Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPAB 07-11-2017 minutes Historic Preservation Advisory Board July 11, 2017 | 6:00 pm City Hall: Madison Room - 121 N. Rouse Ave., Bozeman MT **No video is available for this meeting – an audio recording is available upon request** A. Call meeting to order and Roll Call – Present Were:  Crystal Alegria  Michael Wallner  Chris Saunders (Staff)  Cassidy Cook  Commissioner Cyndy Andrus  Eric Karshner  Jeanne Wilkinson B. Changes to the Agenda (none) C. Minutes for Approval:  5.9.2017 MOTION to approve the minutes: Michael Wallner MOTION SECONDED VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes D. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication Chris Saunders explained that discussions regarding specific projects cannot take place outside of the public meeting. Members must be working from the same information. E. Public Comment (none) F. Action Items 1. Demolition of the Vollmer Slaughterhouse Site – Removal of two historically contributing buildings within the Story Mill Historic District. Application 17252. (Saunders)  Memo  17-252 Vollmer Slaughterhouse Application This application is running in parallel with a site plan application. These application materials include an updated inventory form for these properties, describing the existing condition, the status and the history that goes with them. The structures were part of the story mill complex in the mid and early parts of last century in association with the stockyards to the north. The proposal is to remove them. The buildings have become functionally obsolete and are a public safety issue. The cost of salvaging the structures exceeds the cost of removing and replacing them. The finding of economic impact is part of the municipal code: Section 38.16.100 discusses the process of demolishing a structure at a historic site. Mitch Overton, Director, stated that the Parks Department’s first goal is to remove any potential hazards and attraction for potential nuisances. The second goal is to commemorate the site and its contribution to the valley. In order to do this, they discussed outlining the perimeter of the foundation of the building so that people can see its footprint. The third goal is to provide education to the public about the site and its historic use. There will be a trail leading visitors through the site, relating to the history of the site. A board member asked if they had considered removing the graffiti rather than demolishing the structures. The Parks staff stated that they have worked hard to secure the buildings, but that it has proven to be nearly impossible. The city started managing the structures in 2014 and have dealt with constant break-ins and concern that this site will continue to attract crime. The board and Parks staff deliberated on tearing down the structures vs. trying to repair them and implement them into the park, but Parks staff determined that by removing the structures, they will have more opportunity to enhance the historic experience with information and features for visitors. A member of the board voiced concern that the structures could potentially be demolished without having to go before the city commission. The group continued to deliberate on ideas to retain the structures, but safety concerns continued to take precedence. The group discussed the possibility of keeping pieces of the structure’s materials to incorporate into art or some type of display which would commemorate the historic site. Commissioner Andrus let the board know that what the Community Development Director would like to know is whether the board supports the demolition of these structures when making a motion. MOTION to approve the plan brought before the board by the Trust for Public Land and City Parks Department to demolish the buildings on the Vollmer site with the stipulation that as they move forward with the plans for the interpretive signs that they take into consideration preserving any part of the existing materials. MOTION SECONDED Discussion: One board member stated that this project accomplishes what the board is trying to do in the park and focuses on what the board is trying to do by looking at sites like this and ensuring that the story is told into perpetuity as part of our heritage. Another board member supported the boulders, marking the parameters, as a physical presence of the structure. A third board member stated that they would like to see an alternative to boulders representing the border VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes 2. Unified Development Code (UDC) – Discussion of proposed revisions prior to making recommendation to the City Commission. Discussion of memo conveying recommendation to the City Commission. Planner Chris Saunders summarized the UDC as the portion of the city’s rules having to do with land development, covering uses allowed in zoning, setbacks, parking requirements, building heights, lot configurations, block layouts and everything having to do with zoning and subdivisions. Zoning was adopted in 1934 and has been replaced many times over the years as the community changes and adapts. Saunders stated that largely, the UDC is remaining the same, but that one of the changes relevant to this body is the demolition process. He welcomed the board to offer input on the entire document, but pointed out some main points for HPAB in the memo provided in the agenda packet. Saunders summarized the changes proposed to the UDC as a reorganization with basic changes to landscaping, parking etc. Based on feedback from the public, the UDC will be broken into seven larger sections with themes. Saunders told the Historic Advisory board members that they have the option, not obligation to make motions and votes to send recommendations to the commission. The group started deliberating based on a list of questions put together by board members.  Review Authority: One of the changes proposed in the UDC draft states that the Design Review Board (DRB) has the authority to look at projects located in the entryway corridors. This draft is proposing to add another trigger for review by the DRB which is buildings of 4 or more stories. The UDC draft adopts most of the design guidelines that were part of the entryway corridor and applies them to the rest of the city. Board member Wilkinson recommended that the DRB have the authority to review large scale projects in the NCOD.  Plan Review Criteria p. 89 sec. A. A board member was concerned that the words “and height” were removed from the section for review criteria. Saunders explained that the reason why it was stricken from that section is because it was addressed in another section for form and intensity.  Zone Edge Transition is a new section in the UDC and is in response to some issues that have come up and comments received from the public recently. This is proposing a specific standard for given districts and properties that back up against it. In response to a question asking which would take precedence - Zone Edge transition or NCOD guidelines – Saunders answered that the NCOD guidelines take precedence over general guidelines in the code because a more detailed standard typically takes precedence of a more general standard. There is a caveat that states that the decision maker (commission or Planning Director) can use the standards in the general guidelines if it better advances the purposes of the NCOD guidelines. Wilkinson asked if there should be more stringent requirements for transitions adjacent to a historic district, requiring larger setbacks, etc. Saunders replied that there are many alternatives and that they need to balance the impact on who is affected by the more stringent rules as it would limit development. He did say that there are opportunities to change the UDC down the road as long as they can demonstrate a reason behind the change.  Conservation Overlay (sec. 38.340.010) which reviews the intent of the section contains an edit in paragraph F that reviews the protection of historic structures. This is to emphasize the fact that Bozeman is working on historic structures. There was a change adopted in February that referenced the national standards as to how to evaluate and identify a historic structure. The demolition of a historic structure goes through a more rigorous process than a typical demolition. The group discussed the possibility of removing ‘historically significant’ from the section due to it being defined too narrowly with how we identify historically significant structures. Saunders did note that qualified professionals can determine whether a structure is historically significant, though it would be reviewed by the City as well. A board member voiced concern regarding ADUs being allowed with alley access since the older alleys are so narrow and that there could be unintended consequences. Saunders pointed out that there is a different section which reviews ADUs and alley access that goes over other requirements, which should assure that there is enough room to back out of the garage without negatively impacting the alley. He continued by saying it is a balancing act to compromise between those who support and those who are against ADUs with alley access. Saunders explained the idea of a Departure, a new concept which allows an opportunity for someone to propose in a specific design component in the standards to do something differently. An example would be if you need 50% of the ground floor to be transparent (windows, etc.), there is an option for a departure to do less transparency in lieu of something else. They are identified in specific areas of the code that are eligible for departures. It is different from a deviation in that deviations are specific to historic structures and achieving greater historic compatibility. A board member asked if height changes can be made through departure – they are not. If there is a conflict between the NCOD guidelines and Article 5 in the UDC, the NCOD takes precedence. If there is not a conflict, then you must satisfy both. There is funding set aside to update the NCOD guidelines, but the Community Development Division must first fill the Historic Preservation Specialist position to lead that work.  Process to Demolish When There is No Viable Economic Life: The applicant provides estimated costs for their building which is compared to the estimated cost to bring the building into building code compliance (plumbing, electrical, building, etc.). The Planning division is working on developing worksheets to help the public understand the process. The group discussed how they would move forward with providing feedback to the City Commission. In the interest of time, they determined that they would submit comments which will be compiled into one memo to be provided to the Commission.  Overlay District Standards (p.222) a board member asked why a line in this section was stricken. It was because it was a duplication. G. FYI/Discussion 1. Update on Historic Preservation Specialist recruitment Planning is continuing to recruit and have had an additional set of interviews. Some applicants have withdrawn, so they’re working on bringing the remaining eligible applicants back to Bozeman to show them around. 2. Discussion of new board members There are new board appointees. The City Clerk will be sending out official contacts for new board members in the near future. 3. Update on projects proposing demolition  703 E. Fridley St. – application 17262: existing home on a larger parcel. The original survey form from 1984 showed the structure as non-contributing. Demolition was approved. There will be two small homes on the parcel, which fits with the character of the neighborhood.  521 S. Black Ave. – application 17051: Contributing structure which was in its original form. It went through the process and demonstrated that given the specifics of their structures, they did meet the economic threshold test. This property is proposing to keep elements of the original structure.  332 S. Church Ave. – application 17083: Would like to remove the entire structure to build a new, 2 story home. It went through the process and demonstrated that given the specifics of their structures, they did meet the economic threshold test. 4. Board questions and general discussion H. Adjournment For more information please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 406-582-2260 Preservation Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn (TDD 582-2307).