cost of the work, (2) an economy that is presently favorable to bidding such jobs, and (3) the present demands for CPA funds. Ms. Manz asked how long the estimates from the design study might be valid, to which Mr. Goddard replied that it would be hard to estimate. He added that the project could be phased over 3-4 years, but that total costs would necessarily be higher. Mr. Kanter asked if the design and engineering estimates could be phased, but this raised the question of prioritizing the elements of work. The CPC then posed the question of how it could prioritize work in the absence of direction from the Town. Mr. Goddard reiterated his desire for direction from the Committee in terms of a “dollar amount”. He said with that as a guideline, he could then work within the public process to define the most important renovation components. 5.Buckman Tavern Historic Structure Report – Susan Bennett, Director of the Historical Society met with the CPC to request $65,000 for the funding of a Historic Structure Report for the Buckman Tavern. Though the building has been well-studied, she said a Historic Structures Report was needed prior to doing necessary capital improvements and upgrades to the structure. She noted that some of the improvements would include an adequate ADA ramp, sprinkler and wiring systems that are up to code, restrooms for visitors, redesigned exhibit space, and perhaps a lift similar to the Munroe Tavern. She said the current request of $65,000 would cover both the report and construction drawings. In response to a question from Mr. Adler, she explained that State and Federal sources of funding are typically not available for Historic Structure Reports but might be for the later rehabilitation. She stated two sources of funding that she may pursue; the Preservation Projects Fund, and the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund. Ms. Stolz questioned Ms. Bennett about rehabilitation of the landscaping around the Tavern. Ms. Bennett explained that since historic plantings around the Tavern were nearly non-existent in the early 1700’s, the “landscaping” plan for Buckman was essentially a vegetation removal plan. There was a discussion of the herb garden at the Tavern, and an overhanging walnut tree which contributes to roof problems. A general discussion followed regarding the Town’s ownership of the Tavern, the Historical Society’s lease on the property, and whether the public bidding process must be followed for the rehabilitation phase of the Tavern. 6.Historical RecordsPreservation – Ms. Bennett also presented this project on behalf of the Historical Society. She explained that this $77,268 project request was for the preservation of the Historical Society’s records, many of which of are of “high interest”. She said the Society is the steward of the First 4 Parish Church’s records book dating between 1698 and 1845, which is the oldest original remaining records book in Lexington. In response to questions from the CPC and Mr. Kanter, Ms. Bennett explained that the records conserved under this project will remain in the Historical Society’s stewardship in the humidity controlled room at the Hancock-Clark House. The digitized records, however, will go to the Town and be available through the Town’s website. Ms. Bennett explained that the Society has a “hand- shake” agreement to keep and preserve the First Parish records, to which Mr. Kanter suggested drawing up a written agreement to formalize the arrangement. 7.Town Counsel Review of FY13 Applications - Ms. Manz reported that Kevin Batt, Town Counsel had reviewed all the FY 13 projects and had ruled that certain projects, or portions thereof, were not eligible for CPA funding. These included: a.)Battle Green Master Plan Implementation – Traffic Study . Ms. Manz reported that Mr. Batt had felt this element of the project could not be funded with CPA funds due to the fact that it did not strictly qualify under the guidelines for historic preservation. b.)Visitor Center – Ms. Manz noted thatMr. Batt did not believe feel the Visitor Center met the strict intention of the historic resources definition due to the fact that it was constructed in the 1960’s. Ms Manz read a rebuttal written by Ms. Fenollosa which indicated that the building was not only in the HDC but on the State and Federal List of Historic Places. The CPC will vote to reinstate this project. c.)Antony Park – Ms. Manz stated that Mr. Batt had also deemed the Antony Park project to be ineligible for two reasons. First, Tower Park which is the proposed home for Antony Park, was not purchased with CPA open space funds, and therefore cannot be “rehabilitated” for new open space with CPA funds. Secondly, if Tower Park were a historical park, the same holds true – it would have to have been initially purchased with CPA historic resource funds for any future historic rehabilitation to be eligible. Given the opinion of Mr. Batt, the CPC voted (7-0) to remove the Traffic Study component of the Battle Green Master Plan Implementation project and the Antony Park project from further consideration. 8.Approval of Administrative Funds for Two Appraisals – TheCommittee was in receipt of a memo from Ms. Mullins, Director of the Community Development Department, requesting $9,500 in CPA administrative funds for two appraisals for the Wright Farm. Some members voiced their objection to another open space acquisition, stating that they felt the cost of the Cotton Farm acquisition had been too high. After a short discussion of the appraisal 5 process, the Committee voted (5-2) to approve the funds for the two appraisals for Cotton Farm. 9.Updates – Ms. Manz updated members on the Special Town Meeting. She reported that the Library’s request for $35,000 in supplemental funding for their FY11 Library Preservation Project was approved. The Library will now be able to move forward to the bidding process for the construction of the records preservation room. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm. The following documents were presented at the meeting: (1)Two sheets entitled “Muzzey Senior Center, dated September 12, 2011”, showing the floor plans of the existing and proposed conditions at the Muzzey Senior Center. (2)“Historic Structure Report, The Hammond A. Hosmer House, Lexington, Massachusetts, dated November 30, 2010”. (3)Photographs of the before and after conditions of the Stone Building on Massachusetts Avenue (exterior was rehabilitated with CPA funds). (4)“Summary Report, Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building Evaluation, 1605 Lexington, Massachusetts, dated June 1, 2011”. (5)An email dates November 16, 2011 in which Kevin Batt, Town counsel, gave his opinion on 4 applications presently before the CPC. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 6