HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-11 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the HRDC Building –
23 June 2011
Members Present: Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Jecyn Bremer, Lora Dalton, Lesley Gilmore (Secretary), Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Ryan Olson, Dale Martin, and Anne Sherwood. - Quorum
was established.
Absent: Bruce Brown, Jared Infanger, Boone Nolte, Crystal Alegria, Jane Klockman, and Paul Reichert.
Guests: Carson Taylor, City Commissioner Liaison
Meeting was called to order at 6:50 pm, after a quorum was established.
Minutes from prior meeting:
Motion to approve was made by JC, after several corrections were made.
Motion was seconded by MH.
Public Comment:
Carson – it does not seem that the City Commission will get to Demolition by Neglect this year. Board members should feel free to lobby commissioners, but this probably will not be
addressed until September 2011. The city is addressing a lot of other issues at this time. It will be woven into the imminent discussion of the International Property Maintenance Code.
Lay low with it for now, and prepare for future.
JB: Spoke with Chris Mehl, who gave her some direction that she will share with the Policy & Planning Committee at their next meeting.
LG will schedule to speak with Cindy Andrus.
Ex Parte Communication: None.
Introduction of Invited Guests: Laura Landon - of Comma Q – who will be available to answer any questions regarding the demolition request.
Project Review and Recommendations to Staff:
Proposed demolition at 603 North Church.
Staff had issued a COA previously – for a renovation of the building and lifting it to install on a new foundation.
The renovation scheme proved to be more expensive. So, the owner is now considering demolition and new construction of a similar footprint.
CK reviewed and updated the Historic Property Form. She doesn’t think it contributes to a potential historic district, due to geographic gap between this and other buildings in the
area.
Laura Landon relayed the following:
The new building is the same dimensions as the original building (both based on 8’ modules).
Lifting the house, pouring new foundation, was extremely cost prohibitive.
Comma Q does have estimates that show that the new construction (and new foundation) will be less expensive. The owner has a limited budget.
CK: This neighborhood is mixed use, most of which was built after this house was constructed. There has been inappropriate infill in this area north of North Church.
MH: Disagrees with the revised property form and is disappointed that the form doesn’t address the potential for the building to be eligible under Criterion C under late nineteenth century
vernacular housing.
LG: How is it that staff updates the property form? CK explained that this is done when a demolition is requested (the COA did not prompt it).
JB: How many other examples are there in the city of this type of vernacular structure? And is this one of the best examples? MH: We don’t know, because the survey has not been completed.
CK: In the northeast neighborhood there are at least 50 similar examples of this. MH: Believes there are less than 50.
MH: The property form should address the context within which this building sits.
JB: Doesn’t agree that this building could be listed individually.
Comma Q: The asphalt/asbestos siding has been removed down to the original siding, which Laura believes in not salvageable. They had been hoping to reuse it before.
AS: Would omission of a basement help save the original building?
Comma Q: Didn’t have a basement in the original budget and renovation scheme, and it still came in $30,000 over budget. Lots of money to stabilize – with beams, and get it up to a standard
of a nice house to live in.
600 sf footprint – costs $12,000 to lift. Not sure how it would react when setting it back down. There’s currently a differential of one foot between two parts of the building, and
no exterior sheathing.
AS: It’s a shame there are no incentives to make it possible to retain the old house.
MH: The taxes are probably too low to make tax abatement strategy worth it for renovation of the house.
DM: Made a motion to support the staff’s recommendation. JB seconded. All in favor, 2 opposed.
LD: Would like to hear what the board thinks – what supports your vote. The Board summarized the issues, per board member, as follows:
LD completely ambivalent. It seems impossible to not save the house as it is, especially if something identical is to be built. Seems that the replacement building is a good one.
RO: Trying to save the house is counter-productive to the project as a whole. Foundation is sinking – we should help this guy have a house he should live in.
DM: He thinks the board is clinging too tightly to the past. Replacement won’t be that evident when passing by on the street. He assumes that siding, roofing, windows, streetscape
will be similar.
JB: Has to defer to staff’s update based upon new information. The architect has stated that historic siding isn’t even salvageable. 19th century example, but not sure it’s prudent
to save something that probably doesn’t have enough integrity.
AS: Understands the need to live in a nice house. Sees no reason not to support it, but sees the sadness in not being able to maintain original intention of saving the building. Sad
that the economics don’t support the original goal. Hopes he can build the house with more proportions.
MH: Clarified his assertion that has been troubling him on certain levels for some time now. We need to make decisions based upon our guidelines provided by the city. We need full and
complete information to do this. The site form doesn’t present all the information (context). This could bring the board and commission to exposure for not following the ordinance.
His assertion isn’t tied to the specific financial needs of the owner. Especially in an area
where the property values are low and the neighboring buildings will not be considered eligible. We need to follow procedure.
LG: Concerned about all the assumptions that the board is being asked to make – about the property form (we need more contextual understanding) and the architectural submission.
Revised Motion by DM: I move that the board accepts the city staff recommendation to approve the demolition, seconded by JB. All approved, 3 nays.
CK: With regards to demolition projects like this. Should we require the applicant to provide an updated site form? Agreed that this could be too biased. MH feels it should come from
city staff, as a professional in an advocacy role. Impartial voice.
AS: Could we require the owner to hire someone to update the form? It could be paid for in the form of a fee to the city, who would hire a professional.
DM: NR criteria are not absolute. The absence on this form of Criterion C is a matter of opinion. MH is saying that all the criteria need to at least be addressed. Intellectuals in
the field disagree about this all the time. He feels we’ve left ourselves exposed legally. Most site forms should include Criteria A & C discussions.
DM: It seems that MH is saying that the board is not looking at issues deeply enough. What do you expect for a volunteer part-time board? Is MH idealizing what this board should do?
MH: The primary problem is that we’re consistently not receiving enough information.
CK: It’s clear to her that she should write a staff report for every project that comes to the commission. JB firmly supports this.
MH: Everything that comes before the Design Review Board (DRB) comes with a staff report with all the background information that helps them make decisions.
CK: A site form plan costs $250. Perhaps a similar fee could be charged for updating the property record form.
CK: She does not staff this board. She works with us, not for us. Her time spent writing staff reports takes time away from other items.
MH: This board is entitled to this support. CK – the DRB is the only board that receives staff reports.
CK: Demolition review is a courtesy; it is not the board’s purview. JB – then why are we even seeing these? Because the board has asked to see these projects and weigh in on them.
AS: In our retreat goals, we identified that we need ultimately some sort of review.
MH: Some of our actions are regulatory – like Tax Abatement reviews.
CT: If we’re going to have an advisory board, they cannot be expected to make decisions without the appropriate background information to be able to make a decision. If you want their
opinion, it isn’t worth anything unless it’s an informed one. This is the only way to make it meaningful.
DM: We should be careful what we ask for?
CK: So what should be taken off of her job list? Should this be the board’s concern? CK’s time is limited and the planning department is really tight right now. Something will have
to come off her list.
DM: If we’re going to ask CK to do this extra effort, then the Board needs to be better prepared themselves – to match that effort with knowledge of the ordinances. We need to be better
students. Or if it is a courtesy review like this, perhaps we should pull away from it and not put the board in an awkward position.
CK will at least try to identify the Sections of the Ordinance and a brief memo for each of these projects.
CK can put together a packet of how we review, the ordinance, etc.
LD – we should do a new member orientation.
AS: We should also encourage a site visit for each review; will require advance notice.
Chair’s Report (MH)
Preservation board reappointment and seats:
DM, JK, and CA have decided not to continue on the Board, so we’ll have three seats open. We have two new members coming in. Call to find new members.
CT: It would be good to let new prospects know what they’d be signing up for.
Tours: JK is still willing to establish a tour of the Neutra House – perhaps in July. CK will be gone the last week of July. A lot of people are out in July. CK: Have JK ask when
the house would be available, but JK resisted that (MH). The middle two weeks of July – either Tuesday or Thursday. CK – should we update the site form at this time?
Story Mansion
Corky Britton (of Livingston) has been talking with the city about purchasing Story Mansion. He’s into alternative energy (has a corporation) and historic preservation. He’s completed
a nice historic preservation project in Boise. He would make arrangement with other tenants.
AS: What if he sells it? There are convenants attached to it. He would keep the public parts public and find tenants for the currently unoccupied upper floors.
MH: It’s tentatively on the City Commission’s agenda for August 1.
CT: There are currently no other offers on the table (proposals are due 7/18/2011), although plenty of other non-profits have expressed interest. Would purchase it below the market
price, and if they fail at complying with the conditions attached to the building, the city would take it back.
CK: Then what happens to the Friends of the Story (FOS)? It’s a possibility that FOS could partner with Corky’s group.
Policy and Planning Committee (LD)
Tax Abatement Ordinance: Went through it at last meeting. Have reached a point where different members will revamp different sections of it and clarify. In progress – to correct grammar,
etc.
Demolition by Neglect: The plan is to address this at the end of summer when we have energy and focus. Spend the summer to think of something to kick off this demo by neglect process.
Thinks we’d be helped by having some kind of public force behind it – to express their opinions. Before then, sit down with a commission member to gather more ideas about going forward.
Need to figure out how it will fit with the International Property Maintenance Code.
Next meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2011. 6:30 pm, location to be determined.
Education and Outreach Committee (RO)
The Tuesday evening event was cancelled, due to lack of availability.
Tuesday, June 28: 5:30 pm, survey, meet at Tarantino’s.
Staff Liaison Report (CK)
This year’s budget (on back of Agenda sheet): Remaining funding was able to be allocated to:
Historic NR sign plaques and mounts.
Walking tour printing: Partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to reprint 1200 more. Preservation Board will pay $700, and Chamber will provide $1300. CK was able to obtain the electronic
copy (which is our property).
Preservation books from National Trust – will purchase about $180 worth, and provide them for the public at the library. Will accompany the book arrival with a press release.
MH commended CK on the really fine effort that she expended on this.
MH and AS proposed that new members should receive their own copies of Basic Preservation: What every Board Member Needs to Know.
Cemetery Tour: DM has graciously agreed to write the update.
CK proposed that we should offer half off plaque fee to HP award winners.
Grant applications: CK received a letter from MT Raillink today, authorizing her to get grants to fund a feasibility study of the building.
MH: The train depot, and Willson School are good candidates for tours.
COA numbers are really high, due to hail damage: More than 200 COA’s. CK’s been dealing with vinyl siding issues (where insurance will only replace cladding at 2 facades), so she has
relayed what the city will and won’t approve to the applicants.
Updates: No word on East Willson School or the Armory.
Parking lot west of Carnegie Library: CT says that it’s still going forward – the people from Atlanta are still interested. An RFP will be issued this summer. CT says the biggest issue
for the City Commission is to ensure that ultimately (at the end) they’ll get what they are promised. The project needs to be completed. Meanwhile, the process is moving nice and slowly.
Kappa Sigma wants to list their property in the National Register Property of Historic Places.
Thanks to Dale, Jane, and Crystal for their tenures on the Board.
Motion to adjourn at 8:20 pm– by RO, seconded by JB.
END OF MINUTES
Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore