Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Willson Building Bozeman Armory Site PlanCommission Memorandum Memorandum created on February 20, 2008 REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer SUBJECT: The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV #Z-07278 MEETING DATE: Monday, February 25, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: For the City Commission to deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 B.M.C.). BACKGROUND: In December 2007, property owners Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard and representative Bechtle-Slade, P.C. submitted to the Department of Planning the current proposal under review. The Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application proposes the redevelopment of the historic Bozeman Armory site at 24 West Mendenhall Street. The Armory is designated as a contributing building by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The project proposal generally includes the following alterations: 1. Demolition of the historic Bozeman Armory, 2. New construction of a four-story, mixed use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet, with 18% as retail uses ( 15,869 square feet), 14% as office uses (12,931 square feet), 24% as residential uses (12 units) and 13% as parking uses (one underground level of parking), 3. New landscaping around the perimeter of the property lot, in the public boulevard, and on roof decks/patios, and 4. Related site improvements. In the submitted Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, the representative justifies removal of the Bozeman Armory because of “major repair issues as well as human health and safety issues” and “how clumsy and difficult the rehabilitated spaces would be to use.” The representative states several investigations were made into rehabilitation options, but results found the required changes as economically unfeasible. A structural assessment of the building was submitted to Planning Staff for review (please see Appendix E of this report for a copy). A cost estimate, comparing the costs of rehabilitation versus the cost of demolition and redevelopment, was not included in the application materials. The Bozeman historic downtown is the heart of Gallatin Valley and the jewel of the City. Planning Staff recognizes the applicant’s desire to expand downtown’s economic vitality to the north and south, beyond Main Street, with the new construction. However, across the country there are several examples of armory adaptive reuse projects. The examples show adaptive reuse of these historic buildings creating just as much economic stimulus, if not more, as new construction. Please see Appendices H and I for the adaptive reuse examples. The structural report submitted by the applicant indicates a structurally solid and sound building, which has the capacity of handling a couple of stories (possibly more upon the results of a concrete core sample). Please see Appendices F and G for additional information about the economic benefits of historic preservation. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level, one of the few buildings within the City of Bozeman to do so. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress 198 Commission Memorandum Memorandum created on February 20, 2008 Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinct Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. The full description of the Bozeman Armory’s significant history begins on page 6 of this report. The Bozeman Armory solid form of building materials contains a significant amount of “embodied energy.” The loss of this energy, by disposing the building in a landfill, can never be recaptured through the energy savings of a new building built using green methods. Please see Appendices F and G for additional information about the conservation benefits of historic preservation. The applicant’s justification to why the building can not be adaptively reused is listed on page 13 of this report. The justification of Planning Staff’s recommendation to deny demolition of the Bozeman Armory is thoroughly explained between pages 12 and 17 of this report. Planning Staff’s review of the proposed new construction begins on page 18 of this report. Recommended conditions of approval, and additional mitigation considerations, are presented on page 26 of this report. The Design Review Board unanimously recommended the denial of the Bozeman Armory’s demolition and for the City Commission to invoke the two-year stay on demolition permits. The DRB staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report’s Appendix J. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board strongly recommended the denial of the Bozeman Armory’s demolition and for the City Commission to invoke the two-year stay on demolition permits in a 5-2 vote. The meeting’s minutes are included in this report’s Appendix J. The Parking Commission approved the cash-in-lieu payment for 40 parking spaces upon approval of the new construction by the City Commission. The subdivision review committee of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board prefers to see an off-site park land dedication rather than a cash-in-lieu payment, but understands that might not be feasible with this project. Overall, they recommended general support of a cash-in-lieu payment for 0.36 acres of park land. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Planning Staff is aware the applicant does not agree with the recommendation. FISCAL EFFECTS: The development, if carried forward, will require significant infrastructure and site improvements to meet City standards. These will be the responsibility of the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please email Allyson Bristor at abristor@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public meeting. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager 199 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT THE WILLSON BUILDING (BOZEMAN ARMORY DEMOLITION) SP/COA/DEV #Z-07278 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 1 Item: A Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application (#Z-07278), to allow the demolition of the Bozeman Armory building at 24 West Mendenhall Street, which is listed on the National Register for Historic Places, and the new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building. This application is generally requesting the following alterations: 1) demolition of the historic Bozeman Armory, 2) new construction of a four-story, mixed use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet, with 18% as retail uses, 14% as office uses, 24% as residential uses and 13% as parking uses, 3) new landscaping around the perimeter of the property lot and in the public boulevard, and 4) related site improvements. The subject property is zoned as B-3 (Central Business District), but located outside of the “core area.” It is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Owners: Libster Building LLC/UND c/o Michael Libster & Nygard Family LLC/UND c/o Thomas Nygard 11 West Main Street, Suite 223 Belgrade, MT 59714 Representative: Bechtle-Slade PC 705 East Mendenhall Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Meeting & Date: City Commission public hearing on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6 p.m., in the Community Room of the Gallatin County Courthouse (311 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715). Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer Recommendation: For the City Commission to deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). Motions for Consideration: Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits. OR Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. OR Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. 200 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 2 PROJECT LOCATION The Bozeman Armory building and proposed project site is located at 24 West Mendenhall Street. The location is southeast of the Mendenhall Street and Willson Avenue light-signaled intersection. It is legally described as the east 1.25’ of Lot 16, all of Lots 17-20, Block A, Tracy’s 1st Amended Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. A City of Bozeman surface public parking lot is located to the west and an office building is located to the east. Another City surface public parking lot is located across Mendenhall Street. The property is located within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. New construction will be invited and encourage provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architectural character and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens (18.28.010 UDO). PROJECT BACKGROUND The State of Montana was the original owner of the Bozeman Armory site and continued owning the building until approximately December 2003. The state put the building up for sale in May 2003. Under state law, the building could be sold at public auction or to another government agency for the appraised value of $815,000. During this time, a developer named Dick Clotfelter approached the City of Bozeman and expressed an interest in redeveloping the property for a performing arts center. Mr. Clotfelter paid the City $815,000, which allowed the City to purchase the building from the state (Montana Legislative Council, “September 22, 2003 Minutes”). Please see Staff’s Appendix D of this report for additional information. Prior to the final purchase, the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined an “adverse effect” with the sale of the Bozeman Armory. SHPO stated the sale represents the transfer of state owned with a significant heritage property. An additional covenant on the Armory’s sale deed was suggested by SHPO, in which the City of Bozeman agreed to fully comply with the Antiquities Act in its management of the Armory. The City declined to include the covenant language. The Bozeman Armory transferred ownership in March 2004 to Libster Building LLC/UND and Nygard Family LLC/UND. The performing arts center idea dissolved, with only the parking garage structure component of the plant to begin construction. Over the last two years, property owners Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard and representative Bechtle-Slade P.C. examined the Bozeman Armory structure for reuse opportunities as a mixed-use development project. The City of Bozeman informally met with the property owners and representative several times during the two years. A design concept was presented to the Department of Planning in May 2006 at one of the meetings. An informal application was not submitted for the Development Review Committee’s (DRC) consideration. The concept showed a six to seven story “roof-top” addition to the existing armory building. It was unclear to Planning Staff if the additional floors were an addition to the existing armory, or a new building constructed behind the armory front façade. The design also showed new construction, six to seven stories in height, to the west of the armory. It incorporated the adjacent City of Bozeman parking lot, which the property owners hoped to obtain from the City for the project. The proposed height of the addition and new construction surpassed the 70-foot maximum building height for B-3 zoning outside of the core area. It wasn’t disclosed to Planning Staff whether or not the historic Bozeman Armory was proposed for demolition with the addition. Planning Staff recommended the proposal drop in height to better conform to the Certificate of Appropriateness design guidelines, and to avoid a deviation request. Staff also recommended the western addition be set further back from Mendenhall Street to better distinguish the new construction from the original. Overall, Staff stated their concern about the proposal’s adverse affect to the Bozeman Armory’s character-defining features. Bechtle- 201 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 3 Slade contacted Pete Brown, Historic Architecture Specialist, at the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about the design concept. Mr. Brown told the representative that certain changes are necessary to make historic buildings meet modern needs, but they should be in the best interest of the building’s historic character. When the acquisition of the neighboring parking lot failed, the property owners and representative began working on a revised design. The property owners and representatives submitted an informal application to the Department of Planning in September 2007. The application materials portrayed an almost identical design to the current proposal; demolition of the Bozeman Armory was proposed and new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building was planned for its replacement. The only difference from the current plan was the raised first floor level (similar to the existing building design). The informal was reviewed by the DRC and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB). Planning Staff comments included the following: ƒ The applicant will be required to submit a detailed structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. ƒ At this time, the proposed demolition will not be supported by Planning Staff in front of the City Commission for the following reasons: ◦ The Bozeman Armory Building is historically significant for its Art Deco architecture (very few examples in Bozeman), its connection to World War II/WPA (one of only three buildings directly associated) and because it was designed by Bozeman’s local architect Fred F. Willson. ◦ The demolition does not abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is creating an adverse effect to the historic building. ◦ The new construction is not attempting to preserve any significant features of the existing building. ◦ The structure has useful life remaining. Repair and/or rehabilitation can occur. ƒ All parking cash-in-lieu requests are required to be heard and considered by the Parking Commission. ƒ All new construction in B-3 zoning, outside of the core, shall provide 13 landscaping ƒ The new construction requires 0.03 acres per residential/dwelling unit of park land shall be provided (per Section 18.50.020.A of the UDO). ƒ A cash-in-lieu payment for park land must abide by the requirements in Section 18.50.030 of the UDO. Cash-in-lieu shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. All cash-in-lieu payments shall be approved by the City Commission. ƒ The new construction requires 150 square feet of open space, for active recreational uses, per residential unit (per Section 18.50.020.C of the UDO). ƒ A 7-foot front yard setback is required for all new construction on Mendenhall Street. An encroachment into said yard setback would require a deviation request, which requires City Commission final approval. BHPAB reviewed the informal application and expressed their concern in supporting the demolition of a National Register listed building. They understood the difficulties associated with adaptive reuse of the historic building and they indicated a favorable response to the mixed-use aspect of the project. In their final recommendation, the BHPAB suggested a part of the Bozeman Armory be preserved with the new construction. PROJECT PROPOSAL In December 2007, property owners Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard and representative Bechtle-Slade, P.C. submitted to the Department of Planning the current proposal under review. The Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application proposes the redevelopment of the historic Bozeman Armory site at 24 West Mendenhall Street. The Armory is designated as a contributing building by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The project proposal generally includes the following alterations: 1. Demolition of the historic Bozeman Armory, 202 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 4 2. New construction of a four-story, mixed use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet, with 18% as retail uses ( 15,869 square feet), 14% as office uses (12,931 square feet), 24% as residential uses (12 units) and 13% as parking uses (one underground level of parking), 3. New landscaping around the perimeter of the property lot, in the public boulevard, and on roof decks/patios, and 4. Related site improvements. In the submitted Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, the representative justifies removal of the Bozeman Armory because of “major repair issues as well as human health and safety issues” and “how clumsy and difficult the rehabilitated spaces would be to use.” The representative states several investigations were made into rehabilitation options, but results found the required changes as economically unfeasible. A structural assessment of the building was submitted to Planning Staff for Review (please see Appendix E of this report). A cost estimate, comparing the costs of rehabilitation versus the cost of demolition and redevelopment, was not included in the application materials. One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the front stairs and stairwells to encroach into the required seven-foot front yard setback along Mendenhall Street (18.18.050 UDO). Stairs and stairwells that do not add usable area to a structure are permitted to encroach up to five feet in required front yards. The project proposes an approximate six-foot encroachment. The application is requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for parking. The representative calculated 610 available parking spaces in the adjacent blocks, including the future City parking garage and the two neighboring City surface parking lots. Additional information on the parking request is within the applicant’s Site Plan application Appendix I. The mixed-use proposal creates a parking demand of 128 spaces. When applicable parking reductions are considered, the parking demand decreases by 37 percent, or to 81 spaces (18.46.040 UDO). After the parking SID credit is applied, the parking demand decreases to 52 spaces. From the parking diagram submitted to the Department of Planning on January 2, 2008, the project is proposing 12 on-site parking spaces. The project creates an overall parking deficiency of 40 spaces. The required cash-in-lieu payment is $200,000 ($5,000 x 40=$200,000). The application is also requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for required park land dedication. According to the representative, the 12 proposed residential units create a demand of 0.36 acres of park land. An alternative to providing cash payment is providing park land dedication off-site. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the proposal on January 30, 2008. The DRC recommended the City Commission invoke the two-year stay on the demolition permit. If the Commission chooses to approve the demolition, the DRC recommended approval as conditioned by Planning and Engineering Staff. The Design Review Board (DRB) completed their review of the proposal on February 13, 2008. The DRB, in a unanimous vote (4-0), recommended the City Commission deny the demolition request for the Bozeman Armory and invoke the two-year stay on all demolition permits for the building. Please see Staff’s Appendix J for the “Public Agency Comment,” which includes the DRB staff report and a draft copy of the meeting minutes. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board strongly recommended the City Commission deny the demolition request for the Bozeman Armory and invoke the two-year stay on all demolition permits for the building in a 5-2 vote. Please see Appendix J for a copy of the Board’s meeting minutes. The State Historic Preservation Office also reviewed the revised design and their comments are included in Appendix J of this report. The City Parking Commission completed their review of the proposal’s parking cash-in-lieu request on February 14, 2008. The Commission, in a unanimous vote (5-0), recommended the approval of the cash-in-lieu payment 203 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 5 for 40 parking spaces, contingent on the City Commission’s approval of the Bozeman Armory’s demolition and new construction. The Parking Commission minutes were not available to include with this report. The subdivision review committee of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board completed their review of the proposal park land cash-in-lieu request on February 15, 2008. The committee expressed their preference for off- site park land dedication rather than cash-in-lieu, but understood that might not be a workable option for the applicant. Upon suggestion by Planning Staff, the subdivision review committee would like to be involved with the proposal’s final site plan review and consider the amount of cash-in-lieu proposed by the applicant (following the applicants’ real estate appraisal). The subdivision review committee’s minutes are included in Staff’s Appendix J, “Public Agency Comment.” The demolition of contributing buildings in the conservation district, and National Register listed properties, require City Commission final approval. The City Commission is receiving a recommendation from the Design Review Board (DRB), the Parking Commission, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board within this report, as included in Staff’s Appendix J, “Public Agency Comment.” ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is located within the B-3 zoning district, or the central business district. The intent of the central business district is to provide a central area for the community’s business, government service, and cultural activity. Uses within this district should be appropriate to such a focal center with inappropriate uses being excluded. It is further the intent of this district to encourage high volume, pedestrian-oriented uses on ground floor space in the “core area.” The core includes the area of Main Street from Grand Avenue to Rouse Avenue, and to the alleys one-half block north and south from Main Street. The subject property is located outside of the defined core area. Lower volume pedestrian uses such as professional offices may locate on the ground floor space in the B-3 area outside the defined core area (18.18.010 UDO). The subject property is surrounded by the following land uses: North: City of Bozeman surface public parking lot, zoned as B-3; South: Commercial businesses, including “Erotique,” “The Cannery,” and “Burger Bob’s,” all zoned as B-3; East: Law office building, zoned as B-3; West: City of Bozeman surface parking lot, zoned as B-3; Please refer to the zoning map on the following page. 204 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 6 Zoning Map (red dash line depicts “core area”) ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The subject property and the surrounding properties are designated as “Community Commercial” in the 2020 Community Plan. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within this category draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. This particular area of “Community Commercial” resides in the historic core of Bozeman. It is important to note the goals and objectives related to the historic core as stated in the Bozeman 2020 growth policy and keep them in perspective for this proposal: ƒ Goal 4.9.8. Historic Preservation/ Objective 2. Support the existing Historic Core of Bozeman so that it remains a pleasant and economically viable location to live, work, recreate and conduct commerce. ƒ Goal 6.6.3. City Core – Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman/ Objective 1. Ensure that development and re-development of this area, including the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, is done in a fashion which enhances, and is compatible with, the current community fabric. All types of development at this site, whether it involves adaptive reuse of the building or new construction, will help expand downtown’s activity to the north. BOZEMAN ARMORY HISTORY The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City of Bozeman. When determining a site or building’s quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 205 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 7 C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. As further described below, the Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinct Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. Please see Staff’s Appendices A, B, and C for additional information on the building’s significant history. National Significance Works Progress Administration An excerpt from the National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall, Lewis and Clark County, Montana”: “Established by executive order in May 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was a federal agency created to provide paying jobs for unemployed workers through various make-works projects. Laborers used for these projects had lost their jobs during the Great Depression, a worldwide economic slump that began in 1929. The WPA was part of the New Deal For America, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s program of economic recovery during the depression. Renamed the Work Progress Administration in 1939, its projects involved mostly construction projects, such as highways, bridges, parks, airport runways, public swimming pools, and country fairgrounds, schools, museums, stadiums and National Guard armories. Armory construction was an important aspect for the New Deal make-work program in many states, and was further supported by the War Department, which anticipated an outbreak of war. The armory- building program would result in additional trained citizen soldiers. In Montana, seven armories were authorized. The WPA was the major agency in the armory building program, and was charged with building smaller, one unit armories, meant to be designed by local architects and built by unskilled labor. The infusion of cash into WPA projects across the country made an economic impact on hundreds of communities, who competed for the funds. To qualify for a WPA project, cities had to meet three criteria: 1) projects had to meet a well-defined community need; 2) projects had to be sponsored by a public body, which had to provide 10-25 percent of the cost in cash and/or materials; and 3) 90 percent of the laborers had to be unemployed employable workers who were on the relief rolls. Before the WPA was disbanded in 1943, it had provided employment for about $8.5 million people on 1.4 million individual projects. In its seven-and-half years, the WPA remodeled more than 500 existing armory buildings and facilitated the new construction of 400 more.” As the need for small military training space decreased across the nation, the armory buildings were sold to new owners. Many are adaptively reused for local civic activities, such as community dances, banquet halls, public auditoriums, sport events. The civic emphasis was primary with all WPA projects (National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall in Lewis and Clark County, Montana”). 206 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 8 Art Deco Architecture The building’s architecture is known as Art Deco, a modernistic architectural style that emerged in the United States in 1920. The first examples of Art Deco were in public and commercial buildings. It was extremely rare in domestic architecture, although it was frequently used for apartment buildings. Identifying features of the style include the following: smooth wall surface; flat roof; horizontal grooves or lines in walls (horizontal emphasis); and asymmetrical façade (A Field Guide to American Houses, Virginia and Lee McAlester). Art Deco style strove for modernity and an artistic expression to complement the machine age. Concrete, smooth-faced stone and metal were characteristic exterior architectural coverings. Forms were simplified and streamlined, and a futuristic effect was often sought. (What Style is It: A Guide to American Architecture, John C. Poppeliers and S. Allen Chambers Jr.). State Significance Montana Armory Board The Bozeman Armory was one of six armories constructed in Montana as a WPA project, and sponsored by the Montana Armory Board (Bozeman Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, 1986). The state’s Regular Armory conducted an inspection of Montana National Guard facilities in 1938 and found them to be totally inadequate for drill purposes or equipment storage. To solve this problem, the 1939 Montana Legislature established the Montana Armory Board to sell bonds for funds to construct armories and drill halls in Helena, Bozeman, Billings, Harlowton, Poplar, Kalispell, and Glasgow. Built in the early 1940s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), these facilities were financed through the sale of Armory Board bonds and through state and federal appropriations (National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall, Lewis and Clark County, Montana”). 163rd Infantry Regiment The Bozeman Armory was built as the home for the Bozeman National Guard units of Montana’s 163rd Infantry Regiment, a National Guard unit drawn from all over the state. The 163rd was in combat during the construction of the building. The 163rd saw action in the Filipino Insurrection that followed the Spanish American War, the Mexican Border Incident of 1916, and World War I; but they are especially remembered in their key roles that it played in New Guinea, the Philippines, and the occupation of Japan during and immediately after World War II. The 163rd Infantry remained in active duty until 1946, making it the longest mobilized military unit in the U.S. Army during World War II (Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, 1986). Local Significance Art Deco Architecture The Bozeman Armory is one of only a few examples of Art Deco architecture in Bozeman; the other examples include the Gallatin County Courthouse and Gallatin County High School on West Main Street and the Hamill Apartments on East Main Street. Please see the pictures on the following page. 207 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 9 Gallatin County High School (Fred Willson design) on West Main Street Gallatin County Court House (Fred Willson design) on West Main Street Fred F. Willson The Bozeman Armory design originated with the Armory’s Boards Architects, Hugenin & Associates, whose resident architect was Fred F. Willson. Willson is considered Bozeman’s prolific local architect. Ann Butterfield, from her “The Architectural Legacy of Fred Willson” publication, writes the following: “Frederick Fielding Willson studied architecture at Columbia University, New York graduating in 1902. Along with his parents, the young Fred took a tour of the European continent, which included a stint at the Ecole de Beaux Arts. In his travels a diary was kept in which he marveled at the buildings and structures of Europe. On his return from abroad in 1906, he practiced architecture in Butte with the firm of Link and Haire. In 1909, Dr. Hamilton of Montana State College lured Fred back to Bozeman to design a dormitory. Dr. Hamilton was a friend of Fred’s parents, General Lester and Mrs. Emma (Weeks) Willson, two of the early settlers of Bozeman. The legacy of Fred Willson’s architecture is in his buildings sprinkled around Bozeman, Butte, Anaconda, Livingston, and Yellowstone Park, as well as many other southwestern Montana communities. He designed churches, warehouses, schools, jails, hospitals, and homes. Bozeman is fortunate to have many of the Willson-designed houses. 208 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 10 Willson recorded approximately 1, 754 jobs from 1913 until 1954. Willson was not a ‘one note’ architect. His proficiency in styles shows virtuosity and leaves an architectural anthology on the Bozeman streetscape. Willson’s designs add character, charm and diversity. Fittingly, an obituary written for Fred Willson in August 1956 sums up the legacy. ‘Whatever sort of marker will stand over his resting place in Sunset Hills, his lasting monument will be his college buildings on the hill, the sensible public schools that will always be modern for generations to come, the countless homes and other buildings he designed in Bozeman.’” Bozeman Community Organizations Armories built during under the WPA contained more than drill rooms and firing ranges. Local community offices and meeting rooms were also planned in the buildings. The City of Bozeman and Chamber of Commerce paid $2,000/per year rent to the State Armory Board for office and meeting space. “Conventions and amusements of all sorts which are of interest to the Bozeman public” were planned in the rented areas (Bozeman Courier, “Armory Lease Terms Drawn Up By Boards,” June 20, 1941). The civic aspect was a part of the New Deal work program and its goal of “giving relief, reform and recovery to the people and economy” (Wikipedia “New Deal,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal). The War Department also hoped to see collective strength created from the community centers, since they were anticipating war. Building Construction & Design The Bozeman Armory’s planned cost of construction in 1941 was $138,906.20 (Bozeman Courier, “Amory Cost Too High Under Plan Submitted Tues,” July 28, 1939). The building was described by the Bozeman Courier on March 7, 1941 as the following: “The armory building is constructed of steel reinforced concrete throughout. Pouring will resume the first of the week. The building is being built to resist earthquake shocks and absolutely fireproof throughout. Window and door frames are metal.” Built to the specifications of the War Department, the 128 foot by 108 foot armory, which was to provide “up-to- the-minute” protection, contained several novel features. Among the building’s facilities was a maple block drill floor running the full width of the building, capable of accommodating military trucks as well. The blocks were laid in contrasting patterns with no nails or glue. A rifle range was located in the basement. A sound-proof room was built for the 163rd Infantry Regimental Band. General facilities were included, such as offices, lounges, and officer’s club room. Public facilities were also included, such as a Chamber of Commerce Room, meeting rooms, and lounges (Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory, 1986). The war years posed certain problems to completion of the building. Materials were difficult to obtain, and construction personnel, mostly WPA workers who gained skills on the job, were constantly being absorbed by private industry (such as, harvesting jobs on Gallatin County farms). Travertine and terrazzo work originally specified by Willson had to be abandoned due to the difficulty of obtaining skilled workmen and necessary materials (Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory, 1986). APEX Engineering Services, Inc. performed a structural assessment and included the following description of the Bozeman Armory: “The building is comprised of concrete joists with integral slabs supported on reinforced concrete beams, commonly referred to as a “waffle slab” system. These beams are in turn supported on both reinforced concrete columns and concrete bearing walls. The entire structure is supported on a shallow foundation system comprised of continuous and spread concrete footings.” (March 23, 2007 APEX letter addressed to Michael Libster). Concrete is composed of sand and stone (aggregate), water, and a cementitious material, almost always Portland cement. Reinforced concrete is concrete strengthened by the addition of other material, typically metal bars. The reinforcement, embedded in the concrete before it sets, can withstand tensile and shearing stresses, thus giving the materials a much greater range of applications. The combination of 209 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 11 concrete and metal allowed the construction of sturdy slabs, beams, columns, and pavements in the early twentieth century. Reinforced concrete is commonly used in the construction of building frames, building façade elements, parking structures, bridges, dams, sculptures, and monuments. As with masonry systems, the majority of deterioration is caused by moisture. In the conservation of reinforced concrete, the key issue is whether the existing material can be repaired and conserved or whether it must be replaced (Twentieth-Century Building Materials: History and Conservation, ed. Thomas C. Jester, National Park Service). REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS – DEMOLITION OF BOZEMAN ARMORY The project proposes the demolition of the Bozeman Armory building, which is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated as a contributing property by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory. The Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed the application against the required criteria for considering demolition in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Administrative Design Review Staff offers the following comments for the City Commission’s consideration. Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning). Demolition of a historic building is not recommended by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Preserving character-defining features of the building is recommended. All of the building’s historic features and context are removed with the demolition. Therefore, the demolition proposal does not conform to the Standards. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height, 2. Proportions of doors and windows, 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces, 4. Roof shape, 5. Scale, 6. Directional expression, 7. Architectural details, 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, and 9. Material and color schemes. The demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the review of architectural guidelines is non-applicable. C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. 210 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 12 The demolition proposal destroys the culturally and architecturally significant Bozeman Armory building. Therefore, contemporary design of new structures on the site should not be encouraged. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the review of architectural guidelines is non-applicable. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. Read below for the applicable criteria for demolition of contributing structures. Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory…shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The final authority for demolition shall rest with the City Commission. The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department. As previously discussed in the “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness,” the demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinct Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. Please see Appendix A of this report for the Bozeman Armory’s Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory. The inventory was reviewed by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office for accuracy of history description and significance statement. Planning Staff does not find the project proposal as satisfying the criteria of this section. 2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least one of the 211 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 13 following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. In the submitted Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, the representative justifies removal of the Bozeman Armory because of “major repair issues as well as human health and safety issues” and “how clumsy and difficult the rehabilitated spaces would be to use.” The representative states several investigations were made into rehabilitation options, but results found the required changes as economically unfeasible. In the applicant’s Site Plan application Appendix F, the representative listed the building’s features that prevent the structure from being reused: ƒ The 10 foot floor to floor height and construction does not allow an acceptable installation of mechanical, sprinkler and lighting for retail and office space. ƒ In order to provide on-site parking we need to remove a portion of the back of the building. The back half of the building has shallow foundations and will not accommodate basement level parking and need to be removed as well as the slab on grade and sub grade. ƒ There is asbestos and lead paint that needs to be removed as a part of any remodel. ƒ The electrical and mechanical are shot and need replacing. ƒ The roof is leaking and needs total replacement. It also has asbestos content. ƒ The windows are single pane metal frame and many do not even work. ƒ The exterior doors are non-insulated. ƒ 60% of the walls need to be removed to function as needed for current day retail/office. All of those walls are concrete. ƒ Current floor levels do not allow Mendenhall Street level access to retail space. The main floor is four feet above the sidewalk level. Planning Staff requested additional information from the representative on December 21, 2007. The information requested was documented evidence justifying the demolition request, including but not limited to a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the cost of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. The representative’s response included a summary of a structural assessment performed for the building (by APEX Engineering Services, Inc.). Please see Appendix E of this report for a copy of the assessment. The representative stated the assessment found the addition of underground parking in the existing structure as economically unfeasible. Also, the representative stated the assessment found a limitation of floor additions to the existing structure. In closing, the representative claims the findings “are severely limiting economic factors when looking at the redevelopment of the site.” The representative’s response also included the following statement: “No complete cost estimates were developed because preliminary design analysis precluded the need to seek reconstruction estimates.” A cost estimate, comparing the costs of rehabilitation versus the cost of demolition and redevelopment, was not included in the application materials. Planning Staff does not find the proposed project as satisfying the criteria of this section for the following reasons: 212 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 14 1. The representative’s claim that a 7 foot – 10 inch ceiling height is created after the addition of HVAC systems doesn’t appear to be the only option for rehabilitation of the interior spaces. Exposed ductwork and piping could provide a ceiling height of 8 feet – 10 inches. The representative’s verbal claim that retail businesses do not want ceiling heights of 8 feet is undocumented. The large windows in the first floor spaces provide expansive sunlight exposure, which can help minimize the effect of low ceilings. The windows also provide sidewalk window exposure, which is typically a strong need of retail businesses. Pictures from October 30, 2007 site visit to Armory – first floor interior 2. The identified repair issues, including a leaking roof, outdated mechanical and electrical systems, and broken windows, are typical of historic buildings. All of the repair issues can easily be addressed in a rehabilitation project and therefore, do not warrant demolition. 3. The removal of asbestos and lead paint must occur with demolition, and therefore, can not be a justification to demolish the building. Rehabilitation of the building might provide fewer costs for asbestos and lead paint removal. The APEX structural report only assumed the roof contained asbestos (testing did not occur to prove asbestos content). The roof may not contain asbestos and therefore, costs could be saved. This action can be interpreted as “demolition by neglect” under many demolition/preservation city ordinances across the nation. 4. Repair issues can intensify when no routine maintenance is performed to the building. Staff believes the building’s roof partially caved-in over a year ago. A site visit to the property on October 30, 2007, showed water damage on interior walls and ceiling. No protection from water appeared to exist. Please see pictures on the following page. 213 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 15 Pictures from October 30, 2007 site visit to Armory – second floor interior 5. The APEX structural report recommends concrete core sample testing to determine the compressive strength of the concrete. Because concrete increases in strength over time, there is a possibility the concrete is indeed stronger than what was recorded on the construction drawings. The report states: “The potential increase in design values could make a substantial difference in the number of stories that could be added.” Additional floors could help the economic feasibility of the project. Additions of floors are discouraged by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. However, Planning Staff strongly believes if designed appropriately and distinguished from the original construction, additional floors to the building could be added. 6. The second floor’s partition walls are constructed out of wood and therefore, easier to change to render the floor plan. 7. Rehabilitation activity on Main Street has spurred economic reinvestment in Bozeman’s downtown. The activity also has contributed to the downtown tax base. The rehabilitation of the Armory building could serve as an economic stimulus for Mendenhall Street just as equally as new construction. Several studies across the nation have shown demolition encouraging demolition of other buildings. Vacant land does not contribute to the downtown’s tax base. Wholesale razing of buildings is demonstrably bad public policy, as seen with the federal government’s urban renewal program. “Urban ‘renewal’ programs…destroyed irreplaceable social networks in the name of a cramped (and frequently mistaken) vision of progress” (Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse). 8. Rehabilitation of the Armory is a more fiscally responsible reaction to the high cost of landfill. The City of Bozeman is currently dealing with the fiscal problems related to providing adequate solid waste disposal. The demolition of the Armory will require the disposal of a large amount of concrete material to the landfill. The representative states the only material slated for recycling is the rebar metal inside the concrete. “The disposal of solid waste is rapidly becoming one of the most important environmental issues for the construction industry. Annually, builders in the United States generate approximately 31.5 million tons of construction waste. The debris, which is composed of many types of 214 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 16 materials including some that are hazardous, represents almost 24 percent of the total municipal solid waste stream in this country” (Building a Balance: Solid Waste Disposal). 9. Rehabilitation of the Armory is the “greener” option. Demolition does not respect the building’s “embodied energy.” Embodied energy is defined as the total expenditure of energy involved in the creation of the building and its constituent materials. When a historic building is demolished, all the embodied energy that is incorporated within is thrown away (Donovan Rypkema’s Closing Plenary Speech, National Trust Main Street Conference). Please see Staff’s Appendix F of this report for additional information. The new building proposed to replace the Armory is indicated as a “green building.” Rypkema states: “Much of the green building movement across the nation focuses on the annual energy use of a building. But the energy embodied in the construction of a building is 15 to 30 times the annual energy use.” He continues and says: “Razing historic buildings results in a triple hit on scarce resources. First, we are throwing away thousands of dollars of embodied energy. Second, we are replacing it with materials vastly more consumptive of energy. What are most historic structures built from? Brick, plaster, concrete, and timber. What are among the least energy consumptive of materials? Brick plaster, concrete, and timber. What are the major components of new buildings? Plastic, steel, vinyl, and aluminum. What are among the most energy consumptive of materials? Plastic, steel, vinyl, and aluminum. Third, recurring embodied energy savings increase dramatically as a building life stretches over fifty years. You’re a fool or a fraud if you say you are an environmentally conscious builder and yet are throwing away historic buildings and their components” (Donovan Rypkema’s Closing Plenary Speech). 10. It doesn’t appear the applicant considered all uses when examining the potential of the building’s rehabilitation. The best use of the building, to keep it standing, might not be a retail/office/residential mixed-use development. The unique features and interior spaces of the building should be embraced. They can offer a rental market that is entirely unique from anything existing in the City of Bozeman, which adds considerable value to the space. Several examples across the country show National Guard armory buildings as rehabilitated and adaptively reused. And several of those examples occurred to vitalize an economically depressed area of a city’s downtown area. New uses established in armories include the following: residential condos, offices, retail food market, retail antiques market, arts and music enter, community center, affordable housing units, indoor football arena, community and military museums, social and cultural center, YMCA, police training facility and city parks and recreation center. Please see Appendix H and Appendix I of this report for additional examples. 11. It must be noted that the Armory property resides in B-3 zoning outside of the “core area.” Lower volume pedestrian uses such as professional offices may locate on the ground floor space. Staff wonders if the representative considered office uses on the building first floor, rather than retail. 12. Federal and local tax incentive programs are available to the property owners for rehabilitation of the Armory. Tax benefits typically improve the economic feasibility of historic rehabilitation projects. 13. The City of Bozeman adopted the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on November 27, 2006. The purpose of the agreement is for cities to take steps in reducing green house gas 215 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 17 (GHG) emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 and to implement local commitments for climate protection. Invoking the two-year star on the Armory’s demolition permit would keep several dump truck loads of concrete going to the landfill, an effort to reduce green house gas emissions. The energy for transportation in a diesel-powered is about 1.2 kWh/ton mile. D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection C. For the reasons discussed in the previous subsections, Planning Staff recommends the City Commission deny the demolition request of the Bozeman Armory and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). If the City Commission concurs with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, the following motion can be considered: Commission Motion Consideration: Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two- year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits. If the City Commission does not concur with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, the remaining report presents Planning Staff’s findings for the proposed new construction. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. If demolition of the Bozeman Armory occurs, Planning Staff recommends the following documentation of the property: 1. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permit, the applicant shall be required to perform a HABS/HAER level of documentation of the historic Bozeman Brewery Armory. HABS/HAER documentation includes large format photographs, building elevations and interior building floor plans of the existing building. The final documentation results shall be submitted to the Library of Congress for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record collection. This recommendation of documentation is included as the first condition of approval for the new construction. Planning Staff also presents additional mitigation strategies for the City Commission’s consideration, listed below. Mitigation is an attempt to lessen the impact of losing the National Register listed building. a. The applicant shall provide a 150% cash financial guarantee for the proposed demolition (1.5 x contractor’s cost estimate of demolition). Planning Staff recommends the Commission require a financial guarantee for the proposed demolition. The proposal includes an enormous scale of demolition. A partially demolished building creates a negative effect on the downtown community. A 150% financial guarantee provides the City adequate financial resources to protect the site if the 216 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 18 applicant is unable to complete the proposed demolition. b. The applicant shall complete a historic survey and inventory of a potential National Register building within the City of Bozeman. The demolition of the Bozeman Armory removes a property from the City’s National Register of Historic Places. Planning Staff believes a new building, which is eligible for the National Register, could be surveyed and inventoried and added to the list as a symbolic replacement for the Bozeman Armory. c. The applicant shall provide a cash contribution, amount determined by the City Commission, to the City of Bozeman’s upcoming update to the City’s Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory update. The City of Bozeman is planning for an update to the City Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file, beginning in 2009. The initial plan is for a three-year phased update, with each year budgeted for $150,000. REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS – NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ‘THE WILLSON’ The project proposes the new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet. The Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed the application against the required criteria for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application. Administrative Design Review Staff offers the following comments for the City Commission’s consideration. Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning). Demolition of a historic building is not recommended by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Preserving character-defining features of the building is recommended. All of the building’s historic features and context are removed with the demolition. Therefore, the demolition proposal does not conform to the Standards. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances; and 9. Material and color schemes. The architectural appearance design guidelines were considered with the review of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, as discussed in Part D below. 217 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 19 C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. The demolition proposal destroys the culturally and architecturally significant Bozeman Armory building. Therefore, new construction on the site should not be encouraged. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The Introduction, Chapters 2 and 5, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District all apply to this project, as the work proposed is “new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, but outside of the Historic District.” The guidelines may be accessed at: http://www.bozeman.net/planning/DGHPNCOD.aspx. Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for All Properties B. Street Patterns Policy: Historic settlement patterns seen in street and alley plans often contribute to the distinct character of the historic district and therefore should be preserved. Guideline: Respect historic settlement patterns. ƒ The new building is arranged on its site in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. D. Streetscape Policy: Maintain the traditional character of the streetscape. Guideline: Continue the pattern of street trees in a block. ƒ The new development proposes street (boulevard) trees. F. Building Form Policy: A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity. In order to maintain this continuity, a new building should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Guideline: Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. ƒ The new construction is a simple rectangular solid form, which is typically appropriate. G. Solid-to-Void Ratio Policy: A typical building appeared to be a rectangular solid, with small holes “punched” in the walls for windows and doors. Guideline: Use a ratio of solid-to-void (wall-to-window) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. ƒ The new construction proposes a ratio of wall-to-window that is fairly symmetrical. H. Materials Policy: Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. Guideline: The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen historically is appropriate. 218 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 20 ƒ The new construction appears to propose brick that is has a similar modular dimension as brick used traditionally. J. Parking Policy: The visual impact of surface parking should be minimized. ƒ The proposed parking is removed from the street level and located underneath the new construction. L. Site Lighting Policy: Light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky should be minimized. Guideline: 1. Lighting shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare. ƒ All proposed light fixtures on the building, both the front and rear elevations, should incorporate cut-off shields to direct light downward. ƒ The building’s interior lighting shall be shut off or minimized at night hours to be respectful to the night sky. M. Utilities and Service Areas Policy: Service areas should be visually unobtrusive and should be integrated with the design of the site and the building. ƒ The proposed trash collection area in the rear appears visually unobtrusive. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. Read below for the applicable criteria for deviation requests and site plan review. Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements” A. Modifications shall be historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties; B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The required deviation for building setback appears to be historically appropriate for the commercial character of the property. The proposed front entrance of the new construction is proposed at the same setback of the existing Bozeman Armory’s front entrance Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria” A. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy; The new construction proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the “Community Commercial” land use designation. B. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations; 219 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 21 The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan (FSP) approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Planning ƒ Section 18.34.130, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the date of approval of a preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning seven (7) copies of a Final Site Plan. The Final Site Plan shall contain all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the Department of Planning. ƒ Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. ƒ Section 18.34.130, upon submitting the Final Site Plan for approval by the Planning Director, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the above conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied or met. ƒ Section 18.38.050.F, “Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment,” all mechanical equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. ƒ Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” all proposed site and building lighting shall comply with said Section requirements. A detailed lighting plan shall be included with the Final Site Plan submittal. ƒ Section 18.42.170, “Trash and Garbage Enclosures,” a permanent enclosure for temporary storage of garbage, refuse, and other solid waste shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or condominium units, unless other arrangements are made. A narrative detail as to the garbage receptacle arrangements shall be provided with the final site plan submittal. ƒ Section 18.42.170, the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to final site plan approval. ƒ Section 18.44.100, “Street Vision Triangle,” at the intersection of each driveway or alley with a street, no fence, wall or planting > 30” above the street centerline grades, shall be permitted in the street vision triangle. ƒ Section 18.48.050, “Mandatory Landscaping Provisions,” all proposed landscaping shall comply with said Section requirements. Parking lot landscaping shall apply to the area within the perimeter of the paved portion of the parking lot (does not apply to parking garages). 220 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 22 ƒ Section 18.48.060, “Landscape Performance Standards,” all proposed landscaping shall comply with said Section requirements. The lot has not residential adjacency, so 15 points are required for the required landscaping standards. ƒ Section 18.50.020, “Park Area and Open Space Requirements,” all proposed open space and park area shall comply with said Section requirements. ƒ Section 18.50.030, “Cash Donation In-Lieu of Land Dedication,” the required park dedication for the proposal shall comply with said Section requirements. ƒ Section 18.52.060, “Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign Permit,” any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the requirements of this section. The total maximum allowable total signage in “M-1” zoning shall not exceed 250 square feet. For properties used for multi-household residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign shall be provided per street frontage. ƒ Section 18.52.070, “Comprehensive Sign Plan,” a comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted for all commercial, office, industrial and civic uses consisting of two or more tenant or occupant spaces on a lot or two or more lots subject to a common development permit or plan. ƒ Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. ƒ Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued unless the use, arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans and applications. Engineering ƒ Plans and specifications for any fire service line (or domestic service lines 4” diameter, or greater) must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service (or 4” or greater domestic service) or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings. ƒ A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations and discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan. A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County Clerk & Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject property. ƒ The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of line types and symbols used provided. ƒ Easements and R/W located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made. Any proposed easements shall be provided prior to FSP approval. 221 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 23 ƒ Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown, with sizes labeled, on the Final Site Plan from main to building and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant. ƒ The location of existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed hydrants. Proposed utilities shall be distinguishable from existing. ƒ Proposed water/sewer mains, services and hydrants shall be depicted on the landscape plan and maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ to landscape trees and lot lighting improvements. ƒ A Street Cut Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to cutting any publicly maintained street. ƒ The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments, or with infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. ƒ All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified. C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations; The proposal requires City Commission approval of the cash-in-lieu payments for parking and park land. D. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property; The proposed site plan appears to be appropriate for the commercial character of the property. E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; The application is requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for parking. The representative calculated 610 available parking spaces in the adjacent blocks, including the future City parking garage and the two neighboring City surface parking lots. Additional information on the parking request is within the applicant’s Site Plan application Appendix I. The mixed-use proposal creates a parking demand of 128 spaces. When applicable parking reductions are considered, the parking demand decreases by 37 percent, or to 81 spaces (18.46.040 UDO). After the parking SID credit is applied, the parking demand decreases to 52 spaces. The project is proposing 12 on-site parking spaces, creating an overall parking deficiency of 40 spaces. The required cash-in-lieu payment is $200,000 ($5,000 x 40=$200,000). The City Parking Commission completed their review of the proposal’s parking cash-in-lieu request on February 14, 2008. The Commission, in a unanimous vote (5-0), recommended the approval of the cash- in-lieu payment for 40 parking spaces, contingent on the City Commission’s approval of the Bozeman 222 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 24 Armory’s demolition and new construction. The Parking Commission minutes were not available to include with this report. As conditioned by Engineering, an agreement shall be reached between the City and developer in order for the adjacent City parking lot to be utilized for construction-related purposes. The Downtown Parking Commission must forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission, whose ultimate approval is required to finalize the agreement. F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress; Adequate pedestrian ingress and egress are provided from Mendenhall Street and vehicular ingress and egress are provided from the service alley. Several of Engineering’s conditions of approval address access issues on the site. Engineering is requiring improvements to the alley because of the proposed increased traffic from the residential units. G. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation; The proposal appears to meet the required 13 landscape points. Final review of the landscape plan occurs with the Final Site Plan application. H. Open space; As required by the UDO, 150 square feet of landscaped area for active recreational activities shall be supplied for each dwelling unit. The proposal requires 1,800 total square feet of on-site open space. Planning Staff understands the applicant intends to provide all required open space within the proposed roof decks and patio areas. Final review of the open space square footage occurs with the Final Site Plan application. I. Building location and height; The proposal falls within the maximum allowable building height for B-3 zoning outside of the core area, which is 70 feet. J. Setbacks; The proposed building setbacks appear to be appropriate for the commercial character of the property. K. Lighting; Details for any and all proposed light fixtures on the building are required at time of Final Site Plan submittal by submitting a lighting plan. L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities are addressed by Engineering’s conditions of approval and code provisions. M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control; Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions, and Public or 223 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 25 Private Streets (including curb, gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer at time of Final Site Plan submittal. N. Loading and unloading areas; The location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Department (phone: 586-3258) prior to time of Final Site Plan submittal. O. Grading; All proposed demolition and grading plans are reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building Department Staff at time of Final Site Plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its property lines. P. Signage; Any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the requirements of Chapter 18.52 of the UDO, including the submittal of a comprehensive sign plan with the Final Site Plan. Q. Screening; All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be either fully screened by incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully hidden behind a parapet wall. R. Overlay district provisions; The project is found to conflict with the Secretary of Interior Standards, which are included with the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards as required for all projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; Please see Appendix J and Appendix K for public agency and general public comment. T. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. Not applicable. 224 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 26 If the City Commission concurs with Planning Staff’s findings for the new construction, the following motions may be considered: Commission Motion Consideration: Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. OR Commission Motion Consideration: Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT Please refer to Appendix J of this report for public agency comment regarding this proposal. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Please refer to Appendix K of this report for public comment regarding this proposal. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based on the review performed by Planning and Administrative Design Review Staff, the following conditions of approval are presented to the City Commission for their consideration. Conditions of Approval Historic Preservation 1. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permit, the applicant shall be required to perform a HABS/HAER Level II of documentation of the historic Bozeman Brewery Armory. HABS/HAER documentation includes large format photographs, building elevations and interior building floor plans of the existing building. Please see Staff’s Appendix L for a description of Level II documentation. Planning 2. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall submit the parking cash-in-lieu payment to the City of Bozeman 3. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval, the applicant shall submit the parkland cash-in-lieu payment to the City of Bozeman. 4. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color and materials palette of all new construction materials (windows, doors, brick, etc.) for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. Engineering 4. Existing water services on the property that are no longer used shall be abandoned at the main. 5. The existing condition of the sewer service for the Ellen Theatre shall be documented – both prior to, and after construction – and provided to the City Water/Sewer Superintendent. If required, the service shall be remediated to its pre-construction condition prior to occupancy of the building. 225 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 27 6. Damage to area streets, alleys, sidewalks, City parking lots, and water/sewer/storm utilities, incurred as a result of the project, shall be repaired per the direction and approval of the City Engineering Department prior to occupancy of the building. 7. The alley behind the building shall be resurfaced with asphalt pavement from Willson Ave to the east property line. 8. The alley approach apron onto Willson Ave shall be replaced with a City Standard alley approach, per City Standard Drawing No. 02529-7B. 9. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, an encroachment permit, together with a comprehensive traffic control plan, shall be approved by the City Engineering Department in order to utilize a public right-of-way, including alleys, for construction-related purposes. 10. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, an agreement shall be reached between the City and developer in order for the adjacent City parking lot to be utilized for construction-related purposes. The Downtown Parking Commission must forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission, whose ultimate approval is required to finalize the agreement. 11. The Streamline transit stop on Mendenhall shall be relocated to a site agreed upon by the City and Streamline. The relocated site shall be determined prior to Final Site Plan approval. 12. A hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to verify that the required fire flow for the structure is available at a minimum system residual pressure of 20 psi. MITIGATION STRATEGIES & CONDITIONS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION In addition to the conditions of approval listed above, the City Commission might want to consider the additional mitigation strategies and conditions listed below: a. The applicant shall provide a 150% cash financial guarantee for the proposed demolition (1.5 x contractor’s cost estimate of demolition). Planning Staff recommends the Commission require a financial guarantee for the proposed demolition. The proposal includes an enormous scale of demolition. A partially demolished building creates a negative effect on the downtown community. A 150% financial guarantee provides the City adequate financial resources to protect the site if the applicant is unable to complete the proposed demolition. b. The applicant shall complete a historic survey and inventory of a potential National Register building within the City of Bozeman. The demolition of the Bozeman Armory removes a property from the City’s National Register of Historic Places. Planning Staff believes a new building, which is eligible for the National Register, could be surveyed and inventoried and added to the list as a symbolic replacement for the Bozeman Armory. c. The applicant shall provide a cash contribution, amount determined by the City Commission, to the City of Bozeman’s upcoming update to the City’s Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory update. The City of Bozeman is planning for an update to the City Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file, beginning in 2009. The initial plan is for a three-year phased update, with each year budgeted for $150,000. d. The Design Review Board shall review the proposed new construction, prior to Final Site Plan approval, and provide Planning Staff architectural design recommendations. 226 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 28 CONCLUSION Planning Staff recommends the City Commission deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). Planning Staff presented the following motions to the City Commission for consideration: ƒ Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits ƒ Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. ƒ Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. Various code provisions were identified as needing to be met. Some or all of these items are listed in the findings of this staff report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued upon Final Site Plan approval. Attachments: Applicant’s Site Plan Application Materials Applicant’s COA Application Materials Staff Appendices A-L Report Sent To: Libster Building LLC/UND & Nygard Family LLC/UND, 11 West Main Street, Suite 223, Belgrade, MT 59714 Bechtle-Slade PC, 705 East Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 227 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - APPENDICES THE WILLSON BUILDING (BOZEMAN ARMORY DEMOLITION) SP/COA/DEV #Z-07278 Appendix A: Bozeman Armory Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory (1986). Appendix B: Derek Strahn’s (Historic Preservation Consultant) Tributary Article: “Still Standing Proud – But How Much Longer?” (October 2007). Appendix C: National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Guard Bureau’s Publication: “Still Serving: Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories” (2000). Appendix D: Montana Legislative Council’s Meeting Minutes on the Bozeman Armory Sale (September 2003). Appendix E: APEX Engineering Services, Inc. Structural Assessment on the Bozeman Armory (March 2007). Appendix F: Donovan D. Rypkema’s (Economic Development Consultant) Closing Plenary Speech at the 2007 National Trust Main Street Conference: Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation (March 2007). Appendix G: Richard Moe’s (President, National Trust for Historic Preservation Acceptance Speech for the Vincent Scully Prize: “Sustainable Stewardship: Historic Preservation’s Essential Role in Fighting Climate Change” (December 2007). Appendix H: Website and Photograph List of Armory Adaptive Reuse Projects Appendix I: National Trust Forum Solutions Database – Armory Adaptive Reuse Case Studies Appendix J: Public Agency Comment Appendix K: Public Comment Appendix L: HABS/HAER Levels of Documentation 228 229 230 231 232 233 Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard ArmoriesReusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard ArmoriesReusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard ArmoriesReusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard ArmoriessReusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Still ServingStill Serving Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories 234 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Still Serving 235 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Still Serving Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories National Trust for Historic Preservation National Guard Bureau 236 National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 The National Trust for Historic Preservation, chartered by Congress in 1949, is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the irreplaceable by working to save historic buildings and the neighborhoods, and landscapes they anchor. Through education and advocacy, the National Trust is revitalizing communities across the country and challenges citizens to create sensible plans for the future. It has six regional offices, 20 historic sites, and works with thousands of local community groups nationwide. The National Guard Bureau 1411 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202-3259 The National Guard Bureau was created in 1908 in the office of the Secretary of War as the Division of Militia Affairs. Today one of the oldest components of the Department of Defense, the Bureau is unique because it is both a staff and an operating agency. As a staff agency, the Bureau participates with the Army and Air Force Staffs in the development and coordination of programs pertaining to or affecting the National Guard. As an operating agency, the National Guard Bureau formulates and administers the programs for the training, development, and maintenance of the Army and Air National Guard, and acts as the channel of communications between the Army and Air National Guard in the states, and the Depart- ments of the Army and the Air Force. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Bureau’s Vice Chief is appointed by the Secretary of Defense with the advice and consent of the service secretaries. Copyright © 2000. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without written permission from the publisher, except for brief quotations used in reviews. Printed in the United States of America. Cover and book design: Lauren Kinberg, Walcoff Technologies, Inc.; Fairfax, Virginia Copy editing: Julie Jensen, Walcoff Technologies, Inc.; Fairfax, Virginia 237 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ FOREWORD On Park Avenue in New York City stands the 7th Regiment Armory. Completed in 1879 under the direction of regiment veteran and architect Charles W. Clinton, this lavishly detailed structure includes several rooms designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany, Stanford White and the Herter brothers. The 7th Regiment, whose ranks once included men from New York’s wealthiest and most prominent families, built the showcase armory on the city’s Upper East Side primarily through private donations. Esteemed for its historic and aesthetic contributions, the structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and has been designated as a New York City historic landmark. Yet for all its glory, this commanding, but elegant structure has become seriously tarnished over time due to extensive water stains, structural cracks, and general deterioration. While used for antique shows and other civic functions, the state- owned armory is in need of major funding and a strong vision for the future. Indeed, the plight of the 7th Regiment Armory is so severe that it now shares a place on the World Monuments Fund “100 Most Endangered Sites” with other monumental notables such as Egypt’s Valley of the Kings and the Teotihuacan Pyramid in Mexico. Another regimental armory remains threatened in Providence, Rhode Island. Standing majestically over Providence’s historic West Broadway neighborhood, this 165,000 square foot building, constructed in 1907, sits vacant. Concern over the need to find a new, economically viable use for this Romanesque Revival structure prompted the National Trust for Historic Preservation to list the Cranston Street Armory on its list of America’s Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places in 1997. Not every American city has a regimental armory waiting in the wings. But most cities have historic armories that once served and can still serve. These armories, often centrally located, may no longer meet the needs of the National Armory Guard. The demands of modern military training require a more functional structure that can accommodate large equipment and technological advances. However, they still retain their ability to meet the needs of the community, as they often did in the past. The cavernous “drill sheds” can be used for showroom space, a dance hall, a basketball court, or atrium. The “head sheds” are readily adaptable for use as offices or classrooms. Indeed, yesterday’s armories have been successfully converted into school buildings, apartments, libraries, museums, and community centers around the country. 238 Richard Moe, President National Trust for Historic Preservation Raymond F. Rees Major General, U.S. Army Deputy Chief National Guard Bureau From Massachusetts to California, National Guardsmen, concerned citizens, and developers have teamed up with city and state officials, financial institutions, historic preservation organizations and others in search of solutions to pump new life into these aging structures. As shown in the pages that follow, the Savannah College of Art and Design purchased and refurbished a late 19th century Richardsonian- Revival armory for use as its principal administrative building in Savannah, Georgia. A museum in need of a new home in Deming, New Mexico acquired the town’s all brick, castellated armory from the State Armory Board, providing much- needed exhibition and administrative space. With help from the state legislature, the citizens of Dawson, Minnesota were able to renovate their town armory for use as a library and 10-unit apartment complex. As the story of each armory conversion unfolds, it becomes apparent that one ingredient was shared by all—vision. Each of these projects succeeded because an individual or group within a community had the vision to see their armory’s full potential. While many armories have found new uses, countless others are waiting to serve. This booklet, made possible by the National Guard Bureau, highlights successful projects from around the country with the hope that they will inspire you to follow. We believe that these case studies will help you to envision new uses for your aging armory. The task is not easy, but the rewards are countless. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 239 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ACKNOWLEGEMENTS The author and his colleagues from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Guard Bureau wish to extend their appreciation to the many people who contributed to the research and development of this handbook. Significant assistance came from the current occupants or developers of the former armories featured in this guide, along with important supplemental help from National Guard officials in those states. These individuals include: ColoradoColoradoColoradoColoradoColorado Jil Rosentrater, Greeley Cultural Affairs Office. GeorGeorGeorGeorGeorgiagiagiagiagia Dr. Richard Rowen, Paula Rowan, Sue Ellen Clinard, Kristin Fulford, Katherine W. Curtin, and Betty Cummings of the Savannah College of Art and Design; Henry J. Kennedy, Savannah Volunteer Guards historian; Gail E. Parnelle, Historical Society of the Georgia National Guard; Lt. Col. Ken Baldowski, Georgia National Guard; “Cuffy” Sullivan, Savannah Development and Renewal Authority; Beth Reiter, Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission. KentuckyKentuckyKentuckyKentuckyKentucky Peter Flaig, Lynn Olympia, and Carole Crawford of Trinity High School; Larry Melillo, architect; Brig. Gen. Ed Tonini, Brig. Gen. Julius Berthold (Ret.), Maj. Phil Miller, and Command Sgt. Maj. Marion Williams (Ret.) of the Kentucky National Guard; Richard Jett, Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office; Kate Carothers, Kentucky Heritage Council. MassachusettsMassachusettsMassachusettsMassachusettsMassachusetts Tony Sulfaro, developer, Medford, Massachusetts; Col. Leonid Kondratiuk (Ret.), Massachusetts National Guard. MinnesotaMinnesotaMinnesotaMinnesotaMinnesota David Bovee, Dawson city manager; Pamela Helgeson, Dawson librarian; David Hickey, Dawson Sentinel newspaper; Lt. Col. Denis Shields, Maj. Kevin Gutknecht, Sgt. 1st Class Allan Larson, and Terrence Palmer of the Minnesota National Guard; Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. New MexicoNew MexicoNew MexicoNew MexicoNew Mexico Ruth Brown and Arturo Roman, Deming Luna Mimbres Museum; Lt. Gen. Edward Baca (Ret.), former chief of the National Guard Bureau; Thomas Koch, Capt. David Giesler, 1Lt. Peter Robertson, and Sgt. 1st Class E. Morales (Ret.) of the New Mexico National Guard; Tom Kelly, Deming Chamber of Commerce. New YNew YNew YNew YNew Yorkorkorkorkork Lt Col Paul Fanning, New York National Guard; Nancy Todd, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. North CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth CarolinaNorth Carolina Tom Howard, developer, Washington, North Carolina; Maj. Robert Jones, North Carolina National Guard. 240 OhioOhioOhioOhioOhio Rita Kissner, mayor, and Pam Gordon, City of Defiance; Sandy Herman, Defiance Family and Children First Council; Deborah Gerken, Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission; Maj. Gen. Richard C. Alexander (Ret.), former adjutant general Ohio National Guard; Col. Dan Snyder (Ret.), Capt. Neal O’Brien, and Mimi Myers, Ohio National Guard; Staff Sgt. Ralph Hutchinson (Ret.), John Compo, and David Westrick, former members of the Defiance National Guard unit; Maura Johnson, Bowling Green State University. OklahomaOklahomaOklahomaOklahomaOklahoma The staff of the Cornerstone Fellowship Church, Tahlequah, Oklahoma; Capt. Warren Higginbotham, Oklahoma National Guard. Rhode IslandRhode IslandRhode IslandRhode IslandRhode Island Capt. Gloria Haggarty, Rhode Island National Guard. South DakotaSouth DakotaSouth DakotaSouth DakotaSouth Dakota Keith Umenthum, Deadwood Office of Planning, Zoning, and Historic Preservation; Col. Nancy Wetherill, Lt. Col. Randy Smeenk, and Maj. Roger Anderson of the South Dakota National Guard. TTTTTeeeeexasxasxasxasxas Jim W. Steely, Texas Historical Commission. WWWWWashington,ashington,ashington,ashington,ashington,Lt. Col. Randall Lincoln, Army National Guard Readiness Center; Capt. Les Melnyk, National Guard Bureau. As part of the research for this book, National Guard officials in each state were contacted. Many contributed valuable information that helped shape the overall story. Regrettably, stories from each of the states could not be included in the final publication. Readers are encouraged to work closely with local National Guard units and their respective state headquarters if they are contemplating the reutilization of a former armory in their community. State Historic Preservation Offices also can provide valuable assistance. D.C.D.C.D.C.D.C.D.C. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 241 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Contents 1 Introduction Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories Case Studies 9 College Administration Building Poetter Hall, Savannah College of Art and Design Savannah, Georgia 15 High School Arts Center Trinity High School, Louisville (St. Matthews), Kentucky Works Progress Administration Armories, State of Oklahoma 21 Apartment/Library Complex Dawson, Minnesota 25 Museum Deming, New Mexico 29 Family Resource Center Defiance, Ohio 33 Other Noteworthy Projects Each Armory Project Presents Unique Challenges 39 Appendices 40 The National Historic Preservation Act Appendix A 42 The National Register of Historic Places Appendix B 43 Tax Incentives and Other Financial Assistance Programs Appendix C 45 Americans with Disabilities Act Appendix D 46 Architectural Styles of Historic Armories Appendix E 47 The Adjutants General of the National Guard Appendix F 50 State Historic Preservation Offices Appendix G 55 Suggested Reading/References Appendix H 56 About the Authors and Photo Credits 242 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Reusing America’s Historic National Guard Armories preservation leaders, and others can join forces to find creative, economically viable solutions. Their combined efforts help to ensure that our country’s aging armories become community assets once again. Early Colonists Brought Militia to the New World The National Guard has its roots in the earliest days of colonial America and is the oldest component of the armed forces of the United States. European settlers, especially those from England, brought with them the practice of organizing all able-bodied males into military units that were designed to protect local citizens and their communities. As settlement of the colonies continued, these military groups matured into trained units that could be called upon to serve the defense needs of the evolving nation. These colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attacks and foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. From the declaration of independence in 1776 through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the states in 1789, the militia tradition continued as part of American life. Subsequent federal and state laws, plus long-standing practice, continue to sustain this tradition. Founders of the nation were wary of, and could not afford to maintain, a large standing army. Thus the practice of calling on militia units to supplement the defense needs of the nation was established. For example, the bulk of troops during the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War came from militia units in the National Guard armories in nearly 2,700 communities across the United States occupy a unique and important position in American life: part fortress—part dance hall—part classroom—part shelter from a storm. However, for all of their military and civic utility and long years of service, many of these armories have aged into real estate holdings that can no longer meet the National Guard’s demanding missions to serve state and nation. Now vacant or relegated to little more than warehouse duty, several of these structures have become candidates for vandalism, and ultimately, demolition. Charmed by their distinctive architecture and historical presence, several communities across the county have hushed the bulldozer’s roar by finding new uses for these aging armories, ranging from school buildings and family resource centers to libraries and museums. These new uses have helped to preserve the historical and architectural value of the armories while capitalizing on their distinctive capacity for community service. This handbook highlights these success stories so that other communities may benefit. The book briefly outlines the historical and architectural significance of the armory and its importance to the National Guard and the community at large. It then explains, in detail, how five communities across the United States found new uses for their old armories. As shown by these case studies and several related articles, elected officials, civic leaders, entrepreneurs, military personnel, This casting of the classic minuteman is more than two stories tall and stands vigil against the front facade of the Army National Guard Readiness Center building in Arlington, Virginia, not far from the Pentagon. 244 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2 states. In the early years of the 20th century, when “National Guard” became an official title, important national defense legislation further increased the military role of units in each state as a federal reserve force. Today’s National Guard units have become an integral part of our nation’s defense establishment—in a contemporary term, the “Total Force” —that is made up of active duty service members, civilian employees of the military, and reserve components. The Army National Guard and Air National Guard are reserve components of the active duty Army and Air Force. Units are evenly spread across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The men and women who make up these units—all of them volunteers—are trained and equipped to identical standards as their active duty counterparts. First by colonial custom and later by state and federal statute and Department of Defense policies, the National Guard has evolved into a unique U.S. military organization commanded by respective governors during peacetime and by the president when called to federal service. This dual mission—state AND federal— provides the National Guard with distinctive organizational strengths and complexities. The vast majority of funding and regulatory authority for military matters comes from the federal government. Because the National Guard is organized on a state-by-state basis and each governor is a commander- in-chief, National Guard units maintain close allegiances with state and local governments and have first-response obligations during local emergencies. Understanding these historic and legal connections to state government is especially important when evaluating the possibilities of converting a National Guard armory to civilian use. The Evolution of the Armory Stand in front of any National Guard armory, especially the huge regimental-sized monuments built in the late 19th or early 20th centuries, and try to imagine an earlier time when the units were “homeless” … or at least without a fixed address for equipment storage and training. Colonial militia units gathered on village greens or in other public spaces to conduct military training. Members provided their own rifles and uniforms. Nearby taverns served the social needs of a unit for the few hours the members would be together. The concept of using a dedicated building for militia unit training–– an armory––evolved during the 19th century. In the early decades of the century, a few states constructed arsenals for the manufacture and storage of their militia’s military weapons and ammunition. But these buildings, like the 1798 Beaufort, South Carolina and 1847 New York State Arsenals did not function as true armories. They lacked the space for the practice of marching and close- order drill, the main form of military training in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Before the Civil War, some wealthier urban units addressed their need for drill space in bad weather by renting the top floors of large commercial buildings such as the Tompkins Market on New York City’s Manhattan Island. Commercial tenants on the ground floor dominated the design and use of these buildings. Over time, rented “upstairs” commercial space proved less and less practical for the units. The nation’s earliest National Guard units trained on the village green. Each man in the unit supplied his own gear and kept it at home. They had no specific building to house their equipment. In 1985, the National Guard commissioned artist Don Troiani to paint “The First Muster,” a view of how members of the Salem, Mass., militia unit conducted their training in 1637, not long after the first colonists landed in the Bay Colony. The first true armories were not constructed in major East Coast cities until the early part of the 19th century, with the majority of funds raised locally by members of the unit. Today, the Army National Guard maintains armories in more than 2,700 communities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Included in that number is an armory for the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts National Guard, the Salem unit that continues an uninterrupted legacy of service to state and nation that began in 1636, making it the nation’s oldest military unit. 245 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 3 Vacant or underutilized National Guard armories can be found throughout the nation. They range in size from the massive downtown Minneapolis, Minn., armory, to the modest building in Haskell, Okla., population 1,500. While the fate of these buildings and at least scores more across the land remains—at best—under negotiation or uncertain, this handbook presents stories of cities where local efforts have revitalized armories to keep them in community service, or where campaigns are under way to save these historical landmarks from further decline. The success stories share some common features: Groups of like-minded, energetic local citizens worked together to save the buildings and find new uses. There were differences of opinion, but a common goal prevailed. Reutilization projects are typically too large to be organized and directed by one person. Most of the buildings moved rather quickly from military to civilian use. None were totally unoccupied for long periods of time. In most cases, obtaining title to the building from the National Guard required financial breaks or legislative cooperation from state lawmakers. How Did They Do It? New Uses for Old Armories For armories that continue in some type of public (non-commercial) service, funding to support purchase and remodeling came from multiple government sources. The National Guard maintains legal and financial responsibility for its state-owned armories until the time the property is sold or transferred to a new owner. Unofficial historical connections may remain between the National Guard and an armory’s new owner, but when the deal is done, the building belongs to the buyer. New Uses for Old Armories College Administration Building College Administration Building College Administration Building College Administration Building College Administration Building – In 1979, the Savannah College of Art and Design purchased and refurbished a late 19th century Richardsonian- Romanesque Revival style armory in Savannah, Ga. Today the 36,000- square-foot structure carries the name Poetter Hall, and it serves as a principal administrative building and showpiece of the urban campus and its 4,000 students. High School Arts Center High School Arts Center High School Arts Center High School Arts Center High School Arts Center – Trinity High School in the Louisville suburb of St. Matthews, Ken., turned the headquarters of the 149th Infantry Regiment into its Communication Arts Center. Two-foot-thick poured concrete walls of this art deco structure will serve the 1,100 students of this Catholic, all-male high school long into the 21st century. Apartment/Library CompleApartment/Library CompleApartment/Library CompleApartment/Library CompleApartment/Library Complex x x x x – Changing demographics and military requirements resulted in the National Guard unit leaving Dawson, Minn., in 1993. The armory, constructed at the start of the Roaring Twenties, continues to serve as a community center/library/ apartment complex, winning a 1998 City Achievement Award from the League of Minnesota Cities for this agricultural community of 1,700. Museum Museum Museum Museum Museum – Deming’s Company I of the 1st New Mexico Infantry Regiment was ordered to federal duty in 1916, before construction on its National Guard armory had begun. The unit returned to call the castellated, red brick building its home for 60 years, experiencing two more wartime activations to federal service. Today the structure serves as the Deming Luna Mimbres Museum. FFFFFamily Ramily Ramily Ramily Ramily Resource Centeresource Centeresource Centeresource Centeresource Center – Children’s voices now fill the rooms and drill hall of the Defiance, Ohio, National Guard armory, a castellated brick structure constructed in 1914 to house a company of the 148th Infantry Regiment. The armory has become home to the Defiance County Family Resource Center, with Head Start classes on the lower level and a variety of family-based activities on two upper floors. Space often was limited, and the buildings could not be adequately secured or defended. The Civil War draft riots in New York City, still the bloodiest civil disturbance in U.S. history, hastened the movement to fortress-like buildings for militia units. With professional police forces in their infancy, the militia was the largest force available to help keep public order. The draft riots and post Civil War labor unrest, such as the railroad strike of 1877, marked a boom in urban armory construction, often of large buildings designed in a style that came to be known as “castellated gothic.” Armories from this period typically featured a “head shed” for administrative offices and storage spaces, and a cavernous “drill shed” where the men could conduct close order drill or host social functions. When the unit was not in training, the drill shed could be rented for a variety of community events, generating income to help maintain the entire armory. Present day developers of armory reutilization projects continue to draw value from the head shed and drill shed combination. Administrative areas lend themselves well to conversion as office or apartment 246 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 4 In the pre-skyscraper age, the local armory was usually one of the largest buildings in town. It was simultaneously a home for a National Guard unit, a clubhouse for its members, and a civic center for the community. In the decades following the Civil War, influential architects designed the big armories, another reflection of unit and civic pride that grew with planning for these new structures. Often these architects were members of the unit, such as Charles Clinton who inked the plans for New York City’s still- impressive 7th Regiment Armory. Rhode Island’s William R. Walker designed Providence’s Cranston Street Armory, a massive five-story building that was a decade in construction and cost $500,000, not including the building site. The elder Walker rose to the rank of major general in the National Guard, and his architect partner son, William H. Walker, served 20 years and retired as the state’s quartermaster general. The civic appetite and budget for large castellated armories faded away by the early 1900s, replaced by classic revival architecture and limited examples of art nouveau and art moderne styles. During this time, Guardsmen and their supporters began to realize that while their castellated structures were indeed formidable, the military value of their mostly downtown addresses was more for the space, while drill halls provide clear- span spaces for the addition of mezzanines or other forms of two-story interior construction. In his book “America’s Armories,” MIT urban studies professor Robert Fogelson enumerates more reasons for the construction of substantial armories: Units needed secure storage space for weapons, ammunition, and equipment. Company-sized armories were too small and prevented the mustering of large numbers of troops during civil emergencies. Regimental armories (big enough for 600 to 1,000 members) were required to hone the coordination skills of officers and men. Renting armory space was expensive. A large amount of unit, municipal, and state pride served as an important motivating factor in the funding and design of these large and formidable armories. Image counted for recruiting new members and maintaining visibility with state governments, which, during that time, funded nearly all of a National Guard unit’s training and activities. If wealthy militia unit members in New York City could combine their own money with fund-raising events, the sale of bonds, and other state sources to construct a building, so could units in Philadelphia, Boston, and elsewhere. Armories across the nation, especially in major cities, became showpiece buildings. They served not only as the headquarters for a locally based military unit but also as an informal community center that housed a growing array of social and civic functions. In the summer of 1947, the Headquarters Company of Kentucky’s 149th Infantry Regiment looked like this as the men prepared to depart for Fort Knox, and their first “summer camp” since returning from combat duty during World War II. The men departed for wartime service in 1940, just as construction was started on this building. The St. Matthews, Ky., armory was one of eight built in the Bluegrass State by the Depression-era Works Progress Administration. This antique postcard shows New York’s 7th Regiment armory soon after it was finished in 1879. Some years later, the decorative tower was removed and two additional floors of office space were added to this large armory on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan. Guardsman and architect Charles Clinton set a new standard for armory construction with the completion of this grand structure. Interior appointments were designed by artist Louis Comfort Tiffany and architect Stanford White; men who also were members of the 7th Regiment. This building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 247 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 5 Retired National Guard Staff Sgt. Ralph Hutchinson arranged to have this bronze plaque cleaned and reinstalled inside the foyer of the former Defiance, Ohio, armory where he served for more than 30 years. The plaque lists an installation date of 1913, while a capstone on the exterior of the three-story administrative area of the building announces 1914 as the completion date. Records are silent regarding the inconsistency. neighborhood convenience of their members than it was for tactical advantage. America’s city centers did not need fortress strongholds to maintain peace and order. The reality of the Great Depression brought out yet another shift in the style of armory construction. Guardsmen fought to secure a portion of the $4.8 billion appropriated by Congress for civil works projects. Hundreds of utilitarian armories were built in the south and southwest, regions that were mostly too poor or too new in the union to have constructed relatively expensive castellated armories without federal funding. Other regions of the country also received money for Works Progress Administration (WPA) armory construction. The WPA focused on building smaller, simpler buildings constructed of locally procured materials and built by unemployed, often-unskilled local men. Only a few regimental-sized armories were built during the Depression with money and guidance from the larger Public Works Administration program. After World War II, federal and state governments began to share the cost of new armory construction at a ratio of 75 to 25 percent, respectively. This funding procedure remains in place today and has resulted in the construction of thousands of largely utilitarian armories. In small town America, these post World War II armories remain as prominent community centers since many were constructed in conjunction with high schools. Others are sited in suburban locations where land was more affordable and suitable for parking and equipment storage. Many of these armories are now entering the civilian reutilization market. Armories from this era frequently lack the architectural grandeur of their 19th and early 20th century predecessors, but still retain reutilization value for their stout construction, size, and location. The Armory Today In virtually all instances, National Guard armories are the province of the 367,000-member Army National Guard. In 1999, the Army National Guard maintained 3,166 armories in 2,679 communities. Most of the buildings—2,632—are on state-owned land. Fifty armories are located on leased property. The remainder— 484—have been constructed on federal property. The smaller Air National Guard, with 109,000 members, operates flying units from 88 locations across the nation. Nearly all Air Guard units are located at major municipal airports or on active duty military bases. Air National Guard buildings, designed to support worldwide military aviation operations, are built and maintained with federal funds. Typically, Air Guard structures do not lend themselves as easily or economically to civilian conversion. Newly constructed armories continue to serve as important community centers. Some states have entered into creative design and financing arrangements with public schools and city governments to create hybrid armory-civic center complexes. However, the demands of modern military training perpetuate architectural trends that are far more utilitarian than artistic. New construction tends to be in suburban industrial parks rather than downtown locations. The men and women who volunteer for today’s Guard units drive their cars to training, often long distances. It is not uncommon for a large unit to require parking for 100 or more vehicles on a busy training weekend. With respect to military vehicles, an infantry unit’s Bradley fighting vehicle, for example, weighs nearly 34 tons. Drive one indoors for wintertime training and a visitor quickly understands why new armories have sections of floor built with double reinforced concrete instead of maple for a basketball court. As high-cost electronic equipment becomes increasingly complex, simple storage rooms now must provide temperature and humidity controls, as well as security against theft or other damage. As a matter of policy, the National Guard Bureau manages its construction funds with an eye toward replacing an armory after it has been in service for 50 years. While some armories have remained open well beyond the half-century mark, the availability of federal construction funds supports the 50-year replacement policy and is a significant reason why armories become excess to the National Guard’s needs. Reorganization of a state’s National Guard units—a complex equation involving state/federal missions, recruiting demographics, and other factors—is the second way an armory can enter the real estate market. Sometimes, a combination of these actions results in the closure of an armory. When military authorities determine that an armory no longer is needed, National Guard personnel at the respective state headquarters control the entire disposal process (e.g., sale, trade, or demolition) for those armories 248 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 6 built on state-owned land. In a similar manner, federal procedures are used to dispose of National Guard armories built on federal land; however, the state headquarters administers the federal process. Typically this involves a cascading process of offering the structure to various levels of government. The offering process for state-owned property starts at the state level, while federal property begins with offers to federal agencies and then down through state and local jurisdictions. Groups or individuals interested in purchasing a former National Guard armory should contact the Facilities Officer at State Headquarters. A list of addresses and phone numbers can be found in Appendix F. The inquiry process for the potential purchase of an armory can start at any time. Armories as Historical Landmarks Because of their grand style and importance in the military history of our nation, many armories qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, state historic registers, and local registers in communities with historic preservation programs. Thus far, more than 200 historic armories have been included on the National Register. Qualified historic armories may also be eligible for important tax benefits and special treatment under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Further information on the National Register, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and tax incentives and other financial assistance programs can be found in the appendices to this publication. National Guard or Reserves . . . What Is the Difference? The federal mission of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard makes them identical to the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve. Both organizations are reserve components of the active duty Army and Air Force and are organized, trained, and equipped to the same standards. The National Guard has dual obligations to serve the respective states and the federal government. The governor is the commander-in- chief of the state’s National Guard during peacetime and may call individuals and units to duty during state emergencies. The governor appoints the adjutant general, typically from the senior leadership ranks of that state’s National Guard. The National Guard in each state manages the training of its units and is responsible for the maintenance and operation of armories. Questions about the potential reutilization of Army or Air Force Reserve property should be directed to local Reserve (not National Guard) units. Reserve units have no legal affiliation with state government. For nearly 20 years, the Washington, North Carolina, Parks and Recreation Department used the former National Guard armory as storage space for vehicles and supplies. When National Guard units vacate an armory, the buildings are often quickly taken up as storage or maintenance space, a low-cost alternative use that can keep the building occupied until more comprehensive reutilization plans are developed. 249 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 7 Work on this armory-turned-apartment complex, in Washington, North Carolina, began in the early fall of 1996, shortly after Hurricane Fran had damaged large portions of coastal North Carolina. The developers were caught in a labor shortage, and they ended up doing much of the work alone. This view shows the former drill hall of the National Guard armory that now serves as an interior courtyard, complete with open-air skylights that allow residents to sample weather conditions. Contact the National Guard at the Local or State Level In addition to a National Guard unit that may be in or near your community, a National Guard headquarters is located in each state, usually in the capital city. The administrative leader of each state’s National Guard is the adjutant general, sometimes called “the TAG,” a military acronym for The Adjutant General. Within each state headquarters is a facilities officer who is responsible for the National Guard’s real property in that state. Questions regarding the reutilization of a National Guard armory should be directed to the Facilities Officer, in care of the adjutant general’s office in your state. Officials at the state headquarters also can assist with historical information about the lineage and honors of a National Guard unit in your community. Units have histories that are decades, or even centuries, old. Historic documents, photographs, and artifacts such as flags, trophies, and plaques can provide valuable links to a unit’s past association with an armory and community. All states also maintain Web sites that offer more detail about their National Guard, including e-mail links and addresses. Visit www.ngb.dtic.mil to learn more about the federal role of the National Guard and to find a comprehensive, state-by-state Internet directory. Historic Preservation Offices and Organizations Can Help Each state operates a State Historic Preservation Office that offers assistance in the preservation and rehabilitation of historic properties. Maintained under the executive branch of government, these offices are separate from the National Guard, although they may work closely on related projects. In addition to providing information on federal and state programs relating to historic resources, the State Historic Preservation Office can put you in touch with local organizations and city officials that may take an interest in your armory project. As demonstrated by the case studies that follow, successful armory rehabilitation often requires a team effort. State and local officials, community organizations, as well as the primary user for the resource, should be involved in the project. Points of contact for State Historic Preservation Offices can be found in Appendix G of this handbook. 250 Linking the Military Past With a Community’s Future Introduction to Case Studies ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Historic armories can shed their “white elephant” status and become contributing members of their communities once again. The old drill halls and administrative rooms of the 19th and early 20th century armories have proven readily adaptable to new uses, whether as a college office building, a community arts center, a museum, or a library. The end result is a pleasing project that combines new and old, linking our country’s military past with the civilian needs of the future. As the case studies that follow demonstrate, the preservation of historic armories never happens magically. New life is breathed into these aging structures because of the untold efforts of individuals who have the insight and perseverance to put a re-use project together. Sometimes an armory project begins with the need for community space. In other cases, the project is driven by community sentiment that simply favors preserving a familiar face. In all cases, these projects have required the collaboration of individuals, communities, and state and local officials, both military and civilian. Creative insight and resourcefulness, more than anything, are the key ingredients. Creative insight is needed to envision an armory’s full potential. Resourcefulness is required to make the project viable. In Kentucky, an art deco armory was successfully converted into a high school arts center through a land swap between the school and the city owning the armory. In Ohio, the conversion of a downtown armory into a family resource center required state and federal grant money along with a major fund-raising effort. These case studies demonstrate how cooperative community groups and individuals were able to find new uses for their aging armories. In many situations, a project’s feasibility was fully dependent upon a state’s bargain sale of the armory to the user. The Deming, New Mexico Armory is on the National Register of Historic Places and New Mexico Registry of Cultural Property. 251 College Administration Building Poetter Hall, Savannah College of Art and Design Savannah, Georgia Two hard-working, committed dreamers moved to Savannah in 1978, and with the help of equally tireless and dedicated parents, they purchased a former National Guard armory to start what has become one of the nation’s leading art colleges. During more than two decades of steady expansion, the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) has helped set the pace and often leads the way in the continued growth of Savannah’s 2.2 square-mile National Historic Landmark District, one of the largest in the nation. More than 6 million visitors come to Savannah each year to walk the streets around 21 distinctive public squares where they sample the sights, sounds, and tastes of a city that has reaped significant value by caring for its past. Richard and Paula Rowan had already begun careers as educators in the early 1970s when they focused their attention on starting a fine arts college in Savannah. One of their first introductions in the coastal city was to Mayor John Rousakis. In a booklet that commemorated the 15th anniversary of the college, Mayor Rousakis tells of testing the Rowans’ sincerity by asking them if they were “sure.” “They said, ‘We’re sure.’ And they were.” The mayor went on to say, “It (the college) was a bright new star for downtown. I felt very strongly about the pluses it would bring to the city of Savannah. There was a good, fresh feeling of something good coming to the city.” Second Choice Before the first student could enroll, before the first lecture could be given, the Rowans needed a building to house their dream. Ironically, the Savannah Volunteer Guards armory, a building that had been essentially empty of citizen-soldiers since the pre-World War II activation of the National Guard, was their second choice. The armory was too big, recalls Dr. Rowan, a graduate of Furman and Georgia State Universities. They were anticipating a starting enrollment of 50 and had developed their opening around the purchase of an empty furniture store. Price became a sticking point, so the Rowans turned to the armory, privately built by members of the unit and then owned by the members of the regimental association. These aging veterans had reached a point where it was increasingly difficult to manage the building that by 1978, housed a few commercial tenants and a small museum that memorialized the unit’s exploits. The men were cautiously looking for a buyer who would continue some type of civic-minded purpose for the structure. Savannah Armory Statistics ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ CASE STUDY Constructed 1892 - 1893 Total interior area: 36, 248 square feet, three stories Main drill hall floor –– finished wood Brick walls, with decorative terra cotta and wrought iron Designed by William Gibbons Preston in the Richardsonian- Romanesque Revival style Built by contractor James G. Cornell Original construction cost: $101,000 ($46,000 land, $55,000 building) 1978 purchase price: $250,000 The armory is a Contributing Building in the Savannah Historic Landmark District, established in 1966. As such, it has similar status as buildings that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The armory is also subject to Savannah’s preservation law, which protects historice buildings from adverse changes that may harm the integrity of the resource. Approval from the Historic District Board of Review is necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit by the Department of Inspections. FFFFFor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contact Savannah College of Art and DesignSavannah College of Art and DesignSavannah College of Art and DesignSavannah College of Art and DesignSavannah College of Art and Design PPPPP.O.O.O.O.O. Bo. Bo. Bo. Bo. Box 3146x 3146x 3146x 3146x 3146 Savannah, GSavannah, GSavannah, GSavannah, GSavannah, GA 31402-3146A 31402-3146A 31402-3146A 31402-3146A 31402-3146 TTTTTelephone: 1-800-869-7223elephone: 1-800-869-7223elephone: 1-800-869-7223elephone: 1-800-869-7223elephone: 1-800-869-7223 WWWWWeb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: www.scad.edu.scad.edu.scad.edu.scad.edu.scad.edu 252 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 10 Buying an old building from an association of mostly senior citizens who were scattered in many locations presented challenges for the Rowans and Paul and May Poetter, Paula Rowan’s parents, who had joined the young couple to assist with administrative duties. A majority vote of the association members had to agree to the $250,000 sale. If a member could not be contacted to record his vote, it counted as “no.” Dr. Rowan still has thanks for association member Henry J. Kennedy, who helped negotiate the sale and traveled throughout the region contacting members. Finally, SCAD had title to the building and growing intellectual capital in the form of eight faculty members who would begin teaching 71 students in the fall of 1979. Their plans for transforming the interior of the armory into a school were reviewed and approved by members of the National Historic Landmark District. Other than repairs, the Rowans made no significant changes to the exterior of the building, a practice they have continued with the many subsequent additions to the college’s inventory of real estate. As administrators, the Rowans and Poetters were adding sweat equity to their dream. A good share of the early restoration work on the armory came at the hands of Dr. Rowan, president of the new college and principal restorer of its only building. “He’s painting . . . ” During an interview, Dr. Rowan recounts the story of an early visitor who entered the armory, asking to speak with the college president. “He’s painting on the third floor,” someone on the small staff explained. Thinking that the president of an art college would naturally be in a studio and not welcome to interruption, the visitor said he would return the next day. “No, he’s PAINTING, with a brush and roller,” responded the staffer, who pointed the way upstairs. Yet another time, a visitor found Dr. Rowan painting and asked him if the president was in. The college’s chief painter said “yes” and directed the visitor downstairs to his office. Dr. Rowan put down his tools, hurried down a back staircase and greeted the stranger when he reached his office. “We just worked very hard,” remarks Ms. Rowan, now the provost of SCAD. “With basic intelligence and hard work, you can learn to do just about everything.” She further advises that individuals or groups considering the purchase of a historic building should not look too critically at a building and consider it “too precious” to touch. “The bones are there,” she says of the strength they have found in Savannah’s old structures, so new owners should not be timid about digging in and adapting a building for the present and future. “They’re not so fragile. It (restoration) makes you feel that you are part of the continuum of history.” Dr. Rowan cautions that hard work quickly becomes part of any restoration effort, adding, “don’t listen to anyone else when someone says it can’t be done.” He further recommends that restoration projects should not be tackled solo. The Rowans and Poetters had to rely heavily on each other during the early years of the college. Dedicated staff members and students warmed to their commitment to changing the former armory into a college, but they did much of the early work alone. “Just because it’s a good thing,” he advises, “folks won’t necessarily help you.” Finished in 1893 at a cost of $101,000, the Savannah Volunteer Guards Armory housed a succession of Georgia Army National Guard units until World War II. The Richardsonian- Romanesque Revival structure became the first campus building of the Savannah College of Art and Design when it opened in 1979, an institution that today operates from more than 50 historic buildings and serves more than 4,000 students. The college has received a series of local, state, and national honors for its historic preservation efforts, including the 1994 Honor Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 253 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 11 The Regiment Carries the Family Name To the keepers of military history, especially of Army units, a regiment’s number and name are the equivalent of a family name in establishing a bloodline. Modern units often are fiercely proud and protective of their regiment’s colors, combat record, and legends, even though the term “regiment” is rarely used in the operational structure of today’s U.S. Army units, including those in the Army National Guard. In Savannah, the Georgia National Guard’s 118th Field Artillery Group is the much-reorganized descendant of the Savannah Volunteer Guards, a regimental military unit that counts its birthdays from 1802. That year the city’s militia members put on their uniforms for a parade that honored Vice President Aaron Burr’s visit to the port city that was becoming the South’s economic hub during the era when growing and marketing cotton dominated the region. Year by year, the unit grew in its social and military prominence. Life wasn’t all parades and parties for the men, who exchanged their dress uniforms for field gear and combat assignments in every conflict from the War of 1812 to World War II. By the late 19th century, the Volunteer Guards, burned out of their armory in the downtown fire of 1889, hired Boston architect William G. Preston to develop plans for a new home on the southeast corner of Madison Square. Madison Square is one of the 24 original squares that give Savannah so much of its architectural and historical character. Trained at Harvard and the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, Preston already had designed the city’s Cotton Exchange and would go on to complete commissions for many fashionable homes, the DeSoto Hotel, and the Chatham County courthouse. In Richardsonian-Romanesque Revival style, Preston first drew plans to remodel an existing orphanage that would be attached to a new drill hall built in the rear. But construction workers encountered early difficulty with remodeling, and the regiment’s leaders realized their armory would be too small. “Build bigger” became the next command. Armories Were Self-Sustaining While tradesmen demolished the old structure, Preston expanded his plans to create the complex that today is one of SCAD’s signature properties —“the soul of our college,” in the words of Ms. “Cuffy” Sullivan, an executive with the Savannah Development and Renewal Authority. In the style and practice of the era, the Savannah Volunteer Guards were interested in two things. They wanted a durable, architecturally impressive building that would house their units for training and social functions. They also wanted the building to pay for itself. Thus Preston’s plans called for plenty of premium commercial space that could be rented to shopkeepers and professional people in need of offices. When work was finished in 1893, the Savannah Volunteer Guards had nearly 38,000 square feet on three stories. Preston’s choice of red brick and red mortar made a definite statement for the corner of Bull and Charlton Streets. His decorative touches included turrets, corner towers, decorative terra cotta, and wrought iron. The main entrance was flanked with massive cannon barrels, weapons that, legend has, were hidden from Gen. William T. Sherman during his incendiary march through the South. Sherman spared Savannah from the torch. The fact and fiction of his stay in the city remain an important part of local history and legend. Inside the new armory, the Volunteer Guards had space for military equipment and functions in addition to a lounge, library, billiard room, wine cellar, card room, reception room, rifle range, and bowling alley. At 5,147 square feet, the rear hall permitted all-weather close- order drill, plus a setting for military balls and other social events. Commercial and rental space accommodated a drug store, a bar, various retailers, the city’s Commercial High School during the 1930s, and a U.S.O. chapter during World War II when the mobilized National Guard unit was overseas fighting in the European theater. Before and after photos (left and right respectively) show the transition of the National Guard armory drill hall from a combination military training space and community room to the college’s library. When the Savannah College of Art and Design opened, it started its library with a donation of 10,000 volumes from a New York college. During the school’s first years in operation, the collection grew rapidly. Eventually the drill hall became filled with books. In 1999, the library moved to Savannah’s main commercial street to a former department store that now provides 85,000 square feet of book and media storage space. 254 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 12 When the Savannah unit returned from World War II, it reorganized and had to move from its downtown regimental home. The men relocated first to quarters at nearby Hunter Air Force Base, then to warehouses west of the metropolitan area, and eventually to the city’s “new” armory that was finished in 1961, south of the city on the second highest piece of ground in Savannah. Until the opening of Savannah’s downtown civic center in 1969, the new armory’s drill hall was the city’s largest indoor space for high school basketball games and other large civic events. This armory continues in service as both military complex and community center. Ironically, however, the now 40-year-old building is a candidate for replacement. The National Guard is contemplating a move to nearby Hunter Army Airfield. Potential use for the plain-featured brick and concrete rectangle include purchase by a film production company that would use the drill hall as a sound stage. SCAD Anticipates Continued Growth SCAD’s future plans call for continued growth of the student body and of its holdings in historic Savannah. Sue Ellen Clinard, one of SCAD’s early graduates, worked as director of Oklahoma’s Main Street Project until returning to the college where she serves as vice president of human resources. She talks of how the Rowans’ choice of locating the college in the heart of the Historic District has been good for everyone. The presence of the 4,000 students and 800 faculty and staff members give vibrancy to the core of the city that it didn’t have before the early 1980s. SCAD includes adequate outdoor lighting in all of its reutilization projects and maintains 24-hour security for its 52 buildings, factors that contribute to the real estate and citizen-friendly values of the city. Ms. Clinard also points out that SCAD’s limited class size policy (no more than 20 pupils) has created a preservation-friendly benefit. When SCAD looks to purchase additional historic buildings for instructional purposes, few major alterations are required to accommodate these small groups of students. “If you are a university looking to expand arts space,” Ms. Clinard further recommends, “you should look to downtown, whether it is in a National Guard armory or some other SCAD’s Awards 19801980198019801980 Historic Savannah Foundation Award for renovation of the Armory 19831983198319831983 Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation“Outstanding Restoration Project – Adaptive Reuse” 19901990199019901990 Deco Defender Award from the Art Deco Societies of America 19941994199419941994 Honor Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation 19911991199119911991 Oglethorpe Award, Savannah’s highest tribute 19981998199819981998 National Honor Award in Urban Design from the American Institute of Architects 19991999199919991999 Downtown Achievement Award for Physical Improvements from the International Downtown Association Re-named Poetter Hall in 1997 to honor Richard and May Poetter who helped found the Savannah College of Art and Design, the armory was used by the college for all of its classes and activities until 1983, when the college purchased and renovated a second building in Savannah’s historic district. Enrollment had grown from 71 during its opening year in 1979, to more than 500 when the college’s real estate expansion program began. Today the armory houses SCAD’s admissions department along with two student art galleries. 255 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 13 building.” In 1990, SCAD purchased the art moderne Weis Theater, built on Savannah’s main commercial street in 1946. SCAD’s professional construction crews and contractors overhauled the 28,296 square feet of interior space that can seat more than 1,000 for concerts, drama, lectures, or films. In any city, Ms. Clinard asserts that residents should value the “connections that cross generations” when a building is reutilized. As SCAD has done with the Savannah Volunteer Guards armory, the former Weis Theater and many other structures, reutilization—even if a building’s new mission is dramatically different from the former—helps to develop lasting support from the old to the new. New Name, New Mission for the Old Armory SCAD first named the former armory Preston Hall in recognition of its architect whose career milestones include the design of more than 600 buildings in the Boston area, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s School of Architecture. In 1997, as the college conducted its first Founders’ Day celebration, the name was changed to Poetter Hall in recognition of Paul and May Poetter. In 1978 the Atlanta couple had just retired from long professional careers, Paul in federal government service and May from public school teaching and administrative assignments. They joined their daughter and son-in- law in Savannah, where Dr. Rowan credits them for their on-the-scene hard work, which was critical to the college’s success. Before and after photos (top and bottom respectively) of the main hallway area show the impact of moving a college of art and design into a building that had lost much of its late 19th century luster. When the Georgia National Guard moved out of the building upon its return from World War II duty, members of the regimental association continued to operate the facility. Income to maintain the building came from commercial tenants, while veterans maintained a small military museum in several first-floor rooms. 256 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 14 The mission of Poetter Hall is changing again as SCAD enters the new century. The college is anticipating expanded academic programs and enrollment, and the purchase and rehabilitation of more historic buildings. The library that filled the former National Guard drill hall has been moved seven blocks downtown to the former Levy’s department store building, which now provides three floors of storage, classroom, and study space. In the library’s place and elsewhere in the armory, SCAD will relocate its admissions department. In its own way, the Savannah Volunteer Guards armory continued to serve after reutilization efforts began. In the late summer of 1979, when Hurricane David pounded the Chatham County region with wind and water, the National Guard’s relief efforts were headquartered in the “new” armory south of the city. Although relieved from its military duties for more than a quarter century by the time the Rowans and other founders of the college were getting ready to begin their first term, the building continued to protect some of Savannah’s newest residents. The Rowans and their baby daughter were living on nearby coastal property that was in danger from the pending storm. The family fled the lowland and lived in the armory for several days until the danger passed. Ms. Rowan clearly remembers how safe they felt inside the former armory. That experience, she says, further reinforced their belief they had made the right choice in opening the college inside a building that continues to prove its worth to the community. This undated, pre World War I photo of the Savannah Volunteer Guards armory illustrates some of its commercial applications. Like many National Guard armories of its era, this building was owned by its regiment, not the state of Georgia, and derived income to support its upkeep by renting space to commercial tenants. Among its retail occupants were a drug store, bar, bowling alley, second-hand store, and commercial high school. This contemporary picture of the Savannah Guards armory depicts how it is used today as an administration building and art gallery for the Savannah College of Art and Design. Architect William G. Preston designed the armory in Richardsonian-Romanesque Revival style, and called for red-colored mortar to be used on the brickwork. 257 High School Arts Center Trinity High School Louisville (St. Matthews), Kentucky Constructed 1941-1942 Exterior size: 82 feet by 131 feet Total interior area: 19,449 square feet; two stories, plus basement Main drill hall finished in maple, now carpeted Walls and barrel roof drill hall supports built of reinforced concrete Designed by Edd R. Gregg of Louisville, in the art deco style Built by Works Progress Administration Original construction cost: $81,541 1985 purchase price: Land trade for church properly elsewhere in the city $350,000 spent on initial renovations FFFFFor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contact TTTTTrinity High Schoolrinity High Schoolrinity High Schoolrinity High Schoolrinity High School 4001 Shelbyville Road4001 Shelbyville Road4001 Shelbyville Road4001 Shelbyville Road4001 Shelbyville Road Louisville, KY 40207Louisville, KY 40207Louisville, KY 40207Louisville, KY 40207Louisville, KY 40207 TTTTTelephone: 502/893-7625.elephone: 502/893-7625.elephone: 502/893-7625.elephone: 502/893-7625.elephone: 502/893-7625. WWWWWeb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: www.thsrock.net.thsrock.net.thsrock.net.thsrock.net.thsrock.net Durability. That’s just one feature Trinity High School received in 1985, when it purchased the former headquarters armory of the Kentucky National Guard’s 149th Infantry Regiment. Today, 1,100 young men enrolled in this suburban Louisville Catholic high school fill the art deco structure to study journalism and creative arts. Teenage boys can be vigorous, but the 24-inch-thick reinforced concrete walls of this armory show little impact from their enthusiasm, or that of their citizen-soldier predecessors. Along with durability, the 47-year-old school bought space, nearly 20,000-square feet on two stories, and a piece of their community’s history. The 12-acre campus of Trinity High School, located five miles east of downtown Louisville in the suburb of St. Matthews, is a study in practical real estate reutilization. Trinity’s administrative building and student cafeteria occupy a former automobile dealership. The rotunda-like front of this structure once displayed Cadillacs and other cars. Today, the school’s many academic and sports trophies grace that same space. Where mechanics changed mufflers and tuned V-8 engines, crisp white walls and a shiny tile floor make the garage-turned-cafeteria an inviting space to spend some time. Adjacent to the former National Guard armory, Trinity’s drama students practice their craft inside the former Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1170 home. This post-World War II, architecturally simple rectangle has been remodeled into a 320-seat performing arts theater. Trinity High School opened its doors to fewer than 100 students in the fall of 1953, in a building that remains in school service one block west of the former armory. Four teachers joined Archbishop John Floersh and Monsignor Alfred Steinhauser to begin educating teenage boys who where growing up in Louisville’s expanding East End suburbs. Proud of the academic accomplishments of its 10,500 graduates, the school has also earned recognition as a Kentucky football powerhouse. When the varsity suits up to challenge cross-town rival St. Xavier, more than 30,000 fans take seats in Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium to witness the contest. Land Trade Provides Answer The school was outgrowing its academic space in the early 1980s when Father Al Moore met with others to plan the armory purchase project. By that time the Kentucky National Guard had transferred ownership of the armory to the city of Louisville. Trinity had secured $350,000 to cover renovation costs, but the school did not have enough money to buy the building from the city. The answer to this dilemma became land owned by the archdiocese elsewhere in the city. The city agreed to trade the church’s land for the aging armory. John Grenough, then Trinity’s development director, orchestrated the exchange with representatives of the archdiocese and the city of Louisville. According the Rob Mullen, a current member of Trinity’s administrative team, negotiations with the city were “amicable and smooth.” Louisville Armory Statistics ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ CASE STUDY 258 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 16 Once the transfer was accomplished, Trinity proceeded with the renovation project, creating its Art and Communications Complex to house classes in art, journalism, photography, and music. Bright classrooms occupy former military offices, supply rooms, and training areas. The adjoining drill hall can host a celebratory mass one day or a school dance the next. “It was a perfect fit for the high school,” recalls Louisville architect Larry Melillo, who prepared the reutilization plans for the armory and was an early participant in the rebirth of several buildings in the northern Kentucky city’s downtown. Remembering that the armory literally was, “built like a fort,” Melillo says that Trinity High School received a property that was “in very good shape,” structurally. Melillo adds that Trinity’s project was quite straightforward when compared with reutilization efforts on buildings that have been significantly changed over long periods of time. The building had been relatively well cared for and had a good roof, a key ingredient in the architect’s professional judgment. “Once the roof goes,” Melillo says of old structures that are candidates for reutilization, the building can be “headed for the dumpster,” unless, of course, a developer has a great deal of money. An Armory Like Several Others The St. Matthews National Guard unit—the enlisted men and junior officers of the Headquarters Company of the 149th Infantry Regiment—operated from rented spaces above a grocery store and saloon prior to the outbreak of World War II. To provide them with a bigger and more secure training facility, the state of Kentucky approved blueprints for a utilitarian armory design that was built in St. Matthews and copied in seven additional Bluegrass State communities by the time World War II was under way. The tactic saved money on plans. Kentuckians were following the practice of many states in recycling a basic armory design to fit local building sites. In addition to St. Matthews, armories in Carlisle, Harlan, Harrodsburg, Lexington, Richmond, Springfield, and Williamsburg bear striking resemblance to each other. Each featured a cast concrete “spread eagle” that decorated the front entrance. The eagle on the St. Matthews armory was removed as part of Trinity’s reutilization plan. Command Sgt. Maj. Marion Williams, retired from long service with the Kentucky National Guard, was a junior enlisted member of the 149th Regiment’s Headquarters Company when the unit was called to federal service in 1940. When the unit shipped out for Camp Shelby, Miss., on Jan. 17, 1941, the men loaded on National Guard armories typically feature a front-facing “headshed” or office/classroom area, with a large drill hall in the rear of the building. Formerly a regimental headquarters for the Kentucky National Guard, this structure now belongs to Louisville’s Trinity High School, an all- boys Catholic institution with 1,100 students. Two rooms on the main floor housed the Beargrass St. Matthews Historical Society archives from 1989 to 1991, and continue as archival storage for the school’s photos, publications, and other memorabilia. The entry of Trinity High School’s Art and Communications Complex still reflects the art deco style of its late 1930s design. The building originally featured a bas-relief eagle on the horizontal, concrete entryway. 259 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 17 trains not far from what was to become Trinity’s campus. Capt. Jasper L. Cummings, commander of the company, directed the Guardsmen to look across the field to where the contractor was pouring the foundation of their new armory home. Sgt. Maj. Williams remembers the commander telling everyone that when they returned to civilian life one year later, their armory would be finished and they could get on with their lives. One year of active duty stretched to five for the members of the 149th and the more than 240,000 Guardsmen from units across the nation. During the war years, the armory was home to the Kentucky State Guard while the 149th was fighting in the South Pacific. This volunteer military organization of mostly older men was created in Kentucky and other states to carry on the National Guard’s traditional local emergency response duties while the units were in federal service. Five years also established the armory’s utility as a community center. When the 149th demobilized and returned the armory in 1946, Sgt. Maj. Williams recalls that Col. Arthur C. Bonnycastle had to change all the locks. “Every social organization in the city had keys to the place.” Sgt. Maj. Williams, who had left the 149th early in the war for duty with Army Air Corps, was invited by Col. Bonnycastle and Capt. Langford to help rebuild the unit. A full 110- man complement was recruited, and senior staff officers of the regiment who had trained in a downtown armory prior to the War, moved into the facility. The drill hall of Trinity High School’s Art and Communications Complex provides 5,264 square feet of open space for a wide range of student and alumni activities. The room’s original wood floor has been covered with carpet; however, a portable dance floor supports activities that require a hard surface. With art classes planned inside, the architect for the remodeling project called for large windows to be added to the building’s north side. Installation of the modern windows required the contractor to slice through several inches of reinforced concrete. 260 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 18 The St. Matthews armory also continued to expand its wartime stature as a community center. Enough community organizations in the Louisville metropolitan area rented the armory drill hall that all operating expenses “except the winter coal” were covered, according to Sgt. Maj. Williams. Guardsmen learned just how stout the walls of their home had become. A small contractor hired in 1957 to cut through an interior wall to expand a food service area, “nearly went broke,” in Sgt. Maj. Williams’ words, sawing through the well-cured concrete and “so much steel.” The Kentucky National Guard decided to close the armory in 1962 and move the 149th to Bowling Green. “When we left,” the career Guardsman states, “a number of groups started to discuss who was going to get the building.” The city of Louisville eventually received the deed, hosting tenants that included the city’s Civil Defense organization, the Civil Air Patrol, and even a commercial roller skating rink before trading the property with the Trinity Foundation. Art classrooms inside the high school’s Art and Communications Complex have large north-facing windows. The National Guard has used this ground floor area of the former armory as storage and maintenance space. 261 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 19 Works Progress Administration Armories, State of Oklahoma In the midst of the Great Depression, creation of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935 brought significant help for some of the nation’s millions who were out of work. For the National Guard in the years between 1935 and 1943, the WPA funded the creation of 400 new armories and the reconstruction of an additional 500. As an example, the Depression stung the citizens of Oklahoma as hard as anywhere. Early New Deal programs brought relief to some parts of the country, but they had little impact on the Sooners, whose statewide unemployment reached 23 percent by 1935. In some counties, four out of every 10 breadwinners were out of work. Officials in Oklahoma pressed hard to get their share of relief funds for armory construction. In just three years, 58 new armories were built for units that largely had been operating from rented and often inadequate quarters. How did Oklahoma, with its small and mostly rural population, capture such a large share of WPA funds for armory construction? By the time the program concluded, 14.5 percent of all new WPA National Guard armories in the nation were constructed in the Sooner State. Critical to the National Guard’s good fortune, and that of the communities where the armories were eventually built, was W.S. Key, a former prison warden and major general in the National Guard who resigned his post as commander of the 45th Division to become director of the state’s WPA efforts. While Key encouraged communities to apply for all types of WPA projects, he was especially enthusiastic about the construction of National Guard armories in cities and towns where none had existed. The local National Guard unit got a new home, and residents soon had access to a large, well-constructed public building. The federal government paid for labor and most materials, with locals responsible for land costs. Often, property was donated or purchased from civic organizations for $1, with a reversionary clause in the Warranty Deeds. The state’s businesses and formerly unemployed also benefited. The robust armory building program paid out $1.5 million for materials, most of them purchased locally, and put $800,000 in wages into the pockets of hundreds of workers, many who finished their employment with the WPA with newly acquired construction skills. Sixty Oklahoma communities requested a WPA armory project, with 58 armories built between 1935 and 1937. Key hired fellow officer and architect Maj. Bryan F. Nolen to develop artistically conservative but flexible plans for structures that could house one to five National Guard artillery or infantry units. Of the 58 that were built, 54 survive. Currently, 37 are on the National Register of Historic Places, thanks in large part to the efforts of Sally Ferrell, wife of Maj. Gen. Donald Ferrell, a former adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard who has been involved in historical efforts of the 45th Infantry Division Association. During the Great Depression, unemployed Americans were offered jobs by the Works Progress Administration to build public structures like this all-brick National Guard armory in Watonga, Okla. Designed by architect Bryan F. Nolen, the adaptable plans for this building were reused across the Sooner State to construct more than 50 armories. The WPA sponsored 400 armory building projects across the nation, mostly in southern and western states. To save money, many states reused their architect’s blueprints. WPA armories across Oklahoma share similar design characteristics thanks to architect Bryan F. Nolen’s adaptable plans. Today this former armory in Tahlequah, built from Nolen’s “one unit” blueprints, is the home of the Cornerstone Fellowship Church. The 14,950-square-foot sandstone structure was finished in 1936 at a cost of $47,667. Built for Company M of the 180th Infantry, the armory remained in service until 1984, as the home of Company D 120th Engineer Battalion. The church purchased the structure in 1993 for $90,000. Approximately $325,000 was spent on initial renovations. 262 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 20 The Oklahoma Army National Guard continues to use 30 of the WPA armories. Follow-on use for the former armories ranges from the town hall in Beggs to an automobile repair shop in Hugo. At least four are vacant or significantly underutilized. Capt. Warren Higginbotham, Real Property Manager for the Oklahoma National Guard, says that reutilization of the former WPA armories presents its challenges. Some are located in very small communities such as the two- unit armory in Pawnee, population 2,200. These armories are large and prominent buildings, making it difficult to find a small town buyer who can assume the financial responsibility for renovation and sustaining maintenance. As an example, Higginbotham states it currently costs approximately $150,000 to replace the 80-foot by 125-foot rectangular barrel roofs that cover the drill halls. Many of the WPA armories constructed in eastern Oklahoma were built of locally quarried sandstone that if not properly treated, absorbs moisture, which makes the interiors damp and musty. Like other states, the Oklahoma National Guard now replaces its armories with one-of-a-kind designs that meet military and community needs. State regulations require that the Oklahoma National Guard sell its vacant armories for no less than 10 percent of their fair market value as established by three independent appraisers. When it vacates one of its old armories, federal law requires an environmental baseline study be conducted so that a potential buyer understands what will be required to meet current health and safety standards. Higginbotham recommends that any potential buyer move as quickly as possible to occupy a former armory, as the National Guard cannot continue to maintain the vacant buildings. One-half of the former drill hall is a multi-purpose room as shown by this view. The “head shed,” or administrative part of the armory, now houses church offices and classrooms. Art deco styling is visible on the exterior of all Oklahoma WPA armories, with fortress- like features such as portals, parapets, narrow windows, and brick or stonework along the roofline that suggest battlements. The majority of Oklahoma’s WPA armories were built of locally quarried limestone or sandstone. Eighteen were constructed of bricks that had been fired at the state penitentiary at McAlester. One-half of the drill hall of the Tahlequah, Okla., armory now is used as the Cornerstone Fellowship Church sanctuary. The construction site for the Tahlequah armory was donated with a “reversionary clause” to the National Guard by the Ladies Auxiliary of Rhodes-Pritchet American Legion Post 50. Several WPA armories in Oklahoma were protected by similar warranty deed restrictions that returned the property to donors once the National Guard no longer needed the facility. Church officials negotiated the purchase of this armory with the Legion Auxiliary. 263 Apartment/Library Complex Dawson, Minnesota Think “base closure” and it’s easy to imagine the last parade at a sprawling Army fort in California or the shut down of a sun-baked Air Force installation somewhere in Texas. Consider Dawson, Minn., and that image becomes more difficult to sustain. The numbers and human impact are smaller, by a considerable magnitude. Yet, the 1,700 citizens of this durable farm community along the western border of the state reacted the same way as their metropolitan neighbors when they learned in 1992 that the Minnesota National Guard would close the Dawson armory. Community officials, local Guardsmen, and their supporters rallied at hearing the news. “We fought it just like other places across the nation,” remembers David Bovee, city manager, as he recollects the effort to convince National Guard officials in St. Paul to reconsider their decision. Dawson was proud of its unit and armory, appreciated the presence of the members and equipment during emergencies, and had long supported its rolls with recruits. The town would miss the unit and its yearly $150,000 payroll from five full-time staff members plus the salaries earned by approximately 80 traditional members who trained there one weekend per month. The Dawson delegation did not prevail. Closure of the Dawson National Guard armory became part of the massive early 1990s cutback felt by the nation’s entire military establishment. Quick Refocus Taking a lesson from Department of Defense economic development experts who advise any community involved in base closure to maintain momentum from a “save the base” campaign, the residents of Dawson quickly refocused their efforts toward an alternative use for the armory. That meant a return to St. Paul and close coordination with the state legislature to secure passage of a bill in 1992 that helped Dawson and 11 other Minnesota communities that faced similar situations. Initially, the Minnesota National Guard hoped to recover some of its investment from the closed armories by selling them at market value to local government entities, or to private buyers if a city or county was not interested. But lawmakers were convinced that local governments had sacrificed enough by losing a unit, so they passed a bill offering the buildings back to the home cities for $1. If a city did not want the armory, the county would be next in line, followed by sale on the open market for bids. Constructed 1922-1923 Exterior size: 100 feet by 80 feet Total usable interior area: 29,970 square feet; two stories Main drill hall floor finished in maple,now carpeted; a 3,500- square-foot mezzanine has been added Brick walls Designed by Lang, Raugland and Lewis, Inc., of Minneapolis, in the late Romanesque Revival style Built by J.W. Carson, Inc., of Dawson Original construction cost: $56,000 (estimated) 1992 purchase price: $1 (set by state legislature) $1 million spent on renovations National Register of Historic Places #95-000615 Minnesota Register 96-0971 FFFFFor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contact City of DawsonCity of DawsonCity of DawsonCity of DawsonCity of Dawson Box 552Box 552Box 552Box 552Box 552 Dawson, MN 56232Dawson, MN 56232Dawson, MN 56232Dawson, MN 56232Dawson, MN 56232 TTTTTelephone: 320-769-4615elephone: 320-769-4615elephone: 320-769-4615elephone: 320-769-4615elephone: 320-769-4615 E-mail: dawson1@frontiernet.netE-mail: dawson1@frontiernet.netE-mail: dawson1@frontiernet.netE-mail: dawson1@frontiernet.netE-mail: dawson1@frontiernet.net Dawson Armory Statistics ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ CASE STUDY 264 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 22 The city of Dawson could have the all- brick, two-story-plus-full-basement armory and its drill hall for $1. The politically trimmed selling price was paid, and the citizens of Dawson formed a committee to decide the community’s next move. Five years and countless committee meetings later, Dawson’s former armory has become an award- winning library/community center/ apartment complex, receiving a City Achievement Award from the League of Minnesota Cities. Getting there presented significant challenges, Bovee admits. There was no shortage of different ideas, some voiced very forcefully and some still unspoken but strongly held. Always a Community Center “There was a lot of history and a lot of emotion connected to the building,” Bovee explains about the infantry unit that called the Dawson armory its home. Equally important, the armory, built in 1923 in the Romanesque Revival style, was a community center. High school basketball players challenged their rivals on the maple court; square dancers paid $6 per night to rent the building; and just once, 2,500 people crowded into the drill hall to see and hear famed WCCO broadcaster Cedric Adams deliver his 10 p.m. broadcast live from downtown Dawson. The armory was constructed during a post-World War I expansion of the National Guard in Minnesota. Although Dawson is not a county seat, residents campaigned hard to secure a Guard unit for their town. Mindful of the armory’s dual purpose, town officials wanted to ensure that the armory would function equally well as a community center and thus approved $20,000 in local money to supplement the $25,000 appropriated by the state to construct the armory. Dawson’s supplemental funds allowed for the construction of an elaborate foyer, balcony, and stage. Local builder J.W. Carson got caught up in the civic enthusiasm and used much of his calculated profit from the construction contract to ensure that everything was top quality. According to Dawson historian Janet Liebl, Carson’s generosity was appreciated by the townspeople, but it likely created a permanent financial injury to his construction company. Demolition Not an Option Mindful of the emotional investment in the armory, city manager Bovee says that talk of demolition was never part of any proposal, the first of which involved remodeling the Guard unit’s administrative area into apartments and keeping the drill hall open for school athletic programs. For years the Dawson armory had been the town’s only basketball court and still was just one of two indoor courts in the city. School officials and sports enthusiasts were interested in preserving the drill hall for athletic practice and competitions. But an independent study assessed the idea as “incompatible.” Potential renters of the apartments–likely to be senior citizens–would not want to live in the same building as a busy school athletic facility. Library Too Small As the city began its armory reutilization meetings, a parallel effort was under way to resolve a “what-do- we-do-with-the-old-library?” question. At 2,500 square feet, Dawson’s 1917 Carnegie Library had become too small for its 4,000 patrons and status as one of the busiest small town libraries in Minnesota. A group of library supporters proposed constructing a 5,000 square-foot facility, an idea that eventually was referred to voters and defeated by a slim margin. Following the library referendum, Bovee started talks with armory reutilization committee members about an apartment-library combination. The drill hall had 5,300 square feet of space, a bit more than the minimum recommended by an outside library consultant. Potential tenants of the apartments would have indoor access to the features of the library and the company of its much quieter patrons. The apartment-library proposal was launched, but not fully embraced by the city’s sports-minded residents who continued to press for retention of the drill hall as a school athletic facility. In the end, school officials decided they could not afford to participate in the rehabilitation costs, even with the favorable starting point of the $1 purchase price. Dawson, Minnesota’s former National Guard armory now houses the town library and a 10-unit apartment complex. A community meeting room is located in the basement and a 3,500 square foot mezzanine above the library serves as a community center and art gallery. In 1998, the League of Minnesota Cities honored the community project with its City Achievement Award. 265 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 23 Mid-Course Changes Along the way, the development committee struggled with more meetings, and the mid-course changes required by a new developer and consultants. Still everyone maintained an attitude of perseverance, according to the city manager. The group formed an Economic Development Authority that would own the former armory and protect the financing package from additional challenges by voters. Mindful that the first library proposal had been stopped at the polls, Bovee says the group “had to become creative” to ensure that financial support for the new proposal would remain on track. They also were careful to conduct ample public meetings and to host open houses during the construction phase so townspeople could observe the process. Sports fans gained something from the armory project, too. The school district is constructing an athletic building with space for three basketball courts. When that work is finished, the current school gymnasium will be remodeled into a fine arts center. The former library continues in service as the office of a law firm. Financial Plan Dawson is paying the final tab on the armory project with a combination of bonds and grants. Rents, averaging $500 per month for each of the 10 apartments, will pay back the $500,000 housing bond, while an annual appropriation from the city will pay off the slightly larger amount in bonds sold to finance the library portion of the complex. The city also received a $150,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning to help pay for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. A $25,000 grant from the state was used early on to conduct preliminary studies when the National Guard moved out of the building. The Dawson City Library more than doubled its floor space when it moved its 22,000- piece collection into the former drill hall of the National Guard armory. With more than 4,000 registered patrons, the facility has the highest per capita circulation rate in the Pioneerland Library System, a regional network of 31 libraries covering nine counties in west-central Minnesota. Library staff members and city officials are still experimenting with ways to utilize the mezzanine space above the main floor of the library. The area is used as an art gallery and display space for historic artifacts. A donated grand piano is also available for use on the mezzanine. Financial assistance received by the city to fund the apartment complex requires that for the first three years after opening, all tenants must be 55 years or older. Following that period, the apartments can be rented on the open market. City manager Bovee says the 10 apartments, some as large as 1,300 square feet and one designed for a handicapped tenant, were quickly filled. He adds that many prospective younger residents are waiting for an opportunity to move in. Construction began June 26, 1997, following one of the toughest winters on record and serious flooding of the Lac qui Parle River that flows through the town. Work was finished in March of 1998, and Bovee says that the city dealt with a few small “construction surprises” as tenants and the library staff settled in. The city purchased the former Masonic Lodge across the street from the armory and took down the frame building in 1999 to build an eight-car garage for tenants, an important plus for residential property during Minnesota’s winters. 266 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 24 Status of Minnesota’s Former Armories Closed in 1993 Aitkin Aitkin Aitkin Aitkin Aitkin – City-owned community center Benson Benson Benson Benson Benson – City-owned, rented for various uses Dawson Dawson Dawson Dawson Dawson – Library/apartment complex/community center Eveleth Eveleth Eveleth Eveleth Eveleth – City-owned community center Milaca Milaca Milaca Milaca Milaca – Purchased by city, recently sold to commercial design business Park Rapids Park Rapids Park Rapids Park Rapids Park Rapids – City-owned storage space TTTTTracy racy racy racy racy – City-owned community center VVVVViririririrginia ginia ginia ginia ginia – Purchased by city, resold to private owner White Bear Lake White Bear Lake White Bear Lake White Bear Lake White Bear Lake – City-owned community center WWWWWindom indom indom indom indom – City-owned, subsequently demolished WWWWWorthington orthington orthington orthington orthington – Commercial office and business space Zumbrota Zumbrota Zumbrota Zumbrota Zumbrota – Commercial apartment complex Dawson officials held open house weekends during the construction phase of the library- apartment project so that residents of the Lac qui Parle County farming community could inspect the progress. Community involvement continued with a contest to select the name of the library/apartment house complex. After purchasing the armory from the state for $1, the town spent more than $1 million raised from the sale of bonds and receipt of grants to complete the remodeling. Lodge members moved their furnishings into the basement of the former armory and conduct meetings in the community room, which Bovee says is available for other groups. Future ideas include installation of commercial kitchen equipment in the basement to support other public events and a senior meals program. National Register Nomination “It was important for us to retain the look of the armory,” Bovee says of the design and construction process. Early on, the city nominated the building to the National Register of Historic Places to assure long-time residents that the character of the structure would be retained. Architect Milton Bruflodt traveled to the Minnesota National Guard’s facilities office at Camp Ripley to inspect old photos and drawings. Among his preservation efforts were retention of foyer woodwork and faithful restoration of the shape and size of former garage door openings in the front of the building. Inside the building, second story apartments now have cathedral ceilings that rise 14 feet to expose the dark, solid-wood car siding that makes up the underside of the roof. In the library, a false ceiling was removed from the drill hall to show off the full expanse of the same wood. Outside near the flagpole that still displays the nation’s colors, a low brick wall carries metal letters that proclaim the building’s new mission: Dawson Library – Heritage Court Apartments. In the center of the front entrance sidewalk, workers carefully set a slab saved from the original walk. Its inscription modestly carries the year 1923 and the name of the civic- minded contractor who, like his modern community counterparts, gave so much to the project. 267 Museum Deming, New Mexico Constructed 1915-1916 Exterior size: 132 feet by 50 feet Total interior area: 14,000 square feet; two stories Main drill hall floor finished in maple Poured concrete foundation, brick walls, pitched roof Designed by H.C. Trost of El Paso, Texas, in the popular “castellated” style Built by W.W. Barracks of Deming Original construction cost: $17,500 1977 purchase price: $11,500 (one-half of the purchase price was contributed by one local donor, the remainder was raised by additional local contributions) Initial renovation costs contributed largely through donations of labor and materials National Register of Historic Places #83001624 New Mexico Register of Cultural Properties #584 FFFFFor more information, contact theor more information, contact theor more information, contact theor more information, contact theor more information, contact the Luna County Historical SocietyLuna County Historical SocietyLuna County Historical SocietyLuna County Historical SocietyLuna County Historical Society PPPPP.O.O.O.O.O. Bo. Bo. Bo. Bo. Box 1617x 1617x 1617x 1617x 1617 Deming, NM 88030Deming, NM 88030Deming, NM 88030Deming, NM 88030Deming, NM 88030 TTTTTelephone: 505-546-2382elephone: 505-546-2382elephone: 505-546-2382elephone: 505-546-2382elephone: 505-546-2382 E-mail: dlm-museum@zianet.comE-mail: dlm-museum@zianet.comE-mail: dlm-museum@zianet.comE-mail: dlm-museum@zianet.comE-mail: dlm-museum@zianet.com It started with a washing machine. In 1976, prominent Deming, N.M., businessman Hubert Ruebush wanted to donate his mother’s old electric washer, “the first one in town,” to the community’s already cramped museum, which operated from a small rented house. A few blocks away, the Army National Guard had recently moved from its old brick armory to a new facility on the south side of town. Several months, thousands of dollars, and countless hours of volunteer time later, the Deming Luna Mimbres Museum was on its way toward becoming a showpiece for this community of 16,000 just 30 miles from the Mexican border. Mrs. Ruebush’s galvanized tub, with its black electric motor, found a home. The laundry room relic is in good company along with thousands of artifacts that tell the story of how Native Americans and generations of much newer residents have lived in this region that bills itself as the Chili Capital of the World. The transition from armory to museum started with Ruebush’s donation first of the family’s laundry room showpiece— and soon after—cash. When he learned the museum could not display something the size of his mother’s prized home appliance, the campaign to secure the armory from the state was launched. Others in the city had thought about alternative uses for the vacant armory, and a salvage company had its eye on demolition rights in exchange for an estimated 18 railcar loads of valuable red bricks. Ruebush tipped the scales away from the salvager with his promised donation of $6,000 if others in the community could match the amount in order to meet the state’s asking price for the 1916 structure. “Well, we raised the other $6,000 pretty fast,” recalls Ruth Brown, a retired sixth grade teacher and the museum’s current director. With help from a state legislator, a delegation of citizens went to Santa Fe to negotiate the eventual $11,500 selling price with the State Armory Board. New Mexico is one of several states that maintain an Armory Board to oversee the construction, operation, and disposition of National Guard properties. It functions as a “body corporate,” with the adjutant general as its chairman. Like A Real Museum With title to the property, volunteers from the Luna County Historical Society set to work in January 1978. They cleaned up the old armory and prepared the 1,728-square-foot ground floor room to accept the contents of the cramped Cottage Museum that had been in business in two different locations since 1963. The Historical Society’s original plan called for museum space on the ground floor, reserving the upper 4,608 square foot drill hall for dances, concerts, and other community events. “We started to run things like a real museum,” Brown states. Deming Armory Statistics ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ CASE STUDY 268 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 26 In addition to the leadership and financial contributions from Ruebush and his wife, Pauline, retirees Ted and Louise Southerland figured prominently in the early years of the expanded museum. A former school administrator, Southerland and his wife were among the thousands who move to New Mexico to enjoy the favorable winter climate. As Brown explains, the Southerlands and other seasonal residents bring their energy, ideas, diverse points of view, and capability to donate time to many civic projects. The Southerland family brought something else that, like Ruebush’s washing machine, helped propel the museum toward its current annual visitor count of 24,000 and growing core of 70 to 80 volunteer staff members. Mrs. Southerland’s doll collection—300 strong—needed a home. The Historical Society accepted the collection, and the Southerland family set to work transforming the armory’s 81-foot indoor target range into a carpeted display space that has since increased by at least 100 dolls donated by other residents. “People saw what had been done with the dolls and just started giving things,” recalls Brown. Display-by- display, the museum grew out of the ground floor room across the entire drill floor. It since has spread to an adjoining building that is currently being enlarged with a second construction project that will become a transportation wing for the museum. Main spaces in the armory are filled with displays, while volunteer staff members use small classrooms and the combination running track/balcony on the upper level for offices and archive storage. Highlights of the collection include hundreds of ceramic pieces and other artifacts representing life from the Mogollon and Mimbreno cultures that occupied the region before explorers and settlers arrived. There’s a Military Room that recounts the story of Deming’s role in national defense. National Guard Bureau’s Former Chief Issues Caution––When Armories Become ‘Landlocked’ Retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca was a rising staff officer in the New Mexico National Guard when the Deming armory changed hands. Gen. Baca later served for 11 years as the state’s adjutant general and was selected to be chief of the National Guard Bureau from 1994 to 1998. He firmly believes that any armory reutilization project must first evaluate the needs of the local community. Because armories typically serve both as military buildings and community centers, the National Guard and local residents must give careful thought to continuing that mission after a unit moves to a new facility. “Community center first,” the veteran of 42 years of National Guard service recommends, especially in smaller towns. Then other uses can be considered, including sale to the private sector. “Mobilization and training are first considerations,” Gen. Baca continues in explaining the complex and often-difficult decision the National Guard must make when it is time to close an armory. Old armories also get “landlocked,” in Gen. Baca’s word, and cannot support the modern training requirements for a unit that operates big equipment and is staffed by men and women who nearly all commute to training in their cars. “No matter how beautiful it is, or how historic it is,” Gen. Baca advises, “when old armories are landlocked, then it’s time to find an alternative use for the building. The armory can live on, it just won’t be with a National Guard unit inside.” At 301 S. Silver Ave., the Deming Armory opened its doors in 1916 while the National Guard unit was on federal duty helping to keep Pancho Villa on his side of the Mexican border. The New Mexico National Guard maintained a unit in the building for 60 years. During World War II, when all National Guard units were in federal service, the building housed an active USO chapter that supported thousands of men training at the nearby Deming Army Airfield. As a community center, the armory served the citizens of Deming from its opening months as a location for dances, basketball games, boxing matches, and other public events. 269 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 27 Wartime Tragedy Remembered Master Sgt. Howard G. Craig was 51 years old in early 1941, when this photo was taken as the Deming National Guard unit shipped out for World War II service in the Philippines. Sgt. Craig survived the Bataan Death March, but was killed late in the war when a U.S. Navy aircraft bombed the Japanese ship that was taking him and other POWs to Japan to serve as laborers. Sgt. Craig, who received a battlefield commission while he was a prisoner, served as the pre-war, full-time administrator of the Deming Guard unit. His daughter, Betty Craig Wood, lived in the armory’s basement apartment with her family that included five other siblings. She recalls the Deming armory as a busy place, often noisy with high school basketball games and dances. “There was lots of excitement,” she remembers of her years from ages 10-17 in the armory, “we were close to town, but a long way from school.” Today, Deming’s National Guard unit is Battery A, 1st Battalion, 202nd Artillery, an organization of 60 men who operate the Army’s self-propelled 155-millimeter artillery system called Paladin. The city’s first National Guard unit was Company I of the 1st New Mexico Infantry. Just prior to World War II, the unit was reorganized as the headquarters of the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment. The 200th served in the Philippine Islands and was surrendered to Japanese forces in April 1942. The men endured the Bataan Death March; survivors spent 42 months in prisoner of war camps. Photos and artifacts from the early years when the town’s National Guard unit was called to federal service in the campaign against Poncho Villa are on display. A Norden bombsight reminds visitors that countless bombardiers learned how to use the top-secret device inside aircraft based at the nearby Deming Army Airfield. Other displays tell of city life, commercial establishments, health care, entertainment, and the impact of farming and ranching on Deming and Luna County. Green Tea Raises Funds Donated labor, money, materials, and business savvy form the backbone of the Historical Society’s efforts. For example, a holiday event formerly called the Silver Tea became the “Green Tea” to better reflect its money-raising purpose. The museum’s gift shop started when two people each gave $200 to stock the shelves that now are filled with souvenirs and artwork reflecting Deming’s history and Native American culture. Today the shop is the museum’s largest source of supplemental income. With two shifts per day nearly every day of the year, volunteers staff the gift shop and serve as docents for the exhibits. Native Master Sgt. Howard G. Craig In 1921 when this picture was taken, Deming’s National Guard unit was Troop C of the 111th Cavalry. It remained a cavalry outfit until conversion to coastal artillery prior to World War II. Mascots in this photo include two dogs and a long-haired goat. The kneeling soldier, second from right, is holding a human skull of unidentified origin. 270 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 28 Deming resident Art Roman serves as the volunteer archivist for the growing collection focused on artifacts from southwestern New Mexico. The city and county pitch in to pay one-half of the museum’s utility bills, and the city has donated the labor of its work crews to construct two additional display buildings that stretch from the south side of the armory to the end of the city block. In the future, Brown hopes that money can be raised to cover these new metal structures with brick veneer to match the armory. The landscaped outdoor space in front of the new additions displays memorials to service members from the area, including veterans of the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment who were involved in the Bataan Death March. The bulk of visitors are the thousands who spend easy winters in the southwest. At peak season—between January and April—more than 2,000 people visit the museum each month. Brown and her volunteer staffers are working to expand the museum’s visibility with tour group operators. During the 1999-2000 school year, every fourth grader in the community spent an entire day in the former armory, with hands-on learning about the history of their community. Museum exhibits now fill the main drill hall. Volunteers from the local Historical Society initially planned to use the drill hall for public events, thinking the lower level of the armory would be large enough for display space. The lower level of the Deming Museum displays furnishings from area homes and serves as a meeting space for school groups, musical performances, and other events. When the National Guard operated the armory, this area was used for social events. 271 Family Resource Center Defiance, Ohio Constructed 1914 Exterior size: 55 feet by 100 feet Total interior area: 11,594 square feet; two stories Main drill hall floor finished in maple (53 feet by 90 feet) Brick walls Designed by Karl I. Best, Dayton, Ohio, in the castellated style Built by Clemmer and Johnson, Inc., of Hicksville, Ohio Original construction cost: $18,849 1996 purchase price: $37,500 (state legislature set at one-half of its $75,000 appraied value) $500,000 spent on renovations FFFFFor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contactor more information, contact City of DefianceCity of DefianceCity of DefianceCity of DefianceCity of Defiance 324 P324 P324 P324 P324 Perry Streeterry Streeterry Streeterry Streeterry Street Defiance, OH 43512Defiance, OH 43512Defiance, OH 43512Defiance, OH 43512Defiance, OH 43512 TTTTTelephone: 419-784-2101elephone: 419-784-2101elephone: 419-784-2101elephone: 419-784-2101elephone: 419-784-2101 WWWWWeb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: wwweb site: www.defianceweb.com.defianceweb.com.defianceweb.com.defianceweb.com.defianceweb.com Travel to Defiance, Ohio, in the northwest corner of the state, and you can’t miss prominent signs that describe the community of 16,000 as “a great place to live.” Overstated? You might think so, if you were just passing through. However, a closer look at how the city’s Goals 2000 program has helped to transform a vacant National Guard armory into the Defiance County Family Resource Center would quickly lead you to the opposite conclusion. Defiance’s welcoming sign accurately reflects how citizens feel about the commitments they have made to maintaining their community. In several ways, Defiance is like many other midwestern cities. Manufacturing and agriculture largely support the local economy. The city has weathered its share of buffeting that came to the nation’s industrial heartland during the last two decades. Residents are clearly aware that slogans are not enough to ensure civic vitality. At the start of the 1990s when the community began to rebound from various industrial changes, residents agreed on 10 objectives designed to focus attention on excellence in education. Heading the Goals 2000 list was a call for increased partnership among families, the school system, and the community. By early 1995, a task force was formed to achieve these objectives. Task force volunteers were confident that establishment of a Family Resource Center could serve as a focal point of their efforts. They began to search for a location. Ohio Closes 26 Facilities Operating in a substantially different orbit, officials at the state headquarters of the Ohio National Guard in Columbus had a few years earlier coped with post-Cold War orders to trim the size of its force. This requirement, crafted in Washington, D.C., by the Congress and the Department of Defense, resulted in closing 26 National Guard facilities across the Buckeye State, including Defiance’s three-story armory constructed in 1914 in the castellated style. Task force members, working under the leadership of energetic Mayor Rita Kissner, saw potential in transforming the former armory into a Family Resource Center. Post-Cold War downsizing. . . meet a new initiative in Middle America. Vacant long enough to have already attracted small incidents of vandalism, finding a suitable tenant for the armory also was important to the mayor and others in Defiance for practical reasons. David Williams, city law director, cautioned to a local newspaper following a May 1996 city council meeting that the armory could follow the fate of a downtown factory building that had been demolished a year earlier after becoming the community’s “biggest eyesore.” No one wanted to see the 1914 National Guard armory deteriorate or torn down. The Family Resource Center task force gathered momentum. Sandy Herman was hired as the Family and Children First Council coordinator and began working with the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission Defiance Armory Statistics ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ CASE STUDY 272 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 30 (NOCAC), a regional group that operates the Head Start program in Defiance. If the city would purchase the armory from the state, NOCAC would take the lead as the main lessee of the building. The Family and Children First Council would be a financially smaller partner in the deal. In Columbus, the National Guard and state legislature worked together on the project. Lawmakers set the purchase price of the former armory at one-half of its $75,000 appraised value. As negotiations were under way to get the Defiance City Council to approve purchase of the building, NOCAC and the Family and Children First Council launched their campaign to raise approximately $75,000 for remodeling. NOCAC qualified for a $450,000 federal grant and a $250,000 state grant. NOCAC would use that money to support comprehensive remodeling of the armory’s lower level into classrooms, a kitchen, and storage space for its Head Start pupils. NOCAC also agreed to a 20-year lease, making it the principal tenant and guaranteeing income for operating expenses. Local money, grants, and fund raisers generated monies to renovate the second and third floors. Foot-in-the-Door Party Before everything was finished, local money for the project came in small amounts (e.g., $203 from the “Run for the Kids”). A local theater owner donated profits from the premier showing of a motion picture that had been filmed in Defiance. Local residents even paid $51.39 each to attend a “Get Your Foot In the Door” party. The attention-getting price for this event was calculated by dividing the total renovation cost by the total square footage of the armory. Donations of labor and materials also contributed to the project’s viability, according to Mayor Kissner and Council Coordinator Herman. Volunteers helped with painting. A local business donated the heavy tools necessary to cut up the old boiler and heating system that students from Defiance College hauled to the dump. Members of a Michigan-based youth training group called ALERT (Air Land Emergency Resource Team) spent several days in the armory helping with drywall and finishing. “It was hard to get started,” Herman remembers, “but once people could see that it was going to happen, then momentum built.” That momentum continued through the Resource Center’s spring 1999 opening with donations of furniture, a computer, and a copy machine. Renovations included new plumbing, heating, and wiring. All rooms except the large drill hall are air-conditioned, and a sprinkler system provides fire protection throughout. The building is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and new asphalt covers a parking lot that is shared by the neighboring American Legion Post home. The exterior remains largely Defiance’s former National Guard armory faces its main commercial street and shares a new parking lot with the neighboring American Legion Post home. Vacated by the Army National Guard in 1993, the completely renovated building opened in the spring of 1999 as the Defiance County Family Resource Center. The Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission serves as the major tenant of the building and operates its Head Start program from the lower level of the former armory. This photo illustrates a typical classroom layout. 273 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 31 unchanged; however, workers did perform tuck-pointing and installed new windows and doors. A mast for a military radio antenna that stood in front of the building for at least 20 years was dismantled. In hindsight, Deb Gerken of NOCAC wishes the task force had more time to study its renovation plan and negotiate with contractors. The task force had a time limit on spending a significant amount of its money, putting the group at a disadvantage in holding out for more favorable prices. As an example, Gerken believes the lead paint on basement walls could have been encapsulated for far less than the $47,000 that was spent on removal, one of the relatively unstudied choices. One break did come from the surprising lack of asbestos in the building. “Like three feet” of pipe were covered with the hazardous material, according to Herman, holding total inspection and removal costs to less than $500. The upper-level administrative area formerly occupied by the National Guard now serves as office and classroom space for a variety of youth activities and family programs managed by the Family and Children First Council. The drill hall has been painted and fitted with new lighting. The maple floor has been refinished, still serving as a venue for intramural basketball games and other activities. Just as the National Guard would make the drill hall available to civic organizations when it wasn’t needed for military training, the Family and Children First Council also rents the hall to help supplement its operating costs. Exterior Is Little-Changed The exterior of the building looks very much as it did during its pre-World War I opening. Mayor Kissner says the city is very sensitive to preserving as much historical character of the community as possible. The city has designated a portion of its Holgate Avenue neighborhood as a historic district, and some Defiance homes are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mayor Kissner, a 30-year resident of Defiance who will leave office after serving eight years, adds that the city government uses “Standards for Architecture for Historic Preservation” as a guide for local property owners and contractors. Defiance has no ordinances that mandate preservation. Kissner explains, “it is very hard to legislate to demand that people do things with private property so long as it is not dangerous or detrimental.” The entire project involved many participants and observers, among them Staff Sgt. Ralph Hutchinson, a retired local truck driver who served in the Defiance National Guard unit for more than 30 years. The brown brick building became his military home in 1948 when he joined the unit following World War II service as an Army draftee, until his retirement in 1986. Hutchinson is an old-fashioned Guardsman who good-naturedly grumbles that in a modern Guard unit, “you can’t call it summer camp anymore. It’s ‘annual training’.” He can recount the long list of contributions that the Defiance unit made to the nation, state, and community, including local duty in response to numerous floods and snowstorms, plus helping residents of downstate Xenia following the 1974 killer tornado. During the renovations, Hutchinson kept his eye on a bronze plaque in the front foyer of the building, a tablet that serves as the military cornerstone. Workers removed the plaque early in the project so that it would not be damaged. Fearing something worse, Hutchinson assigned himself the mission of guarding the metal rectangle. He took it home, later arranged for a local machine shop to clean the letters, and assisted local officials with reinstalling the plaque so that all would know the National Guard was there in the beginning. Basketball has been a staple of National Guard armory drill halls since the invention of the game. Inside the renovated Defiance armory, children enrolled in various youth programs enjoy the safety and convenience of intramural play. This small commercial kitchen was installed in the lower level of the armory to support the Head Start meals program. A summer months arts and craft program for Defiance youngsters is one of several family oriented activities now headquartered inside the former National Guard armory. Of his nearly four decades of service, Hutchinson, who last performed duties as a squad leader, modestly says, “I just wanted to be there.” Of the armory, he has a similar and direct assessment of its value to the community, first as National Guard property and now as a Family Resource Center. “It’s one of the best buildings around . . . they took good care of it.” 274 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 32 Former Adjutant General Advises: Strategic Approach First, Passion Second Advice from someone who has been there: Set passion aside. Concentrate on taking a strategic or tactical approach when making plans to purchase and reutilize a former National Guard armory. That is the recommendation from Maj. Gen. Richard C. Alexander, the retired former adjutant general of the Ohio National Guard who now serves as the executive director of the Washington, D.C. –based National Guard Association. Alexander was at the helm of the Buckeye State’s National Guard in the early 1990s when he and his staff coped with closing more than 20 military properties. Alexander understands the value of “passion” when generating support for an armory reutilization plan and why a new owner should retain as much of an armory’s historical character as possible. However, he first advises that careful attention be paid to the difficulty and complexity of the process. “There’s an insatiable need for community service,” Alexander states, of the natural second life for a National Guard armory. He recommends that a local protocol be established to evaluate how best to use a former armory. In order, the needs of the city, county, state, and, finally, private interests, should be examined. With community needs identified, those interested in saving an old armory can tackle the challenge of raising the necessary money. To further aid local groups planning an armory acquisition, Alexander advises them to explore all funding sources. “It takes lots of research to find funding from foundations and other sources,” he acknowledges, further recommending that graduate students could be enlisted in the search and grant-writing process. State lawmakers also can help, especially if special legislation is necessary to establish a purchase price or other conditions of sale. In each state, the National Guard typically carries a large backlog of construction or maintenance projects for its armories. Officials charged with managing these budgets anticipate that proceeds from the sale of an old armory can be used to offset their current needs, usually for fundamental expenditures like roof repair or heating upgrades for buildings that remain in daily military use. Solutions to these potential stalemates—the National Guard must sell the buildings for a fair price, but local groups lack the means to raise the money—may require legislative assistance. In Ohio, the state legislature authorized the creation of a rebate fund that struck a balance between the National Guard’s need to recover equity and a community’s inability to pay market value. Communities got state help in meeting a big portion of the purchase price. The Ohio National Guard, in turn, received money for its facilities repair budget. Alexander, who served a wide series of unit assignments before becoming adjutant in 1987, reserves equal intensity for preserving structures and the spirit of their National Guard occupants once the details of finance and remodeling are under control. “Those who want the building should appreciate the fact that it should maintain a link to the past,” he states. Symbolically, that might be something as obvious as “polishing the brass” or other careful stewardship of artifacts and architectural features that remain with a former armory. Less obvious, but equally important, Alexander emphasizes that new occupants must fully appreciate the role played by the National Guard in that community. By preserving the armory, they are sustaining a “continuous link to history.” The maple floor of the Defiance, Ohio, drill hall was retained as part of the interior renovation. New walls, fresh paint and new lighting make the space useful for a variety of youth and civic functions. 275 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ These case studies, also drawn from geographically diverse regions of the country, briefly present examples of success, as well as stories about cities that face considerable challenges. Two of the summaries highlight the need for special efforts to preserve the National Guard’s large regimental armories, including the 7th Regiment in New York City and the Cranston Street Armory in Providence, R.I. Because of their architectural grandeur, these armories represent some of the finest examples of armory architecture in the United States. Because of their size, they are far more difficult to maintain and consequently, far more difficult to convert into new, viable uses. When Brig. Gen. Samuel Crocker Lawrence wanted an armory for the National Guard unit he organized and commanded, the eponymous Lawrence Light Guards, he was rich enough to build the $250,000 structure himself. Construction was completed in 1905 on the armory that included a 150-foot by 75-foot drill shed, with seating for 3,000. Upon his death, Lawrence’s will left the building to the Massachusetts National Guard, with the proviso that if the Guard moved out, the armory would revert to the Grand Masonic Lodge of Massachusetts. In 1973 the Guard left, and two years later the Masons moved in. The Masons put the armory on the National Register, but the building proved to be more than they needed or could afford. In the early l980s, a consultant advised them to tear down the drill shed and restore the decayed front offices. The armory was facing demolition when Masonic lodge member Tony Sulfaro decided it was “too magnificent to tear down.” Sulfaro wanted to turn the building into a medical and legal office condominium complex, but the $1.2 million price tag was daunting— until he realized that adding a second floor to the inside of the drill shed would net an additional 22,000 square feet of space. When the feasibility of his idea was confirmed by his architect, Bernard J. Goba, AIA, Sulfaro put up everything he owned to secure a loan, and then he purchased the building. With no money left, his wife and children pitched in, and the family began to restore the interior of the building themselves. When prospective purchasers saw the first two rehabbed offices (one with a floor-to-ceiling fireplace carved with muskets, pikes, and other symbols of the building’s military past), sales took off. Tony Sulfaro renamed the armory the Marcus Fonzi Professional Building after a nephew who died in a tragic accident, and in 1984 the new owners began to move in. During the renovation, Sulfaro had contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer, who visited the building while work was in progress. With interior woodwork and granite columns intact, the building remained on the National Register after its restoration. Some of the individual Each Armory Project Presents Unique Challenges Office Condominium Medford, Massachusetts ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ OTHER NOTEWORTHY PROJECTS To mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Concord, noted American sculptor Daniel Chester French created this statue of a minuteman in tribute to the citizen-soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. 276 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 34 study for turning the armory into apartments for senior citizens. After putting on a new roof and repairing the damage caused by the leaking of the old one, the job of turning the armory into 18 apartments began. To take advantage of one side of the building’s highly desirable view of the upper reaches of Pamlico Sound, Howard and Boyd’s architectural plan had filled the armory’s original door entrance with glass panels that provided windows for four apartments. Knowing that this would create a problem when applying for a rehabilitation tax credit, they hired a preservation consultant to help with the paperwork. In the end, despite such touches as reuse of the armory windows’ original iron bars in a specially designed fence, the building was deemed ineligible for the tax credit. Nevertheless, this adaptive reuse is a preservation success story for the long- time home of the North Carolina Army National Guard’s 213th Military Police Company. Because Howard and Boyd found a new use for a WPA armory, a building that is itself a survivor of the Great Depression of the 1930s is now home to some of the very people who lived through that important era. office purchasers got rehabilitation tax credits. Tony Sulfaro got a penthouse office for the A. J. Sulfaro Development Corporation (he kept the top floor of the drill shed for himself) and the satisfaction of saving a magnificent historic building. In 1976, when the National Guard moved out of its 1936 Works Progress Administration (WPA) armory in the old river port of Washington, N.C., the triple wall, hard-fired brick building reverted to the city. For 17 years the armory drill shed served as a garage for maintenance vehicles, as water leaked in from a badly repaired roof. In 1993, developers Tom Howard and Larry Boyd bought the building for $35,000. “Nobody else wanted it,” said Howard of the sealed-bid auction for the structure that he described as “constructed like a fortress.” The men correctly guessed their Landmark Properties, Inc., had made the only bid. Before the purchase, Howard and Boyd had commissioned a feasibility In the early 1900s, the commander of a Massachusetts National Guard unit used his own money to build this armory in Medford. Today, the former armory is a professional office building and holds a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Senior Citizen Apartment Complex Washington, North Carolina A building contractor and a real estate appraiser from Washington, N.C., bought the armory from the city with a sealed bid. They spent three years remodeling the interior of the structure into an 18-unit apartment complex. The 1- and 2-bedroom apartments range in size from 700 square feet to 1,050 square feet, some built on two levels. 277 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 35 Any discussion of the history of National Guard armories must include the home of New York City’s 7th Regiment, with its Park Avenue address and Central Park views. This lavish and ornate building, its interior designed by famed architect Stanford White to incorporate ceilings by Louis Comfort Tiffany, kicked off the first great wave of armory construction in the last quarter of the 19th century. The 7th Regiment’s massive headquarters ensured the dominance of the castellated Gothic style in armory construction for decades to come. In 1863, as thousands of Irish immigrants protested being drafted into the Union Army, the 7th Regiment found itself in the middle of the bloodiest urban rioting this country has ever seen. Members of the regiment vowed that if riots broke out again, they would have a defensive base from which to conduct operations. The states were not yet in the business of armory construction, so the 7th Regiment, which included the city’s most socially prominent and wealthy men, commissioned their own fortress. Architect Charles W. Clinton, himself a member of the Regiment, designed a stone building that filled a city block and cost $589,000, a staggering sum for the time. Money came from a complex tangle of personal donations, bonds, fund-raising events, and finally the state government. Clinton’s design incorporated turrets, towers, and impregnable stone walls. In addition to offices, storage areas, and firing ranges, the building contained elaborately decorated ceremonial rooms. The enormous drill shed with balconies for spectators was large enough for an entire regiment to parade, or for hundreds of New York’s wealthy elite to waltz and promenade. The armory created a sensation when it opened in 1879, and every unit and city wanted its own urban fortress in the new Gothic style. Some wealthy units built their own armories; states and cities passed bond issues to finance armory construction; and by 1910, the wealthy industrial states of the Northeast and Midwest were dotted with brick and stone castles of various sizes. New York’s 7th Regiment armory established a distinctive architecture standard in 1879, when it opened to house not only a National Guard unit, but social and civic events for the city’s elite. This photo from 1910, shows the Park Avenue structure shortly after its original tower had been removed and two more floors of office space added to its immense size. The armory, listed on the National Register, remains in service for the National Guard and civic events. Architect Charles Clinton, a member of the 7th Regiment, drew the plans for the unit’s armory building that cost nearly $600,000 to construct. This photo, taken in the 1970s, shows the interior Veterans’ Room, one of the ornate meeting places designed by architect Stanford White and furnished by Louis C. Tiffany, both members of the 7th Regiment. 7th Regiment’s Showcase New York, New York 278 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 36 Today, the 7th Regiment Armory has fallen on hard times. Its massive drill shed still shelters the wealthy and social elite during events such as the Winter Antiques Show, but a 1998 front-page article in the New York Times detailed the sad deterioration of the armory’s spectacular interior. Recent state budgets for armory maintenance do not encompass the care and upkeep of Tiffany glass and gold leaf. To further complicate the picture, the armory’s $10 million collection of original paintings and decorative art, which includes some of the nation’s finest Civil War canvases, is caught up in a complex ownership dispute. The state and the group that claims to have inherited the art from the 7th Regiment’s National Guard successor unit are a long way from resolving their differences. Some state officials have suggested turning the building over to a private developer who would renovate and restore it for new uses. But before that can happen, the legal questions that are the heritage of the armory’s tangle of original funding in the l870s must be resolved. The Municipal Art Society, the 7th Regiment Fund, Veterans of the 7th Regiment Armory, and the Friends of the 7th Regiment have joined forces to propose a consolidated effort to pool resources and put the armory on a solid maintenance and operational footing. Inclusion in the National Trust’s list of “America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places” in 1997, plus three consecutive years on a similar roster maintained by the Providence Preservation Society have helped raise interest in saving the Cranston Street Armory. Developing a suitable plan and raising enough money to save the building remain as formidable barriers to long term reuse of the 90-year-old landmark. Currently, a Rhode Island native has been negotiating with state officials to turn the stone, brick, and frame structure into a massive sound stage and training facility for film and television productions. The filmmaker has received several lease extensions from the state Department of Administration, while he attempts to secure enough financial backing to execute an estimated $6 million to $10 million in repairs and renovations. In addition to the current lease tenant, two other film companies have leased space in the armory from the state to complete work on productions. Several other proposals to transition the facility from armory to movie soundstage have been presented. Still another developer has proposed using the drill hall floor as a “motorcar museum” to showcase antique cars. This venture includes using the remainder of the armory to house various civic and private organizations, among them the Providence Police Department. The five-story, castle-like building was designed by the firm William R. Walker and Son in the late 19th century to house the Rhode Island National Guard’s 103rd Field Artillery Brigade. Since its completion, the Cranston Street Armory has been the only home to Rhode Island National Guard artillery units. Their imprint on the building is pronounced, as two granite cannon barrels flank both major entrances. In the decades that followed, the 165,300-square-foot facility in the Westend section of Providence has been the site of countless political functions, sporting events, circuses, and inaugural balls. Among the most impressive aspects of the structure are the roof battlements, turrets, and balconies that dominate the skyline. The roof battlements of the east and west towers are capped with copper parapet lining. Turrets are capped, roofed, and lined entirely with copper. In addition to five-story circular wooden stairways for the Cranston Street Armory Providence, Rhode Island This telephoto view of Providence, Rhode Island’s Cranston Street Armory emphasizes how it dominates the surrounding residential neighborhood. While architecturally grand, the immense size of this building makes it an especially challenging candidate for reutilization. 279 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 37 worried about the declining appearance of the exterior as well as the threat of a major incident such as a fire. In a small Black Hills community that now gives careful attention to preserving and promoting its history, an armory that last housed a detachment of National Guard engineers has become the Deadwood Pavilion. The city government’s share of profits from low-stakes casino gambling has fueled a massive overhaul of Deadwood’s historic structures and formerly fragile infrastructure. In the years since 1989, when legalized gambling first started to revive the city’s historic Main Street district, much attention was focused on rehabilitating commercial structures and municipal support systems. More than $40 million has been spent on a decade’s worth of projects, such as repaving Main Street with brick and transforming the Fremont Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad station and later fire department into a Visitors’ Center. City officials anticipate they will continue to receive money for historic preservation at a rate of $5 million to $6 million per year. An additional estimated $75 million in private money has been spent on towers, the balconies that line the drill shed floor are the most dominating interior features. Constructed primarily of oak, these theater-like balconies feature intricately carved seats and ornate iron railings. The Army National Guard withdrew from the building in the fall of 1996, primarily for safety and financial reasons. According to Maj. Gen. Reginald Centracchio, the adjutant general of the Rhode Island National Guard, parts of the facility “represented a serious hazard for our personnel. Additionally, our facilities maintenance budget could not support the $60,000 to $100,000 per year required to both repair and heat the armory.” Centracchio adds, however, that leaving the armory was not an easy decision. “The Cranston Street Armory has been the only home to our artillery units. At one point or another, all Rhode Island artillery officers and enlisted men labored in this building to prepare for war. The Cranston Street Armory’s impact on the Rhode Island National Guard is impossible to quantify and will not diminish with its closing.” Meanwhile, the building remains vulnerable to faster decline. Windows have been broken, and a January 1999 flooding accident caused by roof deterioration resulted in minor interior damage. Citizens involved in the West Broadway Neighborhood Association are Deadwood Pavillion Deadwood, South Dakota commercial property that must conform to the city’s robust preservation standards. During the first decade of gambling’s return to the county seat community of 1,850, the National Guard’s former armory continued in service with little fanfare as a junior high school gymnasium. The South Dakota National Guard had transferred ownership of the armory to the Lead- Deadwood School District in the fall of 1987, when the Guard closed the Deadwood unit and moved its members and equipment to a nearby community. By the late 1990s, with gambling revenue firmly part of the local economy and much work done throughout the community, attention turned to renovation of the armory. Deadwood Festivals, Inc., a local non- profit group that takes much of its membership from the rolls of the Chamber of Commerce, joined forces with the Lead-Deadwood School District and received a $150,000 loan from the Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission to remodel the armory. The funds, along with $23,000 from the Chamber and School District, have paid for upgrades to electrical, plumbing, and public address systems. Stackable chairs and bleachers were purchased, and the building was made compliant with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Designed by the firm William R. Walker and Son, the Rhode Island National Guard’s Cranston Street Armory provided a striking exterior vista, along with 165,300 square feet of space for the states artillery units. The National Guard moved from the building in 1996, and now the Providence structure awaits some type of suitable reutilization. It was included in the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places in 1997. 280 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 38 Today the re-named Deadwood Pavilion reflects the interest of local civic boosters who see the structure as home for theatrical productions, community concerts, and other civic events. During the Pavilion’s 1998 inaugural holiday season, the Fabulous Christmas Follies played to big crowds with a comedy and musical review. In addition to management of the Deadwood Pavilion, the festival organization has sponsored other outdoor big-name concerts and plans to present historically relevant theatrical productions from the stage of the former military/school property. Revenue from the events is channeled back to the Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission to repay the remodeling loan. In late 1999, Deadwood Festival officials and the Preservation Commission were still working on details of the repayment schedule. The Deadwood armory was built in 1956 for $240,000. Under the formula established by federal law in 1948, the National Guard put up 75 percent of the construction costs using federal funds. The Guard joined forces with the school district, using local funds for the remaining 25 percent, to construct a 100-foot by 97-foot, gable-roofed, no- nonsense facility that was reflective of post World War II armory design. The building served first as home for an artillery battery and then small units of the 109th Engineer Battalion. In nearby Lead (“Leed”), a similar armory was built in 1959, for Company A of the 109th Battalion. The unit closed in 1991. The former Lead armory now houses a day care center. In Deadwood, S.D., the school district and local non-profit civic organization share ownership of the former National Guard armory, renamed the Deadwood Pavilion. The 1956 brick armory is home to a range of theatrical productions, concerts, and civic events. Profits from the city’s low- stakes casino gambling industry have supported more than $40 million in historic preservation and infrastructure projects throughout the community since 1989. Citizens of Deadwood, S.D., have turned the city’s former National Guard armory into a public pavilion that now hosts a range of musical performances and other events. The 1950’s vintage armory is jointly owned and operated by the city and school district. 281 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 39 Appendices ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 282 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 40 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470a to 470w-6, (NHPA), amended in 1980, and again in 1992, is the key federal law that establishes a federal policy for the preservation of cultural and historic resources in the United States. The law creates a national preservation program and a system of procedural protections, which encourage both the identification and protection of historic resources at the federal level, and indirectly, at the state and local level. The functions of the NHPA are threefold: (1)It authorizes the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places, the official listing of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.” (2)It establishes a protective review process, known as the “Section 106 review process,” to ensure that federal agencies consider the effects of federally licensed, assisted, regulated, or funded activities on historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. (3)It requires federal agencies to locate, inventory, and nominate properties to the National Register, assume responsibility for preserving historic properties, and use historic buildings to “the maximum extent possible.” The NHPA creates a specific role for state and local governments, Native American tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations in carrying out the Act’s specific directives. Each state, pursuant to the NHPA, has established a “state historic preservation office” or SHPO that is responsible for identifying and nominating properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and working with federal agencies in implementing the Section 106 review process. SHPOs are also responsible for administering a federal assistance program for historic preservation projects and certifying local governments who wish to assume specific responsibilities under the NHPA, such as nominating properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA establishes a Historic Preservation Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Money from this fund is made available to the states through annual appropriations by Congress. Up to 10 percent of a state’s allocation may be transferred to “certified local governments.” The Section 106 review process is the regulatory heart of the NHPA. Codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470f, Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic resources before funding, licensing, or otherwise proceeding with projects that may affect historic resources listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The kinds of actions requiring Section 106 review are broad and inclusive and may affect historic resources directly or indirectly. For example, a federal agency may be required to perform a Section 106 review before approving funds to build a new convention center near a historic district. While a federal agency may delegate certain Section 106 responsibilities to a state or local government, the federal agency is ultimately responsible and may be held legally accountable for Section 106 compliance. The statutory provision establishing the Section 106 review process is relatively succinct. It states: The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation established under §§ 470i – 470v of this title a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. This provision, in effect, directs federal agencies to determine whether any properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register will be adversely affected by proposed “undertakings,” and if so, provides the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, with an opportunity to comment. The Section 106 review process may encompass the identification of protected resources, determinations as to adverse effects, and consultation with the appropriate state historic preservation officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation about ways to avoid or reduce those effects. In the vast majority of cases, a legally binding Memorandum of Agreement is executed by the consulting parties, setting forth specific protective measures that must be taken. The National Historic Preservation Act |Appendix A 283 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 41 Regulations implementing Section 106 have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These regulations set forth the specific procedures that federal agencies must follow to satisfy the requirements of Section 106. The regulations are published at 36 C.F.R. Part 800 and are available on the Advisory Council’s web site at www.achp.gov. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Army National Guard has designated a Federal Preservation Officer: Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health) 110 Army Pentagon, Room 2E577 Washington, DC 20310-0110 Staff Contact: Cultural Resources Program Manager Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau Attn: NGB-ARE-C 111 S. George Mason Drive Arlington, VA 22204-1382 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Army National Guard Liaison: Michelle Heller Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-606-8522 Other Federal Statutes Governing Historic Resources In addition to the National Historic Preservation Act, two other statutes provide protection for historic resources against potentially harmful federal actions: the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. NEPA governs federal agency actions affecting cultural as well as natural resources, including properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as those listed on state or local historic registers. While NEPA does not insist on preservation in every situation, it requires federal agencies to give full consideration to the potential impact of major actions on historic property. Each agency must prepare an “Environmental Impact Statement,” or EIS, whenever major federal actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The EIS must identify the historic resources that may be affected by the proposed action and then discuss alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or mitigate the adverse affects. Regulations implementing NEPA are set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act provides substantive protection for historic properties against federal actions taken by the Department of Transportation. It prohibits the federal approval or funding of transportation projects that require the “use” of any historic site unless (1) there is “no feasible and prudent alternative to the project,” and (2) the project includes “all possible planning to minimize harm to the project.” The term “use” includes not only the direct physical taking of property, but also indirect effects that would “substantially impair” the value of protected sites. For example, the effect of a proposed highway on the economic vitality of a nearby historic neighborhood that would isolate the district from nearby commercial activity would require assessment under Section 4(f). Section 4(f) applies to all transportation agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation, including the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Implementing regulations are set forth at 23 C.F.R. § 771.135. 284 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 42 The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of historic and cultural resources at the national level and serves as the primary resource for significant historical, architectural, and archaeological resources in the United States. Established under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. §§ 461 et seq., and expanded by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq., the Register includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and other objects important in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register includes more than 70,000 listings, including individual sites and historic districts. Thus far, approximately 200 armories have been individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The list is not definitive and the fact that a property has not been included on the Register does not mean that it is not eligible for listing. Indeed, the number of armories included on the Register is likely to grow as historic preservation offices begin to focus on the inventory of historic armories within their jurisdictions. Several of the armories currently listed on the National Register, particularly from those from Pennsylvania and New York, are the result of efforts undertaken by state preservation offices to identify and nominate historic armories within their states. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service under the U.S. Department of the Interior. Criteria and procedures governing the National Register are set forth at 36 C.F.R. Part 60. The Park Service’s “Keeper of the National Register” is responsible for listings and determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register, although the designation process usually begins at the state level with nominations by the State Historic Preservation Office. The National Register’s principal purpose is to identify historical and cultural resources of our nation. Indeed, listing on the National Register is essentially honorific, meaning that it does not impose substantive restraints on how a private property owner may use his or her property. National Register listings simply confer recognition that a property is significant to the country as a whole, a state, or a local community. The National Register also serves as the primary planning tool for federal agencies in meeting their legal responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. The National Register is used by agencies in meeting their stewardship responsibilities under Section 110 of the act, 16 U.S.C. § 470h, and can invoke the procedural safeguards of Section 106 for federal or federally approved projects, 16 U.S.C. § 470f. This provision directs federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities on properties that are listed or are eligible for listing on the National Register. Mitigation of potentially adverse effects is achieved through consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers and other affected parties. Often the National Register is used by state and local governments as a tool for identifying historic resources within their own jurisdictions. In some localities, National Register listing may trigger review under state and local historic preservation laws. In most instances, however, the Register simply highlights properties for possible inclusion on state or local registers. National Register listings may be beneficial to private property owners interested in obtaining favorable tax benefits, such as the 20 percent income tax credit for the rehabilitation of historic property. See I.R.C. § 48(g). It may also help property owners to qualify for a charitable tax deduction for the donation of a partial interest in historically important land areas or structures, known as a preservation or façade easement. See I.R.C. § 170(h). National Register listing may trigger benefits under state and local historic rehabilitation tax incentive programs as well. For more information on the National Register of Historic Places, contact the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C St., NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-343-9536. The National Park Service maintains a web site on the National Register at www.cr.nps.gov/nr. State and Local Registers Compared Many states maintain their own registers of historic places, which may be more or less inclusive than the National Register of Historic Places. As with the National Register, listing on a state register tends to be honorific. In some states, however, inclusion on a state register may trigger regulatory protection or govern whether a property owner may qualify for favorable tax treatment. Properties may also be designated as individual landmarks or as contributing structures within a historic district pursuant to a local historic preservation ordinance. Unlike listing on the National Register, designation under a local ordinance often affects a property owner’s ability to change his or her property in ways that would harm the resource’s historic or architectural character. Properties designated under local ordinances may be eligible for tax benefits including reductions in local property taxes. The National Register of Historic Places |Appendix B 285 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 43 Tax incentive programs in effect at the federal, state, and sometimes, local level, provide an important source of financial support for historic rehabilitations, including those undertaken to adapt historic armories to new uses. These programs are generally structured so that a portion of rehabilitation expenditures may be recouped in the form of a dollar for dollar credit against income taxes. Rehabilitations undertaken pursuant to these programs generally must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. These standards appear at the end of this appendix. The donation of a preservation or conservation easement may also provide important tax savings that contribute to the viability of a particular project. Preservation easements are partial restrictions on property that typically are used to preserve the exterior facades of historic buildings. While direct funding for historic rehabilitation is extremely limited, money may be available for feasibility planning or small projects. The State Historic Preservation Office is a good place to start to determine what programs are available. Historic Rehabilitation The most widely known incentive to preserve historic properties is the federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This incentive gives property owners either a 10 percent or 20 percent tax credit on rehabilitation expenses, depending upon the classification of the building at issue. “Certified historic structures” (residential investment and commercial property) are eligible for a 20 percent credit while noncertified, nonresidential property placed in service before 1936 may be eligible for a 10 percent credit. I.R.C. §§ 46(b); 48(g). Several specific conditions must be satisfied to qualify for the credit. In addition to being historic, the building must be income producing and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. Most importantly, the building must be “substantially rehabilitated,” and the rehabilitation must be a “qualified rehabilitation.” In other words, rehabilitation costs must exceed the adjusted basis of the building or $5,000, and the work performed must meet certain preservation standards. A rehabilitation tax credit may not be taken until the Secretary of the Interior has certified that the building at issue is historic and the rehabilitation has been performed in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Certifications of historical significance and rehabilitation work are obtained from the National Park Service, upon review by the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. Regulations governing the certification process are set forth at 36 C.F.R. Part 67. Many state governments provide special incentives to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of historic properties, typically in the form of property and/or income tax relief. As with federal income tax incentives, relief is generally available only to owners of qualified historic properties making qualified rehabilitations. Indeed, many of the state programs “piggy back” on the federal rehabilitation tax program. Property tax relief may be provided in the form of a property assessment freeze, a property tax abatement, or a property tax exemption. Tax incentive programs are typically administered at the state level by the State Historic Preservation Office. Although infrequent, local incentives may be available in the form of property tax relief as a credit from local taxes. Preservation Easements Under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, historic property owners may receive a charitable tax deduction for the appraised value of a conservation or preservation easement donated to a qualifying charitable organization. This benefit can be combined with the federal rehabilitation tax credit to make a marginal project viable. Conservation easements are partial restrictions on land for conservation purposes which may include historic preservation, scenic preservation, archeology, and so forth. The term preservation easement is commonly used to refer to easements on historic property. This type of easement may be used to protect the exterior facade of a building, or the entire structure and surrounding land. The donation of a preservation easement must be documented in the form of an easement agreement that spells out the rights of the “holding organization” and must be recorded on the deed of record. To qualify for federal tax benefits, the easement must also be in perpetuity. Lists of historic preservation organizations operating easement programs are generally available from the State Historic Preservation Office. Other Sources of Financial Support Limited funding for rehabilitation projects may be available through the State Historic Preservation Office, certified local governments, or state or local preservation organizations. Money may also be available for historic armory projects that can qualify as a transportation “enhancement” under the Transportation Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21). Tax Incentives and Other Financial Assistance Programs |Appendix C 286 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 44 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior defines “rehabilitation” as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” Consistent with this definition, the Secretary has adopted the following standards for the rehabilitation of historic properties: 287 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 45 The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213 (ADA), requires that all state and local government entities, as well as all commercial facilities and private businesses and nonprofit organizations providing goods and services to the public (known as public accommodations), ensure that newly constructed buildings and facilities and all altered portions of existing buildings and facilities, are readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. In addition, state and local governments must ensure that existing facilities comply with the law’s mandated accessibility requirements and private property owners with buildings serving the public are required to remove barriers to access from existing buildings and facilities when it is “readily achievable” to do so. [Note that federal buildings and federally funded facilities covered by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 must satisfy the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.] Owners of qualified historic buildings and facilities, such as historic armories, are not exempt from ADA requirements. However, ADA responsibilities may be accomplished by alternative means where compliance would threaten or destroy the historic nature of the building or facility. Qualified buildings include those that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as those designated under state and local law. Decisions to pursue alternative methods to meet ADA requirements must be done in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. With respect to historic armories, owners are advised to, first, review the historical significance of their property and identify the materials, features, and spaces that should be preserved. For most armories, the construction materials, the form and style of the property, the principal elevations, the major architectural features, and the principal public spaces should be viewed as important elements that contribute to the property’s overall historical significance. Thus, when making modifications to meet accessibility requirements, efforts should be made to minimize impacts on these particular elements. After familiarizing oneself with the property’s important features, owners of historic armories will then need to assess the property’s existing level of accessibility, identify where potential barriers lie, and determine what level of accessibility is required. The rules, for example, vary depending upon whether the owner is a governmental entity or not. Moreover, some states and localities have adopted additional accessibility requirements and codes. Finally, the owner should identify and evaluate the various accessibility options, keeping in mind the armory’s historical and architectural significance and that alternative solutions may be possible. The optimal solution is one that provides the greatest amount of accessibility without destroying the materials or features of the property that makes it significant. Owners are required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office if they believe that compliance will threaten or destroy the significance of the property. Regulations governing ADA accessibility requirements are set forth at 28 C.F.R. §§ 5.149-151 (state and local governments) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.401-406 (public accommodations). ADA Standards for Accessible Design are published as an Appendix to the regulations. Basic accessibility standards are set forth at § 4.1.6. Special standards applicable to historic properties are set forth at § 4.1.7. The regulations and standards can be found at the U.S. Department of Justice’s web site at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ ada. The National Park Service has also published two Preservation Briefs that may be helpful in meeting ADA requirements. See Preservation Brief No. 17, “Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character,” and Preservation Brief No. 32, “Making Historic Buildings or Facilities Accessible.” These are located on the National Park’s web site at www2.cr.nps.gov/TPS/briefs. Americans with Disabilities Act |Appendix D 288 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 46 Pre-Civil War No single architectural style can be associated with pre-Civil War armories. While a few armory buildings assumed the appearance of a medieval castle or fortress, many were designed with classical Greek elements found on commercial structures of the day. The Romanesque, Italianate, and French Second Empire styles were also popular during this period. Post-Civil War Gradually the architectural style of armories became more uniform. From approximately 1880 to 1910, many armories were built in a “castellated” Gothic Revival style suggestive of the building’s military function. Armories of this period often donned castle-like features such as towers, turrets, and crenellated parapets or battlements. The walls were typically thick, constructed of heavy stone or brick, reminiscent of European architecture during the Middle Ages. A variation of this style, known as “Richardsonian Romanesque,” also became popular during this period. Armories built in this style typically have roughly finished or rusticated lower levels, with large, round arches and accentuated doorways. Throughout this period, armories became a source of pride for communities, particularly in the wealthier cities of the East and Midwest. Armories serving an entire regiment, known as “regimental armories,” could readily be called the gems of the day. These exceptionally grand, imposing edifices were designed by architectural firms such as Holabird and Roche, and well known state architects, such as Isaac G. Perry, who also designed New York’s state capitol building. 20th Century In the early years of the 20th century, the architectural styles of armories once again became more varied. Armories designed in the castellated style were far more restrained in appearance, and a number were built in the popular Beaux Arts style. In the West, where armory construction generally lagged behind, National Guard units were housed in commercial facilities or modest, functional buildings with architectural detailing borrowed from styles ranging from Medieval Gothic to Italianate to Spanish or Mission Revival. After World War I, modernistic designs began to replace the elaborate styles favored during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Armories of this period were typically built in the art deco style of the 1920s or the popular art moderne style of the 1930s and 1940s, giving the buildings a decidedly less military appearance. In stark contrast to the castellated armories, these buildings were more modest in design, embellished with simple cast concrete details such as squares, crosses or an eagle. While the art deco armories continued to emphasize height over width, often through the use of a stepped parapet and vertical fluting, the art moderne buildings were decidedly horizontal, with simple banding and rounded corners. Many of these armories were built in the South and the West by the PWA (Public Works Administration) and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) under President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program. Architectural Styles of Historic Armories |Appendix E 289 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 47 Alabama The Adjutant General P.O. Box 3711 Montgomery, AL 36109-0711 Phone: 334-271-7200 Fax:334-271-7366 Alaska The Adjutant General P.O. Box 5800 Fort Richardson, AK 99505-5800 Phone: 907-428-6003 Fax:907-428-6019 Arizona The Adjutant General 5636 East McDowell Road Phoenix, AZ 85008-3495 Phone: 602-267-2710 Fax:602-267-2715 Arkansas The Adjutant General Camp J.T. Robinson North Little Rock, AR 72199-9600 Phone: 501-212-5001 Fax:501-212-5009 California The Adjutant General 9800 S. Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95826-9101 Phone: 916-854-3500 Fax:916-854-3671 Colorado The Adjutant General 6848 South Revere Parkway Englewood, CO 80112-6703 Phone: 303-397-3023 Fax:303-397-3281 Connecticut The Adjutant General 360 Broad Street Hartford, CT 06105-3795 Phone: 860-524-4953 Fax:860-524-4898 Delaware The Adjutant General First Regiment Road Wilmington, DE 19808-2191 Phone: 302-326-7001 Fax:302-326-7196/7119 District of Columbia Commanding General 2001 East Capitol Street Washington, DC 20003-1719 Phone: 202-433-5220 Fax:202-433-5105 Florida The Adjutant General P.O. Box 1008 St. Augustine, FL 32085-1008 Phone: 904-823-0100 Fax:904-823-0125 Georgia The Adjutant General P.O. Box 17965 Atlanta, GA 30316-0965 Phone: 404-624-6001 Fax:404-624-6005 Guam The Adjutant General 622 East Harmon Industrial Park Road Fort Juan Muna Tamuning, GU 96911-4421 Phone: 011-671-475-0802 Fax:011-671-477-9317 Hawaii The Adjutant General 3949 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, HI 96816-4495 Phone: 808-733-4246 Fax:808-733-4238 Idaho The Adjutant General 4040 W. Guard Street Boise, ID 83705-5004 Phone: 208-422-5225 Fax:208-422-6179 Illinois The Adjutant General 1301 North MacArthur Boulevard Springfield, IL 62702-2399 Phone: 217-785-3500 Fax:217-785-3736 Indiana The Adjutant General 2002 South Holt Road Indianapolis, IN 46241-4839 Phone: 317-247-3279 Fax:317-247-3540 Iowa The Adjutant General 7700 Northwest Beaver Drive, Camp Dodge Johnston, IA 50131-1902 Phone: 515-252-4211 Fax:515-252-4656 Kansas The Adjutant General 2800 SW Topeka Boulevard Topeka, KS 66611-1287 Phone: 913-274-1001 Fax:913-274-1682 The Adjutants General of the National Guard |Appendix F 290 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 48 Kentucky The Adjutant General Building 100 - 100 Minuteman Parkway Frankfort, KY 40601-6168 Phone: 502-564-8558 Fax:502-564-6271 Louisiana The Adjutant General Headquarters Building, Jackson Barracks New Orleans, LA 70146-0330 Phone: 504-278-8211 Fax:504-278-6554 Maine The Adjutant General Camp Keyes Augusta, ME 04333-0033 Phone: 207-626-4205 Fax:207-626-4509 Maryland The Adjutant General 5th Regiment Armory Baltimore, MD 21201-2288 Phone: 410-576-6097 Fax:410-576-6079 Massachusetts The Adjutant General 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757-3604 Phone: 508-233-6552 Fax:508-233-6554 Michigan The Adjutant General 2500 South Washington Avenue Lansing, MI 48913-5101 Phone: 517-483-5507 Fax:517-482-0356 Minnesota The Adjutant General 4th Floor Veterans Services Building 20 West 12th Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 612-282-4666 Fax:612-282-4541 Mississippi The Adjutant General P.O. Box 5027 Jackson, MI 39296-5027 Phone: 601-313-6232 Fax:601-313-6251 Missouri The Adjutant General 2302 Militia Drive Jefferson City, MO 65101-1203 Phone: 573-526-9710 Fax:573-526-9929 Montana The Adjutant General P.O. Box 4789 1100 North Main Street Helena, MT 59604-4789 Phone: 406-841-3000 Fax:406-841-3011 Nebraska The Adjutant General 1300 Military Road Lincoln, NE 68508-1090 Phone: 402-471-7114 Fax:402-471-7171 Nevada The Adjutant General 2525 South Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-5502 Phone: 702-887-7302 Fax:702-887-7369 New Hampshire The Adjutant General 4 Pembroke Road State Military Reservation Concord, NH 03301-5652 Phone: 603-225-1200 Fax:603-225-1257 New Jersey The Adjutant General Eggert Crossing Road, CN 340 Trenton, NJ 08625-0340 Phone: 609-530-6957 Fax:609-530-7097 New Mexico The Adjutant General State Programs Office, Room 201 47 Bataan Boulevard Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: 505-474-1202 Fax:505-474-1355 New York The Adjutant General 330 Old Niskayuna Road Latham, NY 12110-2224 Phone: 518-786-4502 Fax:518-786-4325 North Carolina The Adjutant General 4105 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6410 Phone: 919-664-6101 Fax:919-664-6400 North Dakota The Adjutant General P.O. Box 5511 Bismarck, ND 58502-5511 Phone: 701-224-5102 Fax:701-224-5180 291 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 49 Ohio The Adjutant General 2825 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, OH 43235-2789 Phone: 614-889-7070 Fax:614-889-7074 Oklahoma The Adjutant General 3501 Military Circle, NE Oklahoma City, OK 73111-4398 Phone: 405-425-8201 Fax:405425-8289 Oregon The Adjutant General P.O. Box 14350 Salem, OR 97309-5047 Phone: 503-945-3981 Fax:503-945-3987 Pennsylvania The Adjutant General Fort Indiantown Gap Annville, PA 17003-5002 Phone: 717-861-8500/1 Fax:717-861-8314 Puerto Rico The Adjutant General P.O. Box 3786 San Juan, PR 00904-3786 Phone: 787-724-1295 Fax:787-723-6360 Rhode Island The Adjutant General 645 New London Avenue Cranston, RI 02920-3097 Phone: 401-457-4102 Fax:401-457-4338 South Carolina The Adjutant General #1 National Guard Road Columbia, SC 29201-4766 Phone: 803-806-4217 Fax:803-806-4499, Fax South Dakota The Adjutant General 2823 West Main Street Rapid City, SD 57702-8186 Phone: 605-399-6702 Fax:605-399-6677 Tennessee The Adjutant General Houston Barracks, P.O. Box 41502 Nashville, TN 37204-1501 Phone: 615-313-3001 Fax:615-313-3129 Texas The Adjutant General P.O. Box 5218, Camp Mabry Austin, TX 78763-5218 Phone: 512-465-5006 Fax:512-465-5578 Utah The Adjutant General 12953 S. Minuteman Drive Draper, UT 84020-1776 Phone: 801-576-3900 Fax:801-576-3575 Vermont The Adjutant General Green Mountain Armory, Camp Johnson Colchester, VT 05446-3004 Phone: 802-654-0124 Fax:802-654-0425 Virginia The Adjutant General Building 316, Fort Pickett Blackstone, VA 23824-6316 Phone: 804-250-6102 Fax:804-298-6338 Virgin Islands The Adjutant General 4031 La Grande Princess, Lot 1B St. Croix, VI 00820-4353 Phone: 809-772-7711 Fax:809-778-3282 Washington The Adjutant General Camp Murray, Building 1 Tacoma, WA 98430-5000 Phone: 206-512-8000 Fax:206-512-8497 West Virginia The Adjutant General 1703 Coonskin Drive Charleston, WV 25311-1085 Phone: 304-341-6316/18 Fax:304-341-6466 Wisconsin The Adjutant General P.O. Box 8111 Madison, WI 53708-8111 Phone: 608-242-3001 Fax:608-242-3111 Wyoming The Adjutant General 5500 Bishop Boulevard Cheyenne, WY 82009-3320 Phone: 307-772-5234 Fax:307-772-5010 292 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 50 Alabama Dr. Lee Warner, SHPO Alabama Historical Commission 468 South Perry Street Montgomery, AL 36130-0900 Phone: 334-242-3184 Fax:334-240-3477 www.preserveala.org Alaska Ms. Judith Bittner, SHPO Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of History & Archeology 3601 AC@ Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99503-5921 Phone: 907-269-8721 Fax:907-269-8908 www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/oha American Samoa Mr. John Enright, HPO Executive Offices of the Governor American Samoa Historic Pres. Office American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Phone: 011-684-633-2384 Fax:684-633-2367 Arizona Mr. James W. Garrison, SHPO Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-542-4174 Fax:602-542-4180 www.pr.state.az.us Arkansas Ms. Cathryn H. Slater, SHPO Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 323 Center Street, Suite 1500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501-324-9880 Fax:501-324-9184 California Mr. Daniel Abeyta, Acting SHPO Office of Historic Preservation Dept. of Parks & Recreation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 Phone: 916-653-6624 Fax:916-653-9824 www.cal-parks.ca.gov Colorado Ms. Georgianna Contiguglia, SHPO Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-3395 Fax:303-866-4464 www.coloradohistory.org/oahp Connecticut Mr. John W. Shannahan, SHPO Connecticut Historical Commission 59 South Prospect Street Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-566-3005 Fax:860-566-5078 Delaware Mr. Daniel Griffith, SHPO Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: 302-739-5313 Fax:302-739-6711 District of Columbia Mr. Wilbert J. Parker, SHPO Historic Preservation Division 941 N. Capitol St, NE, Room 2500 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-442-4570 Fax:202-442-4860 www.dcra.org Florida Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews, SHPO Div. of Historical Resources, Dept. of State R. A. Gray Building, 4th Floor 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone: 850-487-2333 Fax:850-922-0496 www.dos.state.fl.us/dhr/ contents.html Georgia Mr. Lonice C. Barrett, SHPO Historic Preservation Division 57 Forsyth Street, NW, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-656-2840 Fax:404-651-8739 www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/histpres/ State Historic Preservation Offices |Appendix G 293 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 51 Guam Mr. Richard D. Davis, SHPO Guam Historic Preservation Office Department of Parks & Recreation P.O. Box 2950, Building 13-8 Tiyan Hagatna, Guam 96932 Phone: 1-671-475-6290 Fax: 1-671-477-2822 www.gov.gu/dpr/hrdhome.html Hawaii Mr. Timothy Johns, SHPO Department of Land & Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Phone: 808-587-0401 www.hawaii.gov/dlnr Idaho Mr. Steve Guerber, SHPO Idaho State Historical Society 1109 Main Street, Suite 250 Boise, ID 83702-5642 Phone: 208-334-3847 Fax:208-334-2775 Illinois Mr. William L. Wheeler, SHPO Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 1 Old State Capitol Plaza Springfield, IL 62701-1512 Phone: 217-785-1153 Fax:217-524-7525 Indiana Mr. Larry D. Macklin, SHPO Director, Department of Natural Resources 402 West Washington Street Indiana Govt. Center South, Room W256 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-232-1646 Fax:317-232-0693 Iowa Mr. Tom Morain, SHPO State Historical Society of Iowa Capitol Complex East 6th and Locust Streets Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: 515-281-5419 Fax:515-242-6498 Kansas Dr. Ramon S. Powers, SHPO Kansas State Historical Society 6425 Southwest 6th Avenue Topeka, KS 66615-1099 Phone: 913-272-8681, x205 Fax:913-272-8682 Kentucky Mr. David L. Morgan, SHPO Executive Director Kentucky Heritage Council 300 Washington Street Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: 502-564-7005 Fax:502-564-5820 Louisiana Ms. Gerri Hobdy, SHPO Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism P.O. Box 44247 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Phone: 504-342-8200 Fax:504-342-8173 www.crt.state.la.us Maine Mr. Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO Maine Historic Preservation Commission 55 Capitol Street, Station 65 Augusta, ME 04333 Phone: 207-287-2132 Fax:207-287-2335 www.state.me.us Marshall Islands, Republic of the Mr. Fred Debrum, HPO Secretary of Interior and Outer Islands Affairs P.O. Box #1454, Majuro Atoll Republic of the Marshall Islands 96960 Phone: 011-692-625-4642 Fax: 011-692-625-5353 Maryland Mr. J. Rodney Little, SHPO Maryland Historical Trust 100 Community Place, Third Floor Crownsville, MD 21032-2023 Phone: 410-514-7600 Fax:410-514-7678 www.ari.net/mdshpo Massachusetts Ms. Judith McDonough, SHPO Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Phone: 617-727-8470 Fax:617-727-5128 TTD:1-800-392-6090 www.state.ma.us/sec/mhc Michigan Mr. Brian D. Conway, SHPO State Historic Preservation Office Michigan Historical Center 717 West Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48918 Phone: 517-373-1630 Fax:517-335-0348 www.sos.state.mi.us/history/ preserve/preserve.html 294 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 52 Micronesia, Federal States of Mr. Rufino Mauricio, FSM HPO Office of Administrative Services Div of Archives and Historic Preservation FSM National Government P.O. Box PS 35 Palikir, Pohnpei, FM 96941 Phone: 011-691-320-2343 Fax:691-320-5634 FSM includes four states, whose HPOs are listed below: Mr. John Tharngan, HPO Yap Historic Preservation Office Office of the Governor P.O. Box 714 Colonia, Yap, FM 96943 Phone: 011-691-350-2194/2255 Fax:691-350-2381 Mr. Elvis Killion O’Sonis, Chuuk SHPO Department of Commerce & Industry P.O. Box 280 Weno, Chuuk State, FM 96942 Phone: 011-691-330-2552/2761 Fax:691-330-4906 Mr. David W. Panuelo, HPO Dir., Dept of Land, Pohnpei State Government P.O. Box 1149 Kolonia, Pohnpei, FSM E. Caroline Islands 96941 Phone: 011-691-320-2715 Fax:011-691-320-5599 Mr. Berlin Sigrah, Kosrae HPO Div. of History and Cultural Preservation Dept. of Conservation and Development Kosrae, FSM, E. Caroline Islands 96944 011-691-370-3078 FAX: 011-691-370-3767 Minnesota Dr. Nina Archabal, SHPO Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, MN 55102-1906 Phone: 651-296-2747 Fax:651-296-1004 www.mnhs.org Mississippi Mr. Elbert Hilliard, SHPO Mississippi Dept of Archives & History P.O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Phone: 601-359-6850 Fax:601-359-6955 Missouri Mr. Stephen Mahfood, SHPO State Department of Natural Resources 205 Jefferson, P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-751-4422 Fax:573-751-7627 www.mostateparks.com Montana Dr. Mark F. Baumler, Acting SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 1410 8th Avenue P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620-1202 Phone: 406-444-7715 Fax:406-444-6575 www.hist.state.mt.us Nebraska Mr. Lawrence Sommer, SHPO Nebraska State Historical Society P.O. Box 82554 1500 R Street Lincoln, NE 68501 Phone: 402-471-4745 Fax:402-471-3100 Nevada Mr. Ronald James, SHPO Historic Preservation Office 100 N. Stewart Street Capitol Complex Carson City, NV 89701-4285 Phone: 702-687-1311 Fax:702-687-3442 www.state.nv.us New Hampshire Ms. Nancy C. Dutton, Director/SHPO NH Division of Historical Resources P.O. Box 2043 Concord, NH 03302-2043 Phone: 603-271-6435 Fax:603-271-3433 TDD: 800-735-2964 www.state.nh.us/nhdhr New Jersey Mr. Robert C. Shinn, SHPO Dept. of Env’l Protection CN-402, 401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: 609-292-2885 Fax:609-292-7695 New Mexico Ms. Dorothy Victor, Acting SHPO Historic Preservation Div., Office of Cultural Affairs 228 East Palace Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87503 Phone: 505-827-6320 Fax:505-827-6338 www2.nmmnh-abq.mus.nm.us/hpd/ New York Ms. Bernadette Castro, SHPO Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Agency Building #1, Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 Phone: 518-474-0443 www.nysparks.com 295 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 53 North Carolina Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow, SHPO Division of Archives & History 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601-2807 Phone: 919-733-7305 Fax:919-733-8807 http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us North Dakota Mr. Samuel Wegner, SHPO State Historical Society of North Dakota 612 E. Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505 Phone: 701-328-2666 Fax:701-328-3710 www.state.nd.us/hist Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of the Mr. Joseph P. DeLeon Guerrero, HPO Dept. of Community & Cultural Affairs Division of Historic Preservation Airport Road Northern Mariana Islands Saipan, MP 96950 Phone: 011-670-664-2120/2125 Fax:011-670-664-2139 Ohio Mr. Amos J. Loveday, SHPO Ohio Historic Preservation Office 567 E. Hudson Street Columbus, OH 43211-1030 Phone: 614-297-2600 Fax:614-297-2233 www.ohiohistory.org/resource/ histpres Oklahoma Mr. Bob L. Blackburn, SHPO Oklahoma Historical Society 2100 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: 405-521-2491 Fax:405-521-2492 Oregon Mr. Bob Meinen, SHPO State Parks & Recreation Department 1115 Commercial Street, NE Salem, OR 97301-1012 Phone: 503-378-5019 Fax:503-378-8936 Palau, Republic of Ms. Victoria N. Kanai, HPO Ministry of Community & Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 100 Koror, Republic of Palau 96940 Phone: 011-680-488-2489 Fax:680-488-2657 Pennsylvania Dr. Brent D. Glass, SHPO Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Comm P.O. Box 1026 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Phone: 717-787-2891 Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Ms. Lilliane D. Lopez, SHPO Office of Historic Preservation Box 82, La Fortaleza Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 Phone: 787-721-2676/3737 Fax:787-723-0957 Rhode Island Mr. Frederick C. Williamson, SHPO Rhode Island Historical Preservation Comm. Old State House, 150 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903 Phone: 401-222-2678 Fax:401-222-2968 South Carolina Dr. Rodger E. Stroup, SHPO Department of Archives & History 8301 Parklane Road Columbia, SC 29223-4905 Phone: 803-896-6100 Fax:803-896-6167 http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/ South Dakota Mr. Jay D. Vogt, SHPO State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Heritage Center 900 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501 Phone: 605-773-3458 Fax:605-773-6041 http://www.state.sd.us/state/ executive/deca/cultural/ histpres.htm Tennessee Mr. Milton Hamilton, SHPO Dept. of Environment and Conservation 401 Church Street, L & C Tower 21st Floor Nashville, TN 37243-0435 Phone: 615-532-1550 Fax:615-532-1549 296 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 54 Texas Mr. F. Lawrence Oaks, SHPO Texas Historical Commission P.O. Box 12276 Austin, TX 78711-2276 Phone: 512-463-6100 Fax:512-475-4872 www.thc.state.tx.us Utah Mr. Max Evans, SHPO Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-533-3500 Fax:801-533-3503 Vermont Ms. Emily Wadhams, SHPO Vermont Division for Historic Preservation National Life Building, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-0501 Phone: 802-828-3211 www.state.vt.us/dca/historic/ Virgin Islands Ms. Beulah Dalmida-Smith, SHPO Dept. Plan & Natural Resources Div. Archaelogy & Historic Pres. Foster Plaza, 396-1 Anna=s Retreat St. Thomas, VI 00802 Phone: 340-774-3320 Fax:340-775-5706 Virginia Mr. H. Alexander Wise, Jr, SHPO Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 Phone: 804-367-2323 Fax:804-367-2391 Washington Dr. Allyson Brooks SHPO Office of Archeology & Hist. Preservation P.O. Box 48343 420 Golf Club Road, SE, Suite 201, Lacey Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Phone: 360-407-0753 Fax:360-407-6217 West Virginia Ms. Renay Conlin, SHPO West Virginia Division of Culture & History Historic Preservation Office 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25305-0300 Phone: 304-558-0220 Fax:304-558-2779 Wisconsin Mr. George L. Vogt, SHPO State Historical Society of Wisconsin 816 State Street Madison WI 53706 Phone: 608-264-6500 Fax:608-264-6404 www.shsw.wisc.edu/ Wyoming Ms. Wendy Bredehoft, SHPO Wyoming State Historic Pres. Office 2301 Central Avenue, 4th Floor Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-6300 Fax:307-777-6421 www.commerce.state.wy.us/cr/shpo 297 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G 55 Beaumont, Constance A. Smart States, Better Communities: How State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve Their Communities. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1996. Blumenson, John J.G. Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms, 1600-1945. 2nd ed. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1981. Fogelson, Robert M. America’s Armories: Architecture, Society, and Public Order. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989. Hill, Jim Dan. The Minute Man in Peace and War: A History of the National Guard. Harrisburg, Pa., 1963. Miller, Julia H. A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1998. National Park Service Publications. The National Park Service issues a wide range of publications relating to the identification and rehabilitation of historic properties, including National Register Bulletins, Preservation Briefs, Technical Reports, and Preservation Tech Notes. The Park Service’s bookstore may be accessed on line at www2.cr.nps.gov/bookstore.htm. Rypkema, Donovan D. The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1994. Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000. Suggested Reading/References |Appendix H Helpful Contacts National Alliance of Preservation Commissions University of Georgia School of Environmental Design Founders’ Garden House 325 South Lumpkin Street Athens, GA 30602-1861 Phone: 706-542-4731 National Center for Preservation Technology and Training 200 South Hall Natchitoches, LA 71457 Phone: 318-357-6421 Web site: www.ncptt.nps.gov National Guard Bureau Historical Services 1411 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 11200 Arlington, VA 22202-3259 Web site: www.ngb.dtic.mil National Conference of State Legislatures (State Historic Preservation Offices) 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 515 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-624-5400 Web site: www.ncsl.org Click on Policy Issues, then choose Art and Culture from the drop-down menu to reach the Arts and Historic Preservation section. National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices 444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 342 Washington, DC 20001 Website: www.sso.org/ncshpo National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Room NC400 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Phone:202-343-9536 Web site: www.cr.nps.gov/nr Heritage Preservation Services Room NC200 800 N. Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Phone: 202- 343-9573 Web site: www2.cr.nps.gov/ National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-588-6000 Web site: www.nthp.org U.S. Army Center of Military History 103 Third Avenue Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058 http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/ default.htm U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section Americans With Disabilities Act P.O. Box 66738 Washington, DC 20035-6738 Phone: 202-307-0663 Web site: www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ adahom1.htm ADA hotline: 800-514-0301 298 S T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N GS T I L L S E R V I N G ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 56 David Super Currently a technical writer and web site editor for WALCOFF Technologies, David Super served as a member of the Army National Guard for 31 years, including 15 years of active duty at the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C., as a public affairs officer. During the time Super was a traditional drill-status National Guard member, he worked for several South Dakota weekly newspapers as a reporter/ photographer/editor. Julia Miller, Contributing Author Julia Miller is editor-in-chief of the Preservation Law Reporter, a quarterly publication on legal developments in the field of historic preservation. A lawyer and longstanding employee of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Miller has written or co-authored several books and articles on the topic, including Historic Preservation Law & Taxation, A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law, and Providing for Economic Hardship Relief in the Regulation of Historic Properties. Renee Hylton, Contributing Author Renee Hylton received her master’s degree in history from Princeton University, and is currently a historian for the National Guard Bureau. Hylton grew up as an “Army brat,” living all over the world. She has been a preservationist since the age of 7, when she moved from Tokyo to Texas and discovered the “settler houses” (one of which she now knows to have been an antebellum “dog trot” cabin) that still dotted the landscape. About the Authors Photo Credits David Super, Cover photo & p. 26, 5, 8, 14 (bottom), 16-18, 22-23, 28, 30-31, National Guard Bureau, p. 1 “The First Muster,” National Guard Heritage Series, National Guard Bureau, p. 2 From the collection of Command Sgt. Maj. Marion Williams, p. 4 (top) New York National Guard Public Affairs Office, p. 4 (bottom) Courtesy of Tom Howard, pp. 6-7 Savannah College of Art and Design archives, pp. 10-13 Savannah College of Art and Design archives, p. 14 (top) Courtesy of Capt. Warren Higginbotham, Oklahoma National Guard, pp. 19-20 Courtesy of Dawson Sentinel newspaper, p. 24 Courtesy of Mrs. Betty Craig Wood, p. 27 (top) Deming, New Mexico National Guard unit archive, p. 27 (bottom) Courtesy of Defiance County Family Resource Center, p. 32 National Guard Bureau, p. 33 Courtesy of Bernard J. Goba, architect, p. 34 (top) Courtesy of Tom Howard, p. 34 (bottom) Courtesy of New York State Historic Preservation Office, p. 35 Courtesy of National Trust for Historic Preservation, Photos by Erik Gould, pp. 36-37 Courtesy of South Dakota National Guard Public Affairs Office, p. 38 299 Council Senate Members Council House Members BOB KEENAN--Vice Chair KIM GILLAN--Chair VICKI COCCHIARELLA ROY BROWN BRENT CROMLEY GEORGE GOLIE DUANE GRIMES JEFF LASZLOFFY JON TESTER DOUG MOOD FRED THOMAS DAVID WANZENRIED Montana Legislative Council PO BOX 201706 Helena, Montana 59620-1706 (406) 444-3064 FAX (406) 444-3036 MINUTES September 22, 2003 Room 102, State Capitol Helena, Montana Please Note: These are summary minutes. Testimony and discussion are paraphrased and condensed. Committee tapes are on file in the offices of the Legislative Services Division. Exhibits for this meeting are available upon request. Legislative Council policy requires a charge of 15 cents a page for copies of the document. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT REP. KIM GILLAN, Chair SEN. BOB KEENAN, Vice Chair SEN. VICKI COCCHIARELLA SEN. BRENT CROMLEY SEN. DUANE GRIMES SEN. JON TESTER SEN. FRED THOMAS REP. ROY BROWN REP. GEORGE GOLIE REP. DOUG MOOD REP. DAVID WANZENRIED COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT REP. JEFF LASZLOFFY 300 -6- recommendations but ultimately it is the Governor's decision on how the funding will be allocated. Rep. Gillan asked if Montana could ask FEMA to change its policy and pay more than 75% of expenses. Director Swysgood said for many reasons it was doubtful that FEMA would change its policy. CONSULTATION ON PROPERTY SALES Bozeman Armory Jan Ward, Department of Natural Resources (DNRC), presented a proposal for selling the Bozeman Armory to the City of Bozeman for the appraised value of $815,000 (Exhibit #3). Ms. Ward reviewed the details of the sale for the Council in Exhibit #3 and said representatives from the City of Bozeman and the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) were available to answer questions. Harley Harris, Luxan & Murfitt Law Firm, spoke on the behalf of his client and concerned citizen, Thomas Mosser of Bozeman, Montana. Mr. Harris reviewed the time line of the armory sale and discussed related issues: The DNRC set a date of May 13, 2003 for the public auction, as mandated by 77-2-321, MCA. The public auction was cancelled because the sole bidder, Mr. Mosser, withdrew his bid after realizing there was no competition. Another public auction was scheduled for July 8, 2003. This auction date was also cancelled because Dick Clotfelter approached the City of Bozeman with his plan to privately develop this property into a performing arts center, after realizing he could not negotiate directly with the DMA to acquire the property. Acting under the authority of 77-2-351, MCA, the City of Bozeman made a direct offer to the DMA to purchase the armory for $815,000 and the second public auction was never held. The money the City of Bozeman tendered to the DMA as a "deposit" for the purchase of the armory was provided to the City of Bozeman by Mr. Clotfelter. (Mr. Harris provided a copy of the check in the letter previously sent to the Council.) Mr. Harris stated that in his legal opinion: The City of Bozeman acted improperly as an "intermediary" for the private acquisition of this parcel. 77-2-351, MCA, requires a public auction be held but one has yet to take place. Policy and statute are being violated and Montana is in danger of setting precedent. This should be of great concern to Legislative Council: by endorsing a process such as this, any public entity in Montana could become an agent for private development interests in State lands. The Legislative Council does have the power to communicate concerns to the Land Board over the sale of public lands under the consultation rule (77-2-351, MCA). The Council may choose not to exercise this power but it is available to the Council. 301 -7- In closing, on behalf on his client, Mr. Harris asked the Council to examine the proceedings and give this matter careful consideration. Ralph DeCunzo, Department of Military Affairs (DMA), said: Montana statute is clear that the DMA has the legal authority to sell the armory to a public entity. The DMA's concern is for what is in the best interest of the State, not to dictate or influence what the public entity does with the facility once the property is sold. Mr. Mosser pulled his bid and the DMA had no guarantee there would be other bidders and needed funds to cover the construction bonds that were sold to construct a new facility. The Adjutant General determined that obtaining the $815,000 was the best value for the State. Dick Clotfelter, Bozeman developer, introduced himself as the private developer who purchased the armory and described his development plan to the Council: His proposed development plans include a performing arts center, a parking garage, a publically and privately financed convention center, and a hotel; and the armory property will be the site of the performing arts center. Mr. Clotfelter said he did not understand Mr. Mosser's objection to the process because he had the same opportunity to bid as himself. He also said, that the bottom line is that the State has property for sale, he has the money and will pay the full appraised value; and this was the "quickest and best way to do it". Rep. Wanzenried asked Mr. Harris to tell the Council exactly what relief he was seeking on behalf of his client. Mr. Harris said Mr. Mosser realizes the Council does not have the authority to order this, but that he would like to see the property be put up again for public auction. He asked the Council to examine this situation from a legislative perspective to determine if this situation has exposed a potential loophole in 77-2-351, MCA. Mr. Harris said he and his client would like the Council to indicate to the Land Board that it has concerns over the procedure followed. Sen. Keenan asked Ms. Ward to refer to Exhibit #3, 2. a, and noted that the land originally was deeded to the state by the Story family in 1940 for the sole purpose of building an armory and was therefore, non-trust State land. He asked if that meant there was a restriction in the deed that would prevent the sale of the property. Ms. Ward said the only restriction in the deed was that construction on the armory had to commence within two years of the date on the deed and that restriction was complied with. Sen. Keenan also asked about the status of the listing of the armory in the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Ward said that process had not been completed but would be after the Land Board approved the change in process of sale from 77-2-301, MCA, to 77-2-351, MCA. The public notice and comment period ended in August, a public hearing was held in September and there were no comments of opposition to the change in sale process. The next step will be to petition the Land Board for its approval and then resume the process involving the historic registry. 302 -8- Sen. Keenan asked Greg Petesch, Director of the LSD Legal Services Office, if the Council should adopt a motion that consultation has occurred or if a motion by the Council would be premature, in light of the decisions yet to be made by the Land Board. Mr. Petesch said the Council could not wait until after the Land Board has met to adopt a motion because the fact that this item has appeared on the agenda means that consultation had occurred. Mr. Petesch told the Council it could choose to inform the Land Board simply that consultation has occurred or it could inform the Land Board that consultation has occurred and additionally express its concerns and/or make recommendations, but either way the Council's role was purely advisory. Rep. Gillan asked Mr. Petesch if he was concerned about the procedure followed in this particular situation. Mr. Petesch said this was a unique transaction and he did see a procedural issue. He said the Land Board approved a public auction but then the department privately sold the property to a public entity, foregoing the public auction without the Land Board formally withdrawing it. Mr. Petesch said there were no administrative rules in place to provide guidance in a situation like this and it would be in the State's best interest to have such guidelines in place. Rep. Gillan asked if the Legislative Council had ever made a consultation motion with attached suggestions/concerns for certain issues that the Council felt needed to be studied. Mr. Petesch said the Council has made such a motion. Rep. Gillan asked if, after study, the issues that were of concern came back to the Council for a final consultation. Mr. Petesch said to his knowledge, the Council had not requested that issues be brought back before it. Sen. Cocchiarella asked Mr. Petesch if the Legislative Council had to be consulted on this transaction or if the Land Board could make this decision without Legislative Council consultation. Mr. Petesch said that without Legislative Council consultation, the decision could be voided for failure to conform to a statute. Sen. Cocchiarella asked what legal liability the Council may be exposed to if it states consultation has occurred. Mr. Petesch said he saw no potential liability for the Legislative Council. Sen. Thomas asked if this question of procedure directly involved the Legislative Council. Mr. Petesch said it does not involve the Legislative Council. Sen. Thomas then suggested the Council simply state that consultation has occurred and attach the Council's opinion as to whether or not the transfer is in the State's best interest. Sen. Keenan moved to reflect that consultation on the Bozeman armory property transfer has occurred and that the Council respectfully expresses concern that the process envisioned by the Land Board has changed and that the Land Board adopt procedures to address process changes. Sen. Cocchiarella expressed concern about the procedures used by the Land Board to transfer the property and said she was hesitant to pass a motion that could be construed as Legislative Council approval of the Land Board's actions. Mr. Petesch said Land Board consultation with this Council occurs only if the proposed sale is with a public entity. He added that if the property had gone to public bid, the consultation of this 303 -9- Council would not be required. Mr. Petesch also said the process had been changed and there was nothing in the Land Board minutes that reflected that the Board contemplated the change. Rep. Gillan asked Mr. Petesch to suggest any editing or modification of Sen. Keenan's motion to address Sen. Cocchiarella's concerns. Mr. Petesch said he would recommend wording that would ask the Land Board to address why it approved a public auction and then changed the sale venue from public to private without voiding the decision to hold a public auction. Rep. Golie made a substitute motion. He moved to inform the Land Board that Legislative Council consultation had occurred and that the Legislative Council feels this sale is not in the best interest of the State of Montana. Sen. Thomas asked Rep. Golie why it was not in the State's best interests. Rep. Golie answered that the procedures used in this transfer were different from any other exchanges or sales of property that have come before the Council and in that respect he did not think it was in the best interest in the State of Montana. Sen. Keenan asked Mr. Petesch if the dollar amount of this sale was firm. Mr. Petesch said if the sale was approved by the Land Board, then the DMA would receive $815,000 from the City of Bozeman and pursuant to the Montana statute, the $815,000 received by the DMA would have to be used to retire debt service on the new armories that were built. Sen. Thomas asked if the sale price could change if a different sale process was used. Mr. Petesch said the $815,000 was the appraised value that would have to be paid through a private sale but at a public sale it was possible that the property could sell for more than the appraised value. Sen. Cocchiarella said under the circumstances, the Council could not make a clear determination of what was in the State's best interest and therefore, she endorsed Sen. Keenan's motion. She also said she thought this situation went way beyond what the law intended. She suggested this matter be taken up for clarification in the next legislative session. Sen. Keenan asked if the DMA was going to be paid $815,000 or if the title would to the City of Bozeman which could then sell it to for a different price. Mr. Clotfelter said there would be no gain by the City of Bozeman and that the price would remain at $815,000. Rep. Golie withdrew his substitute motion. Rep. Mood said he was still concerned by the lack of clarity in Sen. Keenan's motion. Sen. Keenan rephrased his motion and moved that consultation on the Bozeman armory project has occurred and that the Legislative Council respectfully expresses concern that the process envisioned by the Land Board has not been followed and asks the Land Board to visit that issue. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. 304 305 306 307 308 309 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 1 Thank you. I am very pleased to be back at the National Town Meeting. Yeah, I know, it ain’t called the National Town Meeting anymore, but I’m too old to learn something else, so it’s still National Town Meeting to me. Anyway, last year I had the Town Meeting on my calendar well in advance, thoroughly intending to go to New Orleans. But then the schedule changed and I was already committed to a conference in Prague, so I had to miss it. And of course, I regretted not being there, to see friends and clients, and to learn, as I always do here. But there was an even more important reason why I hated not being there last year. Up until then I had attended every Town Meeting from the very beginning – every one of them. And I think the only other person that could make that claim was Thom Guzman. But of course, Thom was there and now he’s gloating that he’s more of a Main Streeter than I am. Fine Thom…I give up…you’re better…and I’m hoping you get a new governor in Iowa and they eliminate your entire travel budget, and you never get to leave the state again. I am also pleased to be here because the theme of this conference – Building a Sustainable Future – is critical, for economic development as well as for environmental reasons. But before we can build a sustainable future, we have to understand what sustainability is. And a whole lot of what we’re hearing from the environmental community today evidences that they certainly don’t understand it. There was a Broadway producer who once told an aspiring playwright, “If you can’t write your idea on the back of my business card, you don’t have a clear idea.” So I’m going to begin by giving you this entire presentation at a length you can put on the back of your business card. 1. Sustainable development is crucial for economic competitiveness. 2. Sustainable development has more elements than just environmental responsibility 3. “Green buildings” and sustainable development are not synonyms. 4. Historic preservation and downtown revitalization are, in and of themselves, sustainable development. 5. Development without downtown revitalization and historic preservation components is not sustainable. What you are doing in your communities contributes more to sustainable development than do all the so-called green architects in America. So that’s my presentation – everything I say now is just fill. I’m very fortunate that much of my work in the last few years has been international. And what I’ve discovered is this: much of the world has begun to recognize the interrelationship and the interdependency between sustainable development and heritage conservation. 310 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 2 Much of the world, but much less so in the United States. I’m not so sure we’ve really learned those lessons in America, or at least we have not yet broadly connected the dots. Far too many advocates in the US far too narrowly define what constitutes sustainable development. Far too many advocates in the US think that so-called green buildings and sustainable development are one in the same. They are not. And I’ll come back to that shortly. But let me give you an example of what I mean. A while ago in Boulder, Colorado, a homeowner in a local historic district made an application to paint the window sashes and trim on his house and approval was given that day. Two weeks later the Landmarks Commission learned that the historic windows had all been removed – a clear violation of the local ordinance – and had been replaced with new windows. This was done, by the way, by contractor who claims to specialize in “ecologically sound materials and methods” and bills himself as “Boulder’s greenest contractor.” The Landmarks Commission staff sent a letter directing that the original windows be retained and their condition documented. The contractor responded by saying that the greater energy efficiency of the new windows should outweigh the regulations that apply to houses within the historic district. A subsequent Commission hearing upheld the staff position and a City Council hearing supported the Commission’s ruling. Here’s the next chapter – a reporter for a local alternative newspaper talked to the property owner, and then decided to take matters into his own hands. He went to the house, picked up all the historic windows, took a sledge hammer to them, then took them to the dump and arranged to have a bulldozer run over them. Sort of civil disobedience for an 11 year old’s mentality. Now I want to stop the story for just a minute. I’m not even so sure that the Landmark Commission’s decision was the right one. But I’m telling you the story to demonstrate our ignorance about what sustainable development really is. First from an environmental perspective: 1. The vast majority of heat loss in homes is through the attic or uninsulated walls, not windows. 2. Adding just 3 1/2 inches of cheap fiberglass insulation in the attic has three times the R factor impact as moving from the least energy efficient single pane window with no storm window to the most energy efficient window. 3. Properly repaired historic windows have an R factor nearly indistinguishable from new, so- called, “weatherized” windows. 4. Regardless of the manufacturers’ claims about 20 and 30 year lives, thirty percent of the windows being replaced each year are less than 10 years old, and many only two years old. 5. One Indiana study showed that the payback period through energy savings by replacing historic wood windows is 400 years. 311 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 3 6. The Boulder house was built over a hundred years ago, meaning that those windows were built from hardwood timber from old growth forests. Environmentalists go nuts about cutting trees in old growth forests, but what’s the difference? Destroying those windows represents the destruction of the same scarce resource. 7. The diesel fuel used to power the bulldozer to run over the windows in all likelihood consumed more fossil fuel that would be saved over the lifetime of the replacement windows as compared to restoring the wood windows. 8. Finally, the energy consumed in manufacturing vinyl is 40 times more than in producing wood for use. And if they were aluminum windows? 126 times more energy used in manufacture than for wood. The point that I’m trying to make is this – sustainable development is about, but it not only about, environmental sustainability. There is far more to sustainable development than green buildings. • Repairing and rebuilding the historic wood windows would have meant that the dollars were spent locally instead of at a distant window manufacturing plant. That’s economic sustainability, also part of sustainable development. • Maintaining as much of the original fabric as possible is maintaining the character of the historic neighborhood. That’s cultural sustainability, also part of sustainable development. But if we don’t yet get it in the United States, others do. There’s an international real estate consulting firm based in Great Britain – King Sturge – that has been at the forefront in broadening and communicating the concept of sustainable development. Their framework of sustainable development certainly includes environmental responsibility but also economic responsibility and social responsibility. I’m going to take the liberty of expanding the third category into social and cultural responsibility. They further identify these important nexus: for a community to be viable there needs to be a link between environmental responsibility and economic responsibility; for a community to be livable there needs to be a link between environmental responsibility and social responsibility; and for a community to be equitable there needs to be a link between economic responsibility and social responsibility. When we begin to think about sustainable development in this broader context the entire equation begins to change – and includes more than simply, “Does this building get a LEED gold certification” or “Is that development making sure that the habitat of the snail darter isn’t being compromised?” When we begin to think about sustainable development in this broader context the role of both historic preservation and downtown revitalization in sustainable development becomes all the more clear. Let’s start with the environmental responsibility component of sustainable development. How are you contributing to that? 312 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 4 Well, we could begin with the simple area of solid waste disposal. In the United States, almost one ton of solid waste per person is collected annually. Solid waste disposal is increasingly expensive both in dollars and in environmental impacts. So let me put this in context for you. You know we all diligently recycle our Coke cans. It’s a pain in the neck, but we do it because it’s good for the environment. Here is a typical building in your downtown – 25 feet wide and 100 or 120 or 140 feet deep. Let’s say that today we tear down one small building like this in your downtown. We have now wiped out the entire environmental benefit from the last 1,344,000 aluminum cans that were recycled. We’ve not only wasted an historic building, we’ve wasted months of diligent recycling by the good people of our community. And that calculation only considers the impact on the landfill, not any of the other sustainable development calculations like the next one on my list – embodied energy. I have to confess that I hadn’t paid much attention to the concept of embodied energy, not until I saw oil hitting $70 a barrel. So I did a bit of research. Embodied energy is defined as the total expenditure of energy involved in the creation of the building and its constituent materials. When we throw away an historic building, we are simultaneously throwing away the embodied energy incorporated into that building. How significant is embodied energy? In Australia, they’ve calculated that the embodied energy in the existing building stock is equivalent to ten years of the total energy consumption of the entire country. Much of the “green building” movement focuses on the annual energy use of a building. But the energy embodied in the construction of a building is 15 to 30 times the annual energy use. Razing historic buildings results in a triple hit on scarce resources. First, we throwing away thousands of dollars of embodied energy. Second, we are replacing it with materials vastly more consumptive of energy. What are most historic structures built from? Brick, plaster, concrete and timber. What are among the least energy consumptive of materials? Brick, plaster, concrete and timber. What are major components of new buildings? Plastic, steel, vinyl and aluminum. What are among the most energy consumptive of materials? Plastic, steel, vinyl and aluminum. Third, recurring embodied energy savings increase dramatically as a building life stretches over fifty years. You’re a fool or a fraud if you say you are an environmentally conscious builder and yet are throwing away historic buildings, and their components. Let me put it a different way – if you have a building that lasts 100 years, you could use 25% more energy every year and still have less lifetime energy use than a building that lasts 40 years. And a whole lot of buildings being built today won’t last even 40 years. The EPA has noted that building construction debris constitutes around a third of all waste generated in this country, and has projected that over 27% of existing buildings will be replaced between 2000 and 2030. So you would think that the EPA would have two priorities: 1) make every effort to preserve as much of the existing quality building stock as possible; and 2) build buildings that have 80 and 100 and 120-year lives, as our historic buildings already have. 313 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 5 Instead what are they doing? They are sponsoring a contest to design buildings that can be taken apart every couple of decades and reassembled. Now I’m all for reusing building materials when structures have to be demolished, but to design buildings to be taken apart like Legos is to consciously build in planned obsolescence, and planned obsolescence is the polar opposite of sustainable development. And even if this approach met the environmental responsibility component of sustainable development – which it does not – it is the antithesis of the cultural and economic elements of sustainable development. And when I’m told that the fast changing needs of households and businesses cannot be met in historic buildings, I respond in polite company, “nonsense” and in less polite company, “bullshit.” Identify for me any use you can come up with in today’s economy, and I’ll find you an example of that use being accommodated in a historic building. The functional adaptability of historic buildings is one of their great under-recognized attributes. My technical background is as a real estate appraiser. And in the appraisal field, there is a concept you all are familiar with – functional obsolescence. Functional obsolescence is when a building or its components no longer meet the utility demands of the marketplace. Functional obsolescence is real, but for many developers, real estate owners, architects, and city officials, the response to functional obsolescence is demolition. But the alternative response to functional obsolescence, and the environmentally responsible response, is adaptive reuse. In real estate language, functional obsolescence represents the loss of utility, but adaptive reuse is the reinsertion of a new utility into an existing building. But be careful when you hear that phrase functional obsolescence, because it is often mis-assigned. And my favorite example of that is in New York City. I lived there in the mid 1980s. And at the time, the conventional wisdom of architects, developers, and many city officials was that all those class B and C office buildings in lower Manhattan had to be raised because they were functionally obsolete. Those 28-year-old MBAs on Wall Street, making $600,000 a year ought to be making big contributions to preservation organizations in the city. Why? Because had preservationists not stood up and said, “Like hell are you going to tear down all those 1920s office buildings” those investment bankers wouldn’t have their $3 million condos in those very structures. But I’ve allowed my detour about functional obsolescence take me away from the EPA so I want to return there for a moment. Here is this federal agency that is supposed to be our country’s lead entity for promoting and fostering sustainable development. Last fall they issued their five-year strategic plan, complete with goals, objectives, and standards of measurement – 188 fact-filled pages. How many times was the phrase “sustainable development” mentioned? Exactly twice – both times in footnotes. Once because a document they were citing had “sustainable development” in its title and the other because the database they referenced was maintained by the UN’s Division for Sustainable Development. How can you be the agency taking the lead for sustainable development when “sustainable development” never appears in your strategic plan? Oh, and by the way, the number of times that “historic preservation” or “downtown revitalization” were mentioned in the strategic plan? Zero. 314 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 6 Within the plan, the EPA has an element targeted to construction and demolition debris. The objective is “Preserve Land” and the sub-objective is “Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling.” But they have missed the obvious – when you revitalize a downtown, you are preserving land. When you rehabilitate a historic building, you are reducing waste generation. When you reuse a downtown historic building, you are increasing recycling. In fact, historic preservation is the ultimate in recycling. At most perhaps 10% of what the environmental movement does advances the causes of downtown revitalization or historic preservation. But 100% of what you all are doing advances the cause of the environment. You cannot have sustainable development without major roles for downtown revitalization and historic preservation, period. And it’s about time we start hammering at that until it is broadly understood. Earlier I mentioned the concept of embodied energy. The World Bank has specifically related embodied energy with historic buildings saying, “…the key economic reason for the cultural patrimony case is that a vast body of valuable assets, for which sunk costs have already been paid by prior generations, is available. It is a waste to overlook such assets.” On the commercial side, if we want to begin to mitigate the endless expanse of strip center sprawl it is critical that we have effective programs of downtown revitalization. Throughout America over the last decade, thanks to the people in this room, we have seen downtowns come back and reclaim their historic role as the multifunctional, vibrant, heart of the city. Now this is the area where you all work and where I do most of my work. I typically visit 100 downtowns a year of every size, in every part of the country. But I cannot identify a single example of a sustained success story in downtown revitalization where historic preservation wasn’t a key component of that strategy. Not a one. Conversely, the examples of very expensive failures in downtown revitalization have nearly all had the destruction of historic buildings as a major element. That doesn’t mean, I suppose, that it’s not theoretically possible to have downtown revitalization and no historic preservation, but I haven’t seen it, I haven’t read of it, I haven’t heard of it. Now the relative importance of preservation as part of the downtown revitalization effort will vary some, depending on the local resources, the age of the city, the strength of the local preservation advocacy groups, the enlightenment of the leadership and whether there is a Main Street program. But successful revitalization and no historic preservation? It ain’t happening. The closest thing we have to a broad-based sustainable development movement is known as Smart Growth. There is no movement in America today that enjoys a more widespread support across political, ideological, and geographical boundaries than does Smart Growth. Democrats support it for environmental reasons, Republicans for fiscal reasons, big city mayors, rural county commissioner, there are Smart Growth supporters everywhere. The increasing public volume and political expenditures of Smart Growth’s opponents is in direct relationship to Smart Growth’s broad and growing support. 315 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 7 The Smart Growth movement also has a clear statement of principles, and here it is: • Create range of housing opportunities and choices • Create walkable neighborhoods • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration • Foster distinctive, attractive places with a Sense of Place • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective • Mix land uses • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas • Provide variety of transportation choices • Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities • Take advantage of compact built design. But you know what? If a community did nothing but protect its downtown and historic neighborhoods it will have advanced every Smart Growth principle. Historic preservation and downtown revitalization ARE Smart Growth. A Smart Growth approach that does not include historic preservation high on the agenda is not only missing a valuable strategy, but, like the historic buildings themselves, an irreplaceable one. A Smart Growth approach that does not include downtown revitalization high on the agenda is stupid growth, period. Historic preservation and downtown revitalization are vital to sustainable development, but not just on the level of environmental responsibility. Remember that the second component of the sustainable development equation was economic responsibility. So let me give you some examples in this area. A frequently underappreciated component of historic buildings is their role as natural incubators of small businesses. It isn’t the Fortune 500 who are creating the net new jobs in America. 85% of all net new jobs are created by firms employing less than 20 people. One of the few costs firms of that size can control is occupancy costs – rents. In both downtowns and in neighborhood commercial districts a major contribution to the local economy is the relative affordability of older buildings. It is no accident that the creative, imaginative, small start up firm isn’t located in the corporate office “campus” the industrial park or the shopping center – they simply cannot afford the rents there. Older and historic commercial buildings in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas play that role, nearly always with no subsidy or assistance of any kind. I’m sure by now you’ve all been to Pioneer Square. It is one of the great historic commercial neighborhoods in America. A couple of years ago the business management association there did a survey of why Pioneer Square businesses chose that neighborhood. The most common answer? That it was a historic district. The second most common answer? The cost of occupancy. Neither of those responses is accidental. 316 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 8 While I’m often introduced as a preservationist, what I really am is an economic development consultant. At the top of the list for economic development measurements are jobs created and increased local household income. The rehabilitation of older and historic buildings is particularly potent in this regard. As a rule of thumb, new construction will be half materials and half labor. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, will be sixty to seventy percent labor with the balance being materials. This labor intensity affects a local economy on two levels. First, we buy an HVAC system from Michigan and lumber from Oregon, but we buy the services of the plumber, the electrician, and the carpenter from across the street. Further, once we buy and hang the sheet rock, the sheet rock doesn’t spend any more money. But the plumber gets a hair cut on the way home, buys groceries, and joins the YMCA – each recirculating that paycheck within the community. Many people think about economic development in terms of manufacturing, so let’s look at that. Across America for every million dollars of production, the average manufacturing firm creates 23.9 jobs. A million dollars spent in new construction generates 30.6 jobs. But that same million dollars in the rehabilitation of an historic building? 35.4 jobs. A million dollars of manufacturing output will add, on average about $515,000 to local household incomes. A million dollars in new construction – $653,000. But a million dollars of rehabilitation? Over $762,000. Now of course the argument can be made, “Yeah, but once you’ve built the building the job creation is done.” Yes, but there are two responses to that. First, real estate is a capital asset – like a drill press or a boxcar. It has an economic impact during construction, but a subsequent economic impact when it is in productive use. Additionally, however, since most building components have a life of between 25 and 40 years, a community could rehabilitate 2 to 3 percent of its building stock per year and have perpetual employment in the building trades. Now there are some economists and politicians who would argue that in economic down turns public expenditures should be made to create employment. And I’m certainly not going to argue with that. And as you all know, among politicians’ favorite forms of public works is building highways. David Listokin at the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers has calculated the relative impact of public works. Let’s say a level of government spends $1 million building a highway. (And these days that means a highway not quite the length of this room) but anyway a million dollar highway – what does that mean? 34 jobs, $1.2 million in ultimate household income, $100,000 in state taxes and $85,000 in local taxes. Or we could build a new building for $1 million. 36 jobs, $1,223,000 in household income, $103, 000 in state taxes and $86,000 in local taxes. Or we could spend that million rehabilitating an historic building. 38 jobs, a million three in household income, $110,000 in state taxes and $92,000 in local taxes. Now you tell me which is the most economically impacting in public works projects. Other areas where historic preservation adds to the economic responsibility of sustainable development include heritage tourism. Wherever heritage tourism has been evaluated, a basic tendency is observed: heritage visitors stay longer, spend more per day and, therefore, have a significantly greater per trip economic impact. 317 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 9 In February, Business Week had an article about the importance of artists to a growing local economy. But where do artists choose to live? It’s isn’t the garden apartment in the suburbs. More often than not, it’s in historic neighborhoods and downtowns. Perhaps the area of preservation’s economic impact that’s been studied most frequently is the effect of local historic districts on property values. It has been looked at by a number of people and institutions using a variety of methodologies in historic districts all over the country. The most interesting thing is the consistency of the findings. Far and away the most common result is that properties within local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than the local market overall and faster than similar non- designated neighborhoods. Of the several dozen of these analyses, the worst-case scenario is that housing in historic districts appreciates at a rate equivalent to the local market as a whole. Recent analysis indicates that historic districts are also less vulnerable to the volatility that real estate values are often subject to during interest rate fluctuations and economic downturns. Like it or not we live in an economically globalized world. To be economically sustainable it’s necessary to be economically competitive. But to be competitive in a globalized world a community must position itself to compete not just with other cities in the region but with other cities on the planet. And a large measure of that competitiveness will be based on the quality of life the local community provides, and the built heritage is a major component of the quality of life equation. This is a lesson that is being recognized worldwide. A great study just released last month in Australia reached this series of conclusions: 1) a sustainable city will have to have a sustainable economy; 2) in the 21st century, a competitive, sustainable economy will require a concentration of knowledge workers; 3) knowledge workers are choose where they want to work and live based on the quality of the urban environment; and 4) heritage buildings are an important component of a high quality urban environment. From the Inter American Development Bank we get, "As the international experience has demonstrated, the protection of cultural heritage is important, especially in the context of the globalization phenomena, as an instrument to promote sustainable development strongly based on local traditions and community resources.” If the Inter American Development Bank gets it, why doesn’t the EPA? Certainly among the most competitive cities in the world is Singapore. But here’s what Belinda Yuan of Singapore National University says, “…the influences of globalization have fostered the rise of heritage conservation as a growing need to preserve the past, both for continued economic growth and for strengthening national cultural identity.” What neither the supporters nor the critics of globalization understand is that there is not one globalization but two – economic globalization and cultural globalization. For those few who recognize the difference, there is an unchallenged assumption that the second is an unavoidable outgrowth of the first. Economic globalization has widespread positive impacts; cultural globalization ultimately diminishes us all. It is through the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings that a community can actively participate in the positive benefits of economic globalization while simultaneously mitigating the negative impacts of cultural globalization. 318 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 10 So there are some ways that heritage conservation contributes to sustainable development through environmental responsibility and through economic responsibility. But I saved the third area – cultural and social responsibility – for last, because in the long run it may well be the most important. First, housing. In the United States today we are facing a crisis in housing. All kinds of solutions – most of them very expensive – are being proposed. But the most obvious is barely on the radar screen – quit tearing down older and historic housing. Houses built before 1950 disproportionately are home to people of modest resources – the vast majority without any subsidy or public intervention of any kind. So you take these two facts – there is an affordable housing crisis and older housing is providing affordable housing and one would think, “Well, then, a high priority must be saving that housing stock.” Alas, not so. In the last three decades of the 20th century, we lost from our national inventory of older and historic homes 6.3 million year-round housing units! Over 80 percent of those units were single- family residences. Now a few of those burned down or were lost to natural disasters. But the vast majority of them were consciously torn down – were thrown away as being valueless. And today millions of American families are paying the cost by paying for housing they cannot afford. Certainly not every one of those houses could or should have been saved. But if even half were retained instead of razed, the picture today would be much different for the millions of Americans inadequately or unaffordably housed. For the last thirty years, every day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year we have lost 577 older and historic houses. For our most historic houses – those built before 1920 – in just the decade of the 1990s, 772,000 housing units were lost from our built national heritage. But when there are policies to conserve older housing stock, we are meeting the social responsibility of sustainable development. But at least as important as the affordability issue is the issue of economic integration. America is a very diverse country – racially, ethnically, educationally, economically. But on the neighborhood level, our neighborhoods are not diverse at all. The vast majority of neighborhoods are all white or all black, all rich or all poor. But the exception – virtually everywhere I’ve looked in America – is in historic districts. There rich and poor, Asian and Hispanic, college educated and high school drop out, live in immediate proximity, are neighbors in the truest sense of the work. That is economic integration and sustainable cities are going to need it. And where is the one place where all the diverse groups in our community – regardless of its size – come together face to face? Downtown. Earlier I mentioned the labor intensity of historic preservation and the jobs it creates as part of the economic component of sustainable development but I want to mention it again in the social context. Those aren’t just jobs. They are good, well-paying jobs, particularly for those without formal advanced education. That too should be part of our social responsibility within sustainable development. 319 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 11 I told you that I work in the area of economic development. Economic development takes many forms – industrial recruitment, job retraining, waterfront development, and others. But historic preservation and downtown revitalization are the only forms of economic development that are simultaneously community development. That too is part of our social responsibility. So I want to return to the premise with which I started. Green buildings are part of, but in no way are a synonym for sustainable development. That is not to say that we should not all be very pleased that preservationists are beginning to try to enlighten the green building people. Preceding the National Trust conference in Pittsburgh last fall was held a National Summit on the greening of historic properties. This was an excellent step forward and I certainly don’t have any quarrel with any of their conclusions or recommendations. I am certainly not wedded to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. And if the Secretary’s Standards have to be adjusted to be more environmentally sensitive, so be it. But I am very concerned that in our rush to make nice with the green building people we will forget this is about sustainable development, not about green buildings. Here’s this great report. Green buildings mentioned 53 times; sustainable development mentioned exactly zero times. Of course, the big accomplishment of the U.S. Green Building Council is the development of the LEED certification system. In the pilot stage is a checklist for evaluating neighborhood development. And it’s fine. 114 total possible points, including up to a gigantic 2 points if it’s an historic building. But if you look at the individual line items in the checklist, at least 75% of the goals of those items are automatically met if you rehabilitate an historic building. If we really need such a checklist, it ought to be 200 points and you start out with 75 points for being an historic building. I’m not sure we need platinum plaques on porches. But if we do, they should be for sustainable development, not for green buildings. And, in fact, just such a checklist has been devised in Great Britain. Using the three elements of sustainable development, this scoring system includes such elements as “functional adaptability”, cultural importance, cultural adaptability, lovability, local amenities, and embodied energy as well as energy consumption, ecological attributes, etc. This certainly includes green building attributes, but within a broader sustainable development context. Environmentalists cheer when used tires are incorporated into asphalt shingles and recycled newspapers become part of fiberboard. But when we reuse an historic building, we’re recycling the whole thing. If I still haven’t convinced you that the green building approach is insufficient, let me offer this last bit of evidence. As you all probably know, Wal-Mart has begun a big environmental initiative. Now I’m not a Wal-Mart basher, and I think they should be commended for this activity. But let’s say Wal-Mart is so successful, that they are able to build a Super Center that uses no external energy at all – the ultimate green building. But here’s where the building is going to be built. 320 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 12 In just 15 days, the extra fuel used to get to the Wal-Mart, wipes out the entire savings for the entire year, even if the building itself consumed no energy at all. A huge success as a green building. A huge failure in sustainable development. And in the case of Wal-Mart, in all three categories of sustainable development responsibility. Let me put it another way – every day your downtown is in business, it contributes more to sustainable development than would the greenest Wal-Mart in five years. Finally, I’d ask you to take a moment and think of something significant to you personally. Anything. You may think of your children, or your spouse, or your church, or god, or a favorite piece of art hanging in your living room, or your childhood home, or a personal accomplishment of some type. Now take away your memory. Which of those things are now significant to you? None of them. There can be no significance without memory. Now those same things may still be significant to someone else. But without memory they are not significant to you. And if memory is necessary for significance, it is also necessary for both meaning and value. Without memory nothing has significance, nothing has meaning, nothing has value. That, I think, is the lesson of that old Zen koan, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears, did it make a sound?” Well of course it made a sound; sound comes from the vibration of molecules and a falling tree vibrates molecules. But that sound might as well not have been made, because there is no memory of it. We acquire memories from a sound or a picture, or from a conversation, or from words in a book, or from the stories our grandmother told us. But how is the memory of a city conveyed? Here’s what Italo Calvino writes, "The city ... does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of the windows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lightening rods, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with scratches, indentations, scrolls." The city tells it own past, transfers its own memory, largely through the fabric of the built environment. Historic buildings are the physical manifestation of memory – and it is memory that makes places significant. What is the whole purpose of the concept of sustainable development? It is to keep that which is important, which is valuable, which is significant. The very definition of sustainable development is “…the ability to meet our own needs without prejudicing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” We need to use our cities, our cultural resources, and our memories in such a way that they are available for future generations to use as well. Historic preservation and downtown revitalization make cities viable, make cities livable, make cities equitable. I particularly appreciate that the broadened concept of sustainable development is made up of responsibilities – environmental responsibility, economic responsibility, and social responsibility. 321 Downtown Revitalization, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation National Main Streets Conference Closing Plenary Session – Donovan D. Rypkema Seattle, Washington, March 28, 2007 © Donovan D. Rypkema, 2007 PlaceEconomics, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 202-588-6258 DRypkema@PlaceEconomics.com Page: 13 Last year, of course, was an election year. And every side in every race was supported by dozens of advocacy movements. And most of them are “rights” movements: animal rights, abortion rights, right to life, right to die, states rights, gun rights, gay rights, property rights, women’s’ rights, and on and on and on. And I’m for all of those things – rights are good. But I would suggest to you that any claim for rights that is not balanced with responsibilities removes the civility from civilization, and gives us an entitlement mentality as a nation of mere consumers of public services rather than a nation of citizens. A consumer has rights; a citizen has responsibilities that accompany those rights. Both downtown revitalization and historic preservation are responsibility movements rather than rights movements. They are movements that urge us toward the responsibility of stewardship, not merely the right of ownership. Stewardship of our historic built environment, certainly; but stewardship of the meaning and memory of our communities manifested in those buildings as well. While we can each take actions in our downtown to address environmental responsibility, the major issues – global warming, clean air and water, alternative energy sources – have to be addressed on a regional, or national or international level. We can have some impact on economic development at the downtown level, but the vast majority of variables that affect the economy are beyond local influence. But the social/cultural components of sustainable development can be addressed at the neighborhood level…in fact that is the most effective scale for those issues to be addressed. That's why your advocacy is so important. You ARE the sustainable development movement in your community. The EPA, the Green Building Council and far too many environmental activists just haven't figured that out yet. Sustainability means stewardship. There can be no sustainable development without a central role for downtowns and historic preservation. That’s what you all are doing today, and future generations will thank you for it tomorrow. Thank you very much. 322 Sustainable Stewardship: Historic Preservation’s Essential Role in Fighting Climate Change Richard Moe President, National Trust for Historic Preservation On the Occasion of Receiving the Vincent Scully Prize National Building Museum, Washington, D.C. December 13, 2007 It will come as no surprise to you that the subject of my remarks this evening is historic preservation. What may be a surprise is that I intend to argue that historic preservation has an essential role to play in fighting what may be the greatest crisis of our times – climate change. There’s no more appropriate or impressive place to talk about this subject than this building. Montgomery Meigs’ Pension Building outlived its original function decades ago. Incredibly, there was talk of demolishing it for a while – but wiser heads prevailed, and the building was given new uses. Today, having reached the ripe old age of 120, this architectural and engineering marvel is still here for all of us to enjoy, learn from, and be inspired by. The story of the National Building Museum encapsulates what historic preservation is all about: When you strip away the rhetoric, preservation is simply having the good sense to hold on to things that are well designed, that link us with our past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them. Preservation in America has embraced that philosophy for more than 150 years now. It began when a woman named Ann Pamela Cunningham launched a national crusade in the 1850s to save Mount Vernon from demolition. For most of the next century, preservation focused on saving and restoring iconic buildings. Around the middle of the twentieth century, “economic benefit” became preservation’s new watchword. The National Trust’s Main Street program was created to restore economic vitality to deteriorated downtowns by emphasizing the historical and architectural features that set them apart from the typical suburban strip mall. The concept of adaptive reuse came into prominence, and tax incentives were developed to encourage owners to renovate and reuse older buildings instead of demolishing them. It was all about dollars and cents. This trend led inevitably to an emphasis on preservation’s role in supporting and enhancing social values. Today, we understand that maintaining tangible contact with our past strengthens the sense of stability and continuity that is essential in a healthy society, so we make the preservation of familiar landmarks a key component in the revitalization of neighborhoods and communities that are attractive and livable. It’s all about bringing us together, encouraging us to recognize the shared heritage that defines and unites us as a nation and a people. 323 2 These shifts in focus over the past century-and-a-half show that preservation is a dynamic, vibrant movement. Some things haven’t changed: We’re still saving iconic buildings – including icons of modernism such as Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House and Philip Johnson’s Glass House. Our work is still rooted in a respect for history. But today, more than ever before, it is as much concerned with building the future as with holding on to the past. This concern with the future is at the core of the new phase that preservation is entering right now: As growing numbers of people are worried about climate change, the degradation of the environment, and our relentless consumption of energy and irreplaceable natural resources, it is increasingly apparent that preservation has an essential role to play in any effort to deal with the environmental crisis that looms over us. Because it necessarily involves the conservation of energy and natural resources, historic preservation has always been the greenest of the building arts. Now it’s time to make sure everyone knows it. It’s all about sustainability. Up to now, our approach to life on this planet has been based on the assumption that “there’s plenty more where that came from.” With our environment in crisis, we have to face the fact that there may not be “plenty more” of anything – except trouble. In the face of that realization, we’re challenged to find a way of living that will ensure the longevity and health of our environmental, economic, and social resources. The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released a few weeks ago, and it is deeply sobering. The report states that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and is the result of human activities. The United States is a big part of the problem. We have only 5% of the world’s population, but we’re responsible for 22% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions that are the leading cause of climate change. Much of the debate on this subject usually focuses on the need to reduce auto emissions. But according to the EPA, transportation – cars, trucks, trains, airplanes – accounts for just 27% of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, while 48% – almost twice as much – is produced by the construction and operation of buildings. If you remember nothing else I say tonight, remember this: Nearly half of the greenhouse gases we Americans send into the atmosphere comes from our buildings. In fact, more than 10% of the entire world’s greenhouse gas emissions is produced by America’s buildings – but the current debate on climate change does not come close to reflecting that huge fact. The message is clear: Any solution to climate change must address the need to reduce emissions by being smarter about how we use our buildings and wiser about land use. I’m not so naïve as to believe that preservation represents the way out of this environmental crisis. But I do believe that historic preservation can be – and must be – a key component of any effort to promote sustainable development. Indeed, preservation is sustainability. The connection between historic preservation and sustainability is not a new concept. It’s something that many people in the preservation community have believed and talked about for 324 3 many years. They understand that preservation is “the ultimate recycling.” As long ago as 1980, before the word “sustainability” came into widespread use, the National Trust issued a Preservation Week poster that featured an old building in the shape of a gas can – a reminder that reusing an existing building, instead of demolishing it and replacing it with a new one, is one good way to conserve energy. Much has changed since that poster appeared 27 years ago. The stakes have gotten much higher. Climate forecasts, meteorological reports, population growth projections, rising energy costs, dwindling reserves of water and fossil fuels, even the daily news headlines – they all warn us that we can’t wait any longer for “somebody” to figure out what to do. The “somebody” we need is us, and the need is clearly urgent. The challenge is to help people understand that preservation, by its very nature, is sustainability. I intend to address that challenge this evening by sharing my views on what I believe is preservation’s essential role in fostering development that is environmentally, as well as economically, sustainable. The key phrase is “sustainable stewardship.” The retention and reuse of older buildings is an effective tool for the responsible, sustainable stewardship of our environmental resources – including those that have already been expended. I’m talking about what’s called “embodied energy.” Here’s the concept in a nutshell: Buildings are vast repositories of energy. It takes energy to manufacture or extract building materials, more energy to transport them to a construction site, still more energy to assemble them into a building. All of that energy is embodied in the finished structure – and if the structure is demolished and landfilled, the energy locked up in it is totally wasted. What’s more, the process of demolition itself uses more energy – and, of course, the construction of a new building in its place uses more yet. Let me give you some numbers that will translate that concept into reality. ƒ According to a formula produced for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, about 80 billion BTUs of energy are embodied in a typical 50,000-square-foot commercial building. That’s the equivalent of 640,000 gallons of gasoline. If you tear the building down, all of that embodied energy is wasted. ƒ What’s more, demolishing that same 50,000-square-foot commercial building would create nearly 4,000 tons of waste. That’s enough debris to fill 26 railroad boxcars – that’s a train nearly a quarter of a mile long, headed for a landfill that is already almost full. ƒ Once the old building is gone, putting up a new one in its place takes more energy, of course, and it also uses more natural resources and releases new pollutants and greenhouse gases into our environment. Look at all the construction cranes dotting the Washington skyline, and consider this: It is estimated that constructing a new 50,000- square-foot commercial building releases about the same amount of carbon into the atmosphere as driving a car 2.8 million miles. 325 4 ƒ One more point: Since 70% of the energy consumed over a building’s lifetime is used in the operation of the building, some people argue that all the energy used in demolishing an older building and replacing it is quickly recovered through the increased energy efficiency of the new building – but that’s simply not true. Recent research indicates that even if 40% of the materials are recycled, it takes approximately 65 years for a green, energy-efficient new office building to recover the energy lost in demolishing an existing building. And let’s face it: Most new buildings aren’t designed to last anywhere near 65 years. Despite these surprising statistics and many more like them, we persist in thinking of our buildings as a disposable – rather than a renewable – resource. A report from the Brookings Institution projects that by 2030 we will have demolished and replaced 82 billion square feet of our current building stock, or nearly 1/3 of our existing buildings, largely because the vast majority of them weren’t designed and built to last any longer. That much demolition will create a lot of debris. If we didn’t recycle any of the building materials, we’d be left with 5.5 billion tons of waste. That’s enough debris to fill almost 2,500 NFL stadiums. How much energy will it take to demolish and replace those buildings? Enough to power the entire state of California – the 10th largest economy in the world – for 10 years. On the other hand, if we were to rehab just 10% of these buildings, we would save enough energy to power the state of New York for well over a year. Instead of focusing on generalities, let’s look at a specific building – like the one we’re in right now. It’s estimated that the National Building Museum contains about 1.5 million bricks. When you consider how much energy it took to make all those bricks, plus how much it took to manufacture the other materials, then transport them to this site and put them all together in this marvelous structure, the total embodied energy in this building is the equivalent of nearly 2 million gallons of gasoline. If we assume the average vehicle gets about 21 miles to the gallon, that means there’s enough embodied energy in this building to drive a car about 42 million miles. All of that energy would be wasted if this building were to be demolished and landfilled. What’s more, the demolition itself would require the equivalent of more than 8,700 gallons of gas – and it would create nearly 11,000 tons of waste. It all comes down to this simple fact: We can’t build our way out of the global warming crisis. We have to conserve our way out. That means we have to make better, wiser use of what we’ve already built. Anthropologist Ashley Montague has said that the secret to staying young is to die young – but the trick is to do it as late as possible. All over the United States, people are showing that 326 5 old buildings put to new uses can stay young to a ripe old age. If that’s not sustainability, I don’t know what else to call it. Still, too many people just don’t see the connection. They don’t yet understand that preservation must be an integral part of any effort to encourage environmental responsibility and sustainable development. The UN report that I quoted a bit earlier, for instance, doesn’t stress the importance of reusing the buildings we have. Similarly, most recent efforts by the green community place heavy emphasis on new technologies rather than on tried-and-true preservation practices that focus on reusing existing buildings to reduce the environmental impacts associated with demolition and new construction. The most popular green-building rating system, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED program developed by the U. S. Green Building Council, was designed principally for new construction – underscoring the fact that words like “rehabilitation” and “reuse” haven’t had much resonance in the green- building lexicon. This emphasis on new construction is completely wrong-headed. The statistics I cited earlier tell us clearly that buildings are the problem – but incredibly, we propose to solve the problem by constructing more and more new buildings while ignoring the ones we already have. Here’s what we have to keep in mind: No matter how much green technology is employed in its design and construction, any new building represents a new impact on the environment. The bottom line is that the greenest building is one that already exists. It’s often alleged that historic buildings are energy hogs – but in fact, some older buildings are as energy-efficient as many recently-built ones, including new green buildings. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency suggests that buildings constructed before 1920 are actually more energy-efficient than buildings built at any time afterwards – except for those built after 2000. Furthermore, in 1999, the General Services Administration (GSA) examined its buildings inventory and found that utility costs for historic buildings were 27% less than for more modern buildings. It’s not hard to figure out why. Many historic buildings have thick, solid walls, resulting in greater thermal mass and reducing the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling. Buildings designed before the widespread use of electricity feature transoms, high ceilings, and large windows for natural light and ventilation, as well as shaded porches and other features to reduce solar gain. Architects and builders paid close attention to siting and landscaping as tools for maximizing sun exposure during the winter months and minimizing it during warmer months. Unlike their more recent counterparts that celebrate the concept of planned obsolescence, most historic and many other older buildings were built to last. Their durability gives them almost unlimited “renewability” – a fact that underscores the folly of wasting them instead of recognizing them as valuable, sustainable assets. I’m not suggesting that all historic buildings are perfect models of efficient energy use – but, contrary to what many people believe, older buildings can “go green.” The marketplace now 327 6 offers a wide range of products that can help make older buildings even more energy-efficient without compromising the historic character that makes them unique and appealing. And there’s a large and growing number of rehab/reuse projects that offer good models of sustainable design and construction. More recent buildings – especially those constructed between the 1950s and 1980s – pose a greater challenge. Many of them were constructed at a time when fossil fuels were plentiful and inexpensive, so there was little regard for energy efficiency. In addition, they often include experimental materials and assemblies that were not designed to last beyond a generation. Today, these buildings make up more than half of our nonresidential building stock. Because of their sheer numbers, demolishing and replacing them isn’t a viable option. We must find ways to rehabilitate these buildings and lighten their environmental footprint while still protecting their architectural significance. This is a challenge that preservationists and green- building advocates must face together in the coming years. I believe that climate change is the defining issue of our time – and will be for a long time to come. What’s at stake is nothing less than life as we know it on this planet. The fact that the threat is not immediate does not mean that it’s not urgent. The experts tell us we have no time to lose. The debate is over, the facts are in, and it’s time to act. Today, most of the important and innovative work on this issue is being carried out by state and local governments and the private sector. Precious little leadership is being offered by the federal government, which isn’t even doing much to promote and coordinate fundamental research. Because this issue cuts across every social, geographic and political boundary, we simply can’t hope to bring effective direction to it without strong national leadership. What we need is a federal effort, preferably at the cabinet level, incorporating a significantly strengthened Environmental Protection Agency and relevant parts of the Department of Energy and other federal entities. This new agency should be given a mandate that recognizes climate change as a threat to our survival as great as terrorism and that commits the nation to combating it with every resource available. It should be the environmental equivalent of the Department of Homeland Security. One of the first and most important things that must happen is a thoroughgoing revision of current government policies that foster unsustainable development. For decades, national, state and local policies have facilitated – even encouraged – the development of new suburbs while leaving existing communities behind. As a result, an ongoing epidemic of sprawl ravages the countryside, devouring open space, consuming resources and demanding new infrastructure. Look at nearby Loudoun County, for example, where pro-growth supervisors have already approved thousands of new homes, and are considering the approval of thousands more, in a semi-rural area underserved by roads and public services. Meanwhile, here in Washington – and in scores of other cities – disinvestment has left viable housing stock 328 7 abandoned and schools slated for closing in areas where infrastructure is already in place, already paid for. It makes no sense for us to recycle newsprint and bottles and aluminum cans while we’re throwing away entire buildings, or even entire neighborhoods. This pattern of development is fiscally irresponsible, environmentally disastrous, and ultimately unsustainable. To replace it, we need federal policy that directs growth to existing communities. You’ll note I said “federal policy.” While land-use planning has traditionally been a function of state and local government, it’s an indisputable fact that where the federal government chooses to spend its money – our money – has a huge impact on local planning and development. We need federal policy that stops rewarding unsustainable development. We need policy that maximizes wise use of existing resources by enhancing the viability and livability of the communities we already have. We have a choice: We can do nothing for a while longer – until the realities of climate change, the disappearance of irreplaceable resources, and soaring energy costs force us to take action. Or we can take steps now to develop a smart, sustainable development ethic and the policies that will support it. Among other things, we need incentives to encourage reuse and energy upgrades in older buildings. Over the past ten years alone, historic tax-credit incentives have sparked the rehab of more than 217 million square feet of commercial and residential space – and in the process, saved enough energy to heat and cool every home in the six New England states for a full year. We must insure the continued availability of these tax credits, and expand their use in older buildings that are not necessarily historic but still re-usable. Equally important, we must provide similar incentives that will help private homeowners use green technology in maintaining and renovating their homes. These federal actions should be complemented by steps at the state and local levels. Over the past few years, 29 states have enacted their own state tax credits to promote the reuse of historic buildings, and we need to see them adopted in more states. At the local level, we need building codes that allow flexibility and innovation in making existing buildings more energy- efficient. Finally, we need to improve green-building rating systems to ensure that they recognize the importance of building reuse. Under the current LEED standards, for example, a new building can be certified “green” even if it’s constructed outside densely populated areas; this kind of development amounts to “green sprawl,” which is contrary to every principle of sustainability. Also, under the current LEED rating system, reusing 75% of an existing building core and shell is assigned the same value as merely using environmentally-friendly carpet. The National Trust and others are working with the U.S. Green Building Council – at their invitation – to improve these and other points. It will take time, but I hope that we’ll eventually arrive at a revised LEED rating system that accurately reflects the environmental benefits of “smart” locations and building reuse. 329 8 These public-policy steps are critically important, but we shouldn’t wait for government to act. That’s why the National Trust has launched its own Sustainability Initiative. In addition to advocating the new policies we need, our Initiative will continue to gather reliable data on the comparative energy costs of rehab vs. building new. We’ll work to refute some common misconceptions about energy efficiency in older buildings – to replace myth with fact, because the facts are on our side. We’ll also undertake a major outreach effort to inform everyone – especially architects, developers, property owners and policy makers – about the benefits of preserving and reusing older buildings. And we’ll make our website a “best practices” resource for how to reduce energy consumption and use green technology in the rehab of older structures. Finally, we’ll take steps to integrate environmentally sound practices in the operation of historic sites across the country. Right here in Washington, for example, when the National Trust opens President Lincoln’s Cottage to the public in February, the Robert H. Smith Vistors Education Center will be housed in a renovated historic building that is fully LEED-certified – a good example of how green practices and products can be employed in older structures without compromising their historic integrity. Preservation has always sustained America. By protecting and enhancing the buildings, communities and landscapes that tell America’s story, preservation allows us to maintain tangible contact with the places where our identity as a nation was established and our character as a people was shaped. By helping us understand the process that made us who we are, preservation gives us the confidence to become who we can be. Over the years, as the focus of our work has evolved, we’ve demonstrated that preservation is good for the pocketbook as well as the soul. Now, in the face of unprecedented climate change, we’re prepared to demonstrate that preservation is an essential tool for sustaining the environmental viability of the planet as well as the quality of life for ourselves and our children. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has long played a leadership role in the responsible stewardship of America’s past. Now we’re ready and eager to play a similar role in the sustainable stewardship of America’s future. 330 WEBSITE AND PHOTOGRAPH LIST OF ARMORY ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS 1 www.pcs.org Gerding Theater at the Armory Portland, OR Portland National Guard Armory (1891) www.armoryarts.org The Armory Center for the Arts Pasadena, CA National Guard Armory in Old Pasadena www.armoryart.org Armory Art Center Palm Beach, FL Palm Beach National Guard Armory (1939) http://www.artsatthearmory.org/ The Center for Arts at the Armory Somerville, MA Somerville Armory (1901) http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Education/AboutUs/ScienceCenterSchool/ScienceCenterSchool.php California Science Center School Los Angeles, CA The State Armory of the California National Guard (1916) http://rocwiki.org/Main_Street_Armory Main Street Armory – Rochester’s Event Center Rochester, NY New York State Armory http://www.medinaarmory.com/ymca.htm Lake Plains YMCA & Medina Sandstone Society Medina, NY Medina Armory (1901-03) 331 WEBSITE AND PHOTOGRAPH LIST OF ARMORY ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS 2 www.armorycenter.org The Armory Arts & Music Center (honoring Bob Dylan) Duluth, MN Duluth National Guard Armory http://www.ashlandarmory.com The Historic Ashland Armory – Event Center Ashland, OR Ashland National Guard Armory www.westerlyarmory.com/ Westerly Armory Restoration, Inc. (WAR, Inc.) Westerly, RI Westerly Armory (1901-02) The Media Armory - Trader Joe’s and Veterans Museum Media, PA The Media Armory 332 WEBSITE AND PHOTOGRAPH LIST OF ARMORY ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS 3 Hiawatha, KS Hiawatha Armory (1938) The Kansas SHPO and National Guard surveyed armories across the state as part of a Section 106 review. http://www.kshs.org/resource/ks_preservation/kpmayjun02armories.pdf Several National Register nominations were produced (including the Hiawatha Armory pictured below). The Kansas State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation is transferable. The Kansas Department of Revenue ruled that state-owned buildings, including armory buildings and university buildings, can apply for the tax credit program and then sell the tax credits to a third party. The Hiawatha Armory was recently rehabilitated, including a new coat of exterior paint. 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 MOUNTAINS/PLAINS OFFICE 535 16th Street, Suite 750, Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623-1504 * (303) 623-1508 (f) www.nationaltrust.org * mpro@nthp.org February 5, 2008 City Commission City of Bozeman P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 RE: The Willson (Armory) SP/COA #Z-07278 Dear City Commission Members: The National Trust for Historic Preservation has recently become aware of a proposal from Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard for a mixed-used development that would result in the demolition of the Bozeman Armory. We believe that the proposed demolition should be stayed for two years while alternatives to demolition are thoroughly explored. We understand that the project proponents have submitted a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the National Register-listed Bozeman Armory building and construct a four-story mixed use building with related site improvements. The National Trust for Historic Preservation supports the recommendation made to the City Commission by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and Planning Staff to allow for a two-year stay to explore alternatives to the demolition. The Trust requests that you adopt the Board’s recommendation. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America’s communities. Recipient of the National Humanities Medal, the Trust was founded in 1949 and provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to help people save the places that matter to them. Staff at the Washington, D.C., headquarters, six regional offices and 28 historic sites work with the Trust’s 270,000 members and thousands of preservation groups in all 50 states. Located in Denver, the Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust works in partnership with local and statewide organizations to save historic places and build a stronger grassroots preservation movement in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North and South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. The developer’s reasoning for demolition of the Bozeman Armory is flawed in several ways. Firstly, the demolition of this building removes any contribution of the site to the overall historic character of the community. Creating “economic confidence and pedestrian activity” through demolition of a building with such historic significance as the Bozeman Armory (see National Register of Historic Places nomination) and construction of a new building does not hold much weight when studies show that historic preservation is a proven economic stimulator in downtown revitalization. 344 MOUNTAINS/PLAINS OFFICE 535 16th Street, Suite 750, Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623-1504 * (303) 623-1508 (f) www.nationaltrust.org * mpro@nthp.org In fact, there is not a single example anywhere in the United States of a sustained success story in downtown revitalization where historic preservation was not a key component. Historic rehabilitations contribute to urban revitalization at the local level by stimulating private investment and tourism; increasing property values and property and sales taxes; enhancing quality of life, the sense of neighborhood and community pride; creating jobs; and forming new businesses. Secondly, the reasons cited for the building being beyond its useful life have little standing. The presence of asbestos and lead-based paint is not a valid excuse for demolition. Removal of asbestos and lead-based paint in historic buildings is commonplace. Abatement of these materials will be required whether or not the developer rehabilitates or demolishes the building. As for the layout and design of the existing building, it is not beyond adaptive reuse as a mixed-use building. A building with such open spaces and solid construction provides an open template for creative reuse. There are several examples of successful armory adaptive reuse projects. Perhaps one of the more well-known recent case studies is the Portland Armory in Portland, Oregon. Now known as the Gerding Theater, the rehabilitation and retrofit of this building earned a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council rating system, effectively proving that historic buildings can become green while still respecting historic integrity. Another case study closer to home is the Helena Armory. Also recently rehabilitated with sustainable design measures, this building now provides office space for the Department of Administration and Environmental Quality. There is any number of other adaptive reuse examples of armories across the U.S. that have incorporated mixed uses. The National Trust would like to offer assistance in exploring potential uses for the Bozeman Armory as alternatives to demolition. Our National Preservation Fund provides grants to conduct feasibility studies and other preservation planning projects. We can also provide additional case studies and best practices. Like the Story Mansion, the Bozeman Armory holds a significant place in local history and should be respected as such by identifying the highest and best use for this building and site. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Jennifer L. Buddenborg Program Officer 345 February 5, 2008 City of Bozeman Dept of Planning & Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Re: Bozeman Armory demolition (SP/COA #Z-07278) The Montana Preservation Alliance opposes the proposal by developers Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard to demolish the historic Bozeman Armory building to make way for a new 4-story mixed commercial and residential building. The Bozeman Armory is the most outstanding WWII building in the Gallatin Valley and one of the more prominent in the state, as the attached context on history of the Helena armory demonstrates. Designed by outstanding Montana architects Roscoe C. Hugenin and Bozeman’s acclaimed Fred Willson, the Bozeman Armory is an important Art Moderne, public works construction that retains excellent integrity. The City’s own historical survey concluded that the Armory is of exceptional significance for these very reasons. We acknowledge the applicants’ sensitive rehabilitation on other historic downtown buildings, and were encouraged and hopeful when they purchased the Armory, that they would bring the same respect for historic design to this property that they have demonstrated elsewhere. It may be that the Armory Building is less suited to residential and storefront conversion than to some other uses. However, that does not mean the building should be razed, it simply suggests that other concepts be explored that are a better fit for the armory. Demolition of this solid building is unacceptable, particularly in light of the fact that the City itself sold the property to the developers, after it had been maintained with its historic qualities in good stead for six decades. A building of this scale, architectural caliber and historic association contributes immensely to the historic character of downtown and the community. We offer our expertise in considering new uses and architectural solutions for the building. We urge the Bozeman Preservation Board, the City Planning staff and the developers to come together to arrive at a concept that preserves the Armory, honors the military heritage of the community, and does justice to a Bozeman building of great historic and architectural merit. Sincerely, Chere Jiusto Executive Director 346 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT THE WILLSON BUILDING (BOZEMAN ARMORY DEMOLITION) SP/COA/DEV #Z-07278 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 1 Item: A Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application (#Z-07278), to allow the demolition of the Bozeman Armory building at 24 West Mendenhall Street, which is listed on the National Register for Historic Places, and the new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building. This application is generally requesting the following alterations: 1) demolition of the historic Bozeman Armory, 2) new construction of a four-story, mixed use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet, with 18% as retail uses, 14% as office uses, 24% as residential uses and 13% as parking uses, 3) new landscaping around the perimeter of the property lot and in the public boulevard, and 4) related site improvements. The subject property is zoned as “B-3” (Central Business District), but located outside of the “core area.” It is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Owners: Libster Building LLC/UND & Nygard Family LLC/UND 11 West Main Street, Suite 223 Belgrade, MT 59714 Representative: Bechtle-Slade PC 705 East Mendenhall Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Meeting & Date: Design Review Board public meeting on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 5:30 p.m., in the Upstairs Conference Room of the Stiff Professional Building (20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715). Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer Recommendation: For the City Commission to deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). Motions for Consideration: Delay the application review to allow time for the applicant to submit a cost estimate, indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition or redevelopment. OR Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits. OR Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. OR Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. 347 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 2 PROJECT LOCATION The Bozeman Armory building and proposed project site is located at 24 West Mendenhall Street. The location is southeast of the Mendenhall Street and Willson Avenue light-signaled intersection. It is legally described as the east 1.25’ of Lot 16, all of Lots 17-20, Block A, Tracy’s 1st Amended Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. A City of Bozeman surface public parking lot is located to the west and an office building is located to the east. Another City surface public parking lot is located across Mendenhall Street. The property is located within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. New construction will be invited and encourage provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architectural character and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens (18.28.010 UDO). PROJECT BACKGROUND The State of Montana was the original owner of the Bozeman Armory site and continued owning the building until December 2003 [check date]. The state put the building up for sale in May 2003. Under state law, the building could be sold at public auction or to another government agency for the appraised value of $815,000. During this time, a developer named Dick Clotfelter approached the City of Bozeman and expressed an interest in redeveloping the property for a performing arts center. Mr. Clotfelter paid the City $815,000, which allowed the City to purchase the building from the state (Montana Legislative Council, September 22, 2003). Please see Appendix D of this report for additional information. Prior to the final purchase, the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined an “adverse effect” with the sale of the Bozeman Armory. SHPO stated the sale represents the transfer of state owned with a significant heritage property. An additional covenant on the Armory’s sale deed was suggested by SHPO, in which the City of Bozeman agreed to fully comply with the Antiquities Act in its management of the Armory. The City declined to include the covenant language. The Bozeman Armory transferred ownership in March 2004 to Libster Building LLC/UND and Nygard Family LLC/UND. The performing arts center idea dissolved, with only the parking garage structure component of the plant to begin construction. Over the last two years, property owners Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard and representative Bechtle-Slade P.C. examined the Bozeman Armory structure for reuse opportunities as a mixed-use development project. The City of Bozeman informally met with the property owners and representative several times during the two years. A design concept was presented to the Department of Planning in May 2006 at one of the meetings. An informal application was not submitted for the Development Review Committee’s (DRC) consideration. The concept showed a six to seven story “roof-top” addition to the existing armory building. It was unclear to Planning Staff if the additional floors were an addition to the existing armory, or a new building constructed behind the armory front façade. The design also showed new construction, six to seven stories in height, to the west of the armory. It incorporated the adjacent City of Bozeman parking lot, which the property owners hoped to obtain from the City for the project. The proposed height of the addition and new construction surpassed the 70-foot maximum building height for B-3 zoning outside of the core area. Planning Staff recommended the proposal drop in height to better conform to the Certificate of Appropriateness design guidelines, and to avoid a deviation request. Staff also recommended the western addition be set further back from Mendenhall Street to better distinguish the new construction from the original. Overall, Staff stated their concern about the proposal’s adverse affect to the Bozeman Armory’s character-defining features. Bechtle-Slade contacted Pete Brown, Historic Architecture Specialist, at the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about the design concept. Mr. Brown told the representative that certain changes are necessary to make historic buildings meet modern needs, but they should be in the best interest of the building’s historic character. When the 348 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 3 acquisition of the neighboring parking lot failed, the property owners and representative began working on a revised design. The property owners and representatives submitted an informal application to the Department of Planning in September 2007. The application materials portrayed an almost identical design to the current proposal; demolition of the Bozeman Armory was proposed and new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building was planned for its replacement. The only difference from the current plan was the raised first floor level (similar to the existing building design). The informal was reviewed by the DRC and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB). Planning Staff comments included the following: ƒ The applicant will be required to submit a detailed structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. ƒ At this time, the proposed demolition will not be supported by Planning Staff in front of the City Commission for the following reasons: ◦ The Bozeman Armory Building is historically significant for its Art Deco architecture (very few examples in Bozeman), its connection to World War II/WPA (one of only three buildings directly associated) and because it was designed by Bozeman’s local architect Fred F. Willson. ◦ The demolition does not abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is creating an adverse effect to the historic building. ◦ The new construction is not attempting to preserve any significant features of the existing building. ◦ The structure has useful life remaining. Repair and/or rehabilitation can occur. ƒ All parking cash-in-lieu requests are required to be heard and considered by the Parking Commission. ƒ All new construction in “B-3” zoning, outside of the core, shall provide 13 landscaping ƒ The new construction requires 0.03 acres per residential/dwelling unit of park land shall be provided (per Section 18.50.020.A of the UDO). ƒ A cash-in-lieu payment for park land must abide by the requirements in Section 18.50.030 of the UDO. Cash-in-lieu shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. All cash-in-lieu payments shall be approved by the City Commission. ƒ The new construction requires 150 square feet of open space, for active recreational uses, per residential unit (per Section 18.50.020.C of the UDO). ƒ A 7-foot front yard setback is required for all new construction on Mendenhall Street. An encroachment into said yard setback would require a deviation request, which requires City Commission final approval. BHPAB reviewed the informal application and expressed their concern in supporting the demolition of a National Register listed building. They understood the difficulties associated with adaptive reuse of the historic building and they indicated a favorable response to the mixed-use aspect of the project. In their final recommendation, the BHPAB suggested a part of the Bozeman Armory be preserved with the new construction. PROJECT PROPOSAL In December 2007, property owners Michael Libster and Thomas Nygard and representative Bechtle-Slade, P.C. submitted to the Department of Planning the current proposal under review. The Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application proposes the redevelopment of the historic Bozeman Armory site at 24 West Mendenhall Street. The Armory is designated as a contributing building by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The project proposal generally includes the following alterations: 1. Demolition of the historic Bozeman Armory, 2. New construction of a four-story, mixed use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet, with 18% as retail uses ( 15,869 square feet), 14% as office uses (12,931 square feet), 24% as residential uses (12 units) and 13% as parking uses (one underground level of parking), 3. New landscaping around the perimeter of the property lot, in the public boulevard, and on roof decks/patios, and 349 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 4 4. Related site improvements. In the submitted Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, the representative justifies removal of the Bozeman Armory because of “major repair issues as well as human health and safety issues” and “how clumsy and difficult the rehabilitated spaces would be to use.” The representative states several investigations were made into rehabilitation options, but results found the required changes as economically unfeasible. A structural assessment of the building was submitted to Planning Staff for Review (please see Appendix E of this report). A cost estimate, comparing the costs of rehabilitation versus the cost of demolition and redevelopment, was not included in the application materials. One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the front stairs and stairwells to encroach into the required seven-foot front yard setback along Mendenhall Street (18.18.050 UDO). Stairs and stairwells that do not add usable area to a structure are permitted to encroach up to five feet in required front yards. The project proposes an approximate six-foot encroachment. The application is requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for parking. The representative calculated 610 available parking spaces in the adjacent blocks, including the future City parking garage and the two neighboring City surface parking lots. Additional information on the parking request is within the Site Plan application’s Appendix I. The mixed-use proposal creates a parking demand of 128 spaces. When applicable parking reductions are considered, the parking demand decreases by 37 percent, or to 81 spaces (18.46.040 UDO). After the parking SID credit is applied, the parking demand decreases to 52 spaces. The project is proposing 12 on-site parking spaces, creating an overall parking deficiency of 40 spaces. The required cash-in-lieu payment is $200,000 ($5,000 x 40=$200,000). The Parking Commission will consider the cash-in-lieu request on February 14, 2008 and make a recommendation to the City Commission, who makes the final decision on the payment. The application is also requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for required park land dedication. According to the representative, the 12 proposed residential units create a demand of 0.36 acres of park land. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board’s subdivision committee reviews the proposal on February 15, 2008. They will make recommendation to the City Commission, who is charged with the final decision. An alternative to providing a cash payment is providing park land dedication off-site. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the proposal on January 30, 2008. The DRC recommended the City Commission invoke the two-year stay on the demolition permit. If the Commission chooses to approve the demolition, the DRC recommended approval as conditioned by Planning and Engineering Staff. Please see attached draft minutes of the meeting. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the State Historic Preservation Office also reviewed the revised design and their comments are included in Appendix J of this report. The demolition contributing buildings in the conservation district require City Commission final approval. The City Commission receives a recommendation from the Design Review Board (DRB) prior to the public hearing. This report is to support the DRB’s review of the proposal on February 13, 2008. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is located within the “B-3” zoning district, or the central business district. The intent of the central business district is to provide a central area for the community’s business, government service, and cultural activity. Uses within this district should be appropriate to such a focal center with inappropriate uses being excluded. It is further the intent of this district to encourage high volume, pedestrian-oriented uses on ground floor space in the “core area.” The core includes the area of Main Street from Grand Avenue to Rouse Avenue, and to the alleys one- half block north and south from Main Street. The subject property is located outside of the defined core area. Lower volume pedestrian uses such as professional offices may locate on the ground floor space in the B-3 area outside the defined core area (18.18.010 UDO). 350 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 5 The subject property is surrounded by the following land uses: North: City of Bozeman surface public parking lot, zoned as B-3; South: Commercial businesses, including “Erotique,” “The Cannery,” and “Burger Bob’s,” all zoned as B-3; East: Law office building, zoned as B-3; West: City of Bozeman surface parking lot, zoned as B-3; Please refer to the zoning map on the following page: Zoning Map (red dash line depicts “core area”) ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The subject property and the surrounding properties are designated as “Community Commercial” in the 2020 Community Plan. Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within this category draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. This particular area of “Community Commercial” resides in the historic core of Bozeman. It is important to note the goals and objectives related to the historic core as stated in the Bozeman 2020 growth policy and keep them in perspective for this proposal: ƒ Goal 4.9.8. Historic Preservation/ Objective 2. Support the existing Historic Core of Bozeman so that it remains a pleasant and economically viable location to live, work, recreate and conduct commerce. ƒ Goal 6.6.3. City Core – Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman/ Objective 1. Ensure that development and re-development of this area, including the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, is done in a fashion which enhances, and is compatible with, the current community fabric. All types of development at this site, whether it involves adaptive reuse of the building or new construction, will help expand downtown’s activity to the north. 351 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 6 BOZEMAN ARMORY HISTORY The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City of Bozeman. When determining a site or building’s quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. As further described below, the Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinct Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. Please see Appendices A, B, and C for additional information on the building’s significant history. National Significance Works Progress Administration An excerpt from the National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall,” Lewis and Clark County, Montana”: “Established by executive order in May 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was a federal agency created to provide paying jobs for unemployed workers through various make-works projects. Laborers used for these projects had lost their jobs during the Great Depression, a worldwide economic slump that began in 1929. The WPA was part of the New Deal For America, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s program of economic recovery during the depression. Renamed the Work Progress Administration in 1939, its projects involved mostly construction projects, such as highways, bridges, parks, airport runways, public swimming pools, and country fairgrounds, schools, museums, stadiums and National Guard armories. Armory construction was an important aspect for the New Deal make-work program in many states, and was further supported by the War Department, which anticipated an outbreak of war. The armory-building program would result in additional trained citizen soldiers. In Montana, seven armories were authorized. The WPA was the major agency in the armory building program, and was charged with building smaller, one unit armories, meant to be designed by local architects and built by unskilled labor. The infusion of cash into WPA projects across the country made an economic impact on hundreds of communities, who competed for the funds. To qualify for a WPA project, cities had to meet three criteria: 1) projects had to meet a well- defined community need; 2) projects had to be sponsored by a public body, which had to provide 10-25 percent of the cost in cash and/or materials; and 3) 90 percent of the laborers had to be unemployed employable workers who were on the relief rolls. Before the WPA was disbanded in 1943, it had provided employment for about $8.5 million people on 1.4 million individual projects. In its seven-and-half years, the WPA remodeled more than 500 existing armory buildings and facilitated the new construction of 400 more.” As the need for small military training space decreased across the nation, the armory buildings were sold to new owners. Many are adaptively reused for local civic activities, such as community dances, banquet halls, 352 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 7 public auditoriums, sport events. The civic emphasis was primary with all WPA projects (National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall,” Lewis and Clark County, Montana). Art Deco Architecture The building’s architecture is known as Art Deco, a modernistic architectural style that emerged in the United States in 1920. The first examples of Art Deco were in public and commercial buildings. It was extremely rare in domestic architecture, although it was frequently used for apartment buildings. Identifying features of the style include the following: smooth wall surface; flat roof; horizontal grooves or lines in walls (horizontal emphasis); and asymmetrical façade (A Field Guide to American Houses). Art Deco style strove for modernity and an artistic expression to complement the machine age. Concrete, smooth-faced stone and metal were characteristic exterior architectural coverings. Forms were simplified and streamlined, and a futuristic effect was often sought. (What Style is It: A Guide to American Architecture). State Significance Montana Armory Board The Bozeman Armory was one of six armories constructed in Montana as a WPA project, and sponsored by the Montana Armory Board (Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, 1986). The state’s Regular Armory conducted an inspection of Montana National Guard facilities in 1938 and found them to be totally inadequate for drill purposes or equipment storage. To solve this problem, the 1939 Montana Legislature established the Montana Armory Board to sell bonds for funds to construct armories and drill halls in Helena, Bozeman, Billings, Harlowton, Poplar, Kalispell, and Glasgow. Built in the early 1940s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), these facilities were financed through the sale of Armory Board bonds and through state and federal appropriations (National Register of Historic Places nomination for “Montana Arsenal, Amory, and Drill Hall,” Lewis and Clark County, Montana). 163rd Infantry Regiment The Bozeman Armory was built as the home for the Bozeman National Guard units of Montana’s 163rd Infantry Regiment, a National Guard unit drawn from all over the state. The 163rd was in combat during the construction of the building. The 163rd saw action in the Filipino Insurrection that followed the Spanish American War, the Mexican Border Incident of 1916, and World War I; but they are especially remembered in their key roles that it played in New Guinea, the Philippines, and the occupation of Japan during and immediately after World War II. The 163rd Infantry remained in active duty until 1946, making it the longest mobilized military unit in the U.S. Army during World War II (Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, 1986). Local Significance Art Deco Architecture The Bozeman Armory is one of only a few examples of Art Deco architecture in Bozeman; the other examples include the Gallatin County Courthouse and Gallatin County High School on West Main Street and the Hamill Apartments on East Main Street [add pictures]. Fred F. Willson The Bozeman Armory design originated with the Armory’s Boards Architects, Hugenin & Associates, whose resident architect was Fred F. Willson. Willson is considered Bozeman’s prolific local architect. Ann Butterfield, from her “The Architectural Legacy of Fred Willson” publication, writes the following: 353 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 8 “Frederick Fielding Willson studied architecture at Columbia University, New York graduating in 1902. Along with his parents, the young Fred took a tour of the European continent, which included a stint at the Ecole de Beaux Arts. In his travels a diary was kept in which he marveled at the buildings and structures of Europe. On his return from abroad in 1906, he practiced architecture in Butte with the firm of Link and Haire. In 1909, Dr. Hamilton of Montana State College lured Fred back to Bozeman to design a dormitory. Dr. Hamilton was a friend of Fred’s parents, General Lester and Mrs. Emma (Weeks) Willson, two of the early settlers of Bozeman. The legacy of Fred Willson’s architecture is in his buildings sprinkled around Bozeman, Butte, Anaconda, Livingston, and Yellowstone Park, as well as many other southwestern Montana communities. He designed churches, warehouses, schools, jails, hospitals, and homes. Bozeman is fortunate to have many of the Willson-designed houses. Willson recorded approximately 1, 754 jobs from 1913 until 1954. Willson was not a ‘one note’ architect. His proficiency in styles shows virtuosity and leaves an architectural anthology on the Bozeman streetscape. Willson’s designs add character, charm and diversity. Fittingly, an obituary written for Fred Willson in August 1956 sums up the legacy. ‘Whatever sort of marker will stand over his resting place in Sunset Hills, his lasting monument will be his college buildings on the hill, the sensible public schools that will always be modern for generations to come, the countless homes and other buildings he designed in Bozeman.’” Bozeman Community Organizations Armories built during under the WPA contained more than drill rooms and firing ranges. Local community offices and meeting rooms were also planned in the buildings. The City of Bozeman and Chamber of Commerce paid $2,000/per year rent to the State Armory Board for office and meeting space. “Conventions and amusements of all sorts which are of interest to the Bozeman public” were planned in the rented areas (Bozeman Courier, June 20, 1941 “Armory Lease Terms Drawn Up By Boards”). The civic aspect was a part of the New Deal work program and its goal of “giving relief, reform and recovery to the people and economy” (Wikipedia “New Deal”). The War Department also hoped to see collective strength created from the community centers, since they were anticipating war. Building Construction & Design The Bozeman Armory’s planned cost of construction in 1941 was $138,906.20 (Bozeman Courier “Amory Cost Too High Under Plan Submitted Tues.” July 28, 1939). The building was described by the Bozeman Courier on March 7, 1941: “The armory building is constructed of steel reinforced concrete throughout. Pouring will resume the first of the week. The building is being built to resist earthquake shocks and absolutely fireproof throughout. Window and door frames are metal.” Built to the specifications of the War Department, the 128 foot by 108 foot armory, which was to provide “up-to-the- minute” protection, contained several novel features. Among the building’s facilities was a maple block drill floor running the full width of the building, capable of accommodating military trucks as well. The blocks were laid in contrasting patterns with no nails or glue. A rifle range was located in the basement. A sound-proof room was built for the 163rd Infantry Regimental Band. General facilities were included, such as offices, lounges, and officer’s club room. Public facilities were also included, such as a Chamber of Commerce Room, meeting rooms, and lounges (Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory, 1986). The war years posed certain problems to completion of the building. Materials were difficult to obtain, and construction personnel, mostly WPA workers who gained skills on the job, were constantly being absorbed by private industry (such as, harvesting jobs on Gallatin County farms). Travertine and terrazzo work originally specified by 354 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 9 Willson had to be abandoned due to the difficulty of obtaining skilled workmen and necessary materials (Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory, 1986). APEX Engineering Services, Inc. performed a structural assessment and included the following description of the Bozeman Armory: “The building is comprised of concrete joists with integral slabs supported on reinforced concrete beams, commonly referred to as a “waffle slab” system. These beams are in turn supported on both reinforced concrete columns and concrete bearing walls. The entire structure is supported on a shallow foundation system comprised of continuous and spread concrete footings.” (March 23, 2007 APEX letter addressed to Michael Libster). Concrete is composed of sand and stone (aggregate), water, and a cementitious material, almost always Portland cement. Reinforced concrete is concrete strengthened by the addition of another material, usually metal bars. The reinforcement, embedded in the concrete before it sets, can withstand tensile and shearing stresses, thus giving the materials a much greater range of applications. The combination of concrete and metal allowed the construction of sturdy slabs, beams, columns, and pavements in the early twentieth century. Reinforced concrete is commonly used in the construction of building frames, building façade elements, parking structures, bridges, dams, sculptures, and monuments. As with masonry systems, the majority of deterioration is caused by moisture. In the conservation of reinforced concrete, the key issue is whether the existing material can be repaired and conserved or whether it must be replaced (Twentieth-Century Building Materials: History and Conservation). REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS – DEMOLITION OF BOZEMAN ARMORY The project proposes the demolition of the Bozeman Armory building, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated as a contributing property by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory. The Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed the application against the required criteria for considering demolition in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Administrative Design Review Staff offers the following comments for the Design Review Board’s consideration. Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning). Demolition of a historic building is not recommended by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Preserving character-defining features of the building is recommended. All of the building’s historic features and context are removed with the demolition. Therefore, the demolition proposal does not conform to the Standards. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height, 2. Proportions of doors and windows, 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces, 4. Roof shape, 5. Scale, 6. Directional expression, 7. Architectural details, 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, and 355 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 10 9. Material and color schemes. The demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the review of architectural guidelines is non-applicable. C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. The demolition proposal destroys the culturally and architecturally significant Bozeman Armory building. Therefore, contemporary design of new structures on the site should not be encouraged. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the review of architectural guidelines is non-applicable. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. Read below for the applicable criteria for demolition of contributing structures. Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory…shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The final authority for demolition shall rest with the City Commission. The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department. As previously discussed in the “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness,” the demolition proposal does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinct Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. 356 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 11 Please see Appendix A of this report for the Bozeman Armory’s Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory. The inventory was reviewed by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office for accuracy of history description and significance statement. Planning Staff does not find the project proposal as satisfying the criteria of this section. 2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. In the submitted Certificate of Appropriateness narrative, the representative justifies removal of the Bozeman Armory because of “major repair issues as well as human health and safety issues” and “how clumsy and difficult the rehabilitated spaces would be to use.” The representative states several investigations were made into rehabilitation options, but results found the required changes as economically unfeasible. In the Site Plan application’s Appendix F, the representative listed the building’s features that prevent the structure from being reused: ƒ The 10 foot floor to floor height and construction does not allow an acceptable installation of mechanical, sprinkler and lighting for retail and office space. ƒ In order to provide on-site parking we need to remove a portion of the back of the building. The back half of the building has shallow foundations and will not accommodate basement level parking and need to be removed as well as the slab on grade and sub grade. ƒ There is asbestos and lead paint that needs to be removed as a part of any remodel. ƒ The electrical and mechanical are shot and need replacing. ƒ The roof is leaking and needs total replacement. It also has asbestos content. ƒ The windows are single pane metal frame and many do not even work. ƒ The exterior doors are non-insulated. ƒ 60% of the walls need to be removed to function as needed for current day retail/office. All of those walls are concrete. ƒ Current floor levels do not allow Mendenhall Street level access to retail space. The main floor is four feet above the sidewalk level. Planning Staff requested additional information from the representative on December 21, 2007. The information requested was documented evidence justifying the demolition request, including but not limited to a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the cost of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. The representative’s response included a summary of a structural assessment performed for the building (by APEX Engineering Services, Inc.). Please see Appendix E of this report for a copy of the assessment. The representative stated the assessment found the addition of underground parking in the existing structure as economically unfeasible. Also, the representative stated the assessment found a limitation of floor additions to the existing structure. In closing, the representative claims the findings “are severely limiting economic factors when looking at the redevelopment of the site.” 357 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 12 The representative’s response also included the following statement: “No complete cost estimates were developed because preliminary design analysis precluded the need to seek reconstruction estimates.” A cost estimate, comparing the costs of rehabilitation versus the cost of demolition and redevelopment, was not included in the application materials. Planning Staff does not find the proposed project as satisfying the criteria of this section for the following reasons: 1. The representative’s claim that a 7 foot – 10 inch ceiling height is created after the addition of HVAC systems doesn’t appear to be the only option for rehabilitation of the interior spaces. Exposed ductwork and piping could provide a ceiling height of 8 feet – 10 inches. The representative’s verbal claim that retail businesses do not want ceiling heights of 8 feet is undocumented. The large windows in the first floor spaces provide expansive sunlight exposure, which can help minimize the effect of low ceilings. The windows also provide sidewalk window exposure, which is typically a strong need of retail businesses. Pictures from October 30, 2007 site visit to Armory – first floor interior 2. The identified repair issues, including a leaking roof, outdated mechanical and electrical systems, and broken windows are typical of historic buildings. All of the repair issues can easily be addressed in a rehabilitation project and therefore, do not warrant demolition. 3. The removal of asbestos and lead paint must occur with demolition, and therefore, can not be a justification to demolish the building. Rehabilitation of the building might provide fewer costs for asbestos and lead paint removal. The APEX structural report only assumed the roof contained asbestos (testing did not occur to prove asbestos content). The roof may not contain asbestos and therefore, costs could be saved. This action can be interpreted as “demolition by neglect” under many demolition/preservation city ordinances across the nation. 4. Repair issues can intensify when no routine maintenance is performed to the building. Staff believes the building’s roof partially caved-in over a year ago. A site visit to the property on October 30, 2007, showed water damage on interior walls and ceiling. No protection from water appeared to exist. Please see pictures on the following page. 358 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 13 Pictures from October 30, 2007 site visit to Armory – second floor interior 5. The APEX structural report recommends concrete core sample testing to determine the compressive strength of the concrete. Because concrete increases in strength over time, there is a possibility the concrete is indeed stronger than what was recorded on the construction drawings. The report states: “The potential increase in design values could make a substantial difference in the number of stories that could be added.” Additional floors could help the economic feasibility of the project. It should be noted, that additions of floors are strongly discouraged by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff believes if designed appropriately and distinguished from the original construction, additional floors to the building could be added. 6. The second floor’s partition walls are constructed out of wood and therefore, easier to change to render the floor plan. 7. Rehabilitation activity on Main Street has spurred economic reinvestment in Bozeman’s downtown. The activity also has contributed to the downtown tax base. The rehabilitation of the Armory building could serve as an economic stimulus for Mendenhall Street just as equally as new construction. Several studies across the nation have shown demolition encouraging demolition of other buildings. Vacant land does not contribute to the downtown’s tax base. Wholesale razing of buildings is demonstrably bad public policy, as seen with the federal government’s urban renewal program. “Urban ‘renewal’ programs…destroyed irreplaceable social networks in the name of a cramped (and frequently mistaken) vision of progress” (Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse). 8. Rehabilitation of the Armory is a more fiscally responsible reaction to the high cost of landfill. The City of Bozeman is currently dealing with the fiscal problems related to providing adequate solid waste disposal. The demolition of the Armory will require the disposal of a large amount of concrete material to the landfill. The representative states the only material slated for recycling is the rebar metal inside the concrete. “The disposal of solid waste is rapidly becoming one of the most important environmental issues for the construction industry. Annually, builders in the United States generate approximately 31.5 million tons of construction waste. 359 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 14 The debris, which is composed of many types of materials including some that are hazardous, represents almost 24 percent of the total municipal solid waste stream in this country” (Building a Balance: Solid Waste Disposal). 9. Rehabilitation of the Armory is the “greener” option. Demolition does not respect the building’s “embodied energy.” Embodied energy is defined as the total expenditure of energy involved in the creation of the building and its constituent materials. When a historic building is demolished, all the embodied energy that is incorporated within is thrown away (Donovan Rypkema Closing Plenary Speech, Appendix F of this report). The new building proposed to replace the Armory is indicated as a “green building.” Rypkema states: “Much of the green building movement across the nation focuses on the annual energy use of a building. But the energy embodied in the construction of a building is 15 to 30 times the annual energy use.” He continues and says: “Razing historic buildings results in a triple hit on scarce resources. First, we are throwing away thousands of dollars of embodied energy. Second, we are replacing it with materials vastly more consumptive of energy. What are most historic structures built from? Brick, plaster, concrete, and timber. What are among the least energy consumptive of materials? Brick plaster, concrete, and timber. What are the major components of new buildings? Plastic, steel, vinyl, and aluminum. What are among the most energy consumptive of materials? Plastic, steel, vinyl, and aluminum. Third, recurring embodied energy savings increase dramatically as a building life stretches over fifty years. You’re a fool or a fraud if you say you are an environmentally conscious builder and yet are throwing away historic buildings and their components” (Rypkema, Closing Plenary Speech). 10. It doesn’t appear the applicant considered all uses when examining the potential of the building’s rehabilitation. The best use of the building, to keep it standing, might not be a retail/office/residential mixed-use development. The unique features and interior spaces of the building should be embraced. They can offer a rental market that is entirely unique from anything existing in the City of Bozeman, which adds considerable value to the space. Several examples across the country show National Guard armory buildings as rehabilitated and adaptively reused. New uses established in armories include the following: residential condos, offices, retail food market, retail antiques market, arts and music enter, community center, affordable housing units, indoor football arena, community and military museums, social and cultural center, YMCA, police training facility and city parks and recreation center. Please see Appendix H and Appendix I of this report for additional examples. 11. It must be noted that the Armory property resides in B-3 zoning outside of the “core area.” Lower volume pedestrian uses such as professional offices may locate on the ground floor space. Staff wonders if the representative considered office uses on the building first floor, rather than retail. 12. Federal and local tax incentive programs are available to the property owners for rehabilitation of the Armory. Tax benefits typically improve the economic feasibility of historic rehabilitation projects. 13. The City of Bozeman adopted the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on November 27, 2006. The purpose of the agreement is for cities to take steps in reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 and to implement local commitments for climate protection. Invoking the two-year star on the Armory’s demolition permit would keep several dump truck loads of concrete going to the landfill, an effort to reduce green house gas emissions. The energy for transportation in a diesel-powered is about 1.2 kWh/ton mile. 360 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 15 If the Design Review Board concurs with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, and wishes to forward a recommendation to the City Commission requesting more information from the applicant, the following motion should be considered: DRB Motion Consideration: Delay the application review to allow time for the applicant to submit a cost estimate, indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition or redevelopment. D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection C. For the reasons discussed in the previous subsections, Planning Staff recommends the City Commission deny the demolition request of the Bozeman Armory and invoke the two-year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). If the Design Review Board concurs with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, and wishes to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to invoke the two-year stay on demolition permits, the following motion should be considered: DRB Motion Consideration: Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits. If the Design Review Board does not concur with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, and wishes to forward a recommendation of demolition approval to the City Commission, the remaining report presents Planning Staff’s findings for the proposed new construction. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. If demolition of the Bozeman Armory occurs, Planning Staff recommends the following documentation of the property: 1. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permit, the applicant shall be required to perform a HABS/HAER level of documentation of the historic Bozeman Brewery Armory. HABS/HAER documentation includes large format photographs, building elevations and interior building floor plans of the existing building. The final documentation results shall be submitted to the Library of Congress for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record collection. Also, Planning Staff recommends further mitigation of the demolition because of its adverse effect to the City of Bozeman’s historic inventory. Mitigation is an attempt to lessen the impact of losing the National Register listed building. Mitigation options may include historic documentation, interpretative signage, survey and inventory of a potential National Register building or a cash-in-lieu payment to the future Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory update planned by the City in 2009. 361 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 16 REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS – NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ‘THE WILLSON’ If the Design Review Board does not concur with Planning Staff’s findings for the Armory demolition, and wishes to forward a recommendation of demolition approval to the City Commission, the remaining report presents Planning Staff’s findings for the proposed new construction. The project proposes the new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building that is approximately 88,900 total square feet. The Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed the application against the required criteria for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application. Administrative Design Review Staff offers the following comments for the Design Review Board’s consideration. Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning). Demolition of a historic building is not recommended by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Preserving character-defining features of the building is recommended. All of the building’s historic features and context are removed with the demolition. Therefore, the demolition proposal does not conform to the Standards. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances; and 9. Material and color schemes. The architectural appearance design guidelines were considered with the review of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, as discussed in Part D below. C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. The demolition proposal destroys the culturally and architecturally significant Bozeman Armory building. Therefore, new construction on the site should not be encouraged. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by 362 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 17 this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The Introduction, Chapters 2 and 5, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District all apply to this project, as the work proposed is “new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, but outside of the Historic District.” The guidelines may be accessed at: http://www.bozeman.net/planning/DGHPNCOD.aspx. Administrative Design Review Staff requests the Design Review Board (DRB) to review the applicable design guidelines and determine if the new construction is appropriate for its surrounding neighborhood. If the DRB wishes, a motion and vote to add conditions of approval may occur. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. Read below for the applicable criteria for deviation requests and site plan review. Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements” A. Modifications shall be historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties; B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The required deviation for building setback appears to be historically appropriate for the commercial character of the property. The proposed front entrance of the new construction is proposed at the same setback of the existing Bozeman Armory’s front entrance Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria” A. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy; The new construction proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the “Community Commercial” land use designation. B. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations; The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan (FSP) approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Planning ƒ Section 18.34.130, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the date of approval of a preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning seven (7) copies of a Final Site Plan. The Final Site Plan shall contain all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the Department of Planning. 363 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 18 ƒ Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. ƒ Section 18.34.130, upon submitting the Final Site Plan for approval by the Planning Director, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the above conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied or met. ƒ Section 18.38.050.F, “Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment,” all mechanical equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. ƒ Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” all proposed site and building lighting shall comply with said Section requirements. A detailed lighting plan shall be included with the Final Site Plan submittal. ƒ Section 18.42.170, “Trash and Garbage Enclosures,” a permanent enclosure for temporary storage of garbage, refuse, and other solid waste shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or condominium units, unless other arrangements are made. A narrative detail as to the garbage receptacle arrangements shall be provided with the final site plan submittal. ƒ Section 18.42.170, the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to final site plan approval. ƒ Section 18.44.100, “Street Vision Triangle,” at the intersection of each driveway or alley with a street, no fence, wall or planting > 30” above the street centerline grades, shall be permitted in the street vision triangle. ƒ Section 18.48.050, “Mandatory Landscaping Provisions,” all proposed landscaping shall comply with said Section requirements. Parking lot landscaping shall apply to the area within the perimeter of the paved portion of the parking lot (does not apply to parking garages). ƒ Section 18.48.060, “Landscape Performance Standards,” all proposed landscaping shall comply with said Section requirements. The lot has not residential adjacency, so 15 points are required for the required landscaping standards. ƒ Section 18.50.020, “Park Area and Open Space Requirements,” all proposed open space and park area shall comply with said Section requirements. ƒ Section 18.50.030, “Cash Donation In-Lieu of Land Dedication,” the required park dedication for the proposal shall comply with said Section requirements. ƒ Section 18.52.060, “Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign Permit,” any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the requirements of this section. The total maximum allowable total signage in “M-1” zoning shall not exceed 250 square feet. For properties used 364 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 19 for multi-household residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign shall be provided per street frontage. ƒ Section 18.52.070, “Comprehensive Sign Plan,” a comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted for all commercial, office, industrial and civic uses consisting of two or more tenant or occupant spaces on a lot or two or more lots subject to a common development permit or plan. ƒ Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. ƒ Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued unless the use, arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans and applications. Engineering ƒ Plans and specifications for any fire service line (or domestic service lines 4” diameter, or greater) must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service (or 4” or greater domestic service) or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings. ƒ A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations and discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan. A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County Clerk & Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject property. ƒ The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of line types and symbols used provided. ƒ Easements and R/W located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made. Any proposed easements shall be provided prior to FSP approval. ƒ Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown, with sizes labeled, on the Final Site Plan from main to building and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant. ƒ The location of existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed hydrants. Proposed utilities shall be distinguishable from existing. ƒ Proposed water/sewer mains, services and hydrants shall be depicted on the landscape plan and maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ to landscape trees and lot lighting improvements. ƒ A Street Cut Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to cutting any publicly maintained street. 365 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 20 ƒ The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments, or with infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. ƒ All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified. C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations; The proposal requires City Commission approval of the cash-in-lieu payments for parking and park land. D. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property; The proposed site plan appears to be appropriate for the commercial character of the property. E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; The application is requesting the approval of a cash-in-lieu payment for parking. The representative calculated 610 available parking spaces in the adjacent blocks, including the future City parking garage and the two neighboring City surface parking lots. Additional information on the parking request is within the Site Plan application’s Appendix I. The mixed-use proposal creates a parking demand of 128 spaces. When applicable parking reductions are considered, the parking demand decreases by 37 percent, or to 81 spaces (18.46.040 UDO). After the parking SID credit is applied, the parking demand decreases to 52 spaces. The project is proposing 12 on-site parking spaces, creating an overall parking deficiency of 40 spaces. The required cash-in-lieu payment is $200,000 ($5,000 x 40=$200,000). The Parking Commission will consider the cash-in-lieu request on February 14, 2008 and make a recommendation to the City Commission, who makes the final decision on the payment. As conditioned by Engineering, an agreement shall be reached between the City and developer in order for the adjacent City parking lot to be utilized for construction-related purposes. The Downtown Parking Commission must forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission, whose ultimate approval is required to finalize the agreement. F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress; Adequate pedestrian ingress and egress are provided from Mendenhall Street and vehicular ingress and egress are provided from the service alley. Several of Engineering’s conditions of approval address access issues on the site. Engineering is requiring improvements to the alley because of the proposed increased traffic from the residential units. G. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation; The proposal appears to meet the required 13 landscape points. Final review of the landscape plan occurs with the Final Site Plan application. 366 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 21 H. Open space; As required by the UDO, 150 square feet of landscaped area for active recreational activities shall be supplied for each dwelling unit. The proposal requires 1,800 total square feet of on-site open space. Planning Staff understands the applicant intends to provide all required open space within the proposed roof decks and patio areas. Final review of the open space square footage occurs with the Final Site Plan application. I. Building location and height; The proposal falls within the maximum allowable building height for B-3 zoning outside of the core area, which is 70 feet. J. Setbacks; The proposed building setbacks appear to be appropriate for the commercial character of the property. K. Lighting; Details for any and all proposed light fixtures on the building are required at time of Final Site Plan submittal by submitting a lighting plan. L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities are addressed by Engineering’s conditions of approval and code provisions. M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control; Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions, and Public or Private Streets (including curb, gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer at time of Final Site Plan submittal. N. Loading and unloading areas; The location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Department (phone: 586-3258) prior to time of Final Site Plan submittal. O. Grading; All proposed demolition and grading plans are reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building Department Staff at time of Final Site Plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its property lines. P. Signage; Any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the requirements of Chapter 18.52 of the UDO, including the submittal of a comprehensive sign plan with the Final Site Plan. Q. Screening; All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be either fully screened by 367 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 22 incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully hidden behind a parapet wall. R. Overlay district provisions; The project is found to conflict with the Secretary of Interior Standards, which are included with the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards as required for all projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; Please see Appendix J and Appendix K for public agency and general public comment. T. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. Not applicable. If the Design Review Board concurs with Planning Staff’s findings for the new construction, and wishes to forward a recommendation of demolition approval to the City Commission, the following motions should be considered: DRB Motion Consideration: Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. OR DRB Motion Consideration: Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT Please refer to Appendix J of this report for public agency comment regarding this proposal. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Please refer to Appendix K of this report for public comment regarding this proposal. 368 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 23 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based on the review performed by Planning and Administrative Design Review Staff, the following conditions of approval are presented to the Design Review Board for their consideration. Conditions of Approval Planning 1. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall submit the parking cash-in-lieu payment to the City of Bozeman 2. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval, the applicant shall submit the parkland cash-in-lieu payment to the City of Bozeman. 3. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color and materials palette of all new construction materials (windows, doors, brick, etc.) for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. Engineering 4. Existing water services on the property that are no longer used shall be abandoned at the main. 5. The existing condition of the sewer service for the Ellen Theatre shall be documented – both prior to, and after construction – and provided to the City Water/Sewer Superintendent. If required, the service shall be remediated to its pre-construction condition prior to occupancy of the building. 6. Damage to area streets, alleys, sidewalks, City parking lots, and water/sewer/storm utilities, incurred as a result of the project, shall be repaired per the direction and approval of the City Engineering Department prior to occupancy of the building. 7. The alley behind the building shall be resurfaced with asphalt pavement from Willson Ave to the east property line. 8. The alley approach apron onto Willson Ave shall be replaced with a City Standard alley approach, per City Standard Drawing No. 02529-7B. 9. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, an encroachment permit, together with a comprehensive traffic control plan, shall be approved by the City Engineering Department in order to utilize a public right-of-way, including alleys, for construction-related purposes. 10. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, an agreement shall be reached between the City and developer in order for the adjacent City parking lot to be utilized for construction-related purposes. The Downtown Parking Commission must forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission, whose ultimate approval is required to finalize the agreement. 11. The Streamline transit stop on Mendenhall shall be relocated to a site agreed upon by the City and Streamline. The relocated site shall be determined prior to Final Site Plan approval. 12. A hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to verify that the required fire flow for the structure is available at a minimum system residual pressure of 20 psi. 369 The Willson Building (Bozeman Armory Demolition) SP/COA/DEV 24 CONCLUSION Planning Staff recommends the City Commission deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two- year stay on the issuance of all demolition permits, in order to allow the applicant and City to explore alternatives to the demolition (18.28.080 UDO). Planning Staff presented the following motions to the Design Review Board (DRB) for consideration: ƒ Delay the application review to allow time for the applicant to submit a cost estimate, indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition or redevelopment. ƒ Deny the Bozeman Armory demolition request and invoke the two-year stay (from the date of the final decision) on the issuance of all demolition permits ƒ Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request with Staff’s recommended conditions for mitigation and conditions of approval for the new construction. ƒ Approve the Bozeman Armory demolition request, without mitigation, but with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the new construction. Administrative Design Review Staff requested the DRB to review the applicable design guidelines and determine if the new construction is appropriate for its surrounding neighborhood. If the DRB wished, a motion and vote to add conditions of approval may occur. Various code provisions were identified as needing to be met. Some or all of these items are listed in the findings of this staff report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued upon Final Site Plan approval. Attachments: Applicant’s Site Plan Application Materials Applicant’s COA Application Materials Staff Appendices A-I Report Sent To: Libster Building LLC/UND & Nygard Family LLC/UND, 11 West Main Street, Suite 223, Belgrade, MT 59714 Bechtle-Slade PC, 705 East Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 370 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner & Historic Bill Rea Preservation Officer Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Mike Tuss Brad Sperry Bill Bickle Richard Charlesworth Anne Sherwood Otto Pohl Peter Andrews Scott Bechtle Ron Slade Rebecca Pape Lesley Gilmore Christine Huyser Kevin Huyser Megan Quinn Amanda Moore ITEM 2. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Stockman Bank Informal #I-08001 (Knight) Lot 5, Stoneridge Square Subdivision * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a 12,500 square foot banking facility with related site improvements. Mike Tuss, Brad Sperry, and Bill Bickle joined the DRB. Mr. Sperry noted what the DRB had received in their packets from Staff; adding that it included comments from Staff and DRC. He stated he had passed out CTA’s responses to those comments. Mr. Tuss stated the bank had been approved as part of a PUD and some things had been altered; adding that the attached drive-up had been modified to be detached and parking spaces had been removed. He stated landscaping questions had come up in those areas along the trail and he would like to address those issues. He stated the applicant would exceed the landscaping conditions from Staff. He stated that he disagreed that the attached drive-up allowed for better flow through the parking lot; adding it was detached exactly for flow reasons. He stated the stacking would be much better and it would cost Stockman Bank more money to build a detached drive-up; adding the design would be far superior. He stated he thought the detached drive-up would help the massing of the structure. 371 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 2 He stated the lobby facing Oak Street and North 19th Avenue did not make sense as the parking was in a different location; adding it was more convenient for patrons of the establishment if the lobby was on the same side as the parking. He stated the front door would still face N. 19th Ave. and Oak St.. He stated the suggested pedestrian plaza could be integrated at the corner, but the applicant would prefer not to remove the proposed plaza at the front of their structure; adding there would be advantages to moving the plaza area away from the traffic on the corner. Mr. Rea asked if the design was the same as the existing Stockman Bank at Kagy Blvd. and S. 19th Ave. Mr. Tuss responded it had been modified slightly, but was essentially the same. Mr. Rea asked if the drive-up at Kagy Blvd. was detached. Mr. Tuss responded that it was. Mr. Rea asked if the bank was local. Mr. Bickle responded they were a Montana owned company and listed some other areas there were Stockman Banks within the state. Mr. Rea asked if the other Stockman Banks looked the same as the proposal. Mr. Tuss responded they had attempted to make a brand identity for the design of the structure; adding the hope was to create an old downtown main street bank with a contemporary feel. Chairperson Livingston asked if the Stockman Bank on Kagy Blvd. had a parking lot large enough to accommodate trailers, king cab trucks, and suburban’s. Mr. Bickle responded that there was not a lot of agricultural traffic that went to the Kagy Blvd. location and they instead went to the Belgrade location; adding that many non-agricultural patrons were driving king cab vehicles. Chairperson Livingston asked if the project were closer to the highway, such as the proposed site, would a lot of agricultural vehicles go to the site. Mr. Bickle responded they did not foresee a great need for parking for agricultural vehicles, but areas had been prepared for them. Chairperson Livingston asked how much parking had been included in the proposal. Mr. Tuss directed the DRB to the site plan and noted which parking areas were specific to the structure. He added that the reduction of the size of the building (detached drive-up) required less parking. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted Mr. Sperry had presented the DRB with an alternate site plan that included an attached drive-up. Mr. Sperry responded the alternate site plan had been intended to show that the attached drive-up was an inferior design with regard to circulation. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked which the applicant would prefer. Mr. Sperry responded they would prefer a detached drive-up to lessen the amount of difficulties with traffic flow on the site. Mr. Rea stated the entryway to the proposed main plaza was better articulated than the one on S. 19th Ave. and Kagy Blvd.; adding he liked it better. He stated he would like to see the plaza wrap around the structure to help soften the corner (secondary plaza) and he liked the idea of bringing the bike path into it. He stated he thought the building on S. 19th Ave. and Kagy Blvd. was a pretty nice looking building and was appropriate for the corner; adding he was concerned with the franchise architecture as there had been two or three of the structures built already. He stated he was not too concerned with the proposed detached drive-thru. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he disagreed with Staff on the reorientation of the lobby as it would be solar suicide; adding the proposed orientation was the best option available. He stated the massing had been broken down on the corner and suggested the plaza should be wrapped around the structure. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding landscaping. He stated it did not make any difference to him whether or not the drive-thru was detached; adding if it were detached it would break down the scale and massing of the building. He stated Bozeman had taken a strong stand regarding franchise architecture and suggested it may become an issue for 372 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 3 the applicant in the future; he cited the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he thought when the 3rd Stockman Bank went in on East Main Street there would be a problem with the proposed franchise architecture. He stated he thought the drive-up presented to the DRB with their packets (detached) was the best of all the iterations they had seen with regard to traffic circulation. He stated he thought the entry did not appear to be addressing the parking lot enough, but the curved feature compensated for that appearance; adding he did not have an issue with the proposed orientation. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding landscaping. He stated he saw potential for the pedestrian access to be unnoticeable and suggested the applicant institute landscaping along that path to let people know not to drive through that area. He stated the site was difficult and needed a four sided appeal; adding that he thought it had that appeal and properly addressed the road. Mr. Tuss responded they were struggling with keeping their brand identity and not instituting franchise architecture. 2. Sherwood/Pohl SHR COA/ADR #Z-07273 (Kramer) 525 South Black Avenue * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a single-household residence on a vacant lot with related site improvements. Richard Charlesworth, Anne Sherwood, Otto Pohl, and Peter Andrews joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff memo noting the Informal Application had been received in December and the applicant had moved to the formal review process. She stated she had given the DRB a streetscape rendering. She noted Staff’s primary concerns were height, massing, and the location of the front door. Mr. Charlesworth stated the lot was in-fill and there had never been a building on the site. He stated the zoning ordinance allowed 36 feet in height and the proposal was at 32 feet with a 12:12 roof pitch. He stated the house would be the terminus of the street and, traditionally, there would be a larger, grander house in that location; noting the current terminus was the three-story backside of Longfellow School. He stated the houses on either side of the site were unusual; the brick one was built at grade and the one-story bungalow had been raised to give a full story height and basement. He noted the proposed front elevation would have a porch with a bump out, dormers set back 20 feet on the ridge, and a bay on the second floor. He presented the DRB with photographs of other locations in the neighborhood and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District that had a door entrance on the side of the porch instead of the front; adding it would bring variety to the massing of the structure. He stated the proposed house would only be 24 feet wide and the footprint would only be 1,168 square feet so the massing was not great. He stated changing the front door location would cause major redesign of the proposal. Ms. Sherwood added three story mansions next to one story bungalows was a part of what made Bozeman so great. Mr. Pohl stated the front door would be visible, just not from the front elevation. Mr. Rea asked the reason for not building the stairs perpendicular to the sidewalk instead of parallel. Mr. Charlesworth responded it was to prevent getting dripped on and for energy 373 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 4 conservation to maximize the southern light. Ken Ryder stated he resided at 533 S. Black Ave. and he did not have any objections to the proposal. Chairperson Livingston pointed out that he was a potential builder for the proposal. Mr. Charlesworth stated he concurred with Mr. Ryder as he lived across the street from the site. Mr. Howe stated he thought the proposed height was appropriate, he thought the massing was appropriate, and he thought the front door should not have to be visible from the street. Mr. Rea stated he had no problems with the massing, the height, or the door located on the side. He added he had a little problem with the street not being addressed by the porch and suggested the applicant consider wrapping the porch around to soften the structure. Mr. Charlesworth responded they had been considering an arbor gate. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he had no issue with the height and massing as proposed as it helped create the texture and fabric of Bozeman. He stated he thought the proposed front door would work fine and he had no issue with the door being located on the side of the porch. He noted the north elevation seemed harsh; adding he would support the tighter pitched elevation for the roof. Chairperson Livingston stated he had no issue with the front door being located on the side of the porch, the proposed height was within the restrictions, he liked the 12:12 pitch, and he had no issue with the proposed massing. He stated his concern would be the mass of the house putting the neighboring property in perpetual darkness; adding the structure would be 10 feet away on the south face and there was a possibility of being insensitive to that property. Mr. Ryder stated he owned the house that would be affected and he did not think there would be a shading issue. Mr. Charlesworth responded if the house were relocated in the proposal the streetscape would be interrupted. Chairperson Livingston suggested a solar survey be investigated for the site. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. The Willson (Armory) SP/COA #Z-07278 (Bristor) 24 West Mendenhall Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of the existing Armory building and the construction of an 88,894 square foot, four-story mixed use building with 18% retail, 14% office, 24% residential, and 13% parking with related site improvements. Scott Bechtle, Ron Slade, and Rebecca Pape joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal and that it was the historic Bozeman Armory building. She stated the demolition of the existing building was being proposed and explained the proposed mixed-use building; adding the new structure would require a deviation to allow stairs to encroach into the setback. She noted the historical significance of the building and that the City Commission would make the final decision. She stated the Staff recommendation was to deny the demolition of the structure and to invoke a two- year stay on demolition permits; adding there are four possible motions suggested to the DRB by Staff. She noted the pictures that had been distributed at the beginning of the meeting were a visual study. The first picture was the existing Armory while the second was a photo-shop mock up of a clean, “redone” Armory. She stated Staff had suggested the applicant provide estimates 374 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 5 on the restoration of the existing building and the construction of a new building. Mr. Bechtle asked for clarification that the demolition of the building was not really being discussed at this time as the City Commission would be making the final decision. Planner Bristor responded both the demolition and new construction were being reviewed by the DRB per the UDO. Mr. Bechtle stated the proposed design gave some homage to the existing armory building through the placement of windows and overall building form. He stated there would be a 14 foot main to first floor level section in the new building to provide for pedestrian scale. He stated the proposed building would maintain the same footprint as the existing building, and the encroachment of the stair could be pulled back to the five foot setback to remove the encroachment altogether. He stated the alley would be maintained in its current location but would be improved. He stated the massing of the structure was intended to be sympathetic with the historic downtown area without recreating the building. He stated the street level pedestrian experience would be a brick façade presentation and the building would be stepped back to allow for the institution of green roofs in the future. He stated more store-front might be added to the main level, but the punched windows would remain on the second level. He stated more modern materials were proposed (steel and glass) but were common in the surrounding neighborhood. He stated the architectural character of the structure had been meant to be a contemporary approach but was not attempting to mimic a historic building on Main Street. He stated they were considering an outdoor seating area and he thought they would be encouraging pedestrian traffic with a more contemporary fashion. Mr. Howe asked if the proposed north façade would be exactly as long as the existing building. Mr. Bechtle responded that it would be the same length. Mr. Rea stated he was unclear about the green roof garden drawing versus the schematic perspective as they did not seem to be the same. Mr. Bechtle clarified that there were different deck levels and a new iteration of the rendering. Mr. Rea asked if a core sample of the reinforced concrete had been done. Mr. Bechtle responded that one had not been done yet. Mr. Rea asked if the City ever did a structural assessment or if the assessment would only be done by the applicant’s engineer. Planner Bristor responded the City had no device or process that allowed for a structural assessment of the property unless the Preservation Advisory Board offered funding from their budget with the applicant’s permission. Mr. Rea noted the applicant’s engineer would have conflict of interest and asked if the City had any sort of bonding or non- blight ordinance as he had a list of conflict of interest issues. Planner Bristor responded Bozeman did not have a demolition by neglect ordinance in place. Only if a structure was being neglected as to cause a public health and safety risk, it would then become code enforcement jurisdiction. Mr. Rea asked if EIS had been done as part of the Intermodal Facility parking study. Mr. Bechtle responded a consultant had been hired that had done an EIS and found some issues. Mr. Rea asked if the 20% federal tax credit had been considered as part of the possible renovation. Mr. Bechtle responded that it had not. Mr. Rea stated there had been ~60 letters/signatures in support of preserving the Armory building and one in support of demolishing it. He asked if Mr. Chris Naumann had spoken for all of the business owners in the Downtown Business Partnership when he stated he was in favor of the demolition. Planner Bristor clarified that the letter had been presented as the Executive Director of the Downtown Business Partnership representing those businesses that participated in the discussion. Mr. Rea asked if the proposal could be bonded to provide for completion of the conditions of approval. Planner Bristor responded it is bonded by the Building Department, but it may not be enough of a bond to cover the demolition costs. Mr. Rea asked if the City had anything in place showing 375 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 6 the impact of the proposed demolition on the City of Bozeman landfill. Mr. Howe added that concrete was not allowed in the City landfill, and would have to go to the Logan Landfill. Mr. Bechtle responded that every material that could be recycled would be recycled. Mr. Slade concurred. Mr. Rea asked if either of the architects were LEED accredited and if credits were given for salvaging materials. Mr. Bechtle responded that he was LEED accredited. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would be attempting a LEED rating on the proposed structure and would there be a reason that they would not attempt a LEED rating. Mr. Bechtle responded they had not intended to seek LEED certification and the owner had not directed them to achieve LEED rating, though they did intend to use green building methods. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the total parking requirement of the building and if it would be met by the City parking garage. Planner Bristor responded that with the allowable reduction and the SID spaces, 40 spaces would be required via a cash-in-lieu payment. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how much of the required parking would be on site. Mr. Bechtle responded there would be underground parking for the residential units (12 regular and 1 ADA) and cash- in-lieu of spaces had been proposed for the additional required spaces. Planner Bristor noted that no lease agreement had been arranged with the City of Bozeman for parking spaces within the Intermodal Facility. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the specific historic significance of the Armory building. Planner Bristor explained it is on the National Register of Historic Places hence it is a contributing structure in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked about how Staff quantifies the useful life remaining. Planner Bristor responded the City would be able to determine that the costs of preservation would exceed the costs of reconstruction; adding that a stable building made of concrete would still have a useful life. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted the building could be made useful with modifications and the use of the structure would be assessed at the time a proposal was submitted. Mr. Bechtle added that the costs associated with renovations to the existing building would be great due to foundation work, roof work, window replacement, etc. and he had ultimately decided a retail use in the existing building would not be feasible. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated it would be difficult to determine when no use would work in that building. He asked if the landscaping points would include the proposed green roofs. Planner Bristor responded the landscaping along the alley would achieve the required 13 points and provide a buffer along the alley; adding the green roofs were being considered open space for the residential elements of the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the .03% parkland would be met with the green roofs as well. Planner Bristor responded the applicant was proposing cash-in-lieu of parkland or the parkland could be provided off site. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to weigh in on sustainable development versus historic preservation; asking if they were, or were not, the same. Mr. Bechtle responded that the re-use of the existing structure could be sustainable development as it contributed to downtown, but asked how far one would go to define sustainable or historic development. Mr. Slade added that a balance had to be found between sustainable practices and what a client was willing to do/pay for; adding two years of time had been put into the proposal. He noted that preserving the structure would be considered sustainable but not for LEED certification and the green roofs would be LEED certified. He stated the building was sold to the owner as a building for re-use for profit; adding the previously proposed uses (theater, conference center) were like a golf course and were notoriously not profitable. Mr. Rea asked if the building was on the National Register of Historic Places when the current owner purchased the property. Mr. Slade responded it was, but its significance was not disclosed to the owner at the time of purchase. Ms. Pape added the seller should have made the disclosure to the buyer. Mr. Rea suggested the owner may have suspected there was something historic 376 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 7 about the structure simply due to its age and the architect who had designed it. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a “buyers beware” clause. Ms. Pape responded disclosure was meant to provide for that. Planner Bristor stated the historic status of the building was both available at the City offices and the Federal National Register. Chairperson Livingston asked why someone would want to get their property on the National Register. Planner Bristor responded it would make the property eligible for federal and state incentives; tax abatement, tax credits, affordable housing, etc. Chairperson Livingston asked when the building was registered and if the City had done it. Planner Bristor responded that it had been individually listed following the historic survey performed by the City of Bozeman. Chairperson Livingston asked why the two year stay had been recommended by the DRC. Planner Bristor responded the DRC generally follows Staff’s recommendation. Chairperson Livingston asked if it was possible to do all cash-in-lieu of parking for the proposal. Planner Bristor responded it was possible upon approval of the Parking Commission and City Commission; adding the Parking Commission had not been inclined as of yet to permit more than 25% of the total parking required as cash-in-lieu. Chairperson Livingston asked if the preliminary checklist for LEED criteria had been done. Mr. Bechtle responded they had gone through the checklist and had achieved general certification with the proposal. Chairperson Livingston asked for examples of what was being proposed as far a LEED certification that he had not seen. Mr. Bechtle listed some items and added that the option would not be pursued until a direction for the project had been defined (approval by the City Commission). Chairperson Livingston read a report from the Economics of Historic Preservation (Donovan Rypkema) that tearing down of historic buildings did not help and has never been found to increase economic stimulus; and asked if the applicant had read the appendices. Mr. Bechtle stated had partly read the materials. Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Bechtle what he thought about the Rypkema quote. Mr. Bechtle struggled to respond. Mr. Slade asked Chairperson Livingston if an empty, graffiti covered, broken roofed building would contribute more to the community than a retail building. Mr. Howe confirmed the property was listed on the historic register and stated he was uncertain how the useful life of the building would be determined; adding he did not think there would be a specific number of useful years left in a building. He asked if Mr. Clotfelter (previous owner) had given the City advice on redevelopment on the existing building. Planner Bristor responded she was not certain. Mr. Rea stated he felt like the DRB was reviewing whether or not the building should be removed and the design of the new building. He stated he did not find the proposed structure particularly unique, but it would be a good building. He stated the retail on the ground floor would be a good thing and a viable project to see how Mendenhall Street would do with the expansion of the downtown area. He stated the downtown was what made Bozeman special and the place he wanted to live. He stated he was concerned with the development of the parking lot to the west and how it would impact the site. He suggested there should be some sort of agreement in place for the City to improve their property with the improvement of this site. He stated he did not buy the green roof with the hot pool as it was not a sustainable feature; adding he did not think it needed to have as much texture as depicted. He suggested a simpler design and added that the landscaping in the alley seemed inappropriate due to that location never receiving any sun; he stated it was wrong to landscape an alley to meet landscaping criteria. He stated the engineering assessment was inherently flawed because there was a tremendous conflict of interest but the engineer had stated that additional stories could be added to the structure and 377 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 8 had determined it was a pretty good building; he suggested it seemed strange that no core sample had been done even after a year of time to perform it. Mr. Bechtle responded the core sample had not been done as it had been suggested if upper levels were proposed for the existing structure and they had decided against using the existing building. Mr. Rea noted there was no problem with the existing structure. Mr. Slade responded they had never said there was a problem with the existing building. Mr. Rea stated he could not imagine a developer that would want to let go a 20% tax return for a project. Mr. Rea stated he did not know if the high-end residential condos and retail uses were over-built in that area, but he knew there was a need for more community gathering space. He stated he would have a hard time supporting the proposal as presented and the idea of tearing down an iconic, military-related piece of architecture given the current political situation. He stated historic fabric helped the downtown and if there were a vacant lot in that location the proposed structure would have been fine. He stated the applicant had produced a good looking building, but the existing building had pretty good architecture as well. He added there was no better known architect in town than Fred Wilson and the Armory was one of the few art-deco structures left. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he had to remind himself that architecture was subjective and he had to try to remain objective. He stated he would want the replacement of a historic building to be so far superior to what was there that the public could not deny the superiority of it. He stated if he were asked to remove the Ellen Theater he would struggle to make that decision for economic gain. He stated the DRB had to make decisions based on hardships from the applicant showing that the structure should be removed. He noted that he loved the proposed building, but it did not present the excellence in design that would make him comfortable with allowing the removal of the Armory Building. He stated he thought there was an opportunity to make the building better. Chairperson Livingston apologized for being so direct to the applicant and the member of the public guilty of the same apologized in kind. He stated his agitation was not directed to the applicant but to a series of projects that the DRB had seen over the last year where existing buildings that were critical to Bozeman’s historic inventory were being removed from that inventory or demolished due to neglect. He stated the recent trends make him think that the City of Bozeman is losing too many historical buildings. He suggested there were other locations that would be perfect for the proposed building, but the Armory should also be salvaged. He stated the proposal would be a nice project and he would like to see it built LEED/energy efficient. He stated all the things the applicant had tried to do were appropriately done, with regard to uses and regulations because of the requirement of Bechtle-Slade to work for their client’s needs. He had a hard time approving the demolition of the Armory given the fact that the structure was historical at a national, state, and local level. He stated the problems with the existing building were not worse than most of the older homes in Bozeman (i.e. asbestos, lead paint, etc.). He stated he was not in support of the demolition of the Armory just because it did not support someone’s economic ideals; he suggested the building had attributes for small business owners and gatherings. He suggested he did not want to wake up one day to find there was no more historic Bozeman because Bozeman had done away with it due to greed. He stated he could not, in good conscience, support the demolition of the existing Bozeman Armory building. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for demo to the City Commission for The Willson (Armory) SP/COA #Z-07278. The motion died. 378 Design Review Board Minutes – February 13, 2008 9 Mr. Rea asked if they could do that or if they must recommend the two year stay in conjuction with the denial of the demolition permit. He also asked if the stay would cause issues at a later date. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that none of those items preventing them from approving the demolition would have changed even after a two year stay. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for demolition of the Bozeamn Armory, and to invoke a two year stay on demo permit(s) from the day of the final decision by the City Commission for The Willson (Armory) SP/COA #Z-07278. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Rea stated the reality was that discussion could be ongoing and the project could be modified, but the existing structure could not be demolished for a two year period. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 379 380 381 382 383 From: Jeff Rupp Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:10 AM To: Otto Pohl Cc: Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker; Kaaren Jacobson; Eric Bryson; Courtney Kramer; Andy Epple Subject: RE: Save The Armory! Otto, It was a plesure to meet you the other night in a friendly atmosphere. I must strive to remember that all my converstions are matters of public record. Your comments about the armory are well received. You are very articulate and indeed correct on your points. I promise you that I will indeed consider them in my decision making process. Thanks for all you do for our city and community Jeff. From: Otto Pohl [mailto:otto@ottopohl.com] Sent: Fri 1/11/2008 8:49 AM To: Jeff Rupp Cc: Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker; Kaaren Jacobson; Eric Bryson; Courtney Kramer; Andy Epple Subject: Save The Armory! Otto Pohl 607 South 7th Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 otto@ottopohl.com January 9, 2008 Jeffrey K. Rupp Bozeman City Commissioner Bozeman, Montana Dear Jeff, It was great to meet you a few days ago. I thought about our conversation more, and as a concerned citizen, I would like to share a few more thoughts regarding the Armory with you. I agree that expanding downtown off Main Street is a priority. But I would encourage you to think about what attracts locals and tourists to downtown in the first place: it is the sense of history reflected in the old buildings. Without that, Main Street is nothing but a smaller, more inconvenient North 19th. Also, you say that the new project would extend the shopping district around the corner onto Willson, and find fault in the fact that the side facing Willson doesn’t extend to the street. Well, neither does the Bechtle-Slade plan. If I understand correctly, the city-owned parking lot will remain next to their project. If you want to extend the shopping district, you should build a building of retail shops where the parking lot is and then connect the back of that building directly into the Armory with a grand sweep of glass. The key is to showcase the Mendenhall façade of the Armory, not the Willson side. Perhaps the beauty of the Armory is more difficult to see than that of the HRDC building. But there are 384 extremely few historic, large-scale buildings left to preserve and restore. And the Armory does deserve our respect and admiration: it is a wonderful example of Art Deco construction designed by Fred Willson, Bozeman’s pre-eminent architect, and it was built in response to Pearl Harbor. The Armory captures the deep roots of Bozeman’s and America’s history. That is why it’s on the National Registry of Historic Places, a list that brings great respect--and responsibility--to a community. But what about those inconvenient room sizes and the high ceilings? Well, I bet the commissioners who voted to tear down the Opera House thought the exact same thing. Saving that building was ‘inconvenient.’ The walls had been destabilized by an earthquake and the building was falling into disrepair. But the loss to the community from that short- sighted decision is enormous. And what about the idea that the replacement building will be very ‘green?’ I am on the Climate Change board, so trust me on this: tearing down a functional building with 18-inch walls and hauling it to a landfill and replacing it with virgin materials trucked in from great distances is not environmentally aware, no matter how many solar panels you put on the roof. The greenest building is one that's already built. Bozeman cannot afford to take its architectural heritage lightly. We have one of the best preserved historic downtowns in the state and it is no secret that this aids our economic growth. So the question is: can we combine that history with today’s economic growth needs? Absolutely. You can see it in cities across the country, where creative use of spaces yield exciting destinations that drive traffic and commerce. At the very least, the bar to tear down a building as important as the Armory needs to be extremely high. The replacement building should be a true icon, a dramatic sweep of architecture that makes it a destination in its own right. To replace something as significant as the Armory with generic suburban architecture would be not only a real failure of aesthetic judgment, but a blow to the commercial prospects of downtown Bozeman. There are plenty of creative architects who could create modern functionality while preserving the aesthetics of the existing building. I imagine modern sweeps of glass and steel recessed from the street but adding two more floors of loft-like apartments. The window wells on the Mendenhall side could easily be adapted to enclose street-level retail. You said Bechtle-Slade is one of the “best” in town but the forgettable bank building that replaced the art deco Firestone building on Main adds nothing to our downtown corridor. I’m sure Bechtle-Slade could come up with something that solves Bozeman’s economic needs while preserving the architectural vision of Fred Willson if held to a higher standard of imagination and creativity. Please do not take the destruction of the Armory lightly. Downtown businesses depend on you to make the smart decision. Sincerely, Otto Pohl Cc: Kaaren Jacobsen, Jeff Krauss, Sean Becker, Eric Bryson, Andy Epple, Courtney Kramer 385 386 387 388 -----Original Message----- From: Daphne Gillam [mailto:daphnegillam@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:01 PM To: aricker@dailychronicle.com Subject: Hello Amanda, I am writing to 'cast my vote' AGAINST tearing down the Armory. Anyone who has even casually walked by this building is aware of the immense structure, thick walls and distinctive art deco architecture. It would be impossible to build another structure in its place that would be as sturdy or unique! If they were to tear it down, where does all of that concrete go? Our landfills? I have seen the new architectural renderings for the proposal and it's nice, BUT very predictable and similar to.... the new bank on West Main, the new office building on 8th and Main, Delaney's building at 777 East Main, Locati's office on East Main, on and on!. I could list many more, but the Armory is distinctive. They say there is no use for it, My first thought would be a perfect sports club. There is already a maple gym floor. We need to keep the few distinctive buildings we have left in Bozeman - STANDING. Thanks for reading this, and hopefully you can pass on this information to 'the powers that be!' Daphne Gillam 406-587-0817 daphnegillam@gmail.com 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 Please refer to the Bound Copy of The Willson Certificate of Appropriateness Thanks! 424