Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 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 Christopher Livingston Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Bill Rea Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Mark Hufstetler Randy Wall Walter Banziger Visitors Present Tim Dean ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010 Chairperson Livingston and Vice Chairperson Pentecost submitted written amendments to Recording Secretary Hastie. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of June 23, 2010 as The motion carried 6-0. amended. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REIVEW 1. Hannah House/ (Bristor) Phi Sigma Kappa Demo COA/ADR #Z-10129 410 West Garfield Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of the existing building on the site, fill of the demolition site to an even grade, and planting of the demolition site with grass. Tim Dean joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Memo noting the City Commission would have final approval of the proposal but would require recommendations from the DRB. She stated the structure was constructed in 1958 and was an example of the structures within the Overlay District included in the 1984 Historic Inventory. She stated Staff approached proposals for demolition by updating the Historic Inventory. She stated the significance of the structure is because of the architect of the building, the architectural style, and events with regard to the college’s development. She stated the Staff Report to the Commission went through the demolition review criteria in detail and added Staff did not find 1 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 the demolition in conformance with the Secretary of State Standards. She stated Mr. Dean had completed a structural analysis, but no cost estimates had been included. She stated the Commission must find the structure is a health or public safety threat which would exceed the value of the structure to allow the demolition. She stated the building had been vacant for a year or more and much of the physical deterioration had occurred over that time frame. She stated Staff believed the demolition has an adverse affect on the site recommended two forms of th mitigation including HABS/HAER documentation $5,000 for a mid-20 century report. Mr. Dean stated he built and usually doesn’t demolish, but he was asked to remove the structure by the property owner. He stated he had looked the site and structure over and it was an absolute mess. He stated he was told by the Building Department to abate the asbestos on the site and then to apply for the Certificate of Appropriateness. He stated the building was filled with black mold due to the negative grade coming into the building. He stated the electrical was all ungrounded and the plumbing didn’t meet plumbing code. He stated there was no second exit or egress window. He stated he was not a structural engineer, but thought the building was unsound. He stated he did not see the architectural value of the front entrance for the record. He stated he did not understand the $5,000 mitigation fee and asked if it was representative of other demolition in Bozeman; he added he thought it was very unfair and he thought it bordered on an exaction. Mr. Banziger asked if Mr. Dean knew the intent of the owners when they purchased the building. Mr. Dean responded the owners had instructed him to take a look at the building and he had indicated to them that it was valueless; they wanted him to turn the site into grass. Mr. Wall asked if the definitive evidence was ever requested from the applicant. Planner Bristor responded the general description of the physical condition of the site had been requested by the applicant; she added it may have to be a policy discussion with the Commission on how much material would be required to be submitted. Mr. Wall clarified that the rehabilitation costs had not been determined. Planner Bristor responded Mr. Wall was correct. Mr. Wall asked how Staff had determined the site was a risk to public health. Planner Bristor responded that site visits as well as the information provided by the applicant had been used in combination to determine the building was a risk to public safety. Mr. Dean stated he did not tell Staff the building was structurally unsound as he is not a structural engineer. Mr. Wall stated that prior to the update the structure was considered intrusive. Planner Bristor responded “intrusive” was an expired term. Mr. Hufstetler added that the term had only been used for the Bozeman inventory process and had not been professionally recognized; it pointed out the inadequacy of the 1984 survey even by 1984 historic preservation standards. He stated the term should not be included in the inventory at all. Planner Bristor added that Staff interpreted “intrusive” as noncontributing. Mr. Wall stated on page 2 of the Staff Report a “high historic significance” had been referenced and asked for clarification. Planner Bristor responded th it was not only the mid 20 century architectural style that was being removed in Bozeman, but the structure’s relationship to the college. Mr. Wall asked if something of significance had occurred the year the structure was built. Planner Bristor responded there was significance as 2 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 MSU had begun to grow and many of the fraternity and sorority structures were instituted in Bozeman during that timeframe. Mr. Wall asked how the $5,000 amount was determined as an appropriate litigation fee. Planner Bristor responded the HPAB had recommended that amount and the scoping study had indicated $100 per property is the cost of updating the inventory; she added Mr. Hufstetler had attended the meeting and would have more information. Mr. Hufstetler responded the HPAB had thought of a number of mitigating actions that involved documentation and was not an attempt to make money but rather to provide a better documentation base for the City of Bozeman. He stated the inventory indicated anything after World War II was non- contributing and the era of architecture going into the 50’s and 60’s was now being recognized as significant. He stated the $5,000 amount was seen by the HPAB as being minimal and would not cover the cost of documenting fraternities or sororities for that period but could be added to the coffers to begin addressing the planning process more. Mr. Rea asked if the June 2010 update was just for the property or the whole Conservation Overlay District. Planner Bristor responded it was just the property in question. Mr. Rea asked if there was a policy in place for demolition by neglect. Planner Bristor responded the Commission had reviewed a draft for demolition by neglect and had not moved forward on the proposal. Mr. Rea asked if there was any City policy in place to require maintenance of a City lot. Planner Bristor responded there were requirements for maintaining landscaping that would need to be met but no policy for maintenance. Recording Secretary Hastie added Code Enforcement in the Engineering Department mitigated weed removal upon complaint. Chairperson Livingston opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment portion of the item was closed. Mr. Hufstetler stated he appreciated Planner Bristor pointing out that the building had been vacant and added there were likely a couple of owners before the current owner that had not maintained the property; he thought properties such as this called out the need for a demolition by neglect ordinance. He stated it was unfortunate that the proposal was for demolition as the building was compatible with the streetscape and surrounding neighborhood. He stated it would be a loss to the streetscape but pointed out the inadequacies of the current historic inventory and especially to buildings just meeting the 50 year age of contribution. He stated the style was becoming surprisingly threatened in Bozeman over the years. He stated he was supportive of the recommended mitigation being part of the demolition process. Mr. Wall stated he had a number of concerns regarding how the DRB was reviewing this proposal. He stated it was strikingly similar to the elements contained in the Caldwell demolition project; the direction from the City Commission was to attach DRB decisions to City code and criteria. He stated the demolition criteria was described and addressed in the UDO; he thought the intent was to maintain the historic fabric of the community. He stated he believed the basis of decision whether or not it was financially worthwhile to keep the structure; definitive evidence including structural evidence and cost analysis were not included. He stated the Board did not have the ability to determine whether the health and safety issues were more costly to remediate than demolition of the structure. He stated because the information required in the 3 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 code is absent, he did not believe the DRB had enough information to make the decision. He stated the mitigation fee of $5,000 was his second concern; he did not see the nexus or make the connection though he saw the point of the HABS/HAER documentation. He stated he thought the code intent was promoting redevelopment of the site with a building where subsequent treatment was required. He stated the way architectural fabric survived was to require the HABS/HAER documentation and he thought the $5,000 was onerous and arbitrary on the applicant. He stated if the City wanted assurance that the lot would be developed would be to provide the next developer of the property with the HABS/HAER document and tell them to build the structure. Mr. Rea stated the $5,000 mitigation fee was outside of the purview of the DRB and suggested the Commission and Staff needed to sit down and prepare a demolition by neglect ordinance. He stated the historic inventory also needed updating; the Commission should fiscally and politically support updating the inventory. He stated, as for this building, he believed it should be torn down and sodden over. Mr. Banziger stated the City ordinances were inadequate for the DRB to make a decision on the proposal. He stated there was no foresight as to what would be done with the property in the future. He stated they had the intent to tear the structure down and rebuild in the future with a likely totally unique structure; he stated the City process was not protecting these structures as much as they should be. He stated he thought it was unfortunate, but inevitable that the building would be torn down; eventually it would fall down. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and with Mr. Dean’s comment F from his submittal narrative. He stated he agreed that the building needed to come down. Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the dilemma was that there was no redevelopment plan for the site. He stated someone could have bought the Story Mansion block and put in a subdivision. He stated mid-century (post World War II) architecture was under attack nationwide; the problem with the buildings was they were marketed by architects that wanted modern architecture as cheaper and the buildings were not well insulated or protected; they fell apart faster. He stated the building had a bad history of neglect and was not built the way it had been designed. He stated fraternity groups had to be one of the most neglectful owners when they are in a property. He stated he had seen the house descend over the last ten years. He stated the DRB could be assured that the demolition and reconstruction costs for sod would be less than the renovation of the structure. He stated he did not understand the $5,000 mitigation fee either, but agreed with Mr. Rea that it was outside of the purview of the DRB. He stated just walking around the building indicated there was something wrong with it due to the smell. He stated th there were likely better examples of mid 20 century architecture in Bozeman and the series of owners had been negligent. He stated he was supportive of demolition of the structure. He stated the HABS/HAER drawings were elaborate but he was not sure there was anything left to document on the interior. 4 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 Mr. Hufstetler added that every time someone in the Overlay District paid an application fee a portion of that fee went to a fund set aside toward updating the historic inventory and the $5,000 was to go toward those updates. Mr. Dean added a market value had been included and rehabilitation costs would have to have a defined use before they could be determined. Mr. Wall stated he disagreed as he could easily show the rehabilitation costs as exceeding the market value of the property; Mr. Dean could have done it and the lack of information made it impossible for the DRB to make findings based on the UDO. He stated the DRB needed to be provided with the information required in the UDO. Mr. Hufstetler responded that perhaps there were issues with the UDO that need to be addressed and changed; two structural estimates for the same site could be vastly different. Mr. Wall suggested an expert should be sent to the site to provide the information and it was not the DRB’s job to dispute information provided by an expert; he reiterated he did not have enough information to make a decision. MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to support HABS/HAER documentation and removal of the requirement for a $5,000 mitigation fee. Mr. Rea asked if it would be advisable to change the documentation from level 2 to level 3 HABS/HAER documentation. Mr. Hufstetler stated he did not see the proposal as needing new architectural drawings because drawings of the original design exist. Mr. Wall stated the only requirement would be the photographs. Mr. Hufstetler suggested large format exterior elevation photographs along with the historic narrative would be sufficient; the level 2 would be appropriate. He stated he would still argue for the mitigation fee as it was precedent setting and was part of the mitigation process. Planner Bristor added that the Armory preliminary approval included a condition to contribute money to the historic inventory update fund. Chairperson Livingston stated if the mitigation fee was to be asked for on another project he would rather the requirement were established in the code like an impact or mitigation fee. Mr. Hufstetler stated someone could argue that HABS/HAER documentation was a burden as well and he would prefer the Board said nothing instead of opposing it. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the mitigation fee should be discussed at the Commission level and established in the UDO. Mr. Wall stated the DRB agreed the historic inventory needed updated. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to support HABS/HAER documentation and not to support the recommended $5,000 mitigation fee. Mr. Hufstetler suggested the Board offer support for just documentation. Mr. Wall suggested Mr. Hufstetler amend the motion. 5 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Hufstetler voting in opposition. FINAL MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to send no recommendation to the Commission as the requirements of the UDO were not met with regard to cost estimates for rehabilitation versus demolition not being submitted for review. Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Mr. Wall, but the DRB made subjective decisions all the time and he believed the cost of rehabilitation would obviously cost more than the proposed treatment of the site (sod). Chairperson Livingston stated the difference was that the application did not propose new construction on the site and was not consistent with the UDO requirements to warrant the cost evaluations. He stated the applicant could lie and propose a project that would never happen. Mr. Wall stated the Caldwell project had indicated demolition and reconstruction and the current proposal was not for the exact same thing. Mr. Banziger asked if making the point to Staff and the Commission would delay the proposal. Mr. Wall responded the project was already scheduled for their Commission hearing. Mr. Hufstetler stated he would scream if someone used a 28 year old piece of paper to use as due diligence for making the decision (referring to the outdated historic inventory). He stated it was no different than not being aware of circumstances for any other property; the owner should have investigated. The motion failed 1-5 with Vice Chairperson Pentecost, Mr. Rea, Mr. Hufstetler, Mr. Banziger, and Chairperson Livingston voting in opposition. FINAL MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for the demolition of the structure with a requirement for level 2 HABS/HAER documentation to the City Commission for Hannah House/ Phi Sigma Kappa Demo COA/ADR #Z- The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Wall voting in opposition. . 10129 ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF (Taylor) (Continued from 6/23/10) MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to open and continue the item to the next The motion carried 6-0. meeting of the DRB. ITEM 5.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 6.ADJOURNMENT 6 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010 There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 7 Design Review Board Minutes – July 14, 2010