HomeMy WebLinkAbout032509 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:36 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Rea Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Randy Wall
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Scott Stroh
Bill Hanson
Rusty Harris
Reverend Leo G. Proxell
ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Holy Rosary Church Demo/Expansion SP/COA #Z-09016 (Bristor)
220 West Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the complete demolition of the Convent building, partial demolition of the Rectory and Church buildings, and
the construction of an addition with related site improvements.
Bill Hanson and Scott Stroh joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the Holy Rosary group had been meeting with Staff regarding opportunities
for expansion for over the last year. She noted the proposed layout and addition at the rear of the structure. She noted the Convent building would need to be demolished and Staff
was overall supportive of the project; she added the proposed addition and connection to the Church were appropriate for the site. She noted a Deviation had been requested for a parking
row to exceed 100 feet without landscaping and Staff was supportive of the Deviation with conditions; pedestrian crossing, parking lot screening, etc. She noted that Staff was looking
for the DRB to provide general recommendations to the City Commission. She also noted that the phasing of the project would need to be completed with a phasing plan that would be submitted
with the Final Site Plan.
Mr. Hanson stated the proposal had been informally reviewed by Staff and had gone before the Historic Preservation Advisory Board for informal review and they were nearing the Diocese
of Helena approving the project, making it viable to begin construction in 2010. He noted one problem that had come up was the constraints of the site. He noted the Church was the
most
significant structure on the site, but the Rectory building had also been identified as a significant building; he added that the existing Convent building had been constructed as a
residence. He stated the facility had been found to be unsafe and had been unused for the last few months; interior asbestos removal had occurred in the structure and it was left in
a somewhat abandoned state. He stated the most significant design issue was the connection between the Rectory and the Church buildings. He stated the owner wanted to attempt to maintain
the gothic (buff colored brick, window shape, pilasters) nature of the structure. He noted all three buildings currently on the site have different types of brick. He stated the connection
to the Rectory would be used as a gathering place for patrons of the Church. He noted grading improvements to the south of the site would keep the structures on the same level and aid
in handicap accessibility as well as help with service operations such as the movement of caskets throughout the structure without the use of stairs. He noted the number one criteria
of the owner had been to stay in downtown Bozeman.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor if a licensed architect would be completing the traffic study per Staff condition of approval #1. Planner Bristor responded Staff had intended that Thinkone
provide the study as it was more general in nature than an engineering traffic study.
Mr. Rea asked what it meant when the Diocese condemned a building; wasn’t the Building Department the authority that would condemn the building. Mr. Hanson responded the letter of condemnation
from the Diocese had been specific that the Convent building should not be used and had referenced the potential fire hazard of the structure. He noted neither Building Official nor
the Fire Marshall had condemned the building, but the Fire Marshall had given them citations in the past.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification that the Convent would be demolished to ground zero. Mr. Hanson responded that had been the intent. Vice President Pentecost asked
how the demolition would occur and if the materials would be salvaged. Mr. Hanson responded that none of the brick matched the other buildings on site but they would attempt to salvage
what materials they could. Mr. Stroh added that it was uncertain how the bricks would survive the demolition, but if they did, he had suggested MSU consider reusing it for Roberts Hall.
Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant had looked for matching masonry for the Church addition. Mr. Hanson responded that the original brick was a different size than modern brick; he
noted they would do everything in their power to match the materials as closely as possible. Mr. Banziger stated the demo drawing seemed to illustrate right angles, which would help
make the brick decision easier and asked if the new brick would be weathered. Mr. Hanson responded it was the intent to make the new look as similar to the original as possible.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the older brick was thinner or thicker in height than modern brick. Mr. Hanson responded it was thinner. Mr. Stroh stated the original brick had been
a little taller and the front addition contained a modular brick; he noted the joints would line up, but the brick mortar would be a little wider. Chairperson Livingston asked the material
for the columns and banding of the connection between the Rectory and the Church. Mr. Hanson responded they were considering finished metal in a champagne color that would tie into
the brick. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a lot of new stained glass in the Church addition. Mr. Hanson responded that there would only be three or four new stained
glass windows and noted those
locations on the rendering; most of the existing rear stained glass windows will be housed in the addition. Chairperson Livingston asked if the existing Church was structurally sound.
Mr. Hanson responded that, of the three structures, the Church was the best structurally as it had been shored up in the 80’s; he noted the tower would need additional strengthening
and they would attempt to strengthen the exterior walls as well. Chairperson Livingston asked if the west side of the site would contain only parallel parking. Mr. Hanson responded
it would contain parallel parking as the Engineering Department was not supportive of closing South 3rd Avenue or making it a one-way street (ideas investigated in earlier proposals).
He stated the School District had service issues with regard to the street being changed to a one-way so the owner had decided against that proposal.
Mr. Rea asked the HPAB’s opinion of the proposal. Planner Bristor responded she had not attended the meeting when the Holy Rosary Church project was reviewed informally; they had recommended
moving the Convent building in its entirety, but Holy Rosary and Thinkone did not feel that was a feasible option. Mr. Hanson added that the previous meeting had been conceptual and
the formal review by the HPAB would be held tomorrow; he noted the conceptual plan had caused a little panic, though the Board will see the current proposal tomorrow which will hopefully
help alleviate their concerns.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the current elevator would be a part of the ADA access to the overall Church. Mr. Hanson responded the current site met ADA requirements and the intent
was to make ADA compliance better; he added a new elevator would not be included until the Rectory phase of construction.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor to clarify that the historically significant block that was the site would still be appropriate given the proposed modernistic connection. Planner Bristor
responded the distinguishable features of the connection meet the requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards. She noted it was more important that the connection between the
Rectory and Church is distinguishable as there had not historically been a connection between the two buildings. Mr. Banziger added that if the brick had been used it would be difficult
to decide which structure to model the connection after. Planner Bristor cited the design of the Methodist Church as an example of an addition to a historic church being very different
in style from the original.
Mr. Rea stated this proposal was a tough one for him, he understood the approach the applicant was taking, but he was uncertain he could get past the demolition of the Convent as proposed.
He noted it looked like a historic building would be lost to a church addition that could be situated elsewhere; he thought it seemed convenient to tear down the historic structure.
He stated the structure on the site was not a public threat to the community as it could be made safe. He stated there was still a viable economic useful life for the structure and
he was concerned that Staff was supportive of the demolition because the applicant had “investigated other methods”. He noted the building was deemed safe when it was built though the
codes had changed; he suggested retrofitting and restructuring could still be done. He stated it irritated him to see asbestos as the primary reason for demolition as the asbestos would
need to be dealt with at the time of demolition. He stated he thought it would be selfish to take the structure away from the community; he did not think he would be able to get past
the loss of the Convent building. He stated he would likely apologetically deny the proposal.
Mr. Wall stated he shared some of Mr. Rea’s concerns though he liked the overall proposal. He stated he appreciated the assessment of the historic criteria by the applicant and understood
some of the site constraints. He stated some of the modernistic elements did not seem appropriate and his concerns echoed Mr. Rea’s with regard to the loss of the Convent building.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with almost everything Mr. Rea had stated regarding the disappointing loss of the Convent building though he understood that the structure was not a museum.
He stated the Church addition design had a tremendous amount of sensitivity to the significant structure, which is the most important structure on the site. He stated he agreed with
Staff that the connection between the Rectory and Church should be transparent and differentiated from the original construction. He stated he understood the need to sacrifice something
on the site and added that he would reluctantly (due to the loss of the building) vote in favor of the proposal to promote progress.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he was taken aback to begin with but had decided the DRB’s jurisdiction was the design, not historic preservation. He stated he would hate to see a
really good old building be demolished when things could be fixed but he would not address the historic preservation issues but rather comment on the proposal’s design. He stated he
saw the modern looking entry and realized it would be a hard decision to locate a departure point for the new connection and the new addition. He stated the applicant had made a decision
that appeared to fine; he liked the glass/aluminum connection but he got confused where the addition on the Church would be evident from the original Church. He noted he understood
the exercises and hard decisions that had to be made with the project and he was supportive of the proposal. He suggested that preservation of the Convent could have been a possibility
and it could have been remodeled on the inside. He suggested checking in Wibeaux, MT to match that particular type of brick.
Chairperson Livingston listed some historic structures that had recently been demolished or approved for demolition. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and he knew that the expansion
did not have to be as large as proposed but the lot was in a precarious place. He noted he had vigorously argued over the loss of historic structures in the past but was not bothered
by the proposal as submitted; he added he thought it would be in the community’s best interest to provide additional seating and size so the church community stays downtown. He suggested
he would like to see the Church take up the entire lot. He stated he had no problem with the proposed addition and thought the idea of matching the original would be more critical as
time progressed. He stated the only troubling item was the coloring of the renderings for the connection in the back with the stark white metal framing; he suggested a creamy/champagne
color. He stated he thought the overall Church would be enhanced by the new construction and he liked what the applicant had done while many of the current problems have been solved.
He noted he did not want to start a precedent to allow the removal of historic buildings, but considered this site an exception to that rule.
Mr. Hanson responded that they took great pride in their involvement in the preservation of historic structures and many options had been investigated that had not been feasible due
to the constraints of the site. He noted the crucifixion design of the structure was historically appropriate and the interior of the Church would need to be maintained. He noted the
addition would not be inexpensive, but the money would need to be spent in the best possible way; he
noted the weakest of the three structures will be lost on the site.
Mr. Banziger clarified that “reluctant” had been too strong a word for him to use earlier and amended his previous statement to “sadly” voting in favor in approval of the proposal was
due only to the loss of the historic structure though he was supportive of the proposal in general.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to approve Holy Rosary Church Demo/Expansion SP/COA #Z-09016 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Rea voting in
opposition.
Mr. Rea noted the rendering of the rosette window for that elevation seemed larger and more substantial than those in the construction drawings. Mr. Hanson responded that the rendering
was not yet finalized. Mr. Rea stated he liked what the applicant had proposed.
ITEM 3. 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 comment forthcoming.
ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board