Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2009-03-18 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Fran Volkmann, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Tom Parent, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee ParentBridge@hotmail.com Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda Public Comment ? Acceptance of 3/4/2009 Minutes ? Chair's Report ? Meeting with Round 1, 2009 Applicants ?? -Northampton Conservation Commission (Saw Mill Hills Expansion) -Northampton Conservation Commission (Conservation Fund) -Northampton Historical Commission (Heritage Resources Survey) -Department of Public Works (Open Space Preservation) -Academy of Music Theatre (Historic Marquee) Update of Maple St SRO Project ?? Discussion of Community Preservation Plan revisions ?? ? Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ 1 MINUTES Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Tom Parent, Jack Hornor, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer and David Drake (City Council approval pending). Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Fran Volkmann opened the public meeting at 7:04pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Fran Volkmann presented the minutes of March 4, 2009 meeting for discussion. There being no additions or corrections, Fran Volkmann announced the minutes approved as read. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? Fran Volkmann stated she has not received a response to her inquiry from the city solicitor. She suggested the CPC re-visit on April 15, 2009. 4. MEETING WITH ROUND 1, 2009 APPLICANTS NORTHAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ?? Doug McDonald of the DPW summarized the project to display signage and labels at river, brook and storm water conveyances throughout the city. ?? Lilly Lombard asked about the different types of labels and their expected lifespan. ?? Doug McDonald stated wintertime is not easy on them. Metal labels are better but more expensive. Also, putting the labels on curbing is better than in the street. He suggested perhaps trying half of each type to test the long-term effectiveness. ?? David Drake asked if theft is a problem. ?? Doug McDonald stated not that he has heard of though some kids may peal them off. 2 ?? Fran Volkmann stated the costs of alternative products and methods would be helpful for comparison. ?? Doug McDonald agreed and will compile that information. ?? Doug McDonald finished by stating this project will send an important message. The small investment would go a long way toward the goals of protecting open space. ACADEMY OF MUSIC ?? Andrew Crystal, Tom Douglas, Gail Yacuzzo, George Zimmerman, Stuart Mieher were present to answer questions regarding the project. Tom Douglas opened with a short presentation highlighting the main aspects of the project. The project would include a new marquee with an eight-foot canopy (contingent on MHC approval), neon sign above and LED signboard below. Also included are all new doors. Doors would be full height as original. The side doors are rotting and are a fire hazard. The design would be mahogany and metal. The canopy gives weather protection. New proposed font atop the marquee to match upper stone façade lettering. LED needed for quickly changing event messages. Manual lettering would not be practical for today’s programming needs. Frontage above the doors covered by original sign would now be visible. A structural engineer would determine snow loads, etc. The marquee would ties into structural walls 30’ inside building. All work would be reversible by Mass Historic requirement. Electrical and lighting costs are included. Mass Historic wants doors similar to original but that detail may be negotiable. The canopy would create a useable “outdoor room”. ?? David Drake stated the LED lights seem overly bright for the area. Are they dimmable? ?? Andrew Crystal stated the LED message board is not a backlit sign like some designs. ?? Tom Douglas stated other building lights would temper the brightness. ?? Don Bianchi questioned the various side door options. ?? Andrew Crystal presented a sheet of options. He stated the front doors must happen with marquee. The four side doors are second priority. Then the rest later. They would be willing to go with steel doors but need Mass Historic approval. ?? Jack Hornor asked why Mass Historic requested the new font for the neon sign. ?? Tom Douglas stated he too was surprised by the request as it differs from National Park guidelines. The old typeface was original to that marquee from 75 years ago. ?? Jack Hornor asked if Mass Historic is ok with LED message board. ?? Tom Douglas stated yes, they approved the overall concept. They will make arguments regarding eight-foot canopy as well. ?? David Drake stated the prices do not include doorjambs, hardware, etc. If partially funded, how would you proportion? ?? Tom Douglas stated perhaps repairing front doorframes, but must absolutely replace side doorframes. ?? Fran Volkmann asked the Academy to please comment on sustainability of the non-profit organization. ?? Andrew Crystal stated outstanding debt of $300,000 has been whittled to just $19,000. They are in a good cash-flow position. It is now a true community based performing arts venue with five resident companies currently. They are operating profitably as a non- profit venue. Grants and donations are difficult as always. Current tax listings are available on the website. 3 ?? Stuart Mieher stated they have $45,000 net cash at this point and they now employ a full- time executive director. ?? George Zimmerman stressed that the city remains committed. The mayor chose to have him on the finance committee, as the city owns the building. It is not a profit model and therefore relies heavily on other forms of funding. ?? Andrew Crystal stated the marquee would pay for itself in multiples of advertising value for the resident companies and the Academy. ?? George Kohout stated the public would understand funding the doors for safety and energy reasons. However, the marquee might be seen as extravagant in this economy. ?? Andrew Crystal stated the resident companies see it as a lifeline. Other forms of advertising are not cost effective. A marquee is part and parcel of a theatre. Finally, it will last for long time. ?? Tom Douglas added the current system of purchasing banners is very expensive. This would be a cost savings over time. ?? Gail Yacuzzo added that Academy rates are affordable for citizens. ?? Tom Parent agreed the current signs are awful looking. ?? Andrew Crystal asked the CPC to prioritize the marquee first and the doors second. NORTHAMPTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION ?? Barbara Blumenthal, Chair of the Northampton Historical Commission summarized the project. She stated an updated survey of Northampton's historic resources has been a constant demand over the past few years. It is much needed and has been done piecemeal in the past. It needs to be done thoroughly with the latest technologies. There will be comprehensive ways of making available to public. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the new technology would be searchable. ?? Bruce Young stated the city just received a grant to do more powerful options. ?? Barbara Blumenthal stated the key is to get the comprehensive information first, then provide in an accessible way. ?? George Kohout asked how they choose which buildings are included in the project. The goal is that it shold be pervasive throughout city. ?? Barbara Blumenthal stated they could suggest properties to the surveyor. Also citizens could volunteer to be included. Community outreach would be key. ?? David Drake stated as long as a form B is submitted accurately by a private party it could be included. ?? Fran Volkmann queried if this would be comprehensive. ?? David Drake stated it would be a one-time effort to do thoroughly, but then the information would last for a long time. This is a unique opportunity for Northampton. ?? Bruce Young asked if the project would include other artifacts aside from buildings. ?? Barbara Blumenthal stated it would include other structures and sights, not just buildings. The goal is to identify these as a resource for the community. NORTHAMPTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION, SAWMILL HILLS ?? Kevin Lake, Conservation Commission chair summarized the proposed project. ?? Tom Parent asked if this project would have been a Cons Comm Fund candidate. ?? Kevin Lake state it definitely would have been a perfect candidate as timing is crucial. 4 ?? Bruce Young stated the Planning Department has been in discussions with the landowner for quite a while. The owner's goals have changed over time. They moved away from interest in protecting the entire plot. We figured out a way to buy the ridge only. It is of high open space value and a good connector to other protected land. Also, it stops future development over a larger connected parcel. We have offered them $1,000 per acre for this unusable land. They said yes, and perhaps more land will later be available. They would have used Cons Comm Fund money to do more quickly if it were available. ?? Fran Volkmann asked how this land is usuable without frontage. Is development likely? ?? Bruce Young stated it does have some frontage. More importanly, it is a way to block in more possibly usable land. ?? Kevin Lake stated future land protection opportunities are hard to predict but inquiries come in often. We have relationships established to move quickly. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the Conservation Commission has discussed conservation restrictions instead. ?? Bruce Young stated yes, but for this small sliver of land at this price straight purchase makes more sense. ?? David Drake asked if the northern point would be passable. ?? Bruce Young stated yes, there is a delineated path already. NORTHAMPTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION, CONSERVATION FUND ?? Kevin Lake, Conservation Commission chair summarized the proposal for expansion of the current fund. ?? George Kohout stated the written answers submitted were confusing. It is hard to follow the process for using funds. ?? Tom Parent asked why $350,000. ?? Kevin Lake stated it was a compromise number. They currently could spend $1.2m on pending parcel options. This figure would hold them for a while. ?? Bruce Young stated $350,000 would exceed what was spent in 2008, but less than possible offers out there. ?? Lilly Lombard we have protected vast backland with an emphasis on wetland and habitat. How about protecting farmland? That is a high priority to me. ?? Kevin Lake stated three current agricultural offers are on the board. ?? Downey Meyer stated the Conservation Commission is interested in farmland as well. This pot of money would not be disconnected from that potential. ?? Bruce Young stated he works with the Agricultural Commission as well. He is making progress but the farmers are a very tight group. It is a delicate procedure to protect agricultural land. ?? Downey Meyer stated conservation groups use the tools of chapter 61 as well. They could work cooperatively with the Conservation Commission to access these funds as well. ?? Don Bianchi stated the advantage of this project is flexibility for the Conservation Commission. He suggested hard costs above $20,000 would come back to CPC for approval. The disadvantage of tying up this money is that it is not available for other purposes. He wondered if a solution is possible without tying up CPC funds. Perhaps we 5 could accomplish a similar goal by providing modest amount to be spent on soft costs only. This would buy time to come to us to propose hard costs. Worth exploring option. ?? Kevin Lake replied it is a matter of securing deal and securing at best price. Perhaps when time is not pressing your option makes sense. ?? Fran Volkmann accepted Kevin Lake’s offer to forward a list of pending and past purchases. ?? Don Bianchi stated the alternative plan gives them enough for site control. That buys time to come to others or us for funding. They could use funding to replenish. Also, could come to us later to raise amount. They could use the fund at their discretion, but if used for acquisition costs it would be depleted quickly. Better for site control only. ?? Lilly Lombard stated this makes sense for efficiency of purchase, but current market allows time to move slowly anyhow. From marketing perspective good to present the list of potential deals. ?? Kevin Lake stated the charter of the Conservation Commission is to acquire and protect open land. Opportunities for protection are limited. There is urgency. We are buying a sustainable concept. The actual parcels could be identified later. ?? Bruce Young stated a competent purchase is to do solid research and then make a solid, good faith offer. The Planning Department has not failed to close on an offer in the last 20 years. This is a crucial track record when approaching landowners. Also, developers buy land now in a down economy to make money later. This is a very crucial time. ?? Don Bianchi stated the concern is that we are asking the mayor and council to give discretionary funding to Conservation Commission. No public oversight. ?? Kevin Lake stated that is not accurate. Council must still approve any purchase. ?? David Drake stated this sets a precedent of the concept of a war chest for the various commissions. Housing, historical and recreation would like this as well. We need to be aware we are doing that. ?? Downey Meyer asked Kevin Lake to please list top 3 outstanding land offers. ?? Kevin Lake stated there are 1000 acres in Leeds for $400,000, 40 acres on the old Northampton Canal for $150,000, and 50 acres in Florence for $150,000. These are not set deals, just concepts. ?? Bruce Young stated it is very important for us to make real deals only. No offers unless ready to fully purchase. ?? Don Bianchi disagreed stating real estate negotiation always not a certainty. Failure would not leave bad taste if it were a transparent process. ?? Bruce Young agreed in the short-term, but it affects future potential offers. The long-term track record is crucial. 5. UPDATE OF MAPLE STREET SRO PROJECT ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC voted last year to give VCDC $250,000. Some questions regarding the type of units remained unanswered. ?? Don Bianchi updated the CPC by stating VCDC had hoped to upgrade the units from SRO to enhanced SRO. Joanne Campbell determined though that if any walls were moved it would trip required zoning permits without a certain chance of approval. 6 Therefore, VCDC plans to keep as regular SRO. Also, they are applying in June for bulk of funding from the state. We have funded them for minor soft costs now, while bulk of our funding would come when state funds are granted. 6. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PLAN REVISIONS ?? Fran Volkmann presented the new plan and described changes. Appendix A becomes the report for 2007/2008. Appendix D is the new guidelines. The overview is shortened as most is moved to Appendix A as the report. The funding limit on study grants was removed. The general criteria are now numbered. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the top of page 4 is not accurate. ?? Jack Hornor disagreed stating we voted to table it. ?? Tom Parent stated it is the same with FCBA. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC must use stronger language for requirements. ?? Fran Volkmann disagreed stating tone is important. It is offensive to use strong language. ?? Downey Meyer stated it is important though for legal requirements to be listed firmly. Giving the appearance that it is optional would create more work later. It would serve them to be clear from the start. ?? Jack Hornor agreed for expectations it is appropriate to use “should”, but for requirements it should be “must”. ?? The CPC general consensus agreed. ?? David Drake questioned why the Historical Commission is not being used as a filter. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the procedure is for the HC representative on the CPC to be the filter. If we choose to we would ask HC for more information. ?? Bruce Young questioned if we should be requiring applicants to complete any required steps before applying for eligibility. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the important thing is for the applicant to have the application completed when it is time to review. ?? Jack Hornor felt differently stating he saw it as helpful to the applicant to do the required work before getting too far into the process. It may save them some time in the long run. He does not have a strong feeling either way though. ?? George Kohout stated the role of the CPC is also to help applicants as much as possible. ?? Don Bianchi stated applicants are always welcome to approach staff for help but must do so in a timely manner. Deadlines still apply. ?? George Kohout reminded staff to update the header and footer of the document pages. ?? Jack Hornor stated there has been a problem with category checkboxes in the past. Many applicants are checking more than apply. The CPC should clarify which are appropriate. ?? Fran Volkmann asked if the CPC is ready to vote. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Lilly Lombard, all voted to recommend the CPC Plan for 2009 with changes as noted. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the plan would now be scheduled for a public hearing at the April 15, 2009 meeting. 7 7. OTHER BUSINESS ?? Jack Hornor stated FCBA attorney Bill St. James received the proposed funding contract. He has yet to respond. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the April 1, 2009 would include funding decisions on Round 1 projects. Then future agenda setting items would be discussed on April 15, 2009. Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Fran Volkmann, all vote in favor of adjourning the public meeting at 10:10 pm. Respectfully submitted on March 26, 2009, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 8