Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-11 Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the HRDC Building – 24 February 2011 Members Present: Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Crystal Alegria, Jecyn Bremer, Lesley Gilmore (Substitute Secretary), Jared Infanger, Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Dale Martin, Boone Nolte, Ryan Olson - Quorum established. Absent: Bruce Brown, Lora Dalton, Jane Klockman, Paul Reichert, Anne Sherwood Guests: Carson Taylor, City Commissioner Liaison Meeting was called to order at 6:35 pm. Minutes from the February meeting were unanimously approved. Public Comment: CT provided the following information/insights: Concrete street light pole in-kind replacement success. Story Mansion: City manager is drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to issue to the Friends of Story Mansion, agreeing that the Friends would pay $392,000 back to the city and collaborate with the city to restore the 2nd and 3rd floors. Rental rates will be renegotiated to reflect the current market; the current rates, which are too high, are not working. The mayor proposed selling or giving the property to a non-profit who could take over the building and preserve it. This would have to be decided within 60 days, or the MOU will be enacted. Either the MOU or the sale would require the facility to have an educational purpose, be open to the public, and function as a community center. Apparently the Human Resource Development Council doesn’t have sufficient funding to take the building on. MSU is being asked as well. A Texas businessman is considering relocating his non-profit business in Bozeman and will be looking at the Story Mansion as a potential location. If the non-profit doesn’t restore the building, the city can take the property back. Ex Parte Communication: There was no ex parte communication to disclose. Introduction of Invited Guests: None. Project Review and Recommendations to Staff: None at this time. Chair’s Report – MH, Chair Non-Agenda Item: MH noted that the Board will need to appoint new officers. Jecyn recommended that this issue be deferred to the next meeting, when it can be on the agenda and publicly disclosed. West Mendenhall Property Tax Abatement: MH reviewed the Board’s actions at last month’s meeting. The Professional Review Committee’s response recommended denial of the application. The Board should recommend – or not - this response to the City Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the Board’s approach to prior application, with the belief that we should follow that intent of the ordinance (which should be supported by the substantive sections of the ordinance). It was agreed that the public should know what to expect – what bar to meet. Often the applicant’s presentations are unquantifiable. DM stated that a checklist of what type of work is considered eligible would be a helpful aid to applicants. We’d hate for applicants to get their expectations up and be let down upon rejection. Qualifications need to be well-defined. Either we exert this clarification effort upfront, or have to hash these issues out with each application. A checklist process could help sift out the unqualified applicants. DM volunteered to draft up the checklist. CK will work with Chris Saunders to determine how the ordinance could be modified to reflect the checklist. RO noted that the Tax Abatement is intended to offset rehabilitation costs and the resultant increased taxes. Would maintenance projects – such as the Mendenhall project – increase taxes? CA was concerned that our response might be too harsh and not supportive of maintenance efforts. Some properties are not being purchased due to heavy maintenance costs, so couldn’t tax abatements for such projects encourage maintenance and prevent demolition-by-neglect. The original intent of the Tax Abatement states that it is to encourage extraordinary projects. Motion: RO moved to recommend denial of the Tax Abatement for the Mendenhall project. DM seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous except as follows: JB abstained; she wasn’t present for the applicant’s submission last month. RO abstained. Further discussion: RO concerned that we’re second-guessing ourselves, resulting in a perception that we don’t know what we’re doing. He wondered if we could enact a moratorium on the abatements. MH proffered that we probably can’t legally. Is the ordinance unenforceable as written? MH proposed that for consistency, the Professional Review Committee (PRC) review the applications first and make recommendations to the Board. DM said it would be easier for applicants and the Board if there were a formulaic process to use. Perhaps a list of applicable projects would be helpful. MH opined that we could learn from the tax abatement ordinances and processes of other cities, and the information that the cities provide the applicants. CK expressed frustration with the state statute itself. RO: the whole idea is to provide help for those with increased tax burdens. MH: most of the money to be expended in the Mendenhall project was for insensitive modifications to the interior and site work. These portions of the project would be disqualified. CK: We review the entire building project for the Tax Abatement. CT: The Tax Abatement process was resurrected a few years ago when the Delaneys tore down a historic house and rehabilitated another. The Abatement was not intended to cover total insensitive remodeling. The state statue was written in 1989 to encourage new construction on vacant lots in uptown Butte. 1990 Bozeman thought to apply it to Bozeman. 2008 Bozeman wrote the ordinance, based upon the state statute. Bozeman’s ordinance doesn’t allow new stand-alone construction; only small additions qualify. Interim Process Decided Upon: PRC will review and provide recommendations to Board. The applicants should not present at the Board meetings, but to the staff. The onus should be on the applicant to apply and provide sufficient documentation for PRC and the Board to decide. If incomplete, we can direct questions through CK. DM will provide checklist. Motion: LG moved that the PRC draft ways to improve the Tax Abatement process based on tonight’s various discussions. CA seconded the motion. Unanimous approval. Policy & Planning Subcommittee Report by MH (for LD, using notes provided by her, summarized as follows: Construction bond ordinance: P&P is preparing a broad description of what the ordinance could be, to present to the City Commission in March or April. We’re looking into bonding costs and triggers. Historic and culturally significant signs: P&P is hoping to present some background and information to the City Commission on how to protect historic signs that would otherwise not be in compliance with the existing sign ordinance. We’re looking at sign ordinances from other communities. We’d like to cultivate an environment that preserves significant signage so it’s around to become historic – we’ve particularly noted the many neon signs that decorated Main Street in the past. Ck noted that the North 7th Board is starting to address signage. Should P&P test-run the sign ordinance here? Could be a pilot project. P&P could attend a North 7th Board meeting, presenting slides of historic signs. MH: Since there doesn’t seem to have been adequate staff time allowed for focus on this, can P&P present to the City Commission for 15-20 minutes sometime? CT: The City Commission if revising their goals: Demolition by neglect will be subsumed into the International Maintenance Code. Signs are on the Commission’s list, but the timing is unknown. Carson will note his, and the Board’s, interest to the City Commission. The time frame needs to be established, or they might advise the Board on where to focus their efforts. The City Commission’s plate is full; it is not for lack of interest. Next committee meeting: Tuesday, March 8, at MH’s house. Education & Outreach Committee Report by RO They reevaluated planned events for 2011. March seminar didn’t align with primary goal of Inventory Update, so cancelled. Might provide an Inventory Update Seminar in May during Preservation Week. Inventory Update: All focus is on support for the Inventory Update. After the windshield tour, we will identify an area to survey. E&O would have focus group meting with those in the inventory area. The committee will draft up a survey template. In May, E&O would hope to meet with the neighborhood to report the survey findings. To this end, CK provided the dotted maps of potential survey areas. Discussion ensued on where to do the windshield survey, with several proposed areas: North neighborhood: RR tracks to 7th South Tracy College, crossing Main to north neighborhood. West Lamme between 7th and Grand. Process: Update Windshield Survey template (P&P and PRC) Brief training. Pilot project – test survey with 3-4 groups (each supported by a professional). Put our boots on for the March meeting. Compile findings. P&P to review windshield template at next P&P meeting. $500 SHPO gift: How should it be spent? Can’t use for advertisement. CK stated that there was no avenue to extend the March 31, 2011 deadline for use of this gift. If for historic district signs, where should they be located and what size should they be? It was agreed that they should not be on separate posts, but on existing poles, integrated with existing signs, and not 18”x18”. Toppers were generally preferable. The 18”x18” size was proposed by John (staff). CK will meet with him to show him what we’d like (based upon JK’s photo of Portland sign). Can get 200 signs for $500. Would Downtown Business Association want to partner with us? With the $500, the Board could, in descending order of preference: Get topper signs for the historic districts. Buy dinner at night of survey training. Print flyer/brochure about what the Board does. Lanyard ID for surveyors. CK will present these options with more information and associated costs to the Board via email. RO added that the Board has funds that could be added to extend the capability of this gift. Next committee meeting: Monday, March 14, 6:30 pm at JK’s house. Staff liaison report Grants: April 1 deadline for new SHPO grant for $5000 for almost anything, including brick and mortar projects. A match is required. Presentations: Planning a presentation with various tax credit projects by the person who financed the two recent tax projects in Butte. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm. END OF MINUTES Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore