Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman Brewery.pdf �B42 Commission Memorandum �+co.M REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor&City Commission FROM: Allyson C.Bristor,Associate Planner Tim McHarg,Planning Director Chris Kukulski,City Manager SUBJECT: Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition—Modifications to a Final Site Plan #Z-07145A MEETING DATE: November 15,2010 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from the date of their decision;and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department;and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff s recommended conditions of approval (conditions listed beginning on page 12 of the staff report). BACKGROUND: The original Bozeman Brewery Building proposal was submitted to the City's Department of Planning in June 2007 by property owner Scala Properties,LLC and representative Graham Goff of Goff Architecture,Ltd. The details of the project proposal included the following: 1)demolition of the Haynes Building complex,2)a combination of reconstruction,rehabilitation and demolition of the existing Brewery Building to create a building complex with four sections of residential units (total: 35 units/approx.33.400 SF), approximately 10,210 SF of commercial/office space,an elevated courtyard and an underground mixed-use parking garage, 3)new construction of a building along Tamarack Avenue(Tamarack Building)with residential units(4 units/approx.4.800 SF)and approximately 6,600 SF of commercial/office space,and 4)new construction of a surface parking lot. Zoning deviations were available to the property owner because of the property's location within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Seven deviations were requested and approved with the original proposal. The deviations were required for the proposed percentage of office use,building lot coverage,building height and lot area and width. A timeline of the Bozeman Brewery Building project's extensive background since original submittal to the Bozeman Department of Planning is included beginning on page 3 of the staff report. The City Planning and Building Departments sent a letter to the Bozeman Brewery property owner and applicant following the expiration of the Final Site Plan and Sidewalk Encroachment Permit. The departments inquired about the property owner's intentions and plans for the site. In response to the City's inquiry,the applicant submitted a Modification to a Final Site Plan application to the Department of Planning in August 2010. The application requested the complete demolition of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building. Any modification of a site plan approved under the Unified Development Ordinance(Title 18 Bozeman Municipal Code)shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and possible approval. The Planning Director must determine if the modified plan is or is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan before acting on the modification request. The remaining east wall of the Bozeman Brewery Building was Report Complied on November 4,2010 originally proposed to be an integral part of the new development. It was planned to be rehabilitated to an appearance that returned several features of the wall back to its original appearance. The preservation and rehabilitation of the Bozeman Brewery Building's cast wall was the primary reason why the project received support by Planning Staff for the several deviations requested. The complete demolition of the east wall is determined to be a substantial change in the original development design and not in compliance with the originally approved plan. Therefore,the demolition application is subject to all applicable standards and site plan review and approval provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance(Title 18 BMC),which primarily includes "Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness"(Section 18.28.050)and"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District"(Section 18.28.090). Though a significant portion of the Bozeman Brewery Building has been demolished,Planning Staff is still considering the structure to be a"contributing property"within a historic district. Demolition of contributing properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing, after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review(ADR)Planning staff and the Design Review Board(DRB). The application was also reviewed by the Development Review Committee(DRC),the Northeast Urban Renewal Board(NURB),the Historic Preservation Advisory Board(HPAB),and the Northeast Neighborhood Association(NENA). The recommendations of all City Boards are included in the section"City Board Recommendations"which is on page 11 of the staff report. The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City Commission. The recommended conditions of approval are listed beginning on page 12 of the staff report. The final recommendation of the Northeast Neighborhood Association will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the scheduled public hearing as an addendum to the staff report. Additionally,if the applicant submits cost estimates for demolition prior to the scheduled public hearing,they will also be forwarded to the Commission as an addendum to the staff report. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetennined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission Attachments: Staff Report with Attachments Report Complied on November 4, 2010 I CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT BOZEMAN BREWERY BUILDING DEMOLITION MODS TO FINAL SITE PLAN #Z-07145A Item: Zoning Application#Z-07145A,a Modification to a Final Site Plan application to demolish the remaining four-story structure(wall)of the Lehrkind Brewery Building property addressed as 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue. The property is zoned as"NEHMU"(Northeast Historic Mixed Use District)and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The property is also included as a contributing property within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Owner: Scala Properties,LLC 1228 31"Street NW,Level 2 Washington,DC 20007 Applicant: Goff Architecture Ltd. 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman,MT 59715 Date: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday,November 15,2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Room,City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue,Bozeman, MT. Report B,,: Allyson C.Bristor,AICP,Associate Planner Recommendation: That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from the date of their decision; and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department,and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff's recommended conditions of approval. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property is addressed as 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue,which is generally located on the southwest corner of North Wallace Avenue and East Tamarack Street and encompasses approximately 65,000 square feet in lot area. The property includes the remains of the historic Lehrkind Brewery Building(from this point forward referred to as the Bozeman Brewery Building),a part of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. The property is zoned"NEHMU"(Northeast Historic Mixed Use District)and is also located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Lehrkind Brewery Building is one of the six contributing structures of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Other buildings included in this historic district include the Bottling Plant located across Wallace Avenue and the Lehrkind Mansion located across the abandoned Aspen Street. Following its use as a brewery (post Prohibition),the Lehrkind Brewery Building site was used for a variety of things,including a coal company, soda production business,ice plant and warehouse,Kessler Creamery operations,photography studio and Bozeman Plumbing&Heating office. All the uses were predominately industrial and office in nature. Before the current property owner's purchase,the site was generally neglected and not properly maintained,due to the difficult historic condition of the buildings and the fact that the property was divided between multiple owners. Bozemmn Brc=-�Ycry Building Demolition Me&to FSP(kZ-07145_'1,) 1 ZONING DESIGNATION&ADJACENT LAND USES The subject property is zoned"NEHMU"(Northeast Historic Mixed Use District) and the intent of such a zoning district is to provide recognition of an area that has developed with a blend of uses not commonly seen under typical zoning requirements. The unique qualities and nature of the area are not found elsewhere in Bozeman and should be preserved as a place offering additional opportunities for creative integration of land uses. The intent of this area is to allow private and case by case determination of the most appropriate use of land in a broad range of both nonresidential and residential uses. Standards for buffering between different land uses are deliberately not as high as that elsewhere in the community as it is assumed that persons choosing to locate in this area are aware of the variety of possible adjacent land uses and have accepted such possibilities as both acceptable and desirable. It is expected that the lots within this district will continue to develop under a variety of uses which may increase or decrease in scope in any given portion of the district. The clear intent of this district is to support a mix and variety of nonresidential and residential uses. Authorized uses for the"NEHMU"include a blend of those uses allowed in the"R-2"(Residential Two-Household,Medium Density)and"M-1"(Light Manufacturing)zoning districts excluding adult businesses and casinos. The subject property is surrounded by the following land uses: North: Industrial grounds,zoned as"M-I," South: Lehrkind Mansion B&B,zoned as"NEHMU;" East: Wallace North LLC complex,zoned as"M-I," West: Lattice Materials complex,zoned as"NEHMU." Please refer to the zoning map below: M. -1 M-2 MFIE Tamarack-St �HMU 1 'Q Aspen•St Subject Property z N EM The act of demolition would create an empty property lot,which is not specifically prohibited in the NEHMU district. However,a more desirable development of the property would be the establishment of a use,or a blend of uses,allowed in the"R-2"and"M-I"zoning districts. Bozeman Brcv ery Building Demolit_un Mods to FSE c�/-V1415A) 2 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION The property is designated as an"Industrial"future land use. This classification provides areas for the uses which support an urban environment such as manufacturing,warehousing,and transportation hubs. Development within these areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors. In order to protect the economic base and necessary services represented by industrial uses,uses which would be detrimentally impacted by industrial activities are discouraged. Although use in these areas is intensive,these areas are part of the larger community and should meet basic standards for landscaping and other site design issues and be integrated with the larger community. The act of demolition would create an empty property lot,which is not specifically prohibited for an"Industrial" designated property. However,a more desirable development of the property would be the establishment of an appropriate mix of residential and light-manufacturing uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND The original Bozeman Brewery Building proposal was submitted to the City's Department of Planning in June 2007 by property owner Scala Properties,LLC and representative Graham Goff of Goff Architecture,Ltd. The details of the project proposal included the following: 1)demolition of the Haynes Building complex,2)a combination of reconstruction,rehabilitation and demolition of the existing Brewery Building to create a building complex with four sections of residential units(total: 35 units/approx. 33,400 SF),approximately 10,210 SF of commercial/office space,an elevated courtyard and an underground mixed-use parking garage,3)new construction of a building along Tamarack Avenue(Tamarack Building)with residential units(4 units/approx. 4,900 SF)and approximately 6,600 SF of commercial/office space,and 4)new construction of a surface parking lot. Zoning deviations were available to the property owner because of the property's location within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Seven deviations were requested and approved with the original proposal. The deviations were required for the proposed percentage of office use,building lot coverage,building height and lot area and width. Summarized below is a timeline of the Bozeman Brewery Building project's extensive background since original submittal to the Bozeman Department of Planning: June 2007: Brewery applicant submits Preliminary Site Plan/COA/DEV application to Planning Department June/July 2007: Demolition of non-contributing parts(including"Hell Roaring Building"and wood frame additions)of the Brewery Building property approved by Planning Department prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval—Demolition occurs August 20,2007: Preliminary Site Plan approval granted by City Commission—Brewery applicant has six months to turn in a Final Site Plan application to the Planning Department February 2008: Brewery applicant submits Final Site Plan application to Planning—traffic study included with application and demonstrates the need for a light signal at the Peach and Rouse intersection— the installation of a light signal the responsibility of the applicant(as the code required at that time) March 13, 2008: Encroachment Permit for the closure of the sidewalk along the west side of North Wallace Avenue between Aspen and Tamarack approved for an 18-month duration April 21,2008: Appeal by Brewery applicant to not have to install a traffic signal at Peach and Rouse approved Loz-nzan Brevcr, Buil>'dirj IilcC3J9i11na Zlcsds to FSP(,tZ-07Il 15A) 3 by the City Commission May 5,2008: Final Site Plan approval by Planning Department May/June 2008: Demolition permit of Brewery Building property(including the remaining"Haynes Building"and "Lehrkind Brewery Building")approved by Planning Department prior to building permit approval —demolition to follow a demolition plan created by a licensed structural engineer included in the Final Site Plan approval—temporary bracing installed on the east wall of the"Lehrkind Brewery Building" May/June 2009: One year extension to Final Site Plan approval granted by Planning Department September 2009: Extension to Encroachment Permit granted by Engineering until May 5,2010 July 27,2010: Letter sent from Planning Department asking about the applicant's intentions with the site— letter sent because questions about the long term stability of the wall and possible hazards to the public had been raised by members of the public and the Building Department—letter stated that"the City is interested in discussing with you the long term maintenance and development of the site." August 24,2010: A Modification to a Final Site Plan application was submitted by the Bozeman Brewery applicant requesting the complete demolition of the remaining"Lehrkind Brewery Building"structure/wall. September 15,2010: Mods of FSP application deemed "inadequate"by City Staff—applicant requested to supply:"A structural analysis update from the original structural engineer on the project stating the justification for why the remaining wall/structure on the property needs to be demolished"— asked to be submitted within 15 days October 6,2010: Structural analysis update submitted by applicant October 20,2010: Additional information requested by the applicant so City Staff can make a recommendation to the demolition of the wall: 1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall occur by the current Engineer of Record or another Montana State Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should provide a letter documenting the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary bracing along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to maintain/stabilize the wall in its current condition. 2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety,a cost estimate for permanent bracing or other remediation to make it stable and safe must be submitted and must demonstrate how it either a)exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b)the remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining(per Section 18.28.080 of the BMC,"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District"). October 27,2010 Additional information submitted by applicant PROJECT PROPOSAL The City Planning and Building Departments sent a letter to the Bozeman Brewery property owner and applicant following the expiration of the Final Site Plan and Sidewalk Encroachment Pen-nit. The departments inquired about the property owner's intentions and plans for the site. In response to the City's inquiry,the applicant jBozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP(#7r07145A) 4 submitted a Modification to a Final Site Plan application to the Department of Planning in August 2010. The application requested the complete demolition of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building. Any modification of a site plan approved under the Unified Development Ordinance(Title 18 Bozeman Municipal Code)shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and possible approval. The Planning Director must determine if the modified plan is or is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan before acting on the modification request. The remaining east wall of the Bozeman Brewery Building was originally proposed to be an integral part of the new development. It was planned to be rehabilitated to an appearance that returned several features of the wall back to its original appearance. The preservation and rehabilitation of the Bozeman Brewery Building's east wall was the primary reason why the project received support by Planning Staff for the several deviations requested. The complete demolition of the east wall is determined to be a substantial change in the original development design and not in compliance with the originally approved plan. Therefore,the demolition application is subject to all applicable standards and site plan review and approval provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance(Title 18 BMC),which primarily includes "Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness"(Section 18.28.050)and"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District"(Section 18.28.080). Though a significant portion of the Bozeman Brewery Building has been demolished,Planning Staff is still considering the structure to be a"contributing property"within a historic district. Demolition of contributing properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing, after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR)Planning staff and the Design Review Board(DRB). The application was also reviewed by the Development Review Committee(DRC),the Northeast Urban Renewal Board(NURB),the Historic Preservation Advisory Board(HPAB),and the Northeast Neighborhood Association(NENA). The recommendations of all City Boards are included below in the section "City Board Recommendations" REVIEW CRITERIA&FINDINGS The Department of Planning&Community Development reviewed this Modification to a Final Site Plan application against the relevant sections of the Unified Development Ordinance(Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code,BMC)and as a result offers the following comments. Section 18.28.050"Standards for Certificates of Ayoronriateness" A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating,Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,published by U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships,Heritage Preservation Services, Washington,D.C. Because of its historic significance to the Bozeman community and its vital importance as a contributing building to the Bozeman Brewery Historic District,the proposed demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building is found to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures,or properties and with neighboring structures and properties,shall focus upon the following: 1.Height; 2.Proportions of doors and windows;3.Relationship of building masses and spaces;4.Roof shape; 5.Scale;6. Directional expression,with regard to the dominant horizontal and vertical expression of Bozeman Brevv r} Building*DemolitionMods to FSP(=,Z-Z7145A) 5 surrounding structures; 7.Architectural details; 8.Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances,such as mechanical equipment;and 9.Materials and color schemes. New construction is not proposed following the proposed demolition. Therefore,this section is not applicable. C. Contemporary,nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical,cultural or architectural structures,or their components,and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. Not applicable. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C,the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference.When reviewing a contemporary,non-period,or innovative design of new structures,or addition to existing structure,the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. Not applicable. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. The application is reviewed under the criteria of"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District"(Section 18.28.080 of the UDO)which is discussed further below in this staff report. F. Tax abatement Certificate of Appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards established in Chapter 3.30,BMC. Not applicable. Section 18.28.080"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District" The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: A. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved prior to the demolition or moving permit may be issued. No plans for new construction are proposed with this demolition application. The proposed subsequent development,following the demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building,is to remove all rubble,grade the site to match adjacent properties,and reopen the closed sidewalk. The Department of Planning generally does not support demolition of historic buildings without plans for subsequent reconstruction or new construction. 130z.1-nan Brc�v.cr,, Blliidhr,,Deraulition -Maus tD FSP(,,'-i17fl-5A) o B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structure or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neural elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory,and are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places,shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director after review and recommendation of Administrative Design Review staff or Design Review Board as per Chapters 18.34 and 18.62,BMC,and the standards outlined in Section 18.28.050,BMC. Not applicable,as the building proposed for demolition is designated as a"contributing"structure within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory,and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks,shall be subject to approval by the City Commission,through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.76,BMC. Prior to the public hearing,the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and,if necessary,updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site,prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The final authority for demolition or movement of structures or sites within this section shall rest with the City Commission. Though a significant portion of the Bozeman Brewery Building has been demolished,Planning Staff is still considering the structure to be a"contributing property"within a historic district. The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO,and the architectural,social,cultural,and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department. The application is requesting the demolition of the remaining east wall of the four-story structure known as the Bozeman Brewery Building. The building is considered a contributing building to the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. The Bozeman Brewery Historic District is one of only ten brewery historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places(according to records found on http:r/www.nps.govrnr/research/). Overall,the historic district represents important aspects of Bozeman's industrial,social,and ethnic history. Please see the entire Bozeman Brewery Historic District National Register nomination form that is attached to this report. Because the Bozeman Brewery Historic District is compact in size and only includes five buildings,the demolition of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building removes an extremely significant building from the historic district. The Bozeman Brewery Building is so significant to the district that it might be the reason why the Bozeman Brewery Historic District loses its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Because of its historic significance and its important contribution to the Bozeman Brewery Historic District,the proposed demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building is found by the Planning Department,with input from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office,to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Therefore,the criteria of this section are not satisfied. 2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied,then,before approving an application to demolish or remove,the Commission must find that at Ieast one of the Bozeman Brevien Bui".�1i zslitiin Mods to F;iP( =971 5A) 7 following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety,and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. Additional information was requested from the applicant so City Staff could make a recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed demolition. That additional information was the following: 1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall occur by the current Engineer of Record or another Montana State Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should provide a letter documenting the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary bracing along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to maintain/stabilize the wall in its current condition. 2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety,a cost estimate for permanent bracing or other remediation to make it stable and safe must be submitted and must demonstrate how it either a)exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b)the remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining(per Section 18.28.080 of the BMC,"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District"). The applicant submitted the additional information on October 27,2010 and reviewed by Planning Staff. The information was forwarded to the members of the Development Review Committee,which includes representatives from the Building,Fire,Engineering,and Streets Departments. Members of the DRC reviewed the information and Staff s recommended conditions at their November 3,2010 meeting. A stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building was supported by the DRC with the conditions of approval recommended by City Staff. The structural engineer's letter reiterates the fact that the existing temporary bracing on the Bozeman Brewery Building wall was designed with the intent it would remain standing for a short duration between demolition and final construction. In reality,the temporary bracing has kept the wall standing for one and a half years. The structural engineer identifies areas of the wall and temporary bracing system that are deteriorating,likely from the exposure to weather(rain,wind,snow,etc). The engineer states that"the existing epoxy anchors into the unreinforced masonry wall continue to experience significant tension loads and load cycle reversals as the wind blows on the wall." He continues by saying"over time with these load cycles and with the small movements of this wall,the brick will continue to crumble around the epoxy." In the end,the structural engineer states"these anchors are not designed to support this masonry wall indefinitely:" The structural engineer's final assessment of the wall is the following: "the temporary bracing for the existing 40-foot high unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street is not adequate for continued support of this wall indefinitely." Staff assumes the structural engineer chooses to use the word indefinitelj,because it is close to impossible to say how much longer the temporary U6zcuIlaF1 Br��v cn Ru,K0,in;; Mm-wlitl�)n Mods to FS (,'FZ-07145A) g bracing will keep the wall standing. It could be six months,it could be a year,or it could be two years. The greatest threat to the integrity of the temporary bracing system is likely a seismic event,which is an unknown factor. Another threat is the accumulation of small movements in the wall from wind load cycles,which is also an unknown. In the end,there are a lot of unknowns that have to be balanced when determining the level of threat the remaining Bozeman Brewery Wall has to public health and safety. The only way to eliminate the possible threat of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building to public health and safety is to either a)permanently stabilize the wall or b)demolish the wall. Both will incur an expense for the property owner. An accurate cost estimate for permanent stabilization of the wall can only occur when a structural design for stabilization is created by a certified structural engineer and construction bids are received for said design. However,the applicant did prepare a cost estimate to restore the wall and permanently brace the wall without a set of design plans(restoration of the wall must occur before the permanent bracing is established). The estimate range is submitted as$173310.00 to$198,310.00. Cost estimates for demolition of the wall were requested from the applicant by Planning Staff,but were not received before the drafting of this report. However, Staff assumes the cost estimate for demolition is less than the permanent stabilization cost estimate,which is why the property owner is requesting for demolition. If demolition cost estimates are received prior to the scheduled public hearing,they will be forwarded to the City Commission as an addendum to this report. The demolition criteria ask the Commission to consider the costs of reasonable repairs or alterations,which removes the threat to public safety,to the value of the structure. The value of the historic Bozeman Brewery Building is one that cannot be accurately represented by quantitative data. Rather,the value of the structure is best represented by qualitative information. The significant cultural and high social value of the Bozeman Brewery Building was identified when the City of Bozeman chose to create a National Register Historic District that highlights the building and its immediate neighboring buildings. The act of listing the property on the National Register was one that identified it as a historic resource that is extremely valuable to the Bozeman community. Furthermore,the City of Bozeman chose to offer the highest protection to the structures included within historic districts which only increases the value of the property. If the value of a historic structure is only represented as the amount of money required to demolish it, then the cultural and social value of history is ignored. It is crucial to consider the level of detriment to the community that will occur with the loss of this significant building,and likely the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Historic preservation creates a bond between a community and its citizens.' Demolition of a part of this amenity removes the community's connection to it,which can never be reestablished. The value of the Bozeman Brewery Building can only be described as irreplaceable. D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied,issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move,including but not limited to,the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C of this section. The Department of Planning&Community Development is making the following recommendation for the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request: That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six Boz.=riimn Urov en Buililir91g, Derr,alite_;n -'khuls to 1 p( 1Z-07115 9 months from the date of their decision;and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department;and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff s recommended conditions of approval. Though the code allows the Commission to consider a two year stay for demolition permits,the Department of Planning recommends a stay of just six months from the date of their final action. City Staff recognizes the existing temporary bracing was designed for a short duration between demolition and final construction. As the structural engineer states,"the anchors of the temporary bracing were not designed to support the masonry wall indefinitely." City Staff doesn't find six additional months as an indefinite amount of time,but rather a fixed amount of time. Six months will provide ample amount of time for the property owner/applicant,neighborhood residents,members of the greater community and City Staff to work together and see if there are any sound financial resources available to permanently stabilize the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building east wall. The permanent stabilization and preservation of the wall is likely the only chance remaining to keep the Bozeman Brewery Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic districts are culturally important for a city because they increase community pride of place and identify areas that are significant for the preservation of neighborhood character. Historic districts are also economically important for a city. Studies have consistently shown properties within designated historic districts have higher appraised values than those outside of districts and appraisal values of properties increase faster when located within designated historic districts. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request,several conditions of approval are included in City Staff s recommendation to mitigate the great loss of the Bozeman Brewery Building and the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Those conditions include resurveying of the remaining contributing properties in the Bozeman Brewery Historic District and preparation of a new National Register nomination form to determine whether or not the district can remain listed. F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64,BMC,the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section,and any contractor performing such work,may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move,and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request. PUBLIC COMMENT One letter of public comment was received for this proposal and is attached to this report. The letter was submitted by Bill and Bobbi Clem,who are the property owners of 802,810 and 820 North Wallace Avenue (across Wallace Avenue from the subject property). The letter indicates support of the demolition request. If public comment is received after the submittal of this report,it will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the public hearing for consideration. Bozeman BrcvYer� Build in!,,M:ruulitior _act'-;to Ri SP(;,, -97]1 15A) 1� CITY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Several City Boards reviewed the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition application and offered recommendations for the City Commission's consideration. Minutes from each board meeting where the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition was discussed is attached to this report. The recommendations from each City Board were heavily considered by City Staff and are largely the reason a stay of demolition for six months is being recommended to the City Commission. The final recommendations and motions made by each City Board are summarized below,with exception to the Northeast Neighborhood Association(NENA). Because of the great importance of the Bozeman Brewery Wall and Historic District to the northeast neighborhood,NENA is holding an emergency neighborhood meeting on November 7,2010. The goal of this emergency meeting is for the neighborhood association to formally vote on whether or not to recommend denial of the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request in order to allow every possible means of permanent stabilization of the wall. The notice of the emergency meeting is attached to this report. Because this emergency meeting occurs after the creation of this staff report,it will be forwarded to the City Commission before the scheduled public hearing as an addendum to this report. Historic Preservation Advisory Board: The HPAB saw the application early in its review stages and before the structural engineer information was submitted for consideration. The board's Planning and Policy subcommittee will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission that speaks to the recommended form of mitigation for total loss of the building the at a later time. However, they recommended that the City Staff defer a decision on demolition to give time to explore possible solutions,as well as include the Northeast Neighborhood Association in the process. Northeast Urban Renewal Board: The NURB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for preservation of the Bozeman Brewery Building wall,and furthermore that the decisions about the outcome of the wall lead to the most expeditious redevelopment of the property,with the wall incorporated into the design. Design Review Board: The DRB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for Bozeman to deny the demolition request for the Bozeman Brewery Building as the proposal did not meet the review criteria for approval of demolition as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. It should also be mentioned that all City Boards included in their discussion of the application the great need for a demolition by neglect ordinance. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Planning&Community Development is making the following recommendation for the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request: • That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from the date of their decision; and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department; and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staffs recommended conditions of approval. The additional six months will allow the applicant,the Northeast Urban Renewal Board,the Northeast Neighborhood Association,the general public,and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition,including but not Iimited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent stabilization of the wall. The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City Commission. They are discussed in the following section. Bozeman Brei`ery Building Demolitluar Veil,,to ➢ S?( iZ-D71,1,5A) 1I RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL if the City Commission supports the recommendation to stay the demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months,the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff: I. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied. 2. The sidewalk adjacent to the property shall remain closed to the public throughout the six month stay of demolition. 3. New"Sidewalk Closed Ahead"signs shall be installed south and north of the closed section of sidewalk adjacent to the property.The property owner and/or applicant shall arrange for the installation of these signs in collaboration with the Bozeman Engineering Department. These signs shall be maintained by the property owner and/or applicant for the duration of the six month stay of demolition. 4. The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the Bozeman Building Department requirements to remediate the concerns of weather protection for the existing anchor bolts. If the City Commission allows demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building,whether it is immediate or six months from their decision,the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff: I. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied prior to issuance of a demolition pennit. 2. The property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional,who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for qualified professionals(http: history local-law arch studs 9.htm), to resurvey the five properties located within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Following the survey work,the qualified professional shall prepare a new National Register of Historic Places nomination form that supersedes the existing Bozeman Brewery Historic District form. The new nomination form and all affiliated materials shall be submitted to the National Park Service for a final determination of whether or not the Bozeman Brewery Historic District can remain listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. If the National Park Service determines the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District,then the property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional,who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for qualified professionals(http: w ww.nns.go-V:history local-law/arch studs 9.1itin), to prepare the necessary National Register nomination forms in an attempt to individually nominate the remaining former-contributing properties of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. 4. If the property owner and/or applicant do not wish to complete all the National Register survey and nomination work required to meet the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit, then the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Bozeman financially guaranteeing the completion of all required National Register survey and nomination work. S. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning prior to a demolition permit request. The demolition plan shall include the following information: 1)phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations and 2)a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase. 2ozer_--ian Bzin_ldinr;Dc aulitp9n 31u s to FSP(,�Z-07115 a) 12 6. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Bozeman Brewery Building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to a demolition permit request. 7. Following demolition,the property shall be graded flat and cleared of all debris. If outside storage is proposed on the site,a screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. 8. Any damaged sidewalk along North Wallace Avenue that was damaged during any of the demolition shall be replaced and meet all City and ADA standards within 90 days of issuance of a demolition permit. 9. The applicant shall work with the Water/Sewer Department to assure that all service lines have been properly abandoned per code. 10. Construction/demolition traffic shall limit its use of Wallace Avenue as their direct route to the site. 11. Any necessary street closures shall be coordinated with the City of Bozeman Engineering and Street Departments. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code,which are applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions,or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval,does not,in any way,create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Code Provisions Planning • Section 18.34.130,a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work,and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan,including excavation and footing preparation,but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. • Section 18.38.080,"Clean Up of Property and Revegetation Required,"the developer shall ensure that all construction and other debris is removed from the development. This includes concrete,asphalt, dead trees and shrubs,and fencing materials. All areas disturbed during construction shall be reseeded with vegetation types approved by the Gallatin County Weed Control Supervisor. • Section 18A2.160,"Outside Storage,"all materials,supplies,or other similar matter not on display for direct sale,rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user shall be stored within the confines of a 100 percent opaque wall or fence not less than six feet tall. This includes the current pallets of brick stored on the site. No storage of any type shall be permitted within any required yards. • Section 18.64.100,"Building Permit Requirements,"a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. az�� an Brev on B-Ziltuin;?Dcm8lit;�on Mods to FSP lftZ-07145A) 13 • Section 18.64.110,"Permit Issuance,"states that no permit or license shall be issued unless the use, arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans and applications. Engineering • A Storm Water Drainage,Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids,silt,oils,grease,and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage(including sufficient spot elevations),storm water detention/retention basin details(including basin sizing and discharge calculations,and discharge structure details),storm water discharge destination,and a storm water maintenance plan. • The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments,or with the infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. • All construction/demolition activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified. CONCLUSION Over the last two decades,the City of Bozeman has implemented a historic preservation program to protect the community's historically and culturally significant resources. The Bozeman Community Plan states how the City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The Community Plan continues to state the City's mission in regards to historic preservation:carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman's historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.' In addition to the Community Plan's goals,the risk of losing an entire historic district is justification for a stay of demolition no less than six months. All financial opportunities that can result in the permanent stabilization of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building wall shall be considered prior to a rush towards demolition. Private financing through a bank may not be the only valid option for the preservation of the remaining wall. Through collaboration of private and public,alternatives to demolition may quickly emerge. City Staff feels six months is adequate amount of time that can allow for the consideration of all alternatives. "Preservationists are often accused of opposing demolition of any and all buildings. In fact,few, if any, preservationists have that attitude. But preservationists often take the position that demolition permit should not be issued without knowing what is going to built instead,and without having some surety that the proposed construction project will,in fact,go forward if the demolition is approved."; Considering demolition of a historic structure before all alternatives are weighed and balanced is not striving toward the community's goal of promoting historic resources for their continued survival. Therefore,the Department of Planning is recommending a stay of demolition for six months to allow the applicant,the Northeast Urban Renewal Board, the Northeast Neighborhood Association,the general public,and the City Staff to explore alternatives to the demolition,including but not limited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent stabilization of the wall. ,Bozeman Brevven Building Demolition Ands to FSP(''FZ-07115A) 0 Attachments: Applicant's Original Application Materials Applicant's Additional Application Materials(Structural Engineer Reports) Bozeman Brewery Historic District National Register Nomination Form Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Clem Public Comment Letter NENA Emergency Meeting Notice Report Sent To: Scala Properties,LLC, 1228 31"Street NW, Level 2,Washington,DC 20007 Goff Architecture Ltd.,201 South Wallace Avenue, Bozeman,MT 59715 The Economics of Historic Preservation:A Community s Leader Guide, "Preservation Economics cis Puhlic Policy." Donovan D.Rtpkeina. `Bozeman Community Plan, "Chapter 5:Historic Preservation.most recent edition June 1,2009. The Economics ofHistoric Preservation:A C'ommunitv's Leader Guide, "Preservation Economics as Public Poliev," Donovan D.Rtpkema. Bozeman Brrevien Building Demolition Mods to)ESP(0Z-071545A) �� VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Chris Saunders Assistant Director Planning Department City of Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59771 Re: Bozeman Brewery Project—Final Site Plan/COA Approval (#Z-07145) Mr. Saunders: By letter dated May 5, 2008, the Planning Department granted Final Site Plan approval for the above referenced project. In the period time from when the Applicant received Final Site Plan approval to the present, there has been a dramatic and nearly unprecedented contraction in the U.S. economy. The downturn has had a particularly severe effect on the housing and credit markets. Available debt financing for speculative real estate projects is extremely limited at the present time, and the availability of financing for speculative residential condominium projects is exceedingly scarce. Since receiving Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant and Owner have made good faith efforts to secure project financing. To this date, we have been unable to secure acceptable financing to start construction. As you are aware, since receiving Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant has completed all approved demolition of the Brewery building and adjacent structures. During the demolition the Applicant was able to salvage over 44,000 bricks and thousands of board feet of timbers. As planned, the east fagade of the Brewery building and portions of the floor, wall and roof systems still are standing. The existing portions of the building are being supported by a temporary bracing system designed by a structural engineer. As more time than was anticipated has lapsed the integrity of the remaining structure and the temporary nature of the bracing has been brought into question. With no immediate plans to further develop the property, the Applicant believes that in the interest of public safety and welfare the remaining structures need to be removed. It is our intent to completely remove the remaining portions of the Brewery building, remove all the rubble and grade the site to match adjacent properties. Finally, the existing fence will be moved to the eastern property line to allow for reopening the sidewalk. Sincerely, Graham B. Goff, AIA Goff Architecture, Ltd. CITY OF BOZEMAN FEE APPLIES-$ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 .;� P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozemon.net Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.nel DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1.Name of Project/Development: 2.Property Owner Information.: i Name: SCAtA to PER ► S I--j^e' E-mail Address: JASCALAa CoMGAbT . 4✓rT i Mailing Address: I2.2ES 315� 5�. 1�� , WI_ 2-.. L)AS144ACITb4 , OC' Zooe�- Phone: 2o2 '333 5552- FAX 2o2 333 0223 3.Applicant Information: �l Name: 61orr 40owflaue (_Tp E-mail Address: G�jOZTll-4,��'VR e �•tS�Nrf. Mailing Address:Zp1 S, k'q/+U►+44r srr k3 Jr0r2'F '+A/ / /✓/r 3 C1 1 S— Phone: 41 p G� sjo2- ,w4 v FAX: 0 - S2•! 14 y�� 4. Representative Information:Name: ("KA AA $, ba f)= E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5,Legal Description: SC C:F SAL fK 0 6.Street Address: �O( / ro 3 f - (AIA.U.A- 7.Project Description: PE•40L,I710M 8.Zoning Designation(s): µM V 9.Current Land Use(s): M 10,Bozeman Community Plan Designation: 1I.Gross Area: Acres: 1,y S� Square Feet: S 3(1 i 12.Net Area: Acres: 1,45- Square Feet: Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted ❑ 13, Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? ❑ Yes,answer question 13a ❑ No,go to question 14 13a.Which urban renewal district? ❑Downtown k Northeast(NURD) ❑ North Th Avenue 14.Is the subject site within an overlay district? ❑ Yes,answer question 14a ❑ No,go to question 15 14a.Which Overlay District? ❑Casino ❑ Neighborhood Conservation ❑ Entryway Corridor 15.Will this application require a deviation(s)? ❑ Yes,list UDO section(s): ❑ No 16.Application Type(please check all that apply): ❑O.Planned Unit Development—Concept Plan ❑A.Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands ❑P.Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan ❑B.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑Q.Planned Unit Development—Final Plan ❑C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑R.Planned Unit Development—Master Plan ❑D.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application ❑E.Special Temporary Use Permit ❑T.Subdivision Preliminary Plat F.Sketch Plan/COA ❑U.Subdivision Final Plat ❑G.Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption ❑H.Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑W.Annexation ❑I.Preliminary Site Plan ❑X Zoning Map Amendment ❑J.Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y.Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment ❑K.Conditional Use Permit ❑Z.Zoning Variance ❑L Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA.Growth Policy Map Amendment ❑M.Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑BB.Growth Policy Text Amendment ❑N.Adnunistrative Interpretation Appeal ❑Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 81h- by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 814-by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used,they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicants) and the property owner(s)(if different)before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the appEcaat(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority.I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.Further,I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 18.64.650,BMC). I(We)hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my(our)knowledge. Applicant's Signature: eP7 Date: /L?�?.C�� u Applicant's Signature: Date: Property Owner's Signature: , t P!v S t'ds.+� Date: 8�23 Zo l fl Property Owner's Signature: Date: Page 2 (Development Review Application-Prepared tt/25/03;Amended 9/17/04,5/1/06;9/18/07) CERTIFICATE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS UST �72 z ct✓ , hereby certify that, to the best of my knowiedge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property Downers (including a individual condominium owners)within 200 feet of the property located at &I f Y VL/AL LA4 L /r b-`Zt.tl/M/ / S /7/5 is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin Countv tax records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. Signature (Certifxaate of Adjoining Property otrners Lest-Prepared 11/20/03y Revised 9/22/06) NEIGHBORHOOD RECOGNITION ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE On December 10, 2007 the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance as part of the Bozeman Municipal Code.This new ordinance contains the following requirement: Section 182.020, Responsibilities of Individuals or Entities Submitting an Application to the Department of Planning and Community Development. A. In order for the City Liaison to effectively perform their duties executing the intent and purpose of this chapter, as defined in 2.82.020,the following shall be performed: 1. As part of any application to the Department of Planning and Community Development,the applicant shall provide written notice via certified mail,e-mail,facsimile transmission,and/or personal delivery to the City Liaison if notification guidelines (BMC 18.76)require that notice be posted"on-site",published in the local newspaper or mailed fast class. 2. Such notice shall contain a complete set of application materials as submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development. B. Failure to provide proof of such mailing via certified mail,e-mail and/or facsimile transmission report to the most recent City Liaison address,e-mail address and/or fax number of record,or an affidavit attesting hand delivery,shall result in an incomplete application ! . 6-1`�'�� ,hereby certify that I have delivered via certified mail, e- mail,facsimile transmission or Band delivery written notice and a complete set of application materials for the project known as_ �% Z-L ti�RN (S2c in compliance with Section 2.82.02 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. I further understand that failure to comply will result in this application being deemed incomplete and y result in a delay in the review o this project. Signature' Date (Neighborhood Reeognition Ordiot=e Comp66ace Certifcaw-Prepared 1/7/08) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS CHECKLIST 1 If a project is located in the '.neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, and qualifies for review as a Sketch Plan; Reuse, Change of Use or Further Development of a Site Developed Before 9-3-91; or Amendment/\1odiFcation of a Plan Approved On or After 9-3-91,this checklist shall be used. See Section 18.34.050 (Sketch Plan Review), Section 18.34.150 (Amendments to Sketch and Site Plans) or Section 18.34.170 (Reuse, Change in Use or Further Development of Sites Developed Prior to the Adoption of the Ordinance Codified in This Title), BMC. These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or"N/A" (not applicable) must he explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. '_neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the '.neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness.The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonable necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination.At a minimum,the folloNOng items shall be included in the submission: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Information Yes No N/A 1. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such ❑✓ ❑ ❑ additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should he submitted and all pictures shall be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated With the property address, elevation direction S,I.,\X)and relevant information 2. Sketch plan, with north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and ✓❑ ❑ ❑ building area dimensions,street and alley frontages with names,and location of all structures with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings to property lines 3. 1listorical information, including; available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal ❑ ❑ ❑✓ records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration 4. Materials and color schemes to be used ❑ ❑ ✓❑ S. Plans,sketches,pictures,specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant' ✓❑ ❑ ❑ proposed alterations G. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations ❑✓ ❑ ❑ Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department ✓❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Description of any applicant-requested deviation(,,) and a narrative explanation as to how the ❑ ❑ ✓❑ requested deviation(s)will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community B. Entry-wa Corridor Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness.The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination.At a minimum,the following items shall be included in the submission: Entryway Corridor Overlay District Information Yes No N/A 1. Sketch plan, With north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and ❑ ❑ ❑ building;area dimensions,street and alley frontages with names,and location of all structures with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings,to property lines 2. Plans, sketches,pictures,specifications and other data that will clearly expres,, the applicant's ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed alterations 3. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in Section 18.66.050 ❑ ❑ ❑ (Deviations),BMC,the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to enable the City Commission to make the determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.30 (I:ntr_tway Corridor Overlay District),BMC. Page 3 (Certificate of Appropriateness Checklist 1—Prepared 11/24/03;re-vised on 9/8/04) Bozeman Brewery 801 North Wallace, Bozeman MT 59715 Legal Description: Lot 1 of the amended subdivision plat, being Tract A and Tract 2A of the amended subdivision plat filed in Book C of plats,page 23-N,being a portion of Lots 17-24,Block 109,NORTHERN PACIFIC ADDITION to the city of Bozeman, located in the SE '14 of Section 6,T2S R6E P.M.M. Gallatin County, Montana plat#C-23-A6. Together with that portion of abandoned Aspen Street attaching thereto by operation of law vacated by ordinance#1460,recorded March 26, 1998 in film 182 page 4584,records of Gallatin County, Montana. 803 North Wallace, Bozeman MT 59715 Legal Description: Tracts One(1) and Three of(3)of minor subdivision No. 3 being a tract of land located in an portion of lots 17-23, and in all of lots 9-16 and lot 24 of block 109,Northern Pacific Addition to Bozeman Montana,according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County,Montana. � � PROPERTY Ltr4. � � � + }/ ! `T/ m §Q 222; / ` `m° )�) ; i §§� ] § � :z § � ® ] \ r ] ` i \ x3� « § k ' £ �| . § : x ƒ %!;; , E � � x . §P3® t \ § �| §§&( q Q m : / = K§m § j 2 § } x y �, k f k 4\§§ 2 E2 i Mona �n 0d`� . !;; (§ §E1 . Q §w!; 7 2 R0J %6« §[A�r. ,> Q! F '90 or §!k) §� Bo r o, § �9 � 2 [§§ i ] , §0 � ];�]§ 2 m � Z � / � ---- w\ -- --aTYL -- --- -®----- 2 p .n_, 's m==� @§�] TkM&RkcKSTREET m );` - ---- - ^ , | � - �»� ------____« -_-- ! � | BOZEM&M BREWERY _!«eeCTUmLTD 803 NORTHwLLAC.AVE. | BOZEMAN,MT 59745 �'!�r�-..:�., .ram.�r� � ��w � s I. 1 L ~I I F r South Elevation r a �• �� ^"�r,� � �. -• �. � � tom= fj�. � r. •+.t 3 I JPWmW} 0 i 'T �•i f r �1 I ♦y 1� C cc i > i ? LU I f U) i I M ! a� w WALLACE BOTTLING LLC SPEAKMAN, MIKE 802 N WALLACE AVE 526 N 9TH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3062 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3332 EDGERLY, DONNA KVASNICK, MIKE TENGELSEN FAMILY EDGERLY REVOCABLE TRUST 720 N MONTANA AVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 305 N CHURCH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2921 9300 NASH RD BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3707 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8373 NORTHWESTERN ENERGY LLC OASIS PROPERTIES LLC PETERSEN, HARRY & NORMA 40 E BROADWAY ST 719 N WALLACE AVE 701 N WALLACE AVE BUTTE, MT 59701-9350 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 WIESE, DWIGHT HERLANT, ELLEN A DITEMAN FAMILY TRUST 707 N WALLACE AVE 517 E COTTONWOOD ST 655 DITEMAN WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3059 BOZEMAN, MT 59718-3923 MARILYN ALBERDA TERPSTRA, E J & HATTIE BAR LAND LLC MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 13001 CHURCHILL RD PO BOX 1387 MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-13F7 BREDIN, VICKIE LYNN RATHBUN, TIMOTHY STOLTZFUS, KAREN SCHMIDT MCHENRY, SANDRA JEAN 902 N WALLACE AVE 5740 BRIDGER CANYON RD 466 JOOST AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3069 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8419 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-2406 CAPLETTE, VIRGINIA A OTT, PATRICK J & CHERYL L MCMEEKIN, VELMA LEA 415 E ASPEN ST 717 N CHURCH AVE 425 E COTTONWOOD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3043 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3053 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3057 GIOVANINI,TERRY & TAMALENE EMERSCN, JOHN M QUANBECK MAURICE WBIN CREEK RD TO BIN COULEE DR WAGNER, BARBARA 322 322 TO BOZEMAN, MT 59718-8762 PO BOX 784 LIVINGSTON, MT STO6 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0784 FRIELING, TRACY J CHO, YU .',IN BEGNOCHE, ARMAND L HARVEY, SHANNA L 417 E TAMARACK ST WEST, CHARLES B 17250 WILSOIJ CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-3047 519 N GRAND AVE GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-8558 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3511 BABICH, SHERANN 906 W VILLARD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3355 �'!�r�-..:�., .ram.�r� � ��w � s I. 1 L ~I I F r South Elevation r a �• �� ^"�r,� � �. -• �. � � tom= fj�. � r. •+.t 3 I JPWmW} 0 i 'T �•i f r �1 I ♦y 1� C cc i > i ? LU I f U) i I M ! a� w WALLACE BOTTLING LLC SPEAKMAN, MIKE 802 N WALLACE AVE 526 N 9TH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3062 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3332 EDGERLY, DONNA KVASNICK, MIKE TENGELSEN FAMILY EDGERLY REVOCABLE TRUST 720 N MONTANA AVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 305 N CHURCH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2921 9300 NASH RD BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3707 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8373 NORTHWESTERN ENERGY LLC OASIS PROPERTIES LLC PETERSEN, HARRY & NORMA 40 E BROADWAY ST 719 N WALLACE AVE 701 N WALLACE AVE BUTTE, MT 59701-9350 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 WIESE, DWIGHT HERLANT, ELLEN A DITEMAN FAMILY TRUST 707 N WALLACE AVE 517 E COTTONWOOD ST 655 DITEMAN WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3059 BOZEMAN, MT 59718-3923 MARILYN ALBERDA TERPSTRA, E J & HATTIE BAR LAND LLC MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 13001 CHURCHILL RD PO BOX 1387 MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-13F7 BREDIN, VICKIE LYNN RATHBUN, TIMOTHY STOLTZFUS, KAREN SCHMIDT MCHENRY, SANDRA JEAN 902 N WALLACE AVE 5740 BRIDGER CANYON RD 466 JOOST AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3069 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8419 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-2406 CAPLETTE, VIRGINIA A OTT, PATRICK J & CHERYL L MCMEEKIN, VELMA LEA 415 E ASPEN ST 717 N CHURCH AVE 425 E COTTONWOOD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3043 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3053 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3057 GIOVANINI,TERRY & TAMALENE EMERSCN, JOHN M QUANBECK MAURICE WBIN CREEK RD TO BIN COULEE DR WAGNER, BARBARA 322 322 TO BOZEMAN, MT 59718-8762 PO BOX 784 LIVINGSTON, MT STO6 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0784 FRIELING, TRACY J CHO, YU .',IN BEGNOCHE, ARMAND L HARVEY, SHANNA L 417 E TAMARACK ST WEST, CHARLES B 17250 WILSOIJ CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-3047 519 N GRAND AVE GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-8558 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3511 BABICH, SHERANN 906 W VILLARD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3355 following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety,and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. Additional information was requested from the applicant so City Staff could make a recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed demolition. That additional information was the following: 1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall occur by the current Engineer of Record or another Montana State Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should provide a letter documenting the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary bracing along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to maintain/stabilize the wall in its current condition. 2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety,a cost estimate for permanent bracing or other remediation to make it stable and safe must be submitted and must demonstrate how it either a)exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b)the remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining(per Section 18.28.080 of the BMC,"Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District"). The applicant submitted the additional information on October 27,2010 and reviewed by Planning Staff. The information was forwarded to the members of the Development Review Committee,which includes representatives from the Building,Fire,Engineering,and Streets Departments. Members of the DRC reviewed the information and Staff s recommended conditions at their November 3,2010 meeting. A stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building was supported by the DRC with the conditions of approval recommended by City Staff. The structural engineer's letter reiterates the fact that the existing temporary bracing on the Bozeman Brewery Building wall was designed with the intent it would remain standing for a short duration between demolition and final construction. In reality,the temporary bracing has kept the wall standing for one and a half years. The structural engineer identifies areas of the wall and temporary bracing system that are deteriorating,likely from the exposure to weather(rain,wind,snow,etc). The engineer states that"the existing epoxy anchors into the unreinforced masonry wall continue to experience significant tension loads and load cycle reversals as the wind blows on the wall." He continues by saying"over time with these load cycles and with the small movements of this wall,the brick will continue to crumble around the epoxy." In the end,the structural engineer states"these anchors are not designed to support this masonry wall indefinitely:" The structural engineer's final assessment of the wall is the following: "the temporary bracing for the existing 40-foot high unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street is not adequate for continued support of this wall indefinitely." Staff assumes the structural engineer chooses to use the word indefinitelj,because it is close to impossible to say how much longer the temporary U6zcuIlaF1 Br��v cn Ru,K0,in;; Mm-wlitl�)n Mods to FS (,'FZ-07145A) g bracing will keep the wall standing. It could be six months,it could be a year,or it could be two years. The greatest threat to the integrity of the temporary bracing system is likely a seismic event,which is an unknown factor. Another threat is the accumulation of small movements in the wall from wind load cycles,which is also an unknown. In the end,there are a lot of unknowns that have to be balanced when determining the level of threat the remaining Bozeman Brewery Wall has to public health and safety. The only way to eliminate the possible threat of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building to public health and safety is to either a)permanently stabilize the wall or b)demolish the wall. Both will incur an expense for the property owner. An accurate cost estimate for permanent stabilization of the wall can only occur when a structural design for stabilization is created by a certified structural engineer and construction bids are received for said design. However,the applicant did prepare a cost estimate to restore the wall and permanently brace the wall without a set of design plans(restoration of the wall must occur before the permanent bracing is established). The estimate range is submitted as$173310.00 to$198,310.00. Cost estimates for demolition of the wall were requested from the applicant by Planning Staff,but were not received before the drafting of this report. However, Staff assumes the cost estimate for demolition is less than the permanent stabilization cost estimate,which is why the property owner is requesting for demolition. If demolition cost estimates are received prior to the scheduled public hearing,they will be forwarded to the City Commission as an addendum to this report. The demolition criteria ask the Commission to consider the costs of reasonable repairs or alterations,which removes the threat to public safety,to the value of the structure. The value of the historic Bozeman Brewery Building is one that cannot be accurately represented by quantitative data. Rather,the value of the structure is best represented by qualitative information. The significant cultural and high social value of the Bozeman Brewery Building was identified when the City of Bozeman chose to create a National Register Historic District that highlights the building and its immediate neighboring buildings. The act of listing the property on the National Register was one that identified it as a historic resource that is extremely valuable to the Bozeman community. Furthermore,the City of Bozeman chose to offer the highest protection to the structures included within historic districts which only increases the value of the property. If the value of a historic structure is only represented as the amount of money required to demolish it, then the cultural and social value of history is ignored. It is crucial to consider the level of detriment to the community that will occur with the loss of this significant building,and likely the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Historic preservation creates a bond between a community and its citizens.' Demolition of a part of this amenity removes the community's connection to it,which can never be reestablished. The value of the Bozeman Brewery Building can only be described as irreplaceable. D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied,issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move,including but not limited to,the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C of this section. The Department of Planning&Community Development is making the following recommendation for the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request: That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six Boz.=riimn Urov en Buililir91g, Derr,alite_;n -'khuls to 1 p( 1Z-07115 9 months from the date of their decision;and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department;and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff s recommended conditions of approval. Though the code allows the Commission to consider a two year stay for demolition permits,the Department of Planning recommends a stay of just six months from the date of their final action. City Staff recognizes the existing temporary bracing was designed for a short duration between demolition and final construction. As the structural engineer states,"the anchors of the temporary bracing were not designed to support the masonry wall indefinitely." City Staff doesn't find six additional months as an indefinite amount of time,but rather a fixed amount of time. Six months will provide ample amount of time for the property owner/applicant,neighborhood residents,members of the greater community and City Staff to work together and see if there are any sound financial resources available to permanently stabilize the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building east wall. The permanent stabilization and preservation of the wall is likely the only chance remaining to keep the Bozeman Brewery Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic districts are culturally important for a city because they increase community pride of place and identify areas that are significant for the preservation of neighborhood character. Historic districts are also economically important for a city. Studies have consistently shown properties within designated historic districts have higher appraised values than those outside of districts and appraisal values of properties increase faster when located within designated historic districts. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request,several conditions of approval are included in City Staff s recommendation to mitigate the great loss of the Bozeman Brewery Building and the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Those conditions include resurveying of the remaining contributing properties in the Bozeman Brewery Historic District and preparation of a new National Register nomination form to determine whether or not the district can remain listed. F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64,BMC,the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section,and any contractor performing such work,may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move,and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request. PUBLIC COMMENT One letter of public comment was received for this proposal and is attached to this report. The letter was submitted by Bill and Bobbi Clem,who are the property owners of 802,810 and 820 North Wallace Avenue (across Wallace Avenue from the subject property). The letter indicates support of the demolition request. If public comment is received after the submittal of this report,it will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the public hearing for consideration. Bozeman BrcvYer� Build in!,,M:ruulitior _act'-;to Ri SP(;,, -97]1 15A) 1� CITY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Several City Boards reviewed the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition application and offered recommendations for the City Commission's consideration. Minutes from each board meeting where the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition was discussed is attached to this report. The recommendations from each City Board were heavily considered by City Staff and are largely the reason a stay of demolition for six months is being recommended to the City Commission. The final recommendations and motions made by each City Board are summarized below,with exception to the Northeast Neighborhood Association(NENA). Because of the great importance of the Bozeman Brewery Wall and Historic District to the northeast neighborhood,NENA is holding an emergency neighborhood meeting on November 7,2010. The goal of this emergency meeting is for the neighborhood association to formally vote on whether or not to recommend denial of the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request in order to allow every possible means of permanent stabilization of the wall. The notice of the emergency meeting is attached to this report. Because this emergency meeting occurs after the creation of this staff report,it will be forwarded to the City Commission before the scheduled public hearing as an addendum to this report. Historic Preservation Advisory Board: The HPAB saw the application early in its review stages and before the structural engineer information was submitted for consideration. The board's Planning and Policy subcommittee will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission that speaks to the recommended form of mitigation for total loss of the building the at a later time. However, they recommended that the City Staff defer a decision on demolition to give time to explore possible solutions,as well as include the Northeast Neighborhood Association in the process. Northeast Urban Renewal Board: The NURB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for preservation of the Bozeman Brewery Building wall,and furthermore that the decisions about the outcome of the wall lead to the most expeditious redevelopment of the property,with the wall incorporated into the design. Design Review Board: The DRB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for Bozeman to deny the demolition request for the Bozeman Brewery Building as the proposal did not meet the review criteria for approval of demolition as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. It should also be mentioned that all City Boards included in their discussion of the application the great need for a demolition by neglect ordinance. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Planning&Community Development is making the following recommendation for the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request: • That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from the date of their decision; and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department; and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staffs recommended conditions of approval. The additional six months will allow the applicant,the Northeast Urban Renewal Board,the Northeast Neighborhood Association,the general public,and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition,including but not Iimited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent stabilization of the wall. The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City Commission. They are discussed in the following section. Bozeman Brei`ery Building Demolitluar Veil,,to ➢ S?( iZ-D71,1,5A) 1I RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL if the City Commission supports the recommendation to stay the demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months,the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff: I. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied. 2. The sidewalk adjacent to the property shall remain closed to the public throughout the six month stay of demolition. 3. New"Sidewalk Closed Ahead"signs shall be installed south and north of the closed section of sidewalk adjacent to the property.The property owner and/or applicant shall arrange for the installation of these signs in collaboration with the Bozeman Engineering Department. These signs shall be maintained by the property owner and/or applicant for the duration of the six month stay of demolition. 4. The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the Bozeman Building Department requirements to remediate the concerns of weather protection for the existing anchor bolts. If the City Commission allows demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building,whether it is immediate or six months from their decision,the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff: I. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied prior to issuance of a demolition pennit. 2. The property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional,who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for qualified professionals(http: history local-law arch studs 9.htm), to resurvey the five properties located within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Following the survey work,the qualified professional shall prepare a new National Register of Historic Places nomination form that supersedes the existing Bozeman Brewery Historic District form. The new nomination form and all affiliated materials shall be submitted to the National Park Service for a final determination of whether or not the Bozeman Brewery Historic District can remain listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. If the National Park Service determines the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District,then the property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional,who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for qualified professionals(http: w ww.nns.go-V:history local-law/arch studs 9.1itin), to prepare the necessary National Register nomination forms in an attempt to individually nominate the remaining former-contributing properties of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. 4. If the property owner and/or applicant do not wish to complete all the National Register survey and nomination work required to meet the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit, then the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Bozeman financially guaranteeing the completion of all required National Register survey and nomination work. S. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning prior to a demolition permit request. The demolition plan shall include the following information: 1)phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations and 2)a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase. 2ozer_--ian Bzin_ldinr;Dc aulitp9n 31u s to FSP(,�Z-07115 a) 12 6. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Bozeman Brewery Building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to a demolition permit request. 7. Following demolition,the property shall be graded flat and cleared of all debris. If outside storage is proposed on the site,a screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. 8. Any damaged sidewalk along North Wallace Avenue that was damaged during any of the demolition shall be replaced and meet all City and ADA standards within 90 days of issuance of a demolition permit. 9. The applicant shall work with the Water/Sewer Department to assure that all service lines have been properly abandoned per code. 10. Construction/demolition traffic shall limit its use of Wallace Avenue as their direct route to the site. 11. Any necessary street closures shall be coordinated with the City of Bozeman Engineering and Street Departments. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code,which are applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions,or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval,does not,in any way,create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Code Provisions Planning • Section 18.34.130,a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work,and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan,including excavation and footing preparation,but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. • Section 18.38.080,"Clean Up of Property and Revegetation Required,"the developer shall ensure that all construction and other debris is removed from the development. This includes concrete,asphalt, dead trees and shrubs,and fencing materials. All areas disturbed during construction shall be reseeded with vegetation types approved by the Gallatin County Weed Control Supervisor. • Section 18A2.160,"Outside Storage,"all materials,supplies,or other similar matter not on display for direct sale,rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user shall be stored within the confines of a 100 percent opaque wall or fence not less than six feet tall. This includes the current pallets of brick stored on the site. No storage of any type shall be permitted within any required yards. • Section 18.64.100,"Building Permit Requirements,"a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. az�� an Brev on B-Ziltuin;?Dcm8lit;�on Mods to FSP lftZ-07145A) 13 • Section 18.64.110,"Permit Issuance,"states that no permit or license shall be issued unless the use, arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans and applications. Engineering • A Storm Water Drainage,Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids,silt,oils,grease,and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage(including sufficient spot elevations),storm water detention/retention basin details(including basin sizing and discharge calculations,and discharge structure details),storm water discharge destination,and a storm water maintenance plan. • The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments,or with the infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. • All construction/demolition activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified. CONCLUSION Over the last two decades,the City of Bozeman has implemented a historic preservation program to protect the community's historically and culturally significant resources. The Bozeman Community Plan states how the City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The Community Plan continues to state the City's mission in regards to historic preservation:carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman's historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.' In addition to the Community Plan's goals,the risk of losing an entire historic district is justification for a stay of demolition no less than six months. All financial opportunities that can result in the permanent stabilization of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building wall shall be considered prior to a rush towards demolition. Private financing through a bank may not be the only valid option for the preservation of the remaining wall. Through collaboration of private and public,alternatives to demolition may quickly emerge. City Staff feels six months is adequate amount of time that can allow for the consideration of all alternatives. "Preservationists are often accused of opposing demolition of any and all buildings. In fact,few, if any, preservationists have that attitude. But preservationists often take the position that demolition permit should not be issued without knowing what is going to built instead,and without having some surety that the proposed construction project will,in fact,go forward if the demolition is approved."; Considering demolition of a historic structure before all alternatives are weighed and balanced is not striving toward the community's goal of promoting historic resources for their continued survival. Therefore,the Department of Planning is recommending a stay of demolition for six months to allow the applicant,the Northeast Urban Renewal Board, the Northeast Neighborhood Association,the general public,and the City Staff to explore alternatives to the demolition,including but not limited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent stabilization of the wall. ,Bozeman Brevven Building Demolition Ands to FSP(''FZ-07115A) 0 Attachments: Applicant's Original Application Materials Applicant's Additional Application Materials(Structural Engineer Reports) Bozeman Brewery Historic District National Register Nomination Form Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Clem Public Comment Letter NENA Emergency Meeting Notice Report Sent To: Scala Properties,LLC, 1228 31"Street NW, Level 2,Washington,DC 20007 Goff Architecture Ltd.,201 South Wallace Avenue, Bozeman,MT 59715 The Economics of Historic Preservation:A Community s Leader Guide, "Preservation Economics cis Puhlic Policy." Donovan D.Rtpkeina. `Bozeman Community Plan, "Chapter 5:Historic Preservation.most recent edition June 1,2009. The Economics ofHistoric Preservation:A C'ommunitv's Leader Guide, "Preservation Economics as Public Poliev," Donovan D.Rtpkema. Bozeman Brrevien Building Demolition Mods to)ESP(0Z-071545A) �� VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Chris Saunders Assistant Director Planning Department City of Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59771 Re: Bozeman Brewery Project—Final Site Plan/COA Approval (#Z-07145) Mr. Saunders: By letter dated May 5, 2008, the Planning Department granted Final Site Plan approval for the above referenced project. In the period time from when the Applicant received Final Site Plan approval to the present, there has been a dramatic and nearly unprecedented contraction in the U.S. economy. The downturn has had a particularly severe effect on the housing and credit markets. Available debt financing for speculative real estate projects is extremely limited at the present time, and the availability of financing for speculative residential condominium projects is exceedingly scarce. Since receiving Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant and Owner have made good faith efforts to secure project financing. To this date, we have been unable to secure acceptable financing to start construction. As you are aware, since receiving Final Site Plan approval, the Applicant has completed all approved demolition of the Brewery building and adjacent structures. During the demolition the Applicant was able to salvage over 44,000 bricks and thousands of board feet of timbers. As planned, the east fagade of the Brewery building and portions of the floor, wall and roof systems still are standing. The existing portions of the building are being supported by a temporary bracing system designed by a structural engineer. As more time than was anticipated has lapsed the integrity of the remaining structure and the temporary nature of the bracing has been brought into question. With no immediate plans to further develop the property, the Applicant believes that in the interest of public safety and welfare the remaining structures need to be removed. It is our intent to completely remove the remaining portions of the Brewery building, remove all the rubble and grade the site to match adjacent properties. Finally, the existing fence will be moved to the eastern property line to allow for reopening the sidewalk. Sincerely, Graham B. Goff, AIA Goff Architecture, Ltd. CITY OF BOZEMAN FEE APPLIES-$ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 .;� P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozemon.net Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.nel DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1.Name of Project/Development: 2.Property Owner Information.: i Name: SCAtA to PER ► S I--j^e' E-mail Address: JASCALAa CoMGAbT . 4✓rT i Mailing Address: I2.2ES 315� 5�. 1�� , WI_ 2-.. L)AS144ACITb4 , OC' Zooe�- Phone: 2o2 '333 5552- FAX 2o2 333 0223 3.Applicant Information: �l Name: 61orr 40owflaue (_Tp E-mail Address: G�jOZTll-4,��'VR a �•tS�Nrf. Mailing Address:Zp1 S, k'q/+U►+44r srr k3 Jr0r2'F '+A/ / /✓/r 3 C1 1 S— Phone: 41 p G� sjo2- ,w4 v FAX: 0 - S2•! 14 y�� 4. Representative Information:Name: ("KA AA $, ba f)= E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5,Legal Description: SC C:F SAL fK 0 6.Street Address: �O( / ro 3 f - (AIA.U.A- 7.Project Description: PE•40L,I710M 8.Zoning Designation(s): µM V 9.Current Land Use(s): M 10,Bozeman Community Plan Designation: 1I.Gross Area: Acres: 1,y S� Square Feet: S 3(1 i 12.Net Area: Acres: 1,45- Square Feet: Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted ❑ 13, Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? ❑ Yes,answer question 13a ❑ No,go to question 14 13a.Which urban renewal district? ❑Downtown k Northeast(NURD) ❑ North Th Avenue 14.Is the subject site within an overlay district? ❑ Yes,answer question 14a ❑ No,go to question 15 14a.Which Overlay District? ❑Casino ❑ Neighborhood Conservation ❑ Entryway Corridor 15.Will this application require a deviation(s)? ❑ Yes,list UDO section(s): ❑ No 16.Application Type(please check all that apply): ❑O.Planned Unit Development—Concept Plan ❑A.Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands ❑P.Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan ❑B.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑Q.Planned Unit Development—Final Plan ❑C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑R.Planned Unit Development—Master Plan ❑D.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application ❑E.Special Temporary Use Permit ❑T.Subdivision Preliminary Plat F.Sketch Plan/COA ❑U.Subdivision Final Plat ❑G.Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption ❑H.Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑W.Annexation ❑I.Preliminary Site Plan ❑X Zoning Map Amendment ❑J.Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y.Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment ❑K.Conditional Use Permit ❑Z.Zoning Variance ❑L Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA.Growth Policy Map Amendment ❑M.Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑BB.Growth Policy Text Amendment ❑N.Adnunistrative Interpretation Appeal ❑Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 81h- by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 814-by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used,they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicants) and the property owner(s)(if different)before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the appEcaat(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority.I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.Further,I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 18.64.650,BMC). I(We)hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my(our)knowledge. Applicant's Signature: eP7 Date: /L?�?.C�� u Applicant's Signature: Date: Property Owner's Signature: , t P!v S t'ds.+� Date: 8�23 Zo l fl Property Owner's Signature: Date: Page 2 (Development Review Application-Prepared tt/25/03;Amended 9/17/04,5/1/06;9/18/07) CERTIFICATE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS UST �72 z ct✓ , hereby certify that, to the best of my knowiedge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property Downers (including a individual condominium owners)within 200 feet of the property located at &I f Y VL/AL LA4 L /r b-`Zt.tl/M/ / S /7/5 is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin Countv tax records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. Signature (Certifxaate of Adjoining Property otrners Lest-Prepared 11/20/03y Revised 9/22/06) NEIGHBORHOOD RECOGNITION ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE On December 10, 2007 the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance as part of the Bozeman Municipal Code.This new ordinance contains the following requirement: Section 182.020, Responsibilities of Individuals or Entities Submitting an Application to the Department of Planning and Community Development. A. In order for the City Liaison to effectively perform their duties executing the intent and purpose of this chapter, as defined in 2.82.020,the following shall be performed: 1. As part of any application to the Department of Planning and Community Development,the applicant shall provide written notice via certified mail,e-mail,facsimile transmission,and/or personal delivery to the City Liaison if notification guidelines (BMC 18.76)require that notice be posted"on-site",published in the local newspaper or mailed fast class. 2. Such notice shall contain a complete set of application materials as submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development. B. Failure to provide proof of such mailing via certified mail,e-mail and/or facsimile transmission report to the most recent City Liaison address,e-mail address and/or fax number of record,or an affidavit attesting hand delivery,shall result in an incomplete application ! . 6-1`�'�� ,hereby certify that I have delivered via certified mail, e- mail,facsimile transmission or Band delivery written notice and a complete set of application materials for the project known as_ �% Z-L ti�RN (S2c in compliance with Section 2.82.02 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. I further understand that failure to comply will result in this application being deemed incomplete and y result in a delay in the review o this project. Signature' Date (Neighborhood Reeognition Ordiot=e Comp66ace Certifcaw-Prepared 1/7/08) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS CHECKLIST 1 If a project is located in the '.neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, and qualifies for review as a Sketch Plan; Reuse, Change of Use or Further Development of a Site Developed Before 9-3-91; or Amendment/\1odiFcation of a Plan Approved On or After 9-3-91,this checklist shall be used. See Section 18.34.050 (Sketch Plan Review), Section 18.34.150 (Amendments to Sketch and Site Plans) or Section 18.34.170 (Reuse, Change in Use or Further Development of Sites Developed Prior to the Adoption of the Ordinance Codified in This Title), BMC. These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or"N/A" (not applicable) must he explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. '_neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the '.neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness.The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonable necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination.At a minimum,the folloNOng items shall be included in the submission: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Information Yes No N/A 1. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such ❑✓ ❑ ❑ additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should he submitted and all pictures shall be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated With the property address, elevation direction S,I.,\X)and relevant information 2. Sketch plan, with north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and ✓❑ ❑ ❑ building area dimensions,street and alley frontages with names,and location of all structures with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings to property lines 3. 1listorical information, including; available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal ❑ ❑ ❑✓ records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration 4. Materials and color schemes to be used ❑ ❑ ✓❑ S. Plans,sketches,pictures,specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant' ✓❑ ❑ ❑ proposed alterations G. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations ❑✓ ❑ ❑ Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department ✓❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Description of any applicant-requested deviation(,,) and a narrative explanation as to how the ❑ ❑ ✓❑ requested deviation(s)will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community B. Entry-wa Corridor Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness.The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination.At a minimum,the following items shall be included in the submission: Entryway Corridor Overlay District Information Yes No N/A 1. Sketch plan, With north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and ❑ ❑ ❑ building;area dimensions,street and alley frontages with names,and location of all structures with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings,to property lines 2. Plans, sketches,pictures,specifications and other data that will clearly expres,, the applicant's ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed alterations 3. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in Section 18.66.050 ❑ ❑ ❑ (Deviations),BMC,the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to enable the City Commission to make the determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.30 (I:ntr_tway Corridor Overlay District),BMC. Page 3 (Certificate of Appropriateness Checklist 1—Prepared 11/24/03;re-vised on 9/8/04) Bozeman Brewery 801 North Wallace, Bozeman MT 59715 Legal Description: Lot 1 of the amended subdivision plat, being Tract A and Tract 2A of the amended subdivision plat filed in Book C of plats,page 23-N,being a portion of Lots 17-24,Block 109,NORTHERN PACIFIC ADDITION to the city of Bozeman, located in the SE '14 of Section 6,T2S R6E P.M.M. Gallatin County, Montana plat#C-23-A6. Together with that portion of abandoned Aspen Street attaching thereto by operation of law vacated by ordinance#1460,recorded March 26, 1998 in film 182 page 4584,records of Gallatin County, Montana. 803 North Wallace, Bozeman MT 59715 Legal Description: Tracts One(1) and Three of(3)of minor subdivision No. 3 being a tract of land located in an portion of lots 17-23, and in all of lots 9-16 and lot 24 of block 109,Northern Pacific Addition to Bozeman Montana,according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County,Montana. � � PROPERTY Ltr4. � � � + }/ ! `T/ m §Q 222; / ` `m° )�) ; i §§� ] § � :z § � ® ] \ r ] ` i \ x3� « § k ' £ �| . § : x ƒ %!;; , E � � x . §P3® t \ § �| §§&( q Q m : / = K§m § j 2 § } x y �, k f k 4\§§ 2 E2 i Mona �n 0d`� . !;; (§ §E1 . Q §w!; 7 2 R0J %6« §[A�r. ,> Q! F '90 or §!k) §� Bo r o, § �9 � 2 [§§ i ] , §0 � ];�]§ 2 m � Z � / � ---- w\ -- --aTYL -- --- -®----- 2 p .n_, 's m==� @§�] TkM&RkcKSTREET m );` - ---- - ^ , | � - �»� ------____« -_-- ! � | BOZEM&M BREWERY _!«eeCTUmLTD 803 NORTHwLLAC.AVE. | BOZEMAN,MT 59745 �'!�r�-..:�., .ram.�r� � ��w � s I. 1 L ~I I F r South Elevation r a �• �� ^"�r,� � �. -• �. � � tom= fj�. � r. •+.t 3 I JPWmW} 0 i 'T �•i f r �1 I ♦y 1� C cc i > i ? LU I f U) i I M ! a� w WALLACE BOTTLING LLC SPEAKMAN, MIKE 802 N WALLACE AVE 526 N 9TH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3062 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3332 EDGERLY, DONNA KVASNICK, MIKE TENGELSEN FAMILY EDGERLY REVOCABLE TRUST 720 N MONTANA AVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 305 N CHURCH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2921 9300 NASH RD BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3707 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8373 NORTHWESTERN ENERGY LLC OASIS PROPERTIES LLC PETERSEN, HARRY & NORMA 40 E BROADWAY ST 719 N WALLACE AVE 701 N WALLACE AVE BUTTE, MT 59701-9350 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 WIESE, DWIGHT HERLANT, ELLEN A DITEMAN FAMILY TRUST 707 N WALLACE AVE 517 E COTTONWOOD ST 655 DITEMAN WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3059 BOZEMAN, MT 59718-3923 MARILYN ALBERDA TERPSTRA, E J & HATTIE BAR LAND LLC MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 13001 CHURCHILL RD PO BOX 1387 MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-13F7 BREDIN, VICKIE LYNN RATHBUN, TIMOTHY STOLTZFUS, KAREN SCHMIDT MCHENRY, SANDRA JEAN 902 N WALLACE AVE 5740 BRIDGER CANYON RD 466 JOOST AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3069 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8419 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-2406 CAPLETTE, VIRGINIA A OTT, PATRICK J & CHERYL L MCMEEKIN, VELMA LEA 415 E ASPEN ST 717 N CHURCH AVE 425 E COTTONWOOD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3043 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3053 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3057 GIOVANINI,TERRY & TAMALENE EMERSCN, JOHN M QUANBECK MAURICE WBIN CREEK RD TO BIN COULEE DR WAGNER, BARBARA 322 322 TO BOZEMAN, MT 59718-8762 PO BOX 784 LIVINGSTON, MT STO6 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0784 FRIELING, TRACY J CHO, YU .',IN BEGNOCHE, ARMAND L HARVEY, SHANNA L 417 E TAMARACK ST WEST, CHARLES B 17250 WILSOIJ CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-3047 519 N GRAND AVE GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-8558 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3511 BABICH, SHERANN 906 W VILLARD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3355 �'!�r�-..:�., .ram.�r� � ��w � s I. 1 L ~I I F r South Elevation r a �• �� ^"�r,� � �. -• �. � � tom= fj�. � r. •+.t 3 I JPWmW} 0 i 'T �•i f r �1 I ♦y 1� C cc i > i ? LU I f U) i I M ! a� w WALLACE BOTTLING LLC SPEAKMAN, MIKE 802 N WALLACE AVE 526 N 9TH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3062 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3332 EDGERLY, DONNA KVASNICK, MIKE TENGELSEN FAMILY EDGERLY REVOCABLE TRUST 720 N MONTANA AVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 305 N CHURCH AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-2921 9300 NASH RD BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3707 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8373 NORTHWESTERN ENERGY LLC OASIS PROPERTIES LLC PETERSEN, HARRY & NORMA 40 E BROADWAY ST 719 N WALLACE AVE 701 N WALLACE AVE BUTTE, MT 59701-9350 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 WIESE, DWIGHT HERLANT, ELLEN A DITEMAN FAMILY TRUST 707 N WALLACE AVE 517 E COTTONWOOD ST 655 DITEMAN WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3063 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3059 BOZEMAN, MT 59718-3923 MARILYN ALBERDA TERPSTRA, E J & HATTIE BAR LAND LLC MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 13001 CHURCHILL RD PO BOX 1387 MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8661 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-13F7 BREDIN, VICKIE LYNN RATHBUN, TIMOTHY STOLTZFUS, KAREN SCHMIDT MCHENRY, SANDRA JEAN 902 N WALLACE AVE 5740 BRIDGER CANYON RD 466 JOOST AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3069 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-8419 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127-2406 CAPLETTE, VIRGINIA A OTT, PATRICK J & CHERYL L MCMEEKIN, VELMA LEA 415 E ASPEN ST 717 N CHURCH AVE 425 E COTTONWOOD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3043 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3053 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3057 GIOVANINI,TERRY & TAMALENE EMERSCN, JOHN M QUANBECK MAURICE WBIN CREEK RD TO BIN COULEE DR WAGNER, BARBARA 322 322 TO BOZEMAN, MT 59718-8762 PO BOX 784 LIVINGSTON, MT STO6 BOZEMAN, MT 59771-0784 FRIELING, TRACY J CHO, YU .',IN BEGNOCHE, ARMAND L HARVEY, SHANNA L 417 E TAMARACK ST WEST, CHARLES B 17250 WILSOIJ CREEK RD BOZEMAN MT 59715-3047 519 N GRAND AVE GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-8558 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3511 BABICH, SHERANN 906 W VILLARD ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-3355 P.O am 114 aoseman,Montana 59M4)114 Phone:406-587-4051 tax 406-587-4Q53 mailpspantshpeal"-com Spanisti j'eak�Ess�isutrissq t 4'.ostisr�itirc�,LF.G Stmcturdl Civil Aquatic September 16,2010 City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development Alfred M.Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O.Box 1230 Bozem,an,MT 59771-1230 Attn: Allyson C.Bristor,Associate Planner RE: Bozeman Brewery Demo Mods to FSP#Z-07145A Dear Allyson, This letter is in response to the request from the City of Bozeman Planning Staff for a structural analysis update on the Bozeman Brewery Project stating the justification for why the remaining wall./structure on the property should be demolished. It was my recommendation to Graham of Goff Architecture over a year ago to"bring the wall up to Code or complete its demolition"prior to the upcoming winter. Please see the last two structural updates for this project(attached) dated February 27°i 2009 & August 12"' 2009 which noted that the original steel bracing for the existing 40'high unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street was designed as a temporary structure. In February of 2009 it was"strongly encouraged"expediting the next phase of construction to permanently protect and brace this wall". In August of 2009. with winter looming, 1 recommended either completion of the permanent structure with bracing to Code or demolition of this wall. I have clearly noted this bracing was designed as a temporary structure and recommended completion of the building to incorporate this wall with bracing in accordance with Code requirements or demolition of the wall for over a year. I was initially excited about the prospect of preserving this wall and incorporating it into the final building design for this project. This effort required creative efforts by everyone involved and included some inherent short term risks to preserve and temporarily brace this wall through the proposed demolition and reconstruction of this project,however,to extend this"temporary"bracing indefinitely is not realistic. Temporary structures are designed differently from permanent structures due to their short term existence and the inherent risks involved. The purpose of the Code is to protect public welfare and safety and a temporarily braced unreinforced masonry wall extending 40' high adjacent to high voltage lines along a public sidewalk (closed indefinitely) and street is an unreasonable and unnecessary risk. I hope this letter sufficiently provides you with what you were looking for. If you have any further questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, David M.Sigler,PE Principal Structural Engineer Enclosures: Noted Cc: File—07003 P-0 BOX 114 -� P.a=maR.RlarrUna 59771-W4 Phwze.406-587-4051 Fzn 406-587-405% ' - m2'��SPdRfStfpaltlSCngto►n Spastisk peaks E;u�i;tarirsy t�'•asssut t'i;ss�,LL`C� Structural CMI Aquatic August 12,2009 Goff Architecture 201 S.Wallace Street,Suite A3 Bozeman,MT 59715 Attn: Graham Goff RE: Bozeman Brewery Demolition-Structural Update Dear Graham, The purpose of this letter is to discuss the status of your Bozeman Brewery Project with regards to the existing braced unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street. As indicated in the last Structural Update dated February 271h 2009,the original intent(and design) of the bracing for this wall was for a short duration between demolition and final construction. It was strongly encouraged at that time that the next phase of design and construction would be expedited. Since that time the wall has remain braced with no further work completed on this project and no timetable to resume this work. This unreinforced masonry wall is 40 foot high and perched adjacent to high voltage lines and a city street. With another Montana winter approaching, if this wall is to remain indefinitely, then consideration should be given to anchoring this wall back to a more permanent structure as a veneer to meet the currently adopted 2006 IBC Building Code or be removed down to and including the foundation. With this project being on hold indefinitely, I would encourage you to consider bringing the wall up to Code or completing its demolition. Current Building Code Requirements for masonry Structures (TMS 402-08/ACI 530- 08/ASCE 5-08)requires Anchor spacing at a maximum of 32 in.horizontally and 25 in.vertically,plus anchors at 3 ft on center around openings (within 12 in.), and with at least one anchor every 2.6 SF of wall (Seismic Design Category"D"). if the City of Bozeman Building Department allows the use of the IEBC,then this spacing can be increased;however,with the uncertain future for this project,that may be a tough sell. The required ties should be made to a more permanent wall behind which should also be braced (typically at floor and roof diaphragms) and protected from the weather. The natural solution is to construct the Brewery Building with the permanent backing wall and bracing to Code;however,if that is not an option;then,as an alternative,we could investigate the design of temporary bracing designed to Code for a new masonry veneer. This will entail the design and construction to Code of a permanent foundation,steel(or other)frame,a backing wall that can be exposed to weather(concrete or other), and anchorages to the existing veneer. This frame likely will have to be removed for any future proposed use on this project. To summarize,the existing bracing is constructed as designed for the temporary bracing of the existing unreinforced masonry wall along N. Wallace Street between demolition and construction. The wall is adjacent to a sidewalk (which continues to be closed indefinitely),high voltage power lines,and a city street. If this wall is to remain in its current configuration indefmitely,I would strongly recommend the design and construction of a permanent structure and bracing of this wall to Code or the complete demolition of it down to and including the foundation. After you have had an opportunity to review this Structural Update and recommendation,I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and further discuss your options. Sincerely, David M.Sigler,PE Principal Structural Engineer Enclosures: Noted Cc: File-07003 P.O Box 114 Bc=man,Alontana 59771-0114 Phone.406-597-1051 _ ,st.+�, Fax•406-597-40 5 �--- ` ma`.!ir iFanfShptd!sen�cam Spanish f exbZnji;werinq f GastiltMJ,�l CI Structural civil Aquatic February 27,2009 Goff Architecture 201 S.Wallace Street,Suite A3 Bozeman,MT 59715 Attn: Graham Goff RE: Bozeman Brewery Demolition—Structural Update Dear Graham, The purpose of this letter is to summarize the current progress and status of the demolition at your Bozeman Brewery Project, While the overall demolition progression has followed the original plan and concept, the plan was updated throughout the process to account for changes in expected conditions and demolition methods. Throughout these updates to the demolition proceedings, we have maintained a good level of communication with regular conversations, inspections, and occasional updated demolition drawings. Per your request,I have made a final round of updates to the staged demolition and bracing drawings to reflect the current status of the project. These drawings are attached for your use. In addition, I performed an inspection of the site to evaluate the overall completeness and effectiveness of the existing bracing on-site (see attached photos). Overall, the bracing appears to be performing as designed. With regards to completeness, the existing bracing on site appears to meet or exceed that which has been specified. The initial intent (and design) of this bracing was intended to be short term bracing, with bracing back to the final structure expected to be completed by now. The longer duration exposure increases the likelihood of further deterioration of the mortar currently holding this unreinforced masonry wall together. We have attempted to address this with the addition of mid-level bracing along the south masonry wall. The north wall should be more adequately braced and protected since the exterior wood frame wall and a portion of the roof remains in place to protect and brace this brick face. Overall, while the existing bracing is constructed as designed for the temporary bracing of this masonry wall between demolition and construction, I would strongly encourage expediting the completion of the next phase of construction to permanently protect and brace this wall in its final configuration. In the interim, I would recommend regular inspection of the bracing and overall condition of the masonry wall on a regular basis. At a minimum this inspection should take place once a month and after any major wind or seismic event. Inspection should include checking the condition of all existing bracing and connections in addition to inspection of the condition of the masonry wall and notifying the Engineer immediately upon any signs of new cracks,displacements,or other signs of stress distress. If you have any further questions on this report,please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David M.Sigler,PE Principal Structural Engineer Enclosures: Noted Cc: File—07003 fau?Fr.• AN ERE ::FR c R u [C T 0 7 0 0 3 F F N U I I T I U N P H u T 0 c i e' v , 7 r :,•w4'. i� �r'�`•i�c t - J!! Photo 1: Back side of existing braced wall (facing east toward Wallace St.) I Photo 2- Section of bracing behind masonry wall fronting Wallace Street (facing south) S P p N I: H P F% F S E N G 1 N F F R I N g C N -- I T 1 1, P A G F I F [, F 7 OS IA >lip Photo P& South end of partially demolished and braced Brewery Building (facing east) .r- t Photo P4 North end of partially demolished and braced Brewery Building (facing east) c r E14 ihrrr Ir, P AG E 2 0 P 3 I ' q i 1' •1 C ' Photo P5 South end of partially demolished and braced Brewery Building (facing south) Photo P& North end of partially demolished and braced Brewery Building (facing north) SFnNI S M F F r « ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, ILL C �— F a F .1 F aez a �a awe GLL69 1W 'NVW3Z08 0 ^r;s .��- I s.asswwv Ewa rasrn.avn.�awmz a:)DIIbM 43JON £08 'LOB on•3ani:)311HZ)avJ100 Ajannaa8 uowazog ayl Q N m o N .as till a� Hill Lij 11 p g g a � r 4 31 i J I ( a m m m m CL - --` cWn cn O m € F � j o tj S�S�H�31HWJ�� Z ¢ - mWsW J Z aN�$zvi� t so3sz� S �, I ' D_ £S-dsg �z C) en LLJ CL Jf JC Q7 j - f 6.469 :W 'NVW3ZOB o 4 wcm+ `.,.�—..• `' aO411DM qjJON SOB 'LOi3 K$ ;o Q �— an'3anla3liHa8Vaao0 4iamaa8 "ow,,uazog aq1 aN mF= N mud ss.a � El �r o Ig t&fie ill Hill j ?k of b� 8 � a �g9 9 R � O � ' O a i-`- �g LL. El El sa 0 v 3 _ m m m cn d W 0 O z cn W Of ' � m 9LL69 .W 'NVV43Z08 o m L1.2 M r..+„T,,. ,.a..w»,�.-•�3.�-•-;�.., o aoollDhi 43JoN £08 'LOB J o 3'o a n'aai��llH�av /jama�8 Jowazo8 a 1 d e Q N CO o caam um -z� 'it'll Fj a� 9e �K 6 g gF � �S p I `J S �g W m m m m i V i 0 Q Z C4 W � s as �A ae' 8.}ck.- e 0 e8 S tit; oT. r - o - ' m 9.L6S LW '14WOZOB o Z o r+w�-:�waNeo:„w rzM,cn,co• a�� 4 a0 3 IIoM B 'lOB 0.o an'aanioaiwoavaaoo �(aa�naj8 uoLUGua OOzo8 ayl a N m 0 m � N o —�_ 5 ill �L lilt, :sg LL- ' a a r w Q hkk < T T Q ti Q Q Q � 131 m m m h L' 1 { U) { u z T co L�i"I o Z r \" { Ljj LLJ elf Fg m we wns"U.. oa K»o< GLL69 1W 'NVW3Z08 L,2LCC4 ' anolloM 41JON £09 '108 3 o anMIM33yHoav�oo AjaMa-ig uowazog ayl mo o w,s g ib 8�e (n J Qa t, Li € e ee x I ... w e tL till! I 1pi C. i m 511161fill it z - z - T o o' O w a. e@e o nY m I r` Q gel z LLJ m m m > a w -nr-- I s � a a '! :6 I gg i b J Q w it w v NNNY a t 4 4113 y4V �i�' ye � L iV c � 6 R38 i� J � b b Ld I o 0 4b` Mb �9 Ck 8 gg m szG a 'NVM3ZO8 �) -- - � 1, ��/�o 6ama o\/\a\/ a\ /f ® CN w _ \ / \ . / 2 I } } I / / / \' } \ \ I | \ ` � » [! < U) ¢ } / ] i \ e \ ' \ �| / ] � ;i � !� - - - ----- ---- �� � ,! \ ,I l J \ |§ ƒ Y § » �Pj-f r % . �Rq g m u ® § \ b % | ] j �� � e . .t a G.L69a '¥w=B | _ODM wm G9 '1 /% p -- � \ anan @vim e` AJG_Je m LU@ me a# R __ q _j , % < \ e I I x I I I ! ) I l Y- u ! � A ! m � r \ m m —� L � z — - ----- ] 2 -7 � $ � \ § z ; ] \ e e / � i . � / � z o \ / q \ k z � / � - s �| ^ I - - --�—---- � \ I I e z / i ; / as a_ 7E j / | q ) c ± | § © b / / m | NEI ' t\ i � 9.L69 1W 'NVVr3Z09 woaviro `•,.,,.�,,-° a;.w"`^"' aoolloM 41JON 202 '102 01'3a IDUH08VA�00 laatAaJ8 Uowazog ayj m I o I 71 6i19 . Q In z 0 0 I z I g� 911 I o >!` Q I ' o f ' o 0 I cn w I � ' I � I I -- - - — — - -- - J ! Q o Z _o ! t J o W j J I Q J a- € I O e� r � Fi„ n 3 LU b gig Li ICE — �—N G1L% IN 'NVV13700 AK a0D110M 41JON 208 U9 Epmon`aan�3ilHOavaioE) AJaMaJo Uowazog aylzN Q F x ' o 1. ;�a =3�m _ �N CN v e ¢ 0 1 - 0 b =n = x 0 x Q U U } N a Q ZU z� x �I� Q QTS' a x <¢ cn V) �x N In z < x N J \ _x o ,x N J U N — U J x J N ioe Z W m Y -i a U Q_m Q Z W m Y J cr CD x!E Ow m �a w j OZ OQ m I-Q a'� OZ O¢ w� Ow O'_ Ow } D wJ OLL O Ow } 0 U Uz is L m 0 U Uz �a u m Of U Z0 U Q� w U Z0 0 0 O Z Z U+1 U O Z Z c:� .� C, U� Z Z W C� Up Z ZLLI Z U ao � cn In � O p Cn Un m w � w w w U) w w W N�CV W Z� ^ w O �✓:C) O= o O F- = o U - =Q�?y UQ I U �-�J^p� I Z L30nZpQw 1-i,ll z 0LLI 0LJ xq H j In a-1= 5: Fes- J �T H > �Q �`' J v) p0-wV) C) J ¢ V) OLxUn �=z3 ¢ >c i-xZ\O x Of ¢0 ww w a cn cn w a �n m a w m Q. S I—coaf Q J a Q U (10 Z Z D' J J O x O C5 O w w - O O zFa Ql=�Q W z�� Q(D< w xzo UafLIJ x XzU UQ w Of u'Oz Z7-�- m WOz Z�� m Q. xOU 0 XOU O� O wU0 .-N H wU� M� U U P.O.Box 114 Bozeman,Montana 59771-0114 Phone:406-587-4051 -t Fax:406-587-4053 mailospanishpeakseng com Syattisk peaks n9i:leering C Onsuttinl,LLCI Structural civil Aquatic October 27,2010 Goff Architecture 201 S.Wallace Street,Suite A3 Bozeman,MT 59715 Attn: Graham Goff RE: Bozeman Brewery Demolition—Structural Update Dear Graham, The purpose of this letter is to document the current structural condition of the wall and temporary bracing and make a recommendation for either the demolition of this structure or to maintain/stabilize this wall indefinitely in its current condition. On October 20h I made a site visit to inspect the current condition of this building and the bracing. As noted in earlier inspections, the original intent(and design)of the bracing for this wall was for a short duration between demolition and final construction. In the building's current open condition, it continues to deteriorate which threatens the temporary bracing anchors which are fastened to the existing structure. Photo#1 below is the existing wood column base. The slab supporting this column is crumbling as the exposed wood framed structure below deteriorates;in addition it was embedded in concrete and is severely rotted. The existing epoxy anchors into the unreinforced masonry wall (photos #2 & #3) continue to experience significant tension loads and load cycle reversals as the wind blows on this wall. Over time with these load cycles and with the small movements of this wall, the brick will continue to crumble around the epoxy. Between the wide vertical spacing of these anchors (versus code),the strength of this old masonry and mortar, and the tension loads which are unique to this masonry wall due to the exposed interior wall,these anchors are not designed to support this masonry wall indefinitely. v • Photo#1 Photo#2 Photo#3 The effort to maintain/stabilize this wall indefinitely in its current condition would include a significant structural design and detailing to identify portions of the structure which need to be demolished in addition to the necessary modifications to protect and preserve portions of the structure to remain. The existing portion of roof remaining over the north half of this building needs to be removed along with the existing north wall down to the third floor slab (Photo#4). The existing wood framed wall will require numerous new ties to the existing veneer on the east side of it,while the top and west side of this wall will require a weather proof finish. The south end of this structure will require an elaborate steel frame or other support which must be anchored to the existing wall at the required vertical and horizontal spacing to code. This frame should include a finish veneer to protect the existing masonry wall from wind loads tensioning these anchors from the west. A new foundation will be required to the west of these walls to support a more permanent bracing system. As discussed in earlier assessments, all of these modifications would have been accomplished with the incorporation of this wall into the final building design. Letter to Goff Architecture RE: Bozeman Brewery Demolition—Structural Update October 27,2010 Synnisk PeAb Znjineerinq 4 c!,onsutti",LLB— Page 2 of 2 5trudur4l Civil Aquatic .sa. Photo#4 Photo#5 When this project started, it had my whole support. 1 was as excited as the City of Bozeman, the Northeast Neighborhood Association, and others to work together for the adaptive reuse of this amazing building in Goff s ambitious plan; however,without the project as planned moving forward,the temporary bracing for the existing 40 foot high unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street is not adequate for continued support of this wall indefinitely. In the absence of the resources to complete this project as originally designed, it is regretfully, my recommendation for the demolition of this structure. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance with this effort as we move forward. Sincerely, David M.Sigler,PE Principal Structural Engineer Enclosures: Noted Cc: File—07003 BREWERY WALL COST COMPARISION Prepared by: Goff Construction, Inc. 10-26-2010 COST TO REPLACE WALL(Veneer only) • 4,270 square feet @ $25.00 per foot= $106,750.00 COST TO BRACE WALL • Engineering=$12,000-$15,000 • Excavation/Compaction=$8,000.00-$10,000 • Foundation =55 yards @ $300 per yard=$16,500.00 • Steel Bracing= $40,000-$60,000 • Installing Required Wall Ties=$9,600.00 • Weather proof finish-4,270 square feet @ $8.00 per foot=$34,160.00 SUB TOTAL=$120,260.00-$145,260.00 COST TO RESTORE WALL • Re-point brickwork- 3,595 square feet @ $5.00 per foot= $17,975.00 • Re-build cornice—675 square feet @ $25.00 per foot= 16,875.00 • Repair prior opening/patches-200 square feet @ $35.00 per foot=7,000.00 • Create proposed window opening—1600 square feet @ $7.00 per foot=$11,200.00 SUB TOTAL=53,050.00 BRACE/RESTORE TOTAL=$173,310.00—$198,310.00 NOTE:All numbers are preliminary and for planning purposes only.Actual costs will depend on final design of bracing. kPG Forth tomaa Qk8 APP"d No 1 44D18 �' l// i Wm) United States Department of the Interior 00723 , � National Park Service 7 23 , National Registers W �;l`uS�® IC MsCeS 987 Continuation Sheet Bozeman Brewery Historic District Section number 8 Page 20 Historic Name: Bozeman Brewery Historic District Common Name: Lehrkind Brewery Complex Location: 700-800 blocks of North Wallace Ave. Classification: Historic District private ownership public acquisition: n/a occupied restricted access residential and commercial use Ownership: Multiple Location of Legal Description: Gallatin County Courthouse, Main Street, Bozeman, Montana Representation in Existing Surveys: Historic Resource Survey of Bozeman, Montana, 19 82-1995, sponsored by the Bozeman City-County Planning Office. Repository of Survey Records: Montana State Historic Preservation Office, 102 Broadway, Helena, Montana. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Bozeman Brewery Historic District Contributing structures: 5 Non-contributing structures: 0 The Bozeman Brewery Historic District is composed of five historic buildings that are directly associated with the Julius Lehrkind family and the family-owned and -operated Bozeman Brewery business. The remains of the brewery, a four-story brick structure, stand at the north end of the district, Across the street is the one-story, brick bottling plant. To the south of these two industrial buildings is the Lehrkind family compound, consisting of the large, Queen Anne style Julius Lehrkind House, and the more modest houses of Henry Lehrkind and Edwin Lehrkind, which were built a decade later. The district is located in the northeastern corner of the city near the Northern Pacific Railroad depot. The Bozeman Brewery building, built in 1895 at 803 N. Wallace, was the largest building in Bozeman until the construction of the Montana State University Field House in 1957. Since the closure of the brewery after the passage of prohibition in Montana in 1919, the three-bay, eastern portion of the building with the attached malting house has been demolished, and new entrances have been cut into the remaining bays. The present facade of the brewery building is asymmetrical and consists of an off-center entrance bay with three flanking, vertically fenestrated divisions to the south and five unfenestrated divisions to the north. The tall, round-arched window openings have cut sandstone sills and wood frame, double- or triple-hung, one-over-one sash. The exterior brick and concrete Nn Form W-C OiW2 Approval No 1024-0018 (DM1 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service N aftnal G3e&tern ®V Mstopoc Places ConftuaUon Sheet Bozeman Brewery Historic District Section number 8 Page 21 bearing wall construction features 1 8" walls set on a rubblestone foundation, which was laid on a 2-foot bed of washed sand. The sand improved drainage and may have acted to cushion the building from the reverberations of the 1959 earthquake. Three water wells were dug beneath the brewery, one to a depth of 2001 . Approximately 12,000 square feet of the brewery building was devoted to refrigeration rooms. The floors and walls of the refrigeration rooms have 7"-8" of cork sandwiched between layers of concrete. At present, four York compressors, which were installed in 1917, are still in place, although not operational. A tall parapet with a semi-circular nameplate reading: "Julius Lehrkind, 1895, Genuine Lager Brewery" has been removed from the building and the corbelled cornice is now level and finished with metal coping. The roof is flat and has four, large skylights. In 1948, a two-story addition was constructed in the place of the malt house by Haynes, Incorporated for use as a photographic studio, gallery, and museum. Although this addition reads as a separate building, it is actually an incompatible addition to the historic brewery building. The brick veneer of the west sidt of the brewery building fell off the building in 1979 and has been replaced with white sheet metal. The Julius Lehrkind House, a two-and-one-half-story Queen Anne residence, built in 1898 at 710 N, Wallace, forms the central focus of the district today. This well preserved, large, irregular plan, brick house responds to its corner lot location with a wrap-around porch set at the base of an octagonal corner turret and a corner, etched glass front entrance. The porch has arched wooden detailing and a decorative balustrade. The windows are diamond-paned, six-over-one or single-pane, one-over-one double hung units with flat brick arches and concrete sills. The combination gable roof is covered with cedar shingles and features gable end decorative detailing in wood and a second story porchette with a gothic arch on one side and a Roman arch on the other. A substantial, wood frame carriage house is located at the west end of the lot. To the south of the Julius Lehrkind House are the residences constructed by Lehrkind's nephew, Henry, and son, Edwin. The Henry Lehrkind House, built ca. 1908 at 707 N. Wallace, is a one-and-one-half-story, clapboard-sided residence of an irregular plan with a cut-away corner entry. The two-bay facade is asymmetrical and consists of an offset, glass-paned front entrance, Windows are one-over-one double hung units and there is a bay window on the front facade. The combination gambrel-hipped-gable roof is covered with brown asphalt shingles and features a hip-roofed dormer on the north elevation. The Edwin Lehrkind House, at 701 N. Wallace, was constructed in 1912, This one- and-one-half-story, gable-front, Bungalow style residence has a rectangular plan with a recessed stone porch across the front. The frame construction is finished with narrow reveal bevel siding to the window sill level, and alternating rows of wide and narrow reveal shingles above. Windows are one-over-one double hung units and the roof is covered with cedar shingles. K"f«m 104 0" ONB AWmVef No.102+0018 (sue! United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Bozeman Brewery Historic District Section number 8 Page 22 During Prohibition, the Lehrkind family diverted their energies to the soft drink business, and Carl Lehrkind, Julius' grandson, had Fred Willson design the one- story, brick bottling plant constructed at 802 N. Wallace in 1925. A note in Willson's diary says "given commission to do as cheap a building as possible. " This commercial structure has an irregular plan with a diagonal corner entrance. The facade of the bottling plant is asymmetrical and the windows are one-over-one double hung units with segmental arches. The header bond brick construction rests on a concrete foundation. The parapet is finished with brick corbelling. A concrete block addition is appended to the north. A small, sheet metal clad addition has been built to the south of the bottling plant. All of the buildings included within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District retain a high degree of historic architectural integrity, with the exception of the Brewery building itself, which has been reduced in size by the demolition of the eastern three bays and compromised by the construction of a two-story, concrete masonry unit addition in 1948. The brewery nevertheless retains sufficient historic architectural integrity to accurately recall its early function and remains an important, integral component of the historic district. The six residential and industrial buildings that compose this small historic district stand as a cohesive group that serve to reflect an important aspect of Bozeman's historical development. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Bozeman Brewery Historic District Period of Significance: 1895-1925 Areas of Significance: Architecture, Industry The compact Bozeman Brewery Historic District, composed of two industrial and three residential buildings, represents important aspects of Bozeman's industrial, social, and ethnic history. Julius Lehrkind came to Bozeman in 1895, bought out the local Spieth and Krug brewery, which was located at 240-246 East Main Street, and carried on the "Bozeman Brewery" name and business in the large new brewery he had built in the northeastern corner of the city, a sparsely developed area located adjacent to the Northern Pacific Railroad facilities. Lehrkind's German heritage likely influenced his decision to locate his family home adjacent to his brewery, rather than in the rapidly developing residential districts on the south side. In the tradition of his native country, where he served his brewmaster apprenticeship, Lehrkind brought numerous members of his family into the business as the enterprise prospered due to expansion and diversification. The small, residential, family compound that grew up adjacent to the brewery between 1897 and 1912 reflects the family's active involvement with various aspects of the business enterprises. Lehrkind's Genuine Lager Bozeman Brewery also represents a period of heightened technological development in the beer making industry. During the 1 860s, lager breweries surpassed ale breweries in both number and production in the United States. With the introduction of mechanical refrigeration during the 1880s, NPG F*_10-000-a QUB APPr d ft 1024-WIB (0-M United States Department of the Interior National Park Service WaMouid G3e&tev ®V Nstor is Places ConVnuallon Sheet Bozeman Brewery Historic District Section number 8 Page 23 lager brewery architecture took on its characteristic appearance, Typical of the period construction, enormous refrigeration rooms with cork-lined walls were constructed within the Bozeman Brewery building. Beer would be aged in the refrigeration rooms for approximately 6 months prior to marketing. The Bozeman Brewery, at full production, turned out 40,000 barrels of beer annually, The malting plant (now demolished) where barley was treated prior to brewing had a 3,000,000 pound capacity. Barley became an important crop in the Gallatin Valley by the 1 890 's and the Bozeman Brewery provided a local market for the colony of Dutch farmers that settled near Manhattan. As world lager production doubled between 1880 and 1890, and tripled by 1900, the Lehrkind family business prospered, In 1899, Lehrkind opened another brewery in Silesia, Montana, which was followed in 1910 by a brewery in Red Lodge, Montana. In addition, Lehrkind also owned saloons and operated an ice company during this period. Construction of the Lehrkind Brewery was overseen by Julius Lehrkind, himself, but it is not known whether plans were drawn by an architect or adapted from published sources. Lehrkind was familiar with the brewing business from a lifetime of experience, beginning with an apprenticeship in Germany, Lehrkind fled Germany and compulsory military service by stowing away on a ship to the United States at the age of 17 in 1860, Arriving in New York during the Civil War, Lehrkind found work in a Philadelphia brewery. In 1868, Lehrkind inherited a portion of his father's fortune and moved to Davenport, Iowa where he and his brother Fred opened their own brewery. In Davenport, Julius Lehrkind married Emelie Lambach and had six children. Lehrkind's brother Fred married Emelie's sister Bertha and had four children, who became Julius' charges after the early deaths of their parents. Julius sold the Davenport brewery in 1 894 and traveled in three special railroad cars to Bozeman in March, 1895, with his family and a crew of brewery workers. He was attracted to Bozeman by the young city's central location, high quality water, and proximity to large barley producers. In 1897, the year that the Queen Anne style Lehrkind residence was completed, Emelie Lehrkind died, In 1899, Julius married yet another Lambach, Lina, his wife's niece, and had one child, Herman Lehrkind, in 1900. Herman finished high school in 1918 and joined Julius' nephew Fred at the Red Lodge Brewery just before Prohibition. Julius Lehrkind's nephew, Henry, and his son, Edwin, built their houses adjacent to the family mansion in 1908 and 1912, respectively. The passage of Prohibition in 1919 was said to have broken Julius Lehrkind's heart. He died a few years later, in 1922. The Lehrkind family operated the Lehrkind Coal and Pure Ice Company out of the brewery building during Prohibition. In 1925, Carl Lehrkind, Julius' grandson, opened a bottling plant devoted to soft drink production across the street from the brewery. Upon the repeal of Prohibition in 1932, Edwin Lehrkind brought a brewmaster from Butte named Ottman into partnership, and revived the brewery business for a short time under the label of "Old Faithful". Subsequent uses of the brewery building r NP3 Form I000a QWD App .i No.10240070 (see) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register ®g Hstcft Maces C onUnuati®n Sleet Bozeman Brewery Historic District Section number 8 Page 24 include an ice plant and warehouse, the Kessler Creamery operations, and most recently a music recording studio. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bozeman Daily Chronicle, May 20, 1 899. Burlingame, Merrill G. , Gallatin County Heritage, Artcraft Printers, Bozeman, Montana, 1976. The Coast: The Gallatin Valley, Montana, Volume 15, #k6, Seattle, Washington, 1908. Interviews with Herman Lehrkind and Gretchen Uhlrich, August, 1985. Tax Certification Application, Patrick McMullen, April 11, 1985. VERBAL BOUNDARY: The boundary for the Bozeman Brewery Historic District includes two east-facing half blocks and one west-facing half block of the 700 and 800 blocks of North Wallace Ave, Only the Lehrkind brewery, bottling plant, and residences are included within the boundaries described as follows: Northern Pacific Addition: block 104, lots 29-32, block 108, lots 11-22, and block 109, lots 13-16, UTM REFERENCES: ACREAGE: approximately 6 acres X: 12/497 850/505 92 80 Y: 12/497950/5059100 Z: 12/497 800/5059100 Bozen:an Brewery Historic District p: primary c: contributing nc: non-contributing Address Building Name Date Style Status 701 N, Wallace Edwin Lehrkind House 1912 Bungalow c 707 N. Wallace Henry Lehrkind House c.190 8 Colonial Revival c 719 N. Wallace Julius Lehrkind House 1 898 Queen Anne p 802 N. Wallace Lehrkind Bottling Plant 1925 Vernacular c 803 N. Wallace Bozeman Brewery 1895 Commercial Italianate c �� -���` ,� ` '� �. . t , _��.�'.' �5 �' �� �. 1 �4 t J y �i SS�� 1 ' S • `: ♦ . i �,. i i, ti. f p. � � ♦ �� � . t Y i'rj 4j �... CD [ <E ' CU CO u cl- L �. 4-j ' En 0 •�� U OU • tea P ra En l,�y,�pj Pad e•� c 0 0 ..' 1 D 4--J CU 0 4-j 1 , .� 1 ,i d �, `� .: 'ram, � � y �t 11���. �, �_'. w ._.e„�,6.. q �. •• t __ y s�� �� � r <--t- M � :; � 4 .'' 4� I rye I . . ' C � �d M { 1 r 1 r _ � r 14 rri C 1'[',•y ... 0 L-D CL G �. 4r.. Cr • u >- Or- Ln o ' u L ' 0 ---� 4 . cp rd n A �p4-J 1 -71 ra � u...l� 0 e E r-4 N n* 0 0 0 0 4-1 ai Cl 4.J !,� -17 M i r i . f s • •J � F k Alf • ' � t: •x 4 i , r K; r L � r 7 �d ry 0 to a.... [D f rj U ` oz— -� aj • P-0 - ,-4 A--, u ro C ra ro w 0 cu o } ► r-Q C-,n 0 �, 4J + e 1 M y. I 1 . I � I � t � y } ti• �r .r- c � rri 0 rg .4.j C:l U C- 4J a-1 U 0 U u w al C...a .;•� C C.. C� 0 Ili . ...4 • w, �C 0 r-A 41 U L. ul CU L3 �. A 40 0 M L- 4-j 1 `0 ila rx, L11 0 I� C e 6 X= J-- r-i r,4 ra M u 0) 0 nu 0 0 r ra 00 � CL cz:l Minutes for BHPAB meeting September 21,2010 In attendance:Mark Hufstetler(Chair),Lora Dalton,Bruce Brown, Crystal Alegria,Dale Martin, Boone Nolte,Ryan Olson,Paul Reichert,Anne Sherwood(Secretary),Courtney Krasner(City Liaison),Alyson Bristor(Planner). Quorum established. 1. Meeting was called to order at 6:34pm. 1I. A motion to approve the June and August minutes with minor corrections was made by I.D and seconded by B\. :llinutes were approved unanimously. III.Jon Gerster(former BHPAB member) spoke as public comment: - lives next door to Brewer'.Was supportive of initial proposal,considered it"progress"but this was before the current economic situation.Considered the 1,ehrhind iNlansion and the Brewery as sister,,. "We aren't owners of historic structures but their caretakers."Worried about fire at the Brewer and felt if it burned the I ehrkind would burn. Owners of the I.elirkind jumped on board and supported the"demolition"and the proposed project as it was planned. - Alarmed that historic brewen•district is in jeopardy. ()nl} 5 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 its Under assumption that wall was coming down but learned that bringing the wall down would be detrimental to neighborhood.Changes{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 I,ehrkind for 14 years.Would love to have a project there that honored the history. Chris Nixon spoke as public comment: - Has spoken in favor of projects before and pulled hack later on. dill District project is an example. Felt it was reflecting the history of the silos and area but now not one of the buildings will be built with a gain structure.The historic silos are gone and so is the history."Poofl without public comment." - Felt that the Brewery project was going to honor the history and keep the fagade. 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 reflect 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. XIl. ;Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. C\: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,historx and impact on a historic neighborhood. IV.There was no es parte communication. V.Allyson Bristor introduced Graham Goff,architect of the Brewen Project. AB is the city planner on the project. - Grand development plan to do mixed-use to rehabilitate the faSade 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. - Cite was aware of financing problems with developers.City allowed demolition to occur BEFORE RE final site plan approval.We now know this is not enough security to assure what will occur on the site.AB sacs:"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 C;\ on how city felt when project was presented a few rears 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. Graham Goff spoke about the project: - Been working on this project for six rears.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. V1.INIH 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. - ID,PR,MH,BN,LG were selected to be on sub-committee. - RO asked if engineer says wall will stand for 100 years,ghat do developers avant to do?GG said engineers were asked for a structural update of the condition of the wall. \II. Mceting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. - 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?All 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 riming;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 we need to avoid"what if'scenarios.Can ask cite staff for more information but we can't demand it. Can make recommendations to cite staff.Can't make engineering judg ments. RC)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. N'll.Board Discussion of Brewery Project: CN asked if it would difficult to get a structure in the same place due to high voltage power lines once that wall is remove& . JG said gives greater urgency to save the wall as it's grandfatbered in by Northwestern I:nergj,%Good question for the power company. 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;NIH 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.1:thically and morally,the stall needs to star but only way this will happen is if N E Neighborhood works"xith 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. 'geed to support the wall to buy time.What is lost,is lost,and can never be replaced. B13 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 be the bracing for the wall. R()is having a hard time quantih7ng his opinion. Might be dissenting from the group—so many issues are wrong with it.Trying to compartmentalize his thoughts and is having trouble. 11I. Meeting adjourned at 9:2,p.m. 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 stricture 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% UNI feels the-,all should be saved and in big letters written upon it (quoting Shelley's poem C)zymandias): "Look on my works,ye mighty,and despair." BN asked the I.ehrkind Mansion owners how can this board help you? C N 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 demolition.Support efforts of NFI 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 vay. 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. 'III.Chair's Report-;NIH,Chair 1I1. Meeting adjourned at 9:2-p.m. Board taking action at its December meeting. Aspen Street Pedestrian Bridge: RFP-Proposals received. Planner Keri Thorpe stated she has received responses from Gaston Engineering and Stahly Engineering. Based on its review, staff finds that Gaston Engineering proposes the most practical and cost effective approach and has responded affirmatively to the request to stay out of the 100-year floodplain. Responding to Chair Nelson, Project Engineer Johnson stated the Board can accept staffs recommendation or can choose to read the responses and make its own determination. He confirmed that the next step is to negotiate the fees and, if no agreement can be reached with the top selection, staff will move to the next choice. He then indicated that it would be beneficial to have the consultant meet with the Board prior to undertaking work, noting that the final report will then be more responsive and more easily understood. In light of additional discussion, it was determined that the Board will meet with Gaston Engineering at its meeting next month if an acceptable fee can be negotiated. Brewery Building-Application for Demolition, background and status. Associate Planner/Neighborhood Coordinator Allyson Bristor distributed a timeline for the brewery project, noting that she was the Planner assigned to the project when it was originally submitted in May 2007. The applicant received permission to begin demolition of the non-contributing portions of the building while the preliminary site plan process was underway, and began that demolition in July 2007. The Commission granted approval of the preliminary site plan for a mixed use development in August 2007. That application included restoration of the front wall, with a huge structure behind it with an elaborate foundation system and underground parking, and office, retail and residential components. The final site plan approval included a requirement that the applicant install a traffic signal at the intersection of North Wallace Avenue and East Peach Street; the applicant appealed that condition to the Commission, and the appeal was approved in April 2008. In March 2008, an encroachment permit for the sidewalk was approved; and one- year extensions of both the final site plan approval and the encroachment permit were granted in 2009. Those extensions terminated in May 2010 and, to date, nothing has happened. As a result, the City sent a letter to the applicant asking for an update, and the applicant's response was to submit an application for full demolition. Staff deemed that application inadequate for further review and requested a structural analysis update from the original structural engineer; that information was received on September 30. The application is now scheduled for review before the Development Review Committee on October 20 and 27; for review before the Design Review Board on October 27; and for action by the City Commission on November 15. Responding to Nelle Devitt, Associate Planner Bristor stated that the Brewery District was one of the eight historic districts created in the 1990s. She stressed that, while the loss of this building would be significant, it would not result in automatic elimination of the district. She noted that the only way a district can be amended or terminated is through the formal application process with the National Park Service. She then stated that the applicant had, at one time, considered seeking federal historic preservation tax credits but later chose not to do so. Associate Planner Bristor identified a number of issues to be considered during review of this NURB Meeting—October 5,2010 3 application, including the possibility of requiring permanent bracing for the wall rather than full demolition and the costs of rehabilitation. She stressed that staff has not had an opportunity to review the information submitted and, as a result, has no recommendation at this time. The Associate Planner noted that loss of this structure could affect the significance of the district, but was hopeful district could remain in place. She stated this site is a principal component of the district, noting that the activities in the building, as a brewery and a site for many social events, set up the significance of the district. She indicated that there are a lot of inconsistencies in the original paperwork for this historic district. Also, she stated the brewery building was modified many years ago, so was no longer in its original state. She then reminded the Board that many other significant structures still remain, including the Lehrkind residence and the bottling company across the street. Responding to Tom Noble, Planner Bristor confirmed that the applicant could tear down the building and request removal of the site from the historic district through the National Park Service; however, the neighborhood conservation overlay district would still remain in place. While review under that overlay is somewhat different from the review that would be done under the historic district, it would still provide some opportunity to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Tom Noble stated he feels the developer holds all the cards and that the result will be complete demolition of the structure rather than any attempt to use any portion of the former structure. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor stressed that this review is in its early stages; and it would be helpful for staff to hear from the boards now as well as for them to forward a recommendation to the Commission for its consideration. Responding to comments from Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Bristor confirmed that the NorthEast Neighborhood Association (NENA)will be meeting on October 26 to discuss this issue. She then noted that this is her last preservation project, since she will be assuming the position of Neighborhood Coordinator. In light of this change in her position, she suggested it may be best for another planner to handle this project to avoid any potential conflict in her staffing positions. In response to comments from various Board members, Associate Planner Bristor stressed that the plan previously approved has expired and, as a result, there is no plan for the site at this time. She acknowledged that, if the applicant wishes, he could request another extension of the previous approvals which, if approved, would reinstate the plan. Chair Nelson suggested the possibility of requiring a deed restriction on the property that would require reconstruction of the existing wall. Responding to Chair Nelson, Commissioner Liaison Taylor stated he intends to attend the various advisory board meetings and to listen to the comments made, and will weigh that information as he makes his decision when this item is before the Commission. Responding to Planner Thorpe, Planner Bristor stated that if the issue is opening the sidewalk NURB Meeting—October 5,2010 4 back up, alternatives to demolishing the wall could include permanent bracing for the wall or a different means of pedestrian access or established crossings. Planner Thorpe noted the Board has set aside $15,000 as a match for the Preserve America Grant for the depot; and it now appears that grant will not exceed $5,000. As a result, the Board has $10,000 that it could earmark for some type of assistance in addressing this issue. Chair Nelson stressed that whatever has occurred to date is now "water under the bridge", and it is important for this Board to look forward and determine what it can do. He is not willing to give the developer money, and he is concerned about how the partial demolition of the structure has already impacted the value of the district. He then reiterated his desire to put a deed restriction on the lot that requires cataloging of the elevation and require that any new development include reconstruction of at least the major elements of the front elevation, since that is the only way to ensure the site is developed as the Board envisions it. He then cautioned that the existing building is located very near power lines. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated her first choice is to preserve the structure. Associate Planner Bristor stated that planning staff can only consider a project as it is submitted. She noted that if the Board wishes to recommend preserving the wall, it needs to also identify what it hopes to see in future development of the site. Tom Noble stated the Board needs to recommend that the applicant not be allowed to tear the wall down, but require that permanent bracing be provided. He noted that this has been done in many other places around the world; and he does not believe it is an unreasonable request. He then noted that it will serve as a relic of the historic building that was there until the site is redeveloped. Chair Nelson stated he feels there is value in preserving the wall, but he does not want to keep that from someone redeveloping the property. Project Engineer Johnson noted a deed restriction is typically used as a bartering chip for subdivision, and cautioned that in this instance, a deed restriction would devalue the site. Associate Planner Bristor noted that the City code requires a one-year stay for demolition, which would give time to study the site and the wall prior to any demolition occurring. Commissioner Liaison Taylor stated it would be beneficial to have this Board forward its recommendation based on its desires and interests. The Commission can then consider that input along with all of the other recommendations and input it receives. Tom Noble stated his recommendation is to investigate the cost of permanent bracing of the wall, with the intention that the wall be permanently preserved and used in future development. Chair Nelson noted he generally agrees, but is willing to either accept the existing facade or a replacement that retains its character. He also wants to consider the most expeditious NURB Meeting—October 5,2010 5 redevelopment of the site and does not want retaining the existing wall to slow that process down. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese voiced her agreement with Tom Noble's position. Bob Pavlic asked if anyone knows what the prior taxes were on this property and what is being paid now, to determine how much this district has lost in its increment. Following a review of tax information for the past three years, Jeanne Wesley-Wiese suggested the amount paid in taxes now appears to be $3,700 less than the amount paid three years ago. Action Item— Consider a motion forwarding a recommendation of approval or denial to the City Commission for the Brewery Building Demolition. Project Engineer Dustin Johnson stated this district has lost a significant contributing factor, and that should be noted. He then reminded the Board that the sidewalk is a public right-of-way. It is important to recognize that the applicants have put themselves in the current position, but they have also taken away negotiating power because of existing health and safety issues. He noted he has heard the rumor that the City is requiring the applicant to tear down the wall to get the sidewalk back and stressed that Engineering staff neither has nor will require that be done. Bob Pavlic stated he can live without the sidewalk, he wants to see the wall preserved. It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Daniel Doehring, that the Board recommend preservation of the wall to both the staff and the Commission, and that the decisions about the outcome of the wall lead to the most expeditious redevelopment of the property, with the wall incorporated into the design. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor thanked the Board for its input. Discussion Items (continued)— Depot Trail Pocket Park maintenance. Planner Keri Thorpe stated she has talked to Correctional Supervisor Greg Bishop, and he is willing to do some end-of-the season work. She then noted that, if arrangements can be made early next season, he is willing to use his workers to do summer maintenance on the pocket park. She then reminded the Board that they will not do any spraying, but could possible clean out the drainage area. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese voiced a willingness to provide input on the work to be done in the park. Trail construction projects: North Church Avenue and East Aspen Street. Chair Erik Nelson reported that he met with Gary Vodenahl, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, to look at the North Church Avenue and East Aspen Street trails. He also prepared some sketches of those trail improvements that can be attached to the application for planning review. Chair Nelson turned his attention to the East Aspen Street trail, noting that a review of the area NURB Meeting—October 5,2010 6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tern Pentecost 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 Bill Rea Allyson Bristor,Associate Planner Scott Bechtle Tim McHarg,Planning Director Elissa Zavora Tara Hastie,Recording Secretary Walter Banziger Michael Pentecost Mark Hufstetler Visitors Present Chris Nixon Carson Taylor Graham Goff ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22,2010(Continued from 10/13/10.) MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved,Mr. Rea seconded,to approve the minutes of September 22, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13,2010 MOTION: Mr. Rea moved,Mr. Hufstetler seconded,to approve the minutes of October 13, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Bozeman Brewery Demo Mods to FSP#Z-07145A(Bristor) 801 &803 North Wallace Avenue * A modification to an approved Final Site Plan application to allow the demolition of the existing buildings on the site with related site grading. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Memo noting she had also provided an additional structural update as well as a timeline. She noted the redevelopment proposal initially came to the City in 2007. Ms.Zavora joined the DRB. 1 Design Review Board Minutes October 27.2010 Planner Bristor stated the major demolition of the Building had occurred after the Final Site Plan approval from the City. She stated that after Final Site Plan expiration,the public safety risk and resulting closed sidewalk caused City Staff to contact the owner who indicated they would like to move forward with complete demolition of the remaining wall. She stated she was not in a position to forward a recommendation from Planning Staff at this point as there was one remaining DRC meeting that would be held November 3,2010. She stated the DRB would not be speaking to any new designs,but would rather be discussing the demolition of the remaining wall; she reiterated the code requirements for demolition of a contributing structure noting the City Commission would be the final decision making authority. She stated the Commission would have to find the structure as a detriment to the health and public safety of the community. She stated the Commission could place a stay on demolition for up to two years;she cited the buildings on Main Street that had been damaged in the explosion. She stated the building was included in the Historic District with five other buildings and the Historic District designation may have been lost to the City of Bozeman already. She stated an amendment process would have to occur to attempt to prevent the loss of the Historic District if it had not occurred already;it might make no difference if the wall remained. She stated Staff had recognized that there would be a lot of renovation work to the east wall that had originally been found to be appropriate. She stated she would have to leave the meeting at 6:15 to attend a Neighborhood meeting. Graham Goff addressed the DRB. He stated the demolition was being requested due to life safety concerns with the remaining wall as it existed. He stated the owner had been weighing the options of either demolishing or permanently stabilizing the wall. Mr. Bechtle joined the DRB. Mr.Hufstetler asked Planner Bristor for clarification that if the cost of demolition exceeded the value of the building would it mandate approval of the demolition. Planner Bristor responded the cost would in no way mandate the approval of the demolition and added other factors giving value to the site would come into play. Mr. Hufstetler stated that perhaps in terms of overall philosophy the guidelines in the UDO might not be the most appropriate way to evaluate the proposal as the wall was an integral component of the larger approved development project;the criteria in the UDO seemed more specific to demolition with redevelopment proposed afterward. Planner Bristor responded the UDO was more specific to demolition with a redevelopment proposal but the existing code was what the City used; she added she would want the review agencies to be able to review the proposal regardless of whether or not the UDO was specific to demolition without a redevelopment proposal. Mr.Hufstetler stated the cost of demolition would always be cheaper if no redevelopment proposal was included in the cost analysis. Mr. Banziger asked for a reminder about the intent of the original approval with regard to reusing the demolished material and salvaged wall. Planner Bristor responded the wall was to be permanently braced,repaired,and renovated with new construction occurring behind the salvaged wall. Mr. Banziger asked if the new structure would be designed to incorporate the remaining wall. Mr.Goff responded the new construction had been designed to complement the salvaged wall. Mr. Banziger asked if there was any foreseeable timeline for the new construction. Mr.Goff responded he had no way of predicting when the new construction would occur;would financing be available or people be interested in purchasing the property. Mr. Banziger stated weather protection would have also been a factor. Mr.Goff responded the permanent bracing and weatherization were expensive;the owner's casual conversations had been to provide a reinforcing mat with a weatherization spray over the top. Mr.Rea asked if the DRB would be forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission. Planner 2 Design Rey icw Board Minutes October 27.2010 Bristor responded Mr.Rea was correct and added the DRB would also be forwarding a recommendation to Staff. Ms.Zavora asked Planner Bristor to read the last three lines of the demolition section of the UDO. Planner Bristor read the language regarding cost estimates for repair and demolition and the review criteria for said demolition. Ms.Zavora asked if the wall were demolished,how it would affect the new construction. Mr.Goff responded the approval for new construction had lapsed due to the current economic state and threatened the viability of what had been designed. Ms.Zavora asked if they would use the original proposal or go back to the drawing board. Mr. Goff responded a lot of time and money had been put into the original design and it would be revisited though he was not certain when that would occur. Ms.Zavora asked what the site would look like once the wall was removed. Planner Bristor responded Staff was considering the treatment of the site;Engineering was requiring the repair of the sidewalk in that location. Ms. Zavora asked if what was proposed in the cost estimate was for permanent bracing. Mr.Goff responded the estimate was for permanent bracing,but it was an estimate that would likely cost more once the work was underway,he added there was an incremental plan for removing the old building. Ms.Zavora asked if there was any cost involved that was singled out with the new construction to brace the wall. Mr.Goff responded the cost was not broken down as the new building would have been the bracing. Mr. Bechtle asked if part of the demolition proposed was to salvage the brick for use in reconstruction in the future. Mr.Goff responded the brick was being salvaged and added there were currently 44 or 45,000 of them salvaged. Because of proximity to the power lines,the top portion would be removed with a machine and very little could be salvaged after that,but the remainder would be removed and salvaged by hand. Mr.Bechtle asked if there had been adequate documentation for someone to be able to rebuild the structure using the salvaged brick. Mr. Goff responded there was adequate documentation as it was a condition of approval for the original proposal. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked how the language"reasonable"from the UDO would be defined. Planner Bristor responded she could not define reasonable and whether or not the proposal was reasonable would be at the discretion of the City Commission. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if the engineer had designed the bracing with regard to seismic ratings and the Bozeman area. Mr.Goff responded there was a temporary bracing provision in the code that made the current bracing possibly unsafe for permanent application. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if deterioration was occurring due to weather cycles and time as opposed to the temporary bracing. Mr. Goff responded Mr.Pentecost was correct and tests had been completed that showed issues of concern; they were beyond the temporary life of the bracing. Mr.Taylor stated the letter was missing a noun or verb or he couldn't read,the last sentence was incomplete. He stated Mr.Pentecost had gotten him on what was reasonable;it was normal with consideration for all circumstances and what a reasonable person would do and was how reasonable was legally defined. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost suggested a reasonable solution to remove the threat could then be to reinforce the bracing. Mr.Goff responded demolition of the wall could also be considered reasonable. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost opened the item for pubic comment. Chris Nixon,709 N. Wallace Ave.,owner of the Lehrkind Mansion addressed the DRB. He stated he had attended a Neighborhood meeting(18 members present)where 17 members wanted to see the wall saved; 3 Design Review Board Minutes October 27,2010 it was one of only five Historical designated Brewery Districts in the Country. He stated it appeared that the Commission thought the restoration of the fagade would be an enhancement that would benefit the District. He stated the Neighborhood had been supportive of the proposal for renovation to the fagade; if they had known the entire building would be demolished,they would have chained themselves to the building to save it. He stated as owners of the property next door,they had decided to help save the historic structures and it had been ten years before someone had attempted to salvage the property. He stated he was not anti-development but wanted it known that there was a value to the property. He stated he did not know how cost was reviewed but would be a drastic cost him and others in the neighborhood due to the loss of the Historic Designation. He suggested the Neighborhood would like to see a stay on the demolition to investigate the opportunity to procure funds to help salvage the wall;they wanted the opportunity to help salvage the wall but would need time to provide public noticing for their meetings and provide a formal recommendation. He stated the Neighborhood would like to request an open and continuance of the City Commission hearing date. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming,Chairperson Pro Tem.Pentecost closed the public comment period. Mr.Banziger asked if Staff had a direction they were leaning towards that they could disclose to the DRB. Planner Bristor responded discussions with the Director of Public Service, Building,Engineering„ and Streets had indicated the temporary bracing should not remain and the sidewalk should be repaired. Mr. Banziger asked if the wall could be braced in a manner that could return the use of the sidewalk. Mr. Goff responded the permanent bracing would allow the use of the sidewalk. Mr. Bechtle asked if the fagade was demolished and the materials salvaged,would there be any way to restrict was built on the property to be sympathetic to the site and Brewery Historic District. Planner Bristor responded Staff did not know how far they could go other than a possible casement. Mr. Hufstetler responded that even recreation of the building would not maintain the Historic District designation. Ms.Zavora asked if the permanent bracing would hinder the historic significance of the structure. Planner Bristor responded the District nomination described the Brewery building as having the least significance to the District though there were still significant activities in that location. Mr. Goff asked Mr. Hufstetler if historic designation standards had changed. Mr.Hufstetler responded a building typically had to be 50 years old;the sense was that if it was looked at in 1983,large chunks of the building had been altered within that timeframe;after the 50 year timeframe had been met,the structure became more significant. Mr. Bechtle asked if the proposed design included modification of the brick wall or for it to remain exactly as it was. Mr.Goff responded windows were being introduced in the northern half of the structure. Ms.Zavora asked for clarification if the District might be lost to the City. Planner Bristor responded that even if the wall were retained the District might be lost though each individual property could potentially be individually listed on the Register;she added she would speak with SHPO regarding re-delineation of the Brewery District boundaries. Director McHarg responded the preference would be to re-delineate the District,but failing that the individual properties would be listed. Mr.Hufstetler added there was no question that the Lehrkind Mansion would be eligible for individual listing. 4 Design Rev icw Board Minutes October 27.2010 Mr. Hufstetler stated he felt the estimate from the Engineering study did not qualify as the financial analysis required in the UDO and seemed to be a ballpark estimate without drawings. He stated the fact that having the historic wall in place would certainly add value to whatever construction took place at the site. He stated it was clear that historic properties were significantly valued economically. He stated that the DRB was reviewing a project that was half completed and he was uncertain the UDO demolition criteria would be appropriate for the proposal. He stated the HPAB had voiced opposition for the proposal; it pointed out flaws in the Planning and Building approval process. He stated the District remained in doubt as conditions existed,but there would be no doubt the Brewery District would be lost if the fagade were demolished. He stated there was a strong case to nominate the Lehrkind Mansion,but the other buildings were in question. He stated the project had the potential to cause detriment to the neighborhood as well as the property values of adjacent properties. He stated once the wall was gone, there was no certainty regarding what would happen to the property. He stated there would be a tremendous negative impact to the community as a whole and it was a case where a proposal was made and then altered in midstream. He stated he was not supportive of the demolition and suggested a stay on demolition for a year to see if the economic situation improved. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr.Hufstetler's comments though he was also sensitive to the owner of the property. He stated he was torn on the proposal; duration would be a factor due to the health and public safety issues. He stated it did not seem feasible for the applicant to come back every couple years to reinstall the bracing. He stated he was uncertain how to answer the review criteria when the duration necessary was uncertain. Mr.Rea stated the conversation of how much it would cost to save the wall was a matter of how much value the wall added to the property if it were sold;if the fiscal aspects were eliminated,the obvious answer was to keep the fagade. He stated he thought the neighbors would be happier keeping the wall than using the sidewalk. He stated if the demolition were allowed,the project would be dead;if a stay of demolition were suggested the wall could be demolished in the future. Ms.Zavora stated she agreed with Mr.Rea's comments and suggested she would be supportive of a stay of demolition. She stated a lot of effort had been put into the site to keep the wall and suggested the economy could change in the future;she would not use the economy at the present time as an excuse to tear down the building. Mr. Bechtle stated when he had first seen the proposal he was surprised to see the request for removal of a piece of Bozeman history though once he'd looked at the pictures he thought it had already been gotten rid of. He stated the fagade was unprotected and deteriorating being exposed to the elements;he understood the safety side of the issue. He stated it was cheaper to tear down an old building than it is to repair the structure. He stated he felt the UDO needed more teeth so that if someone was proposing to demolish a historic structure there should be a bond or something to preserve the element. He stated even if the same element was rebuilt with the salvaged bricks the character could be maintained,but its historic integrity and presence would not. He stated there was only a small portion of the building that was still the original building,if a stay of demolition was recommended the fagade would rot and no decision would be necessary as the fagade would be demolished by neglect. He suggested the Board either decide for bracing or demolition. Chairperson Pro Tem.Pentecost stated he was in agreement with a lot of what DRB members had said. He reiterated the review criteria and noted there had been a determination that the structure was not safe 5 Design Review hoard Minutes October 27.2010 with the perception that public safety was at risk. He stated he agreed with Mr. Bechtle that a decision should be made as to whether the building should be demolished or braced. He suggested the fagade should be braced as no value had been determined and noted value was perception based. He stated he believed the property still had useful life remaining. He stated the DRB had seen a number of projects where changes were authorized and the building was left to deteriorate. He stated demolition by neglect had almost been a precedent that had been set in Bozeman. Director McHarg stated the DRB could not require the owner to make the bracing permanent;the decision at hand was to allow the demolition or to place a stay on the demolition of the fagade. He stated Staff s approach would be to find a non-regulatory way to attempt to salvage the wall. Ms.Zavora stated Mr. Nixon had indicated the Neighborhood would attempt to help the owner salvage the wall as well;there would be a lot of community support. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved,Mr.Hufstetler seconded,to forward a recommendation to the City Commission and Staff for Bozeman Brewery Demo Mods to FSP#Z-07145A to deny the demolition request. Mr.Hufstetler stated Mr. McHarg had given an accurate reflection of what might happen moving forward with the proposal and suggested an active Demolition By Neglect Ordinance should be included in the UDO. Mr. Banziger stated he saw the motion as the only way to give the wall a fighting chance. Director McHarg suggested adding to the motion that the proposal did not meet the review criteria for approval of demolition as set forth in the UDO. Mr. Rea stated he thought it was important that the motion include the DRB task of basing the decision on fiscal elements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he did not think the fiscal issues would need to be included in the motion. Ms.Zavora added the monetary discussion would be included in the minutes and forwarded to the Commission and Staff. AMENDED MOTION:Mr. Banziger moved,Mr. Hufstetler seconded,to forward a recommendation to the City Commission and Staff for Bozeman Brewery Demo Mods to FSP#Z-07I45A to deny the demolition request as the proposal did not meet the review criteria for approval of demolition as set forth in the UDO. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr.Bechtle abstaining. ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Mr.Rea moved,Mr.Hufstetler seconded,to elect Mr. Pentecost as Chairperson. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr.Bechtle abstaining MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved,Mr.Banziger seconded,to elect Mr. Rea as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr.Bechtle abstaining ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15—20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter,within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board,not on 6 Design Review Board Minutes October 27,2010 Date: 10.24.10 Letter to the Planning Department From:Wallace North (previously Wallace Bottling) Owners of 802,810 and 820 N. Wallace property(immediately to the east of the Lehrkind Brewery) Re: Response to request by Scala Properties to be allowed to demolish the remaining wall of the Lehrkind Brewery We'd like to add our request to that of the Scala Properties that be allowed to demolish the remaining wall of the Lehrkind Brewery building. We are very disappointed that their plans have had to change, but still think the planning department should immediatly approve their request.This wall is in very poor condition, and we agree with the assessment that it is has become a serious safety hazard. Unless we can be assured that the wall can be secured to the point that it is 100%safe, it is in the best interest of all parties that they be allowed to proceed before someone is accidentally hurt. Scala has already invested a significant amount of time and money into the development, and have gone to heroic lengths to preserve as much of these old buildings as they could, but we must face the fact the fact that these buildings were very old and had been virtually abandoned and neglected for many years before Scala purchased the property. They were in such poor condition that they were just too far gone and the economic downturn created additional obstacles that they couldn't have foreseen. We know that NENA,the Bozeman Historic Preservation Board, and the Planning Department are concerned with thoughtless tearing down of some of the structures that might be in a condition to be saved. We share this feeling, but don't believe this was the case here. None of us own this property, and as such it is unrealistic of any of us to demand that they keep this structure, pay huge sums to shore it up or demand that they sign agreements that they can't make due to the economic realities they have to deal with. Even more important,the planning and building department charter is first and foremost to ensure the safety of the public.We and all the taxpayers in the City of Bozeman are at risk right along with Scala if this fagade were to be left as is and it falls down. The neighbors walking, biking and jogging down Wallace or Tamarack,the guests of the B&B and my tenants,their employees,their clients, and are the most likely to be hurt. We,the owners of the B&B, and the taxpayers of the City of Bozeman would be the "deep pockets"they would come after if the wall fell and someone was hurt. Let's learn the lesson that the explosion downtown should have taught us, and take care of this dangerous situation before someone is hurt! Bill and Bobbi Clem Notice to NENA MEMBERS of an EMERGENCY NENA MEETING When: Sunday, November 7, 2010 Time: 7:00 PM- 8:00 PM (shorter meeting of one hour) Location: Bozeman Senior Center, 807 N.Tracy Ave Message from NENA PRESIDENT Chris Nixon We failed to obtain a quorum of 45 NENA members at the recent Regular Fall NENA meeting required in order to send a Neighborhood statement to the City Commission. It was made clear at the NENA meeting that demolition of the remaining brewery wall will guarantee the loss of the Historic Brewery District designation within NENA's boundaries. Retention of the wall is the only chance of retaining the historic district designation in the National Register of Historic Places and the resulting financial and social values associated with such. The Northeast Urban Renewal Board, The Bozeman Design Review Board, and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board after reviewing proper criteria, have ALL forwarded unanimous statements, save for one abstention on the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, requesting the City Commission to deny the wall demolition request by the applicant. A recommendation by NENA is strongly encouraged. NENA Officers are in hopes we can work with the Developer and City in a joint effort to save the remains of the structure. There are many ideas being suggested as to possible bridge loans to help properly stabilize the wall (which is possible), and a beer related community fund raising event to show support and good faith on part of the neighborhood and community at large. But,we need a quorum of 45 members at this emergency meeting to forward an official NENA statement to the City Commission. There is a great deal of new information on this situation that may impact your view of the current predicament of the wall and its value to the community. Please attend the meeting, learn, and voice your opinion with your vote. I may be reached at christopherfnixon(aDyahoo.com and 406-544-4901. Agenda: 1. Discussion of the current situation of the remaining brewery wall 2. Member vote on the following motion (with possible changes) NENA RECOMMENDATION/REQUEST OF THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION TO DENY DEMOLITION AND SUPPORT PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC BOZEMAN BREWERY WALL.