HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 01 22_BHPAB minutes Minutes for the January 22, 2015 meeting of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Members Present: Kelsey Matson, Pat Jacobs, Lora Dalton, Mark Hufstetler, Merri Ketterer, Cyndy Andrus (commission liaison) Members absent: Matt Kennedy, Michelle Morgan, Steve Keuch Also present: Wendy Thomas (Director of Community Development), Courtney Kramer (Historic Preservation Officer), Dave Chambers (Community member, Northeast Neighborhood Association) A. Call to order- meeting was called to order at 6:37pm B. Approval of prior minutes- Approval of minutes from November 2014 meeting deferred to February meeting, not sent to the C. Public comment- 1. Dave Chambers introduced himself, wanted to discuss the Affirmative Maintenance Ordinance D. Disclosure of ex parte communication- none E. Introduction of invited guests: 1. Brian Gallik, Attorney 2. Thomas Bitnar, Architect F. Project Review: 1. 401 South Willson Avenue, Application Z14218 2. CK introduction 3. LD: Is it correct that the house is generally in the same shape as it was historically? a. Yes 4. KM: What is the District’s period of Significance? a. CK: 1880-1937. 5. CA: Does the City require a higher standard for rehabilitation because it’s historic? a. CK: The higher standard was incorporated in the instructions to the third party contractor. 1. Example of beveled siding where repairs are needed. 6. PJ: Has yet to see that the building is compromised to such a degree that it couldn’t be saved and salvaged and creatively reused to meet the property owner’s needs. Example of Peach and Black restoration as what’s possible. 7. Applicant’s representative presentation: a. T. Bitnar: Familiar with the neighborhood; lived around the corner and rehabilitated a 9,000 square foot home. Also planned the addition to the Blair House. Loves historic buildings. Notes difficulty in handling earthquake safety issues in older buildings. Is concerned about the foundation and the need to move the house.
New design reflects Fred Willson’s symmetrical approach and fits better on the corner. Will create a safe, beautiful property. Existing building could be much better. This is a very average design for its time. Beautiful 120 year old building, but not in a historic style and not architect-designed. If you do something new, needs to have a good educated architect. It’s difficult to do good historic preservation architecture. Spoke about the need to do something. There’s a no-winning situation, but we must move forward. Encourages those who buy historic buildings to find a good historic preservation architects. Wants to see a beautiful building on this corner. Must be significant. b. BG: Invitation to walk through the building. 1. LD: Board members express interest. c. BG: Questions why the building is historic? 1. LD response: age, place on the streetscape. d. BG: Questions what the standards are? With regard to energy efficiency, etc. 8. PJ: Responds to the question about historic significance, and why the building is part of the Bon Ton Historic District and the district’s period of significance. The property is one of the collection that makes this district significant. It touches our group’s task; as we lose historic buildings we begin to lose the districts. The district is also not notable for its collection of Georgian Revival; it’s notable for the mix of high style and low style. This home represents the vernacular architecture of the working class; the lack of high-style architecture does not diminish the house’s historic significance and history. It’s part of the bigger collection that makes it important. 9. MH, three areas of comments. First, with regard to the historic and architectural significance of the building. As Pat said, the building is contributing to the historic district. Any architectural historian would tell you the building is also independently eligible. It’s one of the most significant historic buildings on S. Willson. There are some buildings farther north from the same period of time. This building serves as an anchor point for the “big South Willson” historic homes. It was early in the district’s history, and thus helped set the rhythm and pattern of scale of residences along South Willson. It’s true that it’s not high-architectural style, but it, like the others in the historic district it is the Bozeman adaptation of that style of architecture. Key points to remember for significance: Individually eligible, one of the oldest that survives, set the standard for those to the south.
10. MH: Rehab process question, does the City’s criteria mean that if the cost to replace is less than the cost to demolish and rebuild, the property meets the criteria? 1. CK: No, the criteria is having NO economic life remaining. 11. MH: That’s what he thought. Bozeman has a number of wonderful architects, but doesn’t have the contractors available to really handle a project like this. A rehabilitated property of this nature would have a much higher value than a new structure of the same size. It doesn’t seem like the estimates prove that the building’s economic life is remaining. 12. MH point 3: Proposed design is beautiful, very nicely detailed. It also contradicts the rhythm of the historic district as a whole. It doesn’t fit the historic rhythms of the streetscape. It would be a non-contributing building in the district. Bon Ton unquestionably our most valuable historic district, and this is a key anchor in that district. Proposed design will read as an outbuilding to the building to the south, partly because of the architectural style and partly because of the proposed setback. The existing neighborhood is full of individually designed residences which are compatible in terms of setback and scale, but distinct to their own property. The proposed design will create a block that is out of character to the Southside. 13. KM: Colleagues have hit the nail on the head. This is one of the most significant homes in the district because it sets the special tone for the district as a terminal house on the street. Wants to reinforce the fact that it’s a contributing structure to a greater historic district, but continued loss of contributing structures compromises the historic integrity of the district as a whole, which compromises the integrity of Bozeman as a municipality. Suspects that it needs a new foundation but doesn’t see anything that suggests that it can’t be adequately rehabbed. In termed as it’s significance: it’s not just a residence, it’s not just a place where people lived. It’s a tangible reminder of previous owners and is a source of historic information. When we lose our historic buildings from the past we lose the information those properties provided. 14. MK: Agrees to the building’s historic significance. Loss by attrition diminishes our historic integrity. Loves that Bozeman’s historic districts represent a diversity of economic status for the original owners. 15. LD: Lives in a working class historic home and has a great appreciation for buildings. Acknowledges the different economic costs involved with bringing a home up to a standard for modern life. Notes that the greenest building you can have is one that is already built. Anything you can do to renovate a structure to make it more energy efficient is a better starting point than demolition and new construction. Lives near the house and has been difficult to watch it’s
deterioration over the last few years. It does visually anchor the S. Willson streetscape. In historic preservation, LD is very concerned about streetscape. A district like the Bon Ton or S. Willson is a fascinating streetscape that pretty much delineates the architectural history of Bozeman. Would hate to lose that house and its place in the streetscape. The proposed development is beautiful but seems to be a real aberration from the streetscape of S. Willson and Bozeman, generally. It’s a beautiful building but it means creation of a block where things are all alike. Personally feels that if something in a HD must be torn down, it should be replaced by something that is in the present architecture and will be historic in 50 years. Concerned that the proposed development is more of the same. Would hate to see the rest of the block overtaken with Georgian Revival. Believes there is absolutely no question that the value of the building, once rehabbed would be much more than the cost to renovate it. Sympathize with the problem the owners face, and would hope they chose to enhance the wonderful and unique thing they have rather than make another reflection of what is already there. 16. PJ recommends the Board makes a recommendation that is tied to the criteria, and that board members be specific and deliberate about the language used to support the recommendation. 17. LD: First let’s have a motion about whether we’ll recommend for or against the recommendation. 18. CA: Pat makes a great point in making a recommendation that addresses the criteria by which the review authority will evaluate the application. 19. MH makes a motion (CK pull from other notes). KM seconds. a. Discussion: MK: we still need to speak to the issue of public safety b. PJ: The conflicting information that we’ve been provided doesn’t provide enough information to substantiate the economic life remaining argument. Is uncomfortable that the numbers are so far apart. Is there another way to state that? 1. MH agrees. Estimates of this nature are not definitive. The cost to rehab are not a definitive arbiter of if the property has economic life remaining. Believes that even at $700k to rehabilitate, the building would still have SOME economic life remaining. Doesn’t think that additional documentation would change that. 2. PJ: Struggling with the idea that we’re looking at apples to apples in a rehabilitation project. The house would have economic life remaining regardless of the 3. MH suggested modifications to the motion. c. PJ: Really believes in the need to strengthen the motion. d. MH: Moves to amend the motion as described.
1. KM seconds. Vote: 5-0. 2. MH Calls the question. 3. LD reads the motion 4. Vote: motion passes unanimously 20. LD: Appropriate to make a recommendation on the subsequent development of the property, should the demolition be approved. a. KM: The proposed subsequent development doesn’t fit the district. The importance in the district is in how the building fits into the district’s historic fiber. The proposed development does not reflect the existing district. 21. PJ: The new development must meet the SOI standards. If demolition occurs, the new design should fit the streetscape and context so that it remains as a primary structure feel. It should maintain the historic setbacks. The proposed design creates a false sense of history that can’t be distinguished in 5 years. A new building should match the site placement, massing, scale. a. MK: Once you’ve lost something historic, you can’t replicate it. b. MH: won’t reiterate previous points. There is a line between creating a replica between creating a replica and creating a parody, and this design crosses that line and doesn’t represent what makes Bozeman unique. It’s important for those who make the design decisions to respect the SOI criteria. Once the building is gone, whatever goes up will be an intrusive element in the district no matter how that looks. Concerned about crossing the line of the board’s jurisdiction. Concerned that the board making a recommendation on the new design gives the message that there is an “out.” Questions if the board make a recommendation at all? c. PJ: What if motion recommends adherence to the SOI standards and guidelines. d. Board eventually declines to make a recommendation on the new design or documentation issue. G. Committee Reports 1. Awards: adoption of awards guidelines. a. LV not here to help set date b. Request for nominations needs to go out February 12 1. Press release 2. Form up on the website 3. Due March 16 4. Discussion of nominees at March Board meeting 5. Vote on awards at April Board meeting 6. Awards given 7. Remaining event planning adopted on Saturday c. MK motions adoption of awards guidelines as presented to the commission; PJ seconds. Passes unanimously. 2. By-laws:
a. Will be discussed at length on Saturday. H. Chair’s Report 1. Asks CK to comment on the Demolition code/ Affirmative maintenance ordinance progress a. CK: recaps where they’re at b. DC: expresses concern about engaging the public on new policy development. c. CA: notes that the Affirmative Maintenance Ordinance has been on almost every agenda, which is open to the public, discussing this policy issue. Understands the need of the public to stay engaged and spread the word. We’ve talked about this every month last year. d. DC: It’s frustrating to have a community member engage late in an uninformed manner. e. CK notes the need for a centralized location for this policy information. f. LD emphasizes the need for the City to be clear about what the AMO is intended to do. g. DC: thinks it would be very powerful to have a communication tool. 2. Board retreat and training 3. Authorize funding for retreat refreshment a. MH moves to authorize an amount at the HPO’s discretion for refreshment, supplies etc. needed on Saturday. 4. Board recruitment and officers a. Lora needs to resign from her position as Chairperson. Bryce has moved, so we also need to fill the position of chair. I. Staff Liaison report 1. SAT 2. NCOD evaluation 3. Heritage Consortium 4. Upcoming events 5. Recon survey data 6. 2015 MHS Conference J. Meeting Adjourned at 9:17 pm. End of Minutes Secretary: Courtney Kramer