Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-10-06 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 TIME: 7:00pm 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 Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner slavalley@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda  Public Comment  Chair’s Report  Minutes September 15, 2010 o  Meetings With Applicants 7:15-7:45: Tree Committee, Tree Census o 7:45-8:15: Lilly Library, Window Restoration o 8:15-8:40: Conservation Commission, Conservation Fund o 8:40-9:05: Historical Commission, Local Historic Preservation o Restriction Program  Draft Contract Review Garfield Avenue o  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes October 6, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, David Drake, Downey Meyer, Joe DeFazio, Brian Adams, Don Bianchi, Downey Meyer, Lilly Lombard Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Public Comment None Chair’s Report There were no items for discussion. Minutes, September 15, 2010 The minutes were approved as presented, with a minor correction. Meetings with Applicants Tree Committee, Tree Census John Galvin and Susan Ford, Tree Committee, provided an overview of the proposed project. John explained that BID interns did an initial survey, and GIS Coordinator James Thompson provided information about how GIS could contribute to the project. The Committee asked whether the proposed Smith College label format is this the most user- friendly label for a downtown area. John noted that the labels used by Smith are a fairly straightforward format that contains basic information, but details could be changed. People can zone-in on the information that’s most important to them. The Committee discussed potential information that could be included on tree labels. Downey suggested it might be important to have larger labels to provide more public impact. John noted that this would mean the labels would have to be done by a different organization, and would most likely cost more. The Committee discussed labels that could provide additional information about characteristics and benefits of different tree species, including a possible interactive feature for smartphones. John suggested that the online mapping component could allow more information to be available outside the labels. Susan noted that any on-the-ground signs beyond the labels might not last very long, and that there is currently no inventory of trees in Northampton at all. This project is an important first step. Katharine asked how the database will be maintained to reflect removal and planting of trees. John stated the tree committee will be responsible for updating the database, and will use the census information to make better informed decisions about replacement trees and tree health. John noted that the number of trees removed each year is not extremely high Fran asked about the budget for phase 1- an error in this section made it unclear what the correct cost was. Fran asked about the projected cost of the arborist. John replied that the 50-80 dollar range was determined by asking the tree warden in Amherst what rates for the project might be. However, arborists in MA are currently in high demand currently due to the Asian Longhorned Beetle issue. Lilly noted that it seemed like the census is the highest priority, and the labels are a bonus. John replied that the census is very important, but is also one of the tree committee’s responsibilities to educate citizens about trees. Brian asked about the 14.4 minute per tree site visit budgeted in phase 1. John explained that this will be a determination of whether the tree is publicly or privately owned conducted by DPW staff, and there is unfortunately no way to combine the tree visits in phases 1 and 2. Providing a budget item for DPW staff time will ensure that the work will be completed since it would be their day to day responsibilities would not include this. Katharine asked if the project is planned to be expanded. John stated this could be a model to conduct additional census work around the City. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1 October 6, 2010 Lilly Library, Window Restoration Linda Lenkowski, Lilly Library Board of Trustees, provided an overview of the project and distributed photos of the windows. Fran asked how long-term preservation would be ensured, and whether a HPR would be possible. David added that the CPC is contributing public funds, and the committee would like to ensure that the investment is protected in the future. Linda asked if a restriction would be on the entire building or simply the windows. A restriction for the windows could likely be easily done, but a restriction on the structure may be a problem, since the trustees are careful to consider possible needed future improvements. Lilly added that the DAR property, though it received a very small CPA grant, had a restriction placed on the entire property. The CPC is most concerned with projects that have historic value as a whole, and a conversation about the building’s preservation should be held. The Committee discussed different elements that could be included in a restriction, and the HPR process. David complemented the Trustees on their commitment to preserving the historic aspects of the building. Since CPA monies are public funds, assurance that the investment will be protected must be provided. However, onerous restrictions shouldn’t be placed on the Library. David offered to discuss preservation restrictions with the Trustees. Linda asked about bidding of the restoration work. Sarah suggested that three quotes should be sought, but responses from glass specialists may be that they don’t do that type of specialized work. The Committee agreed that the specialized nature of the work made just one quote OK. Fran noted that it will cost $700 to restore a window, but the budget for each is $1000. Linda noted that the additional cost accounts for hanging of the windows. Conservation Commission, Conservation Fund Sarah LaValley, as staff to the Conservation Commission, provided an overview of the project. Sarah referred to the Answers to Committee Questions document for a breakdown of CPA funds spent and conservation land purchased. The Commission will place restrictions held by a third party on all land acquired with CPA funds, and is currently working on a process to retroactively address previous purchases without CR’s. Don asked how the Fund differs from a revolving fund, as proposed for other types of projects. Downey noted that Conservation Commissions are granted specific roles in Massachusetts General Laws, and Conservation Funds are one of those. The Committee asked how the condition of the last award requiring consultation with the Agricultural Commission was being implemented. Sarah replied that the Conservation Commission consults with the Ag Commission for all parcels containing prime agricultural soils, and this was done with the Bean/Allard acquisitions. The Committee discussed the Conservation Commission’s role in acquiring agricultural land. Downey noted that the Agricultural Commission had also presented an application for an APR program. The Committee discussed the $20,000 hard cost cap, and whether CPC approval should be sought for land purchases. Historical Commission, Local Historic Preservation Restriction Program Sarah LaValley, as staff to the Historical Commission, provided an overview of the project. Joe noted that placement of an HPR could be perceived as a financial benefit, and that there are likely several CPC members who own historic properties. The Committee agreed that placement of an HPR would generally not be regarded as a financial gain, since the restrictions would most likely lower property values. However, it was agreed that an opinion from the Ethics Commission should be obtained. Sarah will contact the Commission. Lilly asked if interested homeowners will be provided information about the limitations a restriction could place on their property. Sarah noted that an intern will contact potential candidates with an introduction letter, but detailed discussions would be held with those interested, and all aspects of HPR would be outlined. It’s hoped to get one or more successful HPR to use as models. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 October 6, 2010 The Committee asked how HPR could have a benefit to the community at-large. David pointed out that historic structures are part of the character of Northampton, and their exteriors, which would be protected through HPR, are enjoyed by the public. The Committee asked how the Historical Commission will evaluate potential HPR if lots of applications are received. Sarah replied that due to the nature of HPR, the Historical Commission does not expect to receive an overwhelming number of applications. The Committee asked why a homeowner would be interested in obtaining a HPR. Sarah replied that the program would not be for everyone- properties should not be financed, since a bank would be unlikely to approve a subordination, and HPR can decrease property values. However, they are a way for those who have taken care of the historic features of their properties to make sure they are preserved. Draft Contract Review - Garfield Avenue Sarah reported that she prepared a draft contract for the second of Pioneer Valley Habitat’s three $60,000 awards, with the same terms and conditions as the first contract. The Committee agreed that the contract could be sent to the grantee for review and signatures. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 October 6, 2010