HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-10 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Minutes – September 21, 2010
Members in attendance: Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Lora Dalton, Bruce
Brown, Crystal Alegria, Dale Martin, Boone Nolte, Ryan Olson, Paul
Reichert, Anne Sherwood (Secretary), Courtney Kramer (City Liaison),
Alyson Bristor (Planner). Quorum established.
I.Meeting was called to order at 6:34 pm.
II.A motion to approve the June and August 2010 minutes with minor corrections was made
by LD and seconded by BN. Minutes were approved unanimously.
III.Public comment, related to the proposed demolition of the remnant wall of the Lehrkind
Brewery:
a.Jon Gerster (former BHPAB member) spoke as public comment:
Lives next door to Brewery. Was supportive of initial proposal, considered it
“progress” but this was before the current economic situation. Considered the
Lehrkind Mansion and the Brewery as sisters. “We aren’t owners of historic
structures but their caretakers.” Worried about fire at the Brewery and felt if it
burned the Lehrkind would burn. Owners of the Lehrkind jumped on board
and supported the “demolition” and the proposed project as it was planned.
Alarmed that historic brewery district is in jeopardy. Only 5 such districts
remain in entire US and this is one of them as well as the smallest, others are
in major brewing communities. All of the main contributing buildings were
still intact and in existence.
What would it take to keep the “wall?” City is keen to reopen the sidewalk.
Could we place steel structure around the wall to keep it? Under assumption
that wall was coming down but learned that bringing the wall down would be
detrimental to neighborhood. Changed their tune and believe the wall must
stay.
Should pull National Trust in and other national entities to help keep the wall.
Has a vested interest in what goes on next door. Been in the Lehrkind for 14
years. Would love to have a project there that honored the history.
b.Chris Nixon spoke as public comment:
Has spoken in favor of projects before and pulled back later on. Mill District
project is an example. Felt it was reflecting the history of the silos and area
Page 1
but now not one of the buildings will be built with a grain structure. The
historic silos are gone and so is the history. “Poof! without public comment.”
Felt that the Brewery project was going to honor the history and keep the
façade. Never thought it would lead to the removal of the historic designation
of the neighborhood. Regrets the economy but wants to do everything he can
to save what is left there. His big concern is what will we get there? Will it
refect any of the historic structure that was there?
JG: When we support a project that the commission approves we have a
burden to maintain what was passed at that time regardless of what has
happened since that vote. Would be nice to maintain something that retains
the brewery’s original look. Prefer that circumstances be maintained as much
as possible.
CN: Should be some sort of bonding. If you are going to alter a historic
building, you need to bond it. You have so much to lose – tax base, history
and impact on a historic neighborhood.
IV.No ex parte communication reported between BHPAB members and Commissioners.
V.Introduction of guests:
a.Allyson Bristor introduced Graham Goff, architect of the Brewery Project. AB is
the city planner on the project.
Grand development plan to do mixed-use to rehabilitate the façade with new
construction behind. Residential, commercial, mixed-use. Time has passed.
Sidewalk closure permit has expired. Owner needs to tell city how they plan
to proceed.
City was aware of financing problems with developers. City allowed
demolition to occur BEFORE final site plan approval. We now know this is
not enough security to assure what will occur on the site. AB says: “This
project, as well as Armory, as well as Rialto, is teaching the city that we can’t
let demolition occur before we know the project is actually going to happen.”
City will review new proposal once structural engineering report is available.
Agrees with JG and CN on how city felt when project was presented a few
years ago. “Felt initial goal was very good, great intentions, great potential for
developing a whole new component of a neighborhood that is lively and
vibrant but we’ve learned some lessons at the city level from this project.”
A true pedestrian crossing across Wallace would be required. Brewery
building has been altered over the years.
City has some concerns for public safety and future of that property as well as
the overall district.
b.Graham Goff spoke about the project:
Page 2
Been working on this project for six years. Goal was not to be here asking to
bring the wall down. Liability is big concern. City has approached them that
sidewalk needs to be opened. Enclosure to prevent collapse of the wall, which
would cost more than the demolition of the wall.
VI.Project Review:
MH outlined ground rules.
LD made a motion to create an ad hoc committee to review our conditional
recommendations in light of the engineering report and forward the final
recommendation to city staff. DM seconded motion.
PR asked who hired the engineer and what were they asked to provide? AB said
justification of why the wall needs to come down from the original project’s
engineer.
Motion passed unanimously. LD, PR, MH, BN, LG were selected to be on sub-
committee.
RO asked if engineer says wall will stand for 100 years, what do developers want
to do? GG said engineers were asked for a structural update of the condition of
the wall.
BB asked if it is in bounds of city to ask for a fully enclosed sidewalk and bracing
to keep the wall standing? How could this be made safe? Is it too late to amend
the questions to the engineer? AB said important to note that engineer’s report
made clear that wall was safe so long as sidewalk remained closed. PR said it’s a
timing issue. Wall could be saved. Bracing could be built and in unknown future a
new building could act as bracing. This board is being asked to predict the future
and create scenarios without seeing engineer’s report.
MH said that the Board should avoid “what if” scenarios. Can ask city staff for
more information but we can’t demand it. Can make recommendations to city
staff. Can’t make engineering judgments.
RO asked GG if proposed demolition would allow them to pursue financing for a
new project. In theory if wall were to come down, chance of a vacant lot is very
high. GG said: “It is a possibility.” Would clean the lot, grade it and leave it.
Current salvage material could stay but no plans to salvage bricks from last
standing wall. Can only turn off power lines for a day or two so would tear down
wall as quickly as possible and not salvage anything. To do so would be a safety
hazard.
CN asked if it would difficult to get a structure in the same place due to high
voltage power lines once that wall is removed? JG said gives greater urgency to
save the wall as it’s grandfathered in by Northwestern Energy. Good question for
the power company.
Page 3
MH said this is the one of the most unfortunate projects to come before this board.
Egregious errors were made and many said it was economically unviable at the
time and now the city is paying the price. That concentration of development is
wholly inappropriate for the neighborhood. Caused a huge amount of damage to a
historic district, one of the most important in town. As a historic preservation
professional MH can guarantee that the neighborhood’s historic status will be
removed. If NorthEast Neighborhood Association wants to salvage what is there,
they need to work with developers to create solutions to buy time for the wall to
remain standing. Encourages this board to urge that to take place or else the wall
will be lost. Ethically and morally, the wall needs to stay but only way this will
happen is if NE Neighborhood works with BHPAB to save it.
AS is sad about the decisions that were made several years ago and the lack of
regulations that enabled this. Not a lot of sympathy for developers who opine that
it will cost more to support the wall than to tear it down. Need to support the wall
to buy time. What is lost, is lost, and can never be replaced.
BB would like the city to amend their request to see what it would take to save the
wall. Would like to see the wall saved and wants to know what it would take.
PR says anything can be saved with commitment. Should be saved for a future
wall. Bridge the financial gap with grants, not just looking at it as a financial
decision today. Buy time for new building, which will serve as the bracing for the
wall.
RO is having a hard time quantifying his opinion. Might be dissenting from the
group – so many issues are wrong with it. Trying to compartmentalize his
thoughts and is having trouble.
LD feels our job is to diplomatically make recommendations to the city yet this is
another in a series of debacles. City is learning from these experiences however
LD has zero sympathy for the developer and the city from permitting the
supporting buildings being removed without the financial guarantee that the
project would continue. Buildings like this are saved all the time in other parts of
the country. Doesn’t make any difference how much it costs to keep the structure
up – it’s the problem of the people who took the walls down.
CA feels the wall should be saved and held up for another 5-10 years until the
economy can turn around. Funding is available through grants. Wall has been
there for a few years and hasn’t fallen down yet. Maybe we can keep it as status
quo?
DM feels the wall should be saved and in big letters written upon it (quoting
Shelley’s poem Ozymandias): “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”
BN asked the Lehrkind Mansion owners on how the Preservation Board could
assist in this matter.
Page 4
CN said a formal polling of neighborhood hasn’t been taken but can sum up
hearsay. Has heard ‘Californicate’ that ‘out of towners came in and destroyed the
neighborhood and abandoned the project.’ Asked the city about bonding and at
that point, no one in the city wanted to require bonding or a guarantee for fear of
slowing “progress.” Thinks there would be enough support for neighborhood to
save the wall but there is also a concern for safety. If possible to brace the
structure for possible reuse like the proposed project or a future one that would
utilize the wall would be a way to save face and a positive direction. Our tax base
has been diminished but now we have to bail it out? That would sting. Would sit
well for him if wall could be saved.
Themes: City needs to request additional engineering information. Mechanism to
defer wall’s demoltion. Support efforts of NE Neighborhood group. First
preference that the wall is saved and stabilized so it can be incorporated into a
future structure.
BB made a motion that asks that the city amend their request for a cost analysis
for long-term stability of the wall, how to accomplish that? Ask the city staff to
defer a decision on demolition to give time to explore possible solutions. And to
include the Northeast Neighborhood Association in the process.
AB said delaying decisions for commission does not put power in hands of this
board.
LD seconded. RO abstained. All others voted yay.
Provide support for mitigation if demolition is approved. Need to prevent this
from happening in the future.
AB said city requested and received mitigation for partial loss of Brewery.
DM made a motion that consideration and mitigation for total loss of the building
will be forwarded to the P and P subcommittee. RO seconded. All in favor.
RO suggested a BHPAB member be at the city commission meeting.
VII.Chair’s report:
All future meetings will be at 6:30pm.
Mike Neeley has resigned from the BHPAB.
LD and MH are going to Montana History conference.
VIII.Planning and Policy Subcommittee report:
Chair's report –CK said she suggested the commission adopt international
property maintenance code. Great Falls has adopted it. Butte has a demo by
neglect code, which is used incorrectly as a vehicle for demolition.
Monday September 27th is city commission meeting when CK will present
Demolition by Neglect.
Next Planning and Policy meeting scheduled for 6:30 pm on October 5 at Mark’s.
Page 5
IX.2010 Preservation Awards discussion:
a.Topics arose during the tour: Should new construction be awarded BHPAB
awards? BB feels yes, history is happening. Adding to the overall architectural
integrity is important and should be noted according to MH.
b.Should we give an award to a current member? LD doesn’t think it is ethical.
c.Should a home with an interior that was gutted be given an award? RO
commented that our knowledge ends at the front door. CA said should not award
a house that was gutted or we’ll be encouraging people to gut houses. PR said we
should treat it on a case by case. DM said all we are interested in is “surface.”
d.RO suggested the following categories:
new construction contributing to a historic neighborhood
excellence in residential rehabilitation
excellence in commercial rehabilitation
e.Board voted and decided to give seven preservation awards.
X.Education and Outreach Committee
a.2010 cemetery rout on October 31, preceded by lacture by DM.
b.Discussion of possible “Preservation Tour” for Commissioners: would require a
lot of work and must be well done.
c.Tours prior to meetings need ideas for houses. Email RO.
d.Next meeting is 10.13.10 at 6:30pm at JK’s house.
XI.Meeting was adjourned at 9:27 pm
Page 6