HomeMy WebLinkAbout100709 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Wall called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:34 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
Elissa Zavora Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Randy Wall Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Mark Hufstetler
Walter Banziger
Bill Rea
Visitors Present
Thomas Bitnar
Chris Pope
Bob Risk
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
MOTION: Ms. Zavora moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of September 10, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Osborne Block Demolition COA/ADR #Z-09194 (Bristor)
229-233 East Main Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of a contributing structure within the Main Street Historic District.
Chris Pope and Thomas Bitnar joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor introduced Bob Risk, Chief Building Official. She presented the Staff Report noting she would be somewhat
brief with her presentation as Staff’s review of the criteria was very detailed. She noted the applicant was requesting the demolition of the existing building historically known as
the Osborne Block building (Starky’s and Rocky Mountain Toy Co.). She noted the building was a contributing structure within the Main Street Historic District. She noted the building
was constructed in 1882 and the largest commercial building left on Main Street from the 1880’s; which was the building boom that happened to the community with the arrival of the railroad.
She stated the structure was built by S.H. Osborne. She noted four buildings were lost in the March explosion, three of which were also contributing to the Main Street Historic District;
she
added the removal of contributing buildings can eventually cause a threat to the district nomination and listing. She stated the applicable sections of the Unified Development Ordinance
had been laid out in the Staff Report. She stated new construction had not been included with the application for demolition. She stated the applicant had invested his money in stabilization
of the building for the purpose of public safety and included a shoring wall and a blocked sidewalk in front of the structure. She noted Staff was supportive of the demolition of the
shared wall between the structure and the Legion building due to the amount of damage the wall had incurred in the explosion. She noted Staff had recommended the complete demolition
be stayed for a period of three months to allow for further investigation of alternatives to demolition and of funding avenues available for rehabilitation. She stated she could go
through the criteria in detail if the DRB thought it was necessary.
Mr. Rea asked, if in terms of inventory, what was involved in finding out the balance of contributing to non-contributing structures. Planner Bristor responded she was in the process
of updating the list of properties as inventoried in 1984 with 49 contributing properties and 19 non-contributing properties; she noted 1870-1937 was the date range of significance for
the district. 1937 was selected as it was 50 years since the last inventory had been completed. The update through a windshield survey would be Planning Staff recognizing non-contributing
structures that had been modified to contributing structures (she cited the Golden Rule Building) or vice versa. She stated her suggestion was to apply for a 4,000 grant to update the
Main Street Historic District Inventory so that a new clean slate could be started from. Mr. Rea asked the advantage of being recognized as a district was the grants available. Planner
Bristor responded the advantage was the qualification for federal tax credits which was only available to significant income producing structures. She added that eventually the TIF
district would be able to provide grants for downtown business owners.
Mr. Hufstetler commended Staff on their detailed and comprehensive pile of PDF files.
Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked the result of the review of the DRC. Planner Bristor responded two additional conditions of approval had emerged from the Engineering and Water/Sewer
departments; she noted they were pretty standard conditions. Mr. Risk added the conditions were for the full demolition and not just for the west wall demolition. Planner Bristor responded
Staff was fine with the west wall being demolished as a true emergency issue. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if the issue at hand was also that the west wall was holding up construction
of the new American Legion building. Planner Bristor responded Mr. Wall was correct.
Chris Pope, 1508 South Willson Avenue, stated his family owned the building and he was not the owner of record, he was representing his mother. He introduced Thomas Bitnar, 502 South
Grand Avenue. He stated he wanted to clarify what information was relevant to how the DRB needed to review the project. Planner Bristor responded the DRB typically looks at the design
of a new building but in this case, the DRB is charged to make specific comments to the appropriateness of the demolition. Mr. Pope thanked the Board and noted that he was here with
a heavy heart and stated he was a building owner. He stated he was not in a proactive
prescriptive mode, rather a reactive mode. He stated the structure seemed beyond repair from a safety and monetary point of view. He stated they had been working for seven months and
have spent more than $100,000 on securing the building and putting together a comprehensive plan to patch the building together for the next 50 years. He noted the sad conclusion, based
on the available data that the fundamental structural integrity of the building had been severely compromised and would not be able to repair the building. He stated the bid is 1.7
million dollars to rehab the building, not including the rest of the necessary improvements. He stated he had continuously had tenants in the building and since the time of the explosion,
he had hired Nishkian Monks and Thomas Bitnar. He stated they had attempted to work very hard on keeping the structure standing, but the economics of the structure itself was appraised
at roughly 1.5 million dollars (plus a land value of approximately $300,000) and the total cost would be nearly 2 million dollars. He stated Ty at Nishkian Monks had explained that
everything had been done that could be done to put the building back together and the seismic code would not be even remotely addressed in the plan. He stated he had begun thinking
that after having spent a significant amount of money; he would have to scramble to find the funding which would be difficult as building owners instead of developers. He noted the
seismic aspect of the structure could not be included in a safe way and he would not be comfortable putting tenants into a structure that could be affected by strong winds or seismic
activity. He stated the historic nature of the building did not require seismic requirements be met; he stated it was not in his immediate interest to demolish the west wall of the
structure, but he had been asked to request the demolition by the Legion so that their approved Site Plan was not held up. He stated from an economic and safety point of view, the building
would not even have the most minor seismic stability. He stated the building could be pinned back together, but it would cost him roughly 2 million dollars and noted Ty Monks had mentioned
that in the event of seismic activity the building would not remain stable. He stated half of the roof would be replaced, the electric and plumbing would be removed, metal plates would
be included on the front of the building to prevent it from falling on Main Street. He stated his building designed with Mr. Bitnar and Mr. Monk’s help would need to be completely redesigned
and he couldn’t sign feel comfortable signing a long term lease under those unsafe conditions. He stated Mr. Bitnar was chomping at the bit to design a new structure for the downtown
area. Mr. Bitnar presented color renderings of a possible new design of the building which likely reflects how it looked in 1880. Mr. Pope noted there was substantial concern that
the building would not satisfy Life Safety Standards. He noted the façade was of brick and the layers had separated (due to the explosion) so much that the connecting bricks broke in
half; he noted it was made of adobe and did not have much integrity. He noted that if there was the ability to pin the façade back together while seismic requirements were met, the
costs would be close to that of construction of a new structure. He stated he would be cooperative with City Staff with regard to finding a historical engineer to see if the front façade
could be saved and he would collaborate with whatever the Commission decided.
Mr. Bitnar stated he had seen the Nishkian Monks plan and had noted the steel included in the plan for shoring up the structure would affect the historic integrity of the interior and
cause difficulty in renting the property. He stated the aesthetic appearance of the structure would
suffer and framing the interior would increase the cost of the renovations. He stated he thought he could do better with the removal of the structure and new reconstruction. He stated
for the sake of the future there should be quality facades on Main Street and in the alley. He stated the owner of the building almost cried at the results of the studies and a stimulus
package or monetary help in some other manner could help the applicant accomplish their goals.
Mr. Risk stated that for the most part, he agreed with Mr. Pope’s comments, but with historical buildings the seismic requirements existed, but were minimal. He stated the applicant
would end up with a building comparable in safety to the other buildings on Main Street. He stated the question was how practical it would be to throw 2 million dollars into a building
that would be no safer than what existed. He stated that immediately after the explosion he had inspected the structure and had documented the damage at that time. He stated he had
noticed significant changes during a site visit to the property at the end of August and the damages were increasing. He stated the outer layer of brick was coming loose and had worked
loose in a way that caused fractures that were gradually prying the building apart. He suggested the facia could be repaired and steel plates could be included but would not be a guarantee
that the building would remain unharmed. He stated he agreed that reconstruction would be more practical and noted anything could be repaired it would just be a matter of how much money
the owner would like to spend on it, he added that it was not his charge to make such a recommendation. Planner Bristor asked if the apartments upstairs in the structure had been up
to code prior to the explosion and asked if the end product of renovation would actually exceed the previous building’s level of code standards. Mr. Risk responded Planner Bristor was
correct and added that everything new would need to conform to current code including egress for upstairs apartments. Mr. Bitnar stated he had spoken with the Building Department in
the past regarding the interior stairs and they had indicated the stairs would likely need to be relocated to add a landing. Mr. Risk mentioned that the historic building code could
likely make exceptions to that.
Mr. Pope added that their approach had been to build and be proactive toward the goal of safety; he stated it was not about building code upgrades, but about seismic requirements.
Mr. Rea asked Mr. Risk the location of the shoring wall. Mr. Risk explained it was 5 feet from the west all along the whole length from Main Street to the alley. Mr. Rea asked if the
common wall between the Legion and this building was located on the property line. Mr. Pope responded the wall was split on the property line.
Mr. Hufstetler asked when the current seismic code had been enacted. Mr. Risk responded the current code had been adopted in 2007 and was the 2006 IBC which includes seismic code regulations;
he added the building code book from 1937 included handwritten notes taped inside the document and that was as far back as he could say with certainty. Mr. Hufstetler asked which buildings
in town had been retrofitted to meet seismic requirements. Planner Bristor responded the Williams Clothier building had been significantly rehabilitated in the mid 1990’s but the seismic
requirements had changed significantly since that time. Mr. Hufstetler stated the applicant had been willing to discuss options for saving the façade and asked Mr. Pope if that
willingness was congruent with Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Pope responded that outside of getting his bank off his radar due to his mortgage, his financing was dependent on how
much had been invested in the mortgage; he noted inside the agreement to demolish the structure, he would allow any entity to be involved that wanted to participate. He stated he would
say yes to the 90 stay on the demolition as suggested by Staff and professionals would be sought. He stated he needed something in writing that in a reasonable time (12/31/09) there
would be an explicit decision made with regard to the property. He stated the big problem for him being unaware of what and when a decision would be made; he added the rest of the world
had not had the opportunity to study the pertinent data. He stated he did not want to see the building left as it is for 3 ½ months. Mr. Hufstetler asked if allowance of the demolition
of the building in 2010 would help Mr. Pope decide whether or not the structure would be demolished. Mr. Pope responded the uncertainty would throttle him financially. Mr. Hufstetler
stated he’s becoming more concerned about the survival of the building’s east wall and his concern was that the building to the east was older; he asked if there was a possibility of
keeping the east wall. Mr. Pope responded that his sense was that the east wall should remain; he noted in keeping the wall they would take another hit financially and hopefully the
wall could be used in anther context. Mr. Bitnar concurred. Mr. Risk added that it had been his understanding all along that the east wall would be salvaged.
Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of three months with nothing going on at the site was not what the applicant was seeking. Planner Bristor responded Ms. Zavora was correct. Ms. Zavora
asked if the three month stay was to allow time to seek funding. Planner Bristor responded Ms. Zavora was correct and noted Mr. Risk and Mr. Pope’s concerns about a six month stay.
Ms. Zavora asked if Mr. Pope was seeking more immediate allowance for demolition. Mr. Pope responded he would prefer to go to City Commission on Monday as scheduled and if conditions
were placed on the proposal that clearly laid out a specific timeline he would be more definitive instead of in limbo. Planner Bristor responded that the condition read that no demolition
would occur on the site, but if demolition were approved, conditions of approval would be included. She clarified that the intent of the code for demolition was the City’s way of guaranteeing
that nothing happened without City approval. She added that if the City Commission agreed to the three month stay, at the end of three months, the application would be picked up where
it was left off; if the approval included approval of demolition after three months, no further review would be necessary. She noted the Commission could choose to delay the proposal
as a whole. Mr. Pope added that he had attempted to find rational and reasonable decisions to provide for things to happen in a reasonable amount of time. He stated he would not attempt
to formulate a fix and a path and if it was turned into a study by the community, and murky and difficult decision point might be forthcoming and he was not supportive of that method.
He stated he did not think he had the energy and horsepower to go through the investigation he had gone through recently again. Ms. Zavora asked if it was his intention to sell the
building. Mr. Pope responded that he did not want to make that threat, but he was not confident that he was the person to do the job. Mr. Bitnar stated a preliminary study had been
completed for new construction and had included square footage estimates; he added he knew they were ready for new construction and there would have to be apartments included in the
proposal.
Mr. Banziger asked Planner Bristor how the west wall removal fit into a stay on the demolition permit. Planner Bristor responded the west wall would be approved for demolition, but
there would be a stay on any future/other demolition of the site. Mr. Banziger asked if gutting the entire building behind the façade was being considered. Mr. Pope responded he was
intending to keep the façade. Mr. Banziger asked if Mr. Pope’s estimates for restoration included the façade work. Mr. Pope responded the demolition itself would cost roughly $80,000-$250,000
(based on recent bids) and the façade renovation had not received estimates. Mr. Risk added the State should be contacted in case they would have concerns with the façade remaining
against a State jurisdictional roadway (Main Street). Mr. Banziger asked the cost for rebuilding in that location. Mr. Pope responded the cost had been estimated by the square foot
costs and a rough estimate would be 2.3 – 2.5 million dollars to rebuild with bare bones items. Mr. Bitnar noted the brick and mortar of the building was not as good as new construction.
Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant had considered current Historic Preservation stimulus grants. Mr. Pope responded the grant had been discussed, but he did not foresee the money
as being a problem; he noted his primary concern was the seismic code and structural integrity. Planner Bristor asked for clarification of the demolition bid. Mr. Pope responded the
bid had not been included in his application materials as the bid had only occurred during the last week; he noted demolition and preconstruction preparation had not been included in
his estimate for new construction.
Ms. Zavora asked if the demolition permit were issued, would Mr. Pope still be eligible for grants. Planner Bristor responded the description of the demolition could be emergent in
nature and preservation money may be available for just a front façade renovation, though she couldn’t say for certain and the Commission action would need to be clearly described in
the grant application. Mr. Pope stated that if on the 31st of December, he was no longer sitting in front of the Board, the agreement would need to be as clearly stated and as nicely
put together as possible as an agreement between the City and the building owner.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were some sort of offer to purchase the building after demolition what would happen to the site. Planner Bristor responded the conditions linked to the
approval of the demolition would still be held to the new property owner. Mr. Pope responded he would be at the table for the project for at least the three month/120 days stay period
or until the proposal was nailed down.
Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked why asbestos testing or abatement had been excluded. Mr. Pope responded there was no asbestos evident in the structure and he had written confirmation
of that. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated that Chapter 9 of the Economics of Historic Preservation that had been included in their packets explained that a high quality new structure
would likely cost more than rehabilitation of a historic structure and asked Mr. Pope if he thought he would build a high quality structure. Mr. Pope responded there was only an estimate.
Mr. Risk added that he thought the estimate could be close to the real costs. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if it was a fair statement to assume it would be a simple project as just
a box. Mr. Pope responded he thought it was.
Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated he had reviewed everything that was sent to him and he asked a lot of questions that had been answered by Planner Bristor and Mr. Risk. He stated he
thought there were two issues before the Board; does the building stay and be renovated or does it get demolished. He stated he thought the purpose of the DRB was to look at the proposal
from an aesthetics point of view; could retrofitting be accomplished, it would not be just the façade. He stated he had been in plenty of old buildings with a lot of metal in them and
his suggestion would be to recommend on whether or not the building should stay or if they were alright with the building being demolished.
Mr. Banziger stated it was a tough call and he certainly understood the applicant’s position as he would want definition of what the demolition permit would mean. He stated he was always
looking at trying to save a historic building and he thought the applicant had a good team. He noted the applicant had been very cooperative and pushing a full retrofit for the structure
would cost a substantial amount of money that he did not think a private citizen should be put in that position.
Ms. Zavora stated she saw the applicant was seeking to do the right thing and spent seven months in an effort to investigate methods of saving the building. She stated she could respect
the applicant’s desire to bring the structure into seismic compliance and she thought that was commendable. She stated she was supportive of the request for demolition.
Mr. Hufstetler stated that in his mind, this is not just another contributing building, but one of the oldest on Main Street and the largest from that era. He noted to his mind it was
one of the most important buildings on Main Street; he noted nothing of that heritage would be left in Bozeman if demolition occurred. He stated he was extremely concerned that the
seismic issue was being used as a vehicle for demolition; if the seismic rule was enforced ethically, every historic building in town would need to be demolished. He suggested setting
the precedent would cause issues with future Planning processes. He stated he was concerned with the timeline with which the project was being reviewed and the decision was being pushed
to cause a reactive as opposed to proactive situation. He suggested it was not an either or situation but instead a situation where as much of the building as possible should be saved.
He stated the town’s legacy would be preserved with the preservation of the structure; he added that as a pragmatist, he would like to see the parts of the buildings that identify with
the town “legacy” be maintained as a heritage.
Mr. Rea stated that Building code did not protect a building, but the lives and safety of the occupants in the building. The building had performed well in the guise of the code; he
noted the building was wildly out of compliance and had still performed. He stated the Uniform Building Code had loosened some of the restrictions and the level of concern in Mr. Pope’s
voice caused him to explain that building code was not written in stone. He stated the gas company’s approach to the community following the explosion was not good and the way the proposal
was handled would be as important to the community as the building environment. He suggested the most minimal process should be sought for the applicant though the risk would be there
for the
City. He asked if in 1882 the structure was a type of vanilla box. Mr. Hufstetler responded it was a kind of simple Italianate architectural style, but was exceptional in the community
at the time. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall concurred that the importance of the building’s architecture in contrast of the time it was built should be recognized. Mr. Rea commended Mr.
Pope on his work and his choice of Nishkian Monks spoke not only to their credibility, but his. He stated he was struggling with the proposal and he visited the site. He suggested
minimal process and the front façade and east wall should be preserved. He suggested a specific date would be critical and he did not see how a private land owner could survive the
wait if one were not specified.
Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated it was really helpful having the depth of expertise on the Board and it had come to bear tonight. He stated he was open and willing to help the applicant
as much as possible, but he thought equal importance should be to respect the aesthetics of the City of Bozeman. He stated he had heard a meet in the middle proposal to retain the façade
and the east wall and allow the demolition of the west wall. He suggested being explicit and formulating a motion as such. He suggested minimum retention for the façade and the east
wall and three month stay to allow investigation of saving as much as possible. Mr. Hufstetler stated Chairperson Pro Tem Wall was right on and suggested crafting language to that effect;
he suggested asking for at least reconstruction of the building if demo was approved. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall added that the more of the building that was retained would help to acquire
the necessary grants and the demolition would negate the opportunity for those grants, especially if every effort were not made to preserve the façade.
Mr. Banziger asked if there were interior elements of the structure that could be saved. Mr. Pope responded there were some items that could be salvaged. Mr. Hufstetler added the tin
roofing and interior stairway could be salvaged, but many of the other materials do not merit salvage attempts.
Mr. Banziger suggested the stay on the demolition permit should not be allowed for longer than three months. Mr. Pope suggested a proposal could be formulated within the 120 day stay
period and the stay would be satisfied. Mr. Banziger stated if all the conditions had been met, the City could not hold the project up, but the applicant could still request an extension
to explore alternatives.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward Staff’s first recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the
demolition of the west wall. The motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Chairperson Pro Tem Wall moved, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with Staff condition
#1 to allow a demolition permit to be issued on October 12, 2009 with a 120 day stay, #2 demo permit be conditional on the every effort must be made to retain the façade and east wall,
that recommendations and studies from historical experts be presented to the City with
regard to salvaging interior components. No second was forthcoming, the motion died.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with Staff’s
second recommendation to be modified to read the City Commission grant a demo permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after Commission action, that the demo will apply to
all elements of the building except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable
to retain the south façade, Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demo permit; any demolition be completed in accordance with Staff’s recommended conditions.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to amend the conditions to include that if concurrence amongst the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants that all conditions
of the demolition permit have been met the demo permit can be granted prior to the 120 days.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with
Staff’s second recommendation to be modified to read the City Commission grant a demo permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after Commission action, that the demo will
apply to all elements of the building except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable
to retain the south façade, Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demo permit; any demolition be completed in accordance with Staff’s recommended conditions; and that if
concurrence amongst the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demo permit can be granted prior to the 120 days.
The motion carried 5-0.
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 comment forthcoming.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
________________________________
Randy Wall, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board