Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-14 C14002 Public Comment for 430 S Tracy appeal from KeuchFrom:Courtney Kramer To:Agenda Cc:Lora D; Wendy Thomas; Chris Saunders; Greg Sullivan; Tim Cooper Subject:FW: Comments in regards to the demolition proposal of 430 Tracy (Application C14002) Date:Friday, October 10, 2014 10:45:17 AM Hello all, Please see below, a letter written by Steve Keuch, who is a member of the Preservation Advisory Board. The Board could not take formal, organized action on this application due to their inability to achieve a quorum at the meetings held. Board membership, however, does not negate the ability of Board members to comment on an item as a member of the public, which Steve has done below. Please feel free to contact me as needed. Sincerely, Courtney KramerHistoric Preservation OfficerCity of BozemanDirect line: 406-582-2289Front desk: 406-582-2260ckramer@bozeman.netwww.bozeman.netwww.preservebozeman.org "Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districtsto grow without them." - Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities From: Steven Keuch [mailto:sm.keuch@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 8:12 PMTo: Courtney Kramer; Lora DSubject: Comments in regards to the demolition proposal of 430 Tracy Hi Courtney, Below are my comments concerning the demolition proposal for 430 Tracy. Could youforward this to the commissioners and Wendy? Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a Great Weekend, Steve To: City Commissioners of Bozeman, Wendy Thomas, Courtney Kramer, and Lora DaltonFrom: Steven Keuch 502 North 10th Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 PH# 406-600-0804 Re: Comments concerning the demolition of 430 TracyDate: October 9, 2014 The following are my comments concerning the proposal for the demolition of 430 Tracy. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my appreciation/thankfulness, as well as my apology. I appreciate the BHPAB was given the responsibility to publicly review, discuss, and vote onthe issues pertaining to 430 Tracy demolition proposal. I appreciate the several opportunities the city afforded the BHPAB to accomplish this task. I appreciate the patience of all whoattended our meetings, especially to Mr. Talbot, Rob, Cyndy, Wendy, and Courtney. I appreciate Wendy for taking on the necessary responsibility to ensure all arguments, pro/con,were considered before making her professional decision within the allotted time. I can assure you our inability to bring forth a board decision was neither due to unwillingness norlack of concern, but rather the multitude of commitments during this busy summer season. I deeply apologize for our failure. The comments I’ll be presenting regarding 430’s demolition proposal were not tempered bythe BHPAB’s diverse wisdom, expertise and experience on this matter. I’m sure my thoughts, along with thoughts of fellow board and community members would haveamalgamated to best represent the outcome for 430 Tracy, thus my untempered comments are but a small fraction of what you, our elected representatives, need to take into considerationwhile deciding 430’s fate. The following topics will be used to convey my opposition to the demolition of 430 Tracy: 1. Rights and responsibilities 2. Mr. Talbot’s Options 3. A Precedent Already Exits. I. Rights and Responsibilities:This past June when the BHPAB met, its agenda allowed for public discussion concerning the demolition of 430 Tracy; I was one who was not prepared to discuss this issue. I arrivedfrom Butte just twenty minutes before our meeting; not near the time to peruse the well documented information. All board members took turns inquiring. It was during this time Ilearned Mr. Talbot lived next door to 430 Tracy. Attempting to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Rob, who was representing Mr. Talbot, “What was Mr. Talbot’s motivation for purchasing430 Tracy?” As soon as the question left my lips I realized its inappropriateness. Of course, anyone with the wherewithal can purchase property, thus a buyer’s motivation is not relevant. Rob was kind by stating, “I’m not Mr. Talbot, I don’t know his motivation.” Although it is true anyone has the right to purchase property, it’s also true there are specific ownership responsibilities for any given property purchased. These responsibilities varythroughout Bozeman. In this situation, 430 Tracy is a contributing historic home located on the South Tracy/South Black Historic District. To the best of my knowledge, it is up to thepurchaser to inquire on the specific responsibilities of any proposed property being purchased. Thus, a better question for me to have asked this past June would have been,“Did Mr. Talbot ensure the responsibilities of owning 430 Tracy allowed for his plan (vision) for the property (whatever that plan may have been). Starting at the bottom of page 2 of the Appeal of Administrative Decision, Mr. Talbot stateshis objective for the past three years for 430 Tracy: “Mr. Talbot has been seeking (to) sell the 430 South Tracy (property) for approximately 3 years, which sale has been hindered by thecondition of the fourplex located on that property. Mr. Talbot currently has had at least two parties interested in purchasing the property contingent upon the removal of the structure.” Mr. Talbot’s plan for 430 Tracy puts the city in an awkward position. By allowing thedemolition of 430 Tracy, the city allows Mr. Talbot to financially profit from its decision by enhancing the market value of his property; this, in and of itself, is fine, but when it is at theexpense of a contributing historic structure within the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District ethical appropriateness may come into question, since no viable plan exists to replacethe contributing structure, leaving a void of uncertainty within the community. Mr. Talbot’s sole motivation for requesting the demolition of 430 Tracy is to maximize the market value of his property (this is understandable for any property owner seeking to sellproperty). With no viable plan to offset the historic lost, an approval for demolition would be a worrisome precedent at best, an unethical nightmare at worse. Now, let’s re-examine the statement, “…which sale has been hindered by the condition ofthe fourplex located on that property.” I find this quite interesting. Was not the fourplex located on the property when Mr. Talbot purchased the property? I would assume the currentownership responsibilities for 430 Tracy are the same when Mr. Talbot purchased the property. If these responsibilities didn’t hinder Mr. Talbot from buying 430 Tracy whywould these same ownership responsibilities hinder a potential buyer now; a potential buyer who may have a vision for the existing contributing structure. Furthermore, the fourplex,thanks to Mr. Talbot, looks more marketable now than three years ago. In this situation, the city has to be mindful of not giving the appearance of being in the business of enhancing market values solely for the financial benefit of property owners,especially at such a high cost to the integrity of an historic district. II. Mr. Talbot’s Options: We all agree our historic districts not only enhance the economic vitality of Bozeman, butmore importantly they represent our cultural heritage. Is the Bozeman community willing to participate in sharing the responsibility of preserving the economic and cultural benefits ourhistoric structures provide? Given the right approach I think this could be possible. In the past, we, as a community, have imposed restrictions on our historic structures. Why? Because we, as a community, realize their economic and cultural worth, albeit not in dollarsand cents, but this too can be researched and incorporated in the comparative cost analysis. Yes, these restrictions are made available to potential buyers prior to closing on a historic home, but hopefully the Bozeman community will step forward and realize, if we are goingto keep these restrictions in place (for good reasons), we, as a community, must also create incentives to offset the hardships these restrictions have on property owners. Drafting newordinances will only increase hardships, especially to those owners who didn’t sign-on to the new ordinance prior to purchasing their property. Unfortunately, Mr. Talbot’s options are the same options the previous owner had whenhe/she negotiated the purchasing price for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Talbot will have to provide the incentives for a potential buyer to purchase his property, as well as, the responsibilities of itsownership; in Mr. Talbot’s situation the main incentive is lowering the price. However, Mr. Talbot states, beginning on page two of the Appeal of Administrative Decision, “Mr. Talbot currently has had at least two parties interested in purchasing theproperty contingent upon the removal of the structure.” I inquired some weeks back whether a potential buyer of a contributing historic structure could submit his/her plan (vision) for theproperty prior to closing; including demolition of the existing structure. I was told yes. Meaning, if a potential buyer has a vision for the property, whether it’s a rehabilitation ordemolishing the existing structure to build new, the potential buyer can submit a COA application to see if his/her vision meets city requirements (an approved COA prior toclosing). This would be the wisest of moves for a potential buyer, although it may sound horrible to the seller if a potential buyer wants to buy their home only to see if he/she canhave it demolished. III. A Precedent Already Exists: It wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t present what I think is an outstanding precedent for situations as430 Tracy. Over a year ago the BHPAB voted in favor of a demolition on Lindley Place. The address is 329 Lindley Place. It is located on the southwest corner of Lindley and Koch. Currently, the new home, which matches the appearance of the historic home, is almost finished. I urge all of you to park your car at the T-intersection of Olive and Lindley andwalk south to Koch and absorb the ambience of one of Bozeman’s finest historic districts. 329 was basically in the same physical condition as 430 Tracy, albeit 430 Tracy is bigger with the complications of a brick façade, but all in all the structural integrity is about thesame. I must add, the vote to have the existing home at 329 Lindley demolished was not unanimous. I too was on the fence with my vote, but in the end I decided to put my trust inthe property owner, and her architect and contractors. It was my first demolition vote on the BHPAB (did me in). I made weekly visits to the site to ensure I made the right decision. Iwas just there yesterday. I’m happyJ with the outcome. I hope you get a chance to visit 329 Lindley to see what the BHPAB and you have achieved on Lindley Place and I hope youmake 329 Lindley Place the standard when an historic home needs to be unfortunately demolished. When 329 is completed, I plan to take a survey and record thecomments/impressions of the neighborhood on their “new house on the block.” I will forward those comments to you. I wish all of you luck with this difficult decision. Take Care, Steve Keuch