HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-12 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes i
i
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at HRDC —
24 May 2012
Members Present: Lora Dalton, Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Lesley Gilmore (Secretary), Jared Infanger,
Angela King Keesee, Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Jessie Nunn, Ryan Olson, Paul Reichert, and
Lisa Verwys - Quorum was established.
Absent: Jillian Bowers, Jecyn Bremer, Jennifer Britton, Bruce Brown, Steven Keuch, and Cyndi
Andrus (City Commission Liaison).
Guests: None.
I. Meeting was called to order at 6:44 pm.
II. Minutes from prior meeting:
A. Motion to approve was made by LD and seconded by LV.
B. Unanimous approval.
III. Public Comment: None.
IV. Ex Parte Communication:
A. MH received a phone call from Jerry Pape expressing his concern about an exhibit at the bank
that disparaged his participation in the Armory project. No one on the Board knew of this
exhibit. Jerry now wants to come and show off the project to the BHPAB. MH discouraged
Jerry from talking further about the project because it will be coming before the board officially in
the future.
V. Introduction of Invited Guests:
A. Joanna and Robert Nute, here for tax abatement review of their project at 308 S. Tracy.
B. Turned the floor over to the Nutes. The Board has received the materials— copies of the
original plans and the subsequent letter for consideration. CK brought copies of the plans to the
meeting.
C. Robert spoke that they wrote most of what they could think of in their letter. He grew up about 4
houses away. He knew the house all of his life; his family took care of the McDonald heirs
(daughters of freed slaves). The last McDonald died in 2000 at the age of 98. She left Robert
the place in her will; it was pretty much a wreck and not terribly livable.
1. Rubble foundation was shot; they replaced it with poured concrete.
2. Frame of the house —with real 2 x 4's— [sentence not completed].
3. Will share artifacts found during excavation with the Pioneer Museum.
4. 3 different sizes and styles of dutchlap siding. Very weathered because house had no
insulation. The architect, contractor, and painter determined that the siding couldn't be
rehabilitated.
5. Replaced doors, windows, trim, flooring. Utilized some of the salvaged material in
decorating.
6. Family lore is that it was built in 1864 on 20 acres. Horses and oxen.
7. He believes that they (the Nutes)just finished what was the 5t" remodeling of the building.
D. Joanna spoke to the damage in the sill plate.
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 1 of 4
1. Sheathing had been used elsewhere previously.
2. Framing that extended two stories [balloon framing].
3. Retained the original framing —joists, studs. Built a new shell around it to contain the
insulation (Corebond foam insulation, used also as a stabilizer to the walls).
4. Didn't use any MDF in the whole house. Used Doug Fir. Only change was oak at the
flooring (in lieu of pine).
5. Replaced single-pane windows with new insulated glass wood units.
6. Baseboard as a patchwork with rough joints.
7. Hardware holes in doors. All the doors were different. Replaced all the doors, fashioning
them off what were believed to be the older 4-panel doors.
8. Only two walls were still lath and plaster—the rest were vertical boards that were covered
with muslin and layers of wallpaper.
9. Living room had been fitted with c.1960s paneling and lowered ceilings.
10. Bedroom ceilings now higher—grabbed some height (about 2') from the rafter space.
11. Dormers to accommodate new stairs. Balanced with another dormer for a 2nd bathroom.
E. Questions:
1. LG: Please explain the extent of retention of original materials remaining in the building.
2. LD: What caused the siding to not be salvageable—what about it was not salvageable?
Joanna: Old and dried —from the lack of insulation in the walls. The wood itself was terribly
deteriorated, particularly on the south and west sides.
3. It was explained that the board's purview is the exterior only.
4. There is a staff report, but no recommendation (not in staff purview).
5. They added 80 square feet to the back of the building. It's less than the 10% amount
allowed in the regulation.
6. MH: are the windows wood-framed? Yes. One window is wider? Yes, 36" for egress; so
they widened the one below it for consistency of appearance. Outside and inside trim are
the same widths as the originals. Used Living Room baseboard as a guide for rest of
house. MH: Original house had a rubble stone foundation all the way around? Yes, except
a concrete foundation under the bathroom (from the 1930s or 40s).
7. LG: Were the windows salvageable? The wood was deteriorated, many were painted shut.
Robert— if the storms (exterior aluminum) had been decent looking, they could have reused
them and lived with that.
F. Comments:
1. MH:
a) Appreciate the Nutes coming tonight and sharing their story of the house and its history.
b) The result is a house that still continues to evoke the pioneer era.
c) That said, his comments come from a direct reading and application of the ordinance.
d) The most significant noncompliance is the removal of the historic siding. The question is
moot—doesn't matter how many coats of paint. If the siding is intact, it shall be
preserved and restored. Joanna said she had applied the Secretary of the Interior's
Guidelines allowing for replacement of damaged historic materials in kind.
e) MH also concerned about replacing the historic windows.
f) MH also concerned about removing the rubble foundation —or not using the rubble as a
facing for a new concrete foundation.
g) The video is telling. The contractor spoke about the project as being one to make the
house more livable (in lieu of a true preservation project).
h) There's almost no historic material left on the house today. If it were to be evaluated for
the National Register today, it wouldn't be eligible.
2. AK: Tends to look at these issues in a broader way.
3. LMG: Concurs with Mark, and in reading the ordinance, it's clear that the windows and
siding should have been retained. Am concerned that if we set a precedent for replacement
windows, then too many serviceable original windows will get thrown out. Use of storm
windows provides similar U-value as new insulated glass units.
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 2 of 4
4. LD:
a) This is a difficult process for the board, as the applicants really care about the house.
b) Constrained by the letter of the ordinance.
c) The project doesn't qualify for the tax abatement under the ordinance.
d) There are plenty of projects where people do scrape and reuse the siding and do restore
the windows.
e) The historic siding was part of the history of the house—what the original owner could
salvage— it told a story about the history of the house. That's the kind of aesthetic the
ordinance requires.
f) It's a very special house and will continue to be so, with people living inside it and
keeping it alive.
5. JN: In looking at the ordinance and the siding issues, feels that it's a pretty clear statement
of not qualifying. The mismatched and salvaged material was part of the character-defining
features of the house, that would have qualified it for listing in the National Register.
6. LV: Really glad to have enthusiastic owners of historic property come in and also willing to
share their findings with the historical society. Feels constrained by the ordinance.
7. RO: Doesn't feel constrained by the ordinance —felt that the homeowners used the advice
of their professionals that the siding was not intact. They replaced it with material that
replicated it to the best of their ability.
8. JI: Also feels constrained by the ordinance. Commends the owners for caring about their
building and hopes that the stories stay with the building. Piecing the stories together—of
all the owners— makes the story richer. Seems that the building was stripped down to the
frame, which is no longer visible. Only the bones are left.
9. PR: Prefaces his comments with a desire to review the revisions to the tax abatement
ordinance again. This is the type of project worth recognizing and giving some
credit/recognition to, regardless of what the code says. He knows that replacing things in
kind is okay and is always a judgment call. If we can't make historic building usable, then
they're not going to be saved. The owners took care about what's been changed and
altered. Worked with difficulty in layering of history and which time period to pick. He would
advocate that— provided state law allows—that the city at least accept the more lenient
federal standards, and change the ordinance.
G. Call for a motion: LD moves to approve the tax abatement for the Nute property; JI seconded.
Ayes— 3. Nays—6.
H. Process: CK takes the board minutes for this issue and will get the project onto the City
Commission agenda as an action item on their July 9 meeting. The Nutes will receive copies of
everything and will be allowed to come before the City Commission meeting.
I. Future policy planning about the ordinance: It was agreed to have the Policy & Planning Sub-
Committee review the efficacy and future of the ordinance, for future agenda item. CK can
provide some financial information about two tax credit projects: $38 savings for one property,
$329 saved over five years for another property.
VI. Chair's Report
A. MH turned it over to PR to discuss his proposal for Historic Lighting Restoration Project as an
SAT grant.
1. Metal caster's mark (Caird from Helena) is on one of the castings.
2. Downtown Business Partnership could provide a match to the grant.
3. Meet with the property owners. Doesn't know if we can restore the three remaining light
posts where they are. Globes are gone. Some finicky restoration aspects to this.
4. There is design work on Willson Avenue occurring right now that this might be coordinated
with.
5. SAT requirements. And, who owns the light fixtures? City or power company or someone
else?
6. LG moves that we support Paul's proposal; LD seconded it. All approved it.
B. Reminder that half the Board's memberships expire in June.
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 3 of 4
1. JI is moving to Mt. Ranier for 3 months, and will move to Gardner upon his return. So, he'll
be resigning.
C. Tours and speakers:
1. Neutra House: Will tour it next month.
2. RO can arrange the neon sign shop tour. Review this next month.
VII. Policy & Planning Sub-committee Report (LD)
A. Short report; we did not meet last month.
B. Next meeting: Tuesday, June 5; CK's office, 5:15 pm. CK can get a revised sign ordinance to
the members.
VIII. Education & Outreach Committee (CK)
A. Recap of Preservation Week:
1. Awards were really great.
2. Fun run was well attended (more than 60 people). LV heard a lot of great feedback. 3
different distances. It's good to partner with another organization.
3. Northside walking tour had about 15 people. Trees and Dale—transportation and
commerce and how the streets were laid out.
4. Library events were not well attended.
B. Total remaining budget of$800 has to be invoiced by June 30.
C. CK contacted the guy who prepared Billings' downtown tour App and will be receiving a
proposal from him.
1. It should be about $2,000-3,000.
2. Chris Naumann thinks the DBP might be willing to co-sponsor with us.
3. JN will be in Billings this weekend and test out this App.
4. Paul suggested checking with the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
5. BHPAB could pay part this year, and part next year.
6. MH: It's important to remember that ideally we'll be doing a series of these Apps ultimately,
so keep this in mind in developing a prototype.
7. Could this be webhosted? CK will check with interim IT director.
8. CK will keep running with this.
D. Next E&O meeting: In August.
IX. Staff Update by CK
A. SAT Grant status
1. The Pioneer Museum can't work it out with Gallatin County, so they can't take the grant.
2. Delaney & Company still won't take the grant, as reported at the last meeting.
3. The grant period is until the end of 2014.
4. The Eagle's Club continues to talk about a building rehabilitation.
5. Rialto Theatre project might apply.
6. The Lovelace Building is interested in doing something.
7. PR will check with the Emerson people.
B. CK is wrapping up the NT Grant application for the Northern Pacific Passenger Depot—just for
structural analysis, etc. —to be funded with $5000 from National Trust and $15,000 from the NE
neighborhood association. Needs a letter from MH by next Wednesday.
C. New member orientation planned for August— September.
D. CK announced that she will be out from early November 2012 to early January 2013 probably,
for maternity leave.
X. Motion to adjourn at 8:39 pm — by LD, seconded by LMG.
XI. Next meeting June 27, 2012.
END OF MINUTES Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 4 of 4