Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem 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, The motion carried 4-0. 2010 as presented. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the minutes of October 13, The motion carried 4-0. 2010 as presented. 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 Review 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 façade would be an enhancement that would benefit the District. He stated the Neighborhood had been supportive of the proposal for renovation to the façade; 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 façade 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 easement. 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 Review 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 façade 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 façade. 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 façade 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 façade would rot and no decision would be necessary as the façade 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 Board 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 façade 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 façade. 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-07145A 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 MOTIONThe : Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to elect Mr. Pentecost as Chairperson. motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Bechtle abstaining MOTIONThe : Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to elect Mr. Rea as Vice Chairperson. 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 this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Chris Nixon stated the agenda item had identified the need for the UDO to include Demolition By Neglect language and issues with the overall review process. He stated the Neighborhood had taken the stance of preserving the historic integrity of the community; ultimately there would be nice homes in those locations even if they weren’t historic and there was no problem with conflicting personalities but instead an indication that the City process was not working as it had been designed. He stated the Neighborhood would be behind the Demolition By Neglect issue to help prevent this type of occurrence from happening again. ITEM 7.ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. ________________________________ Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board 7 Design Review Board Minutes – October 27, 2010