Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003 NOTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith Hillary Hertler, Historic Preservation Planner Joseph Thomas Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Joanne Mannell Noel Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Carol Asleson Randy Carpenter Bill Hanson Visitors Present Matt Ekstrom Douglas Tisdell Alice Meister Mark Johnson David Bowers J.B. Bancroft Mark Headley ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2003 (Continued from 7/8/03.) Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 24, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the notes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. NOTES OF JULY 8, 2003 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the notes of July 8, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Public Library Milwaukee Train Depot Disassembly/Demolition COA/ADR #Z-03180 626 East Main Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the disassembly of the Milwaukee Railroad Depot, salvage of the exterior architectural features of the structure, palletize the veneer bricks for future reconstruction of the depot, demolish the remainder of the structure, and proceed with removal of site debris. Historic Preservation Planner Hillary Hertler presented the staff report, noting there were some amendments to the staff report the DRB received in packets. She dispersed copies of e-mails from Rich Noonan and the City Commission. She stated the mediation process between the City and the Missouri Headwaters Trust had begun. She noted Staff recommended delaying demolition for only four weeks so the library would not incur costs while the Missouri Headwaters Trust attempted to come up with preservation funds. She stated Staff recommended that a cross section of materials be stored as well as the veneer bricks. She added Staff would need working drawings to reconstruct the historical structure at a future time. Ms. Noel stated City code specified an historic structure demolition should be stayed for two years and asked how the Planners could justify a four week stay of demolition. Planner Hertler responded that City Commission would make the final decision with regard to the length. Ms. Noel added that the four week stay of demolition was against City Ordinance. Ms. Noel stated that, in her mind, the submittal was not complete. Planner Hertler responded that the City Commission approved the decontamination of the site which included the demolition of the Milwaukee Depot. Ms. Noel stated she was questioning the City’s procedures with regard to the depot. She added she found, throughout the packet materials, references to the historical value of the depot with regard to its preservation. Ms. Noel also noted the Preservation Advisory Board had left the preservation of the depot up to the Missouri Headwaters Trust. Planner Hertler responded the Preservation Advisory Board decided at its June meeting that palletizing the structure would be the best course of action. Ms. Noel stated that Planner Hertler’s employment position was a conflict of interest. Planner Hertler responded that her recommendation was included in the Staff Report and, as the Historic Preservation Planner, she was aware that the library had done extensive research to determine if there were methods to preserve the depot. Ms. Noel asked Planning Director Andy Epple why the two year period in the Ordinance was being foregone for a four week stay of demolition. Planning Director Epple responded there had been years of review and study specifically for the Library site and there would be more opportunities for comment at the City Commission hearing. He stated many people, with the welfare of the community in mind, had commented that the best care of the structure would be to clean and palletize the depot with the intent to resurrect it at a future date. He added that code requirements for the demolition of a historic structure had been met and the public was not being caught unaware. He added, if the community could come up with $500,000 to relocate the depot that would be great; however, to date, no one had acquired those funds. He noted Staff’s position was to dismantle the depot and preserve as much of it as possible. Mr. Headley stated there were three public meetings, well attended, held concerning the demolition of the depot. He added part of the public hearing process was collecting public comment and that had been done. Mr. Howe asked if the building was entirely veneer brick and if the cost was $200,000 to move it. Planner Hertler stated it was full brick, two bricks thick and the $200,000 would only cover the moving of the structure and not the repair or the foundation. Mr. Bowers stated the library board was considering its options when the DEQ contract took effect, so the library clean-up plan contained nothing about the Depot. He added DEQ standards saw the building as attracting vandals and trespassers and he stated DEQ had an obligation to protect workers public at the site. He reported there were 10% lead concentrations (by volume) and asbestos; however, neither the preservation nor the demolition of the Depot was in the clean-up contract with the DEQ. Mr. Hanson stated the responsibility of the DRB was to be sure the applicant was following City Code and not who would pay for the relocation, renovation, or demolition of the structure. He added it was possible to demolish a building listed on the National Historic Register, but the depot was not listed on it. Mr. Carpenter asked if anyone applied for a T-21 grant. Planner Epple stated the Grants Administrator had applied for a grant; however, it was specifically for trail improvements and the structure itself might not have been included in the application. Mr. Hanson asked, if the building were relocated, would there still be a hazardous waste issue due to the contaminated soil surrounding the building. Mr. Bowers responded that the DEQ looked at the depot structure as debris on site and the contamination of the soil as a separate issue. Chairperson Smith asked for the grant funding timeline. Planner Hertler stated CTEP funding would need to be acted upon immediately. She added that donations could be made by private individuals. Planning Director Epple added that CTEP had awarded grants to the City for projects four years ago, which had yet to be started and CTEP funds may be slated for elimination at the federal level. Planner Hertler stated her concern was that someone would completely destroy what little was left of the Depot. Ms. Asleson asked for reiteration of the options facing the Depot. Mr. Hedley stated it was $5,000 to demolish the building and take it to the dump, $20,000 to carefully dismantle and palletize the materials, and he stated he was unsure how much it would cost to decontaminate the structure and the ground and move the depot. He added that the four walls standing in the new library would be a bastardization of historic preservation due to the small amount of original materials that would be salvaged. He stated he thought the best option was to spend the $20,000, palletize the materials, and possibly preserve the building. Chairperson Smith asked, since the Library was getting money through grants and tax dollars, would there be grant restrictions on the destruction of historic structures. Mr. Hanson stated the whole issue was whether the benefits of saving the building outweighed the benefits of having a new library. He stated the community would benefit more from the library than staying a hazardous waste clean-up. He stated disassembly and palletization, with relocation of the structure in another, more appropriate area, would be the best possible course of action. Mr. Carpenter stated Bozeman had done a good job in preservation, but the depot had caused the community a real heartburn and he had heard very little about the proposed demolition. He added he questioned the strategy of finding funding and stalling a project. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with preservation of historic structures, but the construction of a new library should not be delayed when funds are not readily available for the relocation of the depot. She stated she agreed with Staff’s recommendations. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with Staff’s recommendations and with his fellow DRB members’ comments. He added he was in favor of waiting as many weeks as City Commission allowed determining if funds might become available. Ms. Noel stated the DRB should discuss the project with regard to the code and not with regard to money. She then read her 2 ½ minute prepared statement. Chairperson Smith stated that, at the informal review, she was under the impression that the depot would be a part of the new library. She added she would prefer the building be preserved and incorporated into the library and she definitely did not want to see the structure in the landfill. She stated she would like to see time allowed for funding to be found, but thought four or six weeks would not be enough. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to recommend approval of the Bozeman Public Library Milwaukee Train Depot Disassembly/Demolition COA/ADR #Z-03180 to the City Commission with Staff recommendations. The motion carried 4 – 2 with Mr. Howe, Ms. Asleson, Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Hanson voting “for” and Chairperson Smith and Ms. Mannell Noel voting “against”. B. Unified Development Ordinance Discussion #Z-02131 (Saunders/Sanford) * A Zone Code Text Amendment, a Zone Map Amendment, and a Subdivision Regulation Amendment initiated by the City of Bozeman to unify the development ordinances into one document and an update to the Design Objectives Plan chapter for the North 19th Avenue Entryway Corridor to reflect changes from the existing text of the PUD Chapter, 18.54, and remove inconsistent guidelines. Associate Planner Chris Saunders presented a brief description of the sections being modified with the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He distributed additional materials which more specifically illustrated the ordinances affected with the adoption of the UDO. He stated the UDO gave additional flexibility with regard to PUD’s, the Historic Mixed Use District (HMU), combines R-1, R-2, and R-2-A zones into a single zoning district with a minimum standard, the RMH would not be turned into an overlay district, and in the site plan review process so DRB’s role would be as an advisory body to the City Commission or to the Planning Director, as each case called for. He added the landscaping section of the code had been revised, still with points and groupings required, but simplified, and fence height requirements had been relaxed as many people were unaware of fence height restrictions. He stated Staff had restructured the point requirements with PUD’s for parkland dedication and open space, and updated the Design Objectives Plan with regard to the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Entryway Corridor. Chairperson Smith asked if subdivision lighting would be required anymore. Planner Saunders stated some of the local streets were too well lighted; therefore, the requirements for uniformity on local streets may be relaxed. Ms. Noel asked if other communities using the UDO method were consulted in the initial stages of development. Planner Saunders stated there were communities in Montana and out of the state that were consulted before the decision was made to propose a UDO. He added that an applicant would often get a variance from the Zoning Ordinance and forget to get a variance from the Subdivision Regulations. The adoption of the UDO would alleviate that complication. Mr. Carpenter asked if the UDO included the changes coming out of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan (2020 Plan). Planner Saunders stated these changes were due to the 2020 Plan; however, three previous amendments to the regulations dealt with other 2020 Plan requirements. Mr. Hanson stated he thought the UDO would work better than the two separate documents due to the issues that used to be in conflict. Chairperson Smith asked if the submittals would be more complete upon adoption of the UDO. Mr. Hanson stated it would be more consistent and user friendly. Planner Saunders stated there would be two power point presentations at the Willson School in the Schoolboard Room at noon and 7:00 p.m. on July 23, 2003. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:46 p.m. _____________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board