|
Montebello Condominium Unit Owners Association |
|
Advisory committee on Landscape Design and Management |
|
Committee Meeting |
|
1) Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: 5 Members Absent: 2 Board Liaison: Present Guests: 6
2) The minutes of the April 24 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously.
3) Contacts with Other Communities. These reports were deferred to the next meeting.
4) Review of Virginia Department of Forestry Study. One committee member’s review was distributed in advance of the meeting and is attached. With regard to the study’s identification of three sub-sections, a question was raised about the suitability of using them in the phasing of cleaning out invasive species and doing other work as opposed to spreading out resources over the entire property. The member suggested that the sectioning idea was probably a good one if the sections reflected that some areas were worse than others. For example, Area B as defined in the study may have more English ivy than either A or C. However, for management of the remedial work, subdivisions should be tied to the prescriptions rather than just an arbitrary identification of a land area. Breaking up the forest in terms of things that are alike, e.g., where are the thin soils, where are the tulip poplars, etc., and then examining each area for particular problems, such as severity of invasives, would make more sense. The first cut should be based on a biological theme. Normally, this would be expected of a forestry report. It may be something we can ask of the landscape designer in the next RFP. It was also noted that this report did not include the recommendation from our other consultants who recommended using the deadfall to line our trail.
5) Inviting Consultants for Evening/Community Meeting. Chairman noted that our original RFP allowed for the possibility that we would invite either or both of the consultants back for a meeting with the committee. One proposal would be to have the consultants meet just with the committee. A second thought was that they might be part of town meeting, which could be conducted more as a conversation so that residents would be able to ask questions of technical experts and begin to build an understanding of the committee’s work.
6) There were several points mentioned with regard to what might be useful and what would serve residents well:
A. A town meeting would be more useful if the committee were prepared to bring at least a preliminary proposal that could be backed up by the technical consultants. B. We might consider this more in terms of increasing the level of knowledge of everyone about the assessment—as opposed to our recommendations. If everyone were at some common level of understanding, we would create common agreement on the facts of what we have now. In this regard, we could have questions prepared ahead of time to ensure that important subjects were raised on which residents could then comment or ask further questions. C. Perhaps a more intimate setting, e.g., Building focus groups, might provide a more intimate environment for conversation. D. If the meeting were more issue-oriented, it might draw more interest. There has not been a clear identification of the problems and possible scenarios for fixing them. E. Work can continue in the background if we can consider this a stand-alone activity. F. Residents would benefit from an assessment of the property, some ideas under consideration, and potential costs. G. Timing is an issue. H. We have already done a lot of reporting out via monthly reports to the BOD and monthly articles in The Times of Montebello. Our website also describes what we are doing and includes the consultants’ findings and recommendations. I. We do have at least one outstanding issue about the use/impact of turf areas, specifically, the turf area between Buildings 1 and 2 that we have thought of as a gathering area. Community input would be useful on that issue. 7) To add some additional perspective to the discussion, Chairman distributed a first draft of work specifications for the second RFP. This draft is to set out what we anticipate coming from a landscape designer in terms of proposals for solutions to the problems that were identified by the IPM experts. The committee agreed to return to this issue.
|
|
There were several points mentioned with regard to what might be useful and what would serve residents well |
May 15, 2006 |
