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