Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-09 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes from August 27, 2009 meeting Members Present: . Mike Neeley . Richard Brown . Mark Hufstetler (Chair) . Ryan Olsen . Anne Sherwood . Crystal Alegria . Jane Klockman Staff Liaison Present: · Courtney Kramer I. Call to order at 6:07 pm II. Approval of minutes from June 25, 2009 meeting a. No minutes were sent with the agenda. Will be approved at September BHPAB meeting III. Public Comment Period: a. No members of the public attended the meeting IV. Disclosure of ex parte communication a. Anne and Mark are meeting to work on a second Op-Ed piece for the Chronicle, in order to respond to the Chronicle editor's column and offer solutions for future development of historic properties, including bonding new construction and a demolition by neglect ordinance. b. JK notes that Story Mansion movies on the lawn have been hugely successful. Interest in the Mansion is high and 100's of people have attended open houses. V. Introduction of invited guests a. No invited guests outside of project review. VI. Project Review and Recommendations to Staff a. The McGee Project at 332 South Church Avenue i. Preservation Planner Courtney Kramer introduced the project and poses two questions for the BHPAB members: 1. Is the house contributing? 2. Is this demolition as defined by code? ii. BHPAB members and applicant introduce themselves 1. Property Owner Salal Huber-McGee, Designer Chris Liberty, and neighbor iii. Chris Liberty introduces the project. It is believed to be a 1921 Sears & roebuck vernacular house. It has been modified by a porch enclosure and rear addition which is starting to deteriorate. They decided to take the same approach at the 1 new design using the same details. They are looking to stay within the same arts and crafts style but in a two story version. iv. Salal McGee: purchased the house in 2001. It had green asphalt siding on it at the time. She "made it too cute" with the improvements. They were able to restore the lap siding which has lead based paint, which they've painted over. The purchased the property with the knowledge that it is intrusive on the MT Historical Inventory. They planned to extensively remodel it from the beginning. They are trying to keep with the integrity of the style of the house but in an arts and crafts style. SM cites that the zoning allows for a 32' maximum height and they are at less than 28' v. CK interjects to refocus the BHPAB's attention to the two questions asked by the Planning Department. vi. MH responds that the streetscape does matter within the context of the neighborhood. vii. SM wants to copy the other historic areas of town. Their lot is 60' wide and 202' deep. viii. MH calls for questions from the BHPAB members: 1. MH: Is this project going to the DRB? a. CK: No, since the second building was reduced in size the Planning Department pulled it from the DRB's agenda. 2. RB: Asks about the proposed material in the gable? a. CL: metal b. RB: asks about the material on the first floor c. CL 4" lap siding 3. MH: Will the project take the house down to the studs? a. CL: it all comes off 4. MH: are the window sizes or locations change? a. CL: yes, the design flip flops where the window and door are located and adds 2 windows to the north elevations. Window widths get bigger on some of the windows, but in proportion. 5. RB: What material are you proposing for the roof? a. CL: painted standing seam metal. 6. AS: What will happen with the basement? a. SM: we put in egress windows in the basement and radiant floor heat; it will remain generally unchanged. 7. AS: What is the total square footage of the house? a. SM: 1,000 square feet. b. CL: it was 1,200, and after rehabilitation it will be 1,958 square feet. Further discussion of the square footage. SM asks AS: "What's your point?" 8. CK asks members to answer the 2 questions posed by planning. 2 9. CA: asks if the interior has been altered? a. SM: uncertain 10. CL: the porch has been enclosed 11. JK: the house has obviously evolved. 12. RB: asks how the 2x4// studs will be insulated between. ix. MH calls for comments 1. CK reminds BHPAB members to focus on the 2 questions. 2. MH begins comments in order to define the terminology. He examined the house earlier in the week. Begins with the point that the inventory is current as of 1984 and does not meet the current standards for doing evaluations; HM throws out the inventory. He notes that there are 2 terms for determining eligibility. Independently eligible properties are highly significant and have high integrity. Historic districts are representative of a neighborhood. He notes the mixed character of the neighborhood but finds that the house would contribute to a potential historic district. We cannot evaluate the district without a new inventory. The house itself has changed; the porch was enclosed. The remainder of the house is intact in footprint. In his mind there is no question that the alterations constitute demolition; they remove the historic siding, characteristic roof items. But, for a project moving into a historic district it is a quality design. Not a bad looking house but not a craftsman house. And one that takes a craftsman and makes it non contributing. 3. CG: definitely agrees that a significant part of the building is changing and sees it as demolition. Does believe the house is contributing but does like the design and appreciates the efforts at the design. 4. RB: notes the broad definition of demolition and would have to say that this project is demolition. Poses the question: the porch was enclosed; if you reopened the porch would it be demolition? He likes the design and thinks it will improve the streetscapes. Comments on the choice of materials and would like to avoid metal siding and roofing. Recommends using historic-type materials and would recommend an asphalt roof. Is concerned with the aircraft cable on the back stairs and would like to keep the whole effort in the genre. Believes this design is better than the neighboring. Believes the existing building would contribute. 3 S. RO: Definitely is demolition. Is uncertain that with all the alteration that the building keeps its integrity. Defers to Mark's opinion and say's it~ contributing. 6. MN: Obviously the house has had alterations but its elements are intact enough to be contributing. The addition of a second story makes it 2 demolition. The inaccuracies in the inventory are loopholes. Other additions in the neighborhood have made it an incomplete and compromised district. Since there isn't a documented district, it is difficult to assess. He likes the newer elements of the house. 7. CA: the house is contributing and the project proposal is demolition. 8. JK: abstains from comment as she arrived late. 9. AS: feels like she lives in a very similar house. Has rehabbed her house but instead of building up their chose to sell their bungalow. In her opinion, altering their house would have been destroying what was built in 1915. She loves the idea of tearing down the garage and building an ADU. Thinks there are some houses in Bozeman that are non- contributing and could be teardowns, but this is not one ofthem. Does like the new design but doesn't like that it demolishes the main house. Thinks people won't recognize the old house in the new. The house is too contributing to demolish. Using the 1984 inventory to justify construction is dangerous. Only a COA guarantees a right to build. x. SM: comments that maybe they shouldn't have restored the siding of the bungalow and should have left it alone. States that it is "basically a glorified double wide" and it is "not architecturally stimulating and there is nothing historic about the house." xi. CK states she will include notes from this meeting in her Staff Report to the City Commission. VII. Chair's Report: a. Anne Sherwood asks if we can throw the entire 1984 Inventory out? i. RB: do we want to vote on a resolution to the City Commission to disregard the inventory? ii. AS so motions iii. RB: notes maybe we should put it on a future agenda so that it can be publicly notices and discussion amongst the community may happen. 1. So moved. Discussion of the validity of the 1984 Inventory to be included on the September BHPAB agenda. b. MH notes the need for the election of a new board secretary. i. RB nominates AS, JK seconds ii. Motion passes, AS will take over secretary duties in September c. MH was asked by John Axline of the MDOT to discuss the intersection of College and Willson and options of a traffic light or roundabout. Notes that the roundabout is the preferred option for the MDOT. 4 i. AS: has experience with roundabouts and think they work wonderfully ii. JK notes that it slows traffic down. iii. RB notes that the better of the two proposals is the roundabout but is concerned about the loss of property. iv. JK notes that no collisions have occurred on the property in her recent memory. v. AS makes the case for roundabout instead of light vi. MH agrees with Anne. Cities overseas have traffic circles, and notes that it does alter the street grid, but notes that a roundabout would be the better option. vii. MN: wrote a letter about this matter 5 years ago as the board chair. viii. MH is uncertain when the public hearing will be ix. RB prefers the option of a right turns only at the intersection, then a roundabout, and then a light as a distant third. x. CA suggests the BHAPB should stay within its boundaries xi. JK would like to see the statistics for crashes at the intersection and if alteration is really needed. Would also like to see a roundabout work at another busy intersection in Bozeman before installing one on this sensitive corner. xii. RB motions that "If it is determined that action at the intersection must be taken, the BHPAB supports a roundabout. The BHPAB does not support a light. 1. MN seconds 2. Motion passes. d. MH brings up the post mortem of the SHPO visit; reminds BHPAB members to assign specific topics to subcommittees. i. Regarding section 106: MH as asked MDOT to keep him in the loop. CK has is asked to contact other federal agencies and ask for the same courtesy via section 106. ii. AS notes that the Preserve America designation sign is on the East Main Exit. Wonders if we can get others. 1. MH agrees to speak to J. Axline about getting other brown "historic district" signs for the interstate. iii. MH brings up the idea of listing the Bogert Bandshell on the National Register of Historic Places. 1. RB asks if the time frame would allow the BHPAB to get the Bandshell listed and have an event at the Bandshell in May to correspond with Preservation Month. 2. A subcommittee is formed of Mike, Crystal, Anne and Courntey Gunderson. They will meet September 1th at a date and time TBA to discuss the process. VIII. Education and Outreach: a. JK schedules next Eel Outreach meeting for Tuesday, September 15 at 6:30pm at Jane's house. i. Mention of the Great Falls History Conferences ii. Mention of doing a better job retaining new members. 5 iii. Mark will go over the SOl's standards at the next education quarterly. b. Planning and Policy subcommittee: i. AS believes the BHPAB has an opportunity with the Chronicle to create dialogue about the fate of historic buildings after a project is approved for them. ii. CK mentions pending action item with the commission regarding uncompleted projects within the City of Bozeman. iii. P & P subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 1 at Richard's house at 6:30pm. IX. Meeting closed. 6