HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-10 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the Stiff Professional Building –
25 March 2010
Members Present: Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Commissioner Carson Taylor
(commission liaison), Mark Hufstetler (chair), Crystal Alegria, Richard Brown, Lora
Dalton, Lesley M. Gilmore, Dale Martin, Boone Nolte, & Ryan Olson - a quorum was
established.
Note: The meeting was preceded by an informal gathering with architect
and educator John DeHaas, as part of the board’s continuing educational
sessions.
Guests: Bruce Brown, Potential Applicant to BHPAB
I.Call to Order at 7:10pm
II.Minutes from the February meeting were unanimously approved.
III.Public Comment: There was no public comment.
IV.Ex Parte Communication: There was no ex parte communication to
disclose.
V.Introduction of Invited Guests: Bruce Brown. See New Members
below.
VI.Project Review and Recommendations to Staff: No project reviews
scheduled at this time.
VII.Chair’s Report – MH, Chair
A.Montana Preservation Alliance (MPA)’s Most Endangered List
Announcement Program:
1.MPA is scheduling it for presentation (official announcement of the
Endangered List) at the Story Mansion on May 22, 2010, for 50-75
attendees.
2.MPA has a guest list and needs logistical help; this will probably be
coordinated by CK and MH.
3.Motion & vote: LMG moved that we co-sponsor MPA’s announcement
event at the Story Mansion. LD seconded the motion. Approval was
unanimous.
BHPAB 2010 March 25 - Page 1 of 4
B.Historic preservation issues surfacing at Design Review Board (DRB)
meetings:
1.The demolition of a south side historic house that contributes to the
historic district.
a)BHPAB discussed whether BHPAB review of demolitions of
contributing building should be a matter of course, given its direct
correlation to preservation.
b)CK noted that she was the planner for this project, and relayed
that the City code calls for review by DRB and the City
Commission, with no mention of the BHPAB.
c)MH stated that DRB is advisory too, the same capacity to the
commission as BHPAB.
d)BHPAB asked what benefit our review would have. Concern was
expressed about being viewed as obstructionists. LMG and RB
opined that such review provided BHPAB an opportunity to
provide valuable information, insights, and to help the candidate
explore options.
e)CK indicated that the Planning Director can request project
review by anyone, and that the BHPAB could ask the Planning
Director to ask for our board review.
f)Motion: LD moved that the BHPAB request that the planning staff
include BHPAB in the review process whenever a contributing – or
potentially contributing – building is scheduled for demolition. RB
seconded.
g)Discussion:
i)RB would like to see the BHPAB make live presentations of
such reviews to the City Commission.
ii)CT:
(a)BHPAB’s discussions are in the Commission’s packets.
The Commission generally likes to see the minutes.
(b)The real questions are the condition of the building and
the historical impact of demolition.
(c)BHPAB’s opinions might not be best expressed in the
minutes. Is there a process that can be created to deal
with the salient issues (in b above)?
iii)MH: DRB sends their recommendations to the City
Commission the same written way.
iv)The burden of proof should be placed on the applicant.
v)Early input is needed on the history and importance of each
building considered for demolition.
vi)It was agreed that trying to numerically quantify the
importance of a building was problematic.
vii)LMG asked that we review the definition of demolition, and
how this deliberation affects the design of insensitive
additions, which could have as negative an impact as full
demolition.
viii)RO: This issue of how we present our findings to the City
Commission should be referred to the Policy & Planning
Committee.
BHPAB 2010 March 25 - Page 2 of 4
ix)RB: BHPAB needs to be used as an educational body to serve
the building owner – to help tell the history and present
options – and to provide the Commission with sufficient &
appropriate information to allow them to make an informed
decision.
h)Vote: Two opposed (LMG and RB); five in favor.
2.MH would like the Board to think about educating new BHPAB
members.
3.MH noted that the installation of the highway signs (MDT) is purported
to be imminent.
4.MH would like the Board to talk about commercial signs, in
preparation for the new sign ordinance being considered by the
Commission.
a)MH and RB volunteered to create a PowerPoint about historic
signs in Bozeman.
b)DM relayed that Jack Davis is the historic post card guy at all the
antique fairs. The cards tell much of the history of Bozeman.
VIII.Planning and Policy (P & P) Subcommittee:
A.Chair’s report – RB presented.
1.Historic sign ordinance broached – needs more discussion.
a)RO asked if the committee was thinking of taking with some of
the store sign owners.
b)CK: there have been lists of historic signs, but no ordinance to
protect or accommodate them.
c)MH: the Society of Commercial Archeology should be of guidance.
d)CT: Not sure of the schedule and timing for Commission’s
attention; it is not first on their list.
e)CK said that Vicky Hassler is the city’s point person on the city’s
sign ordinance. P&P should talk with her; she could incorporate
our issues.
2.Demolition by Neglect Ordinance has been put aside due to previous
commissions’ dismissal.
a)The definition is key, and could most easily be expressed by: “if
weather is getting into the building.”
3.Next meeting: Tuesday, April 6 at 6:30 pm. Location: Richard
Brown’s house.
IX.Education and Outreach (E & O) Subcommittee:
A.Chair’s report – CK presented in Jane Klockman’s absence:
1.Working through Preservation 365.
2.Graffiti Clean-Up day at railroad depot:
a)MT Rail Link’s indemnification clauses are onerous, so CK is
negotiating with them.
b)On May 22? The date ties in well with MPA endangered list
announcements at Story Mansion.
3.Depot Tour: CK thought it might be possible for BHPAB to tour the
building. She’ll see what see can put together.
4.Heritage Trail
BHPAB 2010 March 25 - Page 3 of 4
a)Jane Klockman’s working along at a pretty good pace.
b)She’s looking for suggestions of people to interview.
c)She’s fairly encouraged that the PBS project will work.
5.Next meeting: Thursday, April 15 at 6:30 pm. Location: Jane
Klockman’s house.
X.BHPAB new members:
A.New applicant – Paul Reichert: It was agreed to invite him to attend a
meeting, prior to approval of his application.
B.Bruce Brown:
1.Bruce explained that he’s a lawyer who moved to Bozeman last year
after several years working in Tokyo. He came to Bozeman because
he likes it and has family here.
2.Bruce fell in love with, then bought the King Mansion (between the
Story Mansion and Jane Klockman’s house, on Willson).
3.Bruce is considering applying for a seat on the board.
4.Bruce asked to know more about the Board’s mission and mandate.
MH explained the Board’s charter and the work of the two
committees. He offered to provide more information over coffee.
C.Review of member categories:
1.LD requested an update of who represents which category.
2.CK will correct the numbers, and correlate with Aimee’s records.
3.About half the board will renew on June 30.
4.CK will send the board an email list of members and their categories,
and where they could be reallocated.
XI.Staff Report:
A.Grant applications: No word yet.
B.CK recommended board members consider options for the MPA Industrial
Grants.
1.CK recommended that the owner of Misco Mill, on North Wallace,
apply.
2.MT Rail Link is not interested in the grant.
3.LMG to see if Greater Yellowstone Commission might be interested in
the grant for their work at the Gallatin Valley Seed Company building.
XII.Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
END OF MINUTES
Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore
BHPAB 2010 March 25 - Page 4 of 4