Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-15 BHPAB Minutes1 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board June 25, 2015 meeting minutes 6:00pm Upstairs Conference Room of the Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana Present: Lisa Verwys, Mark Hufstetler, Pat Jacobs, Merri Ketterer, Carson Taylor, Kelsey Matson, Bridget Hicks, Courtney Kramer, Wendy Thomas, Lora Dalton (arrived 7:30pm) I. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:03 pm. II. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication No Ex Parte reported. III. Changes to the Agenda No changes to the Agenda. IV. Introduction of Invited Guests Bridget Hicks, Intern for the Department of Community Development. Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor, in lieu of Commissioner Andrus. Board members went around and introduced themselves. V. Approval of Minutes From the April 9, 2015; April 23, 2015; and June 9, 2015 meetings. MK motion to approve. PJ second. Motion passes. VI. Consent agenda No consent agenda items. VII. Public comment No members of public at the meeting. Board Chair LV moves the FYI/ Discussion regarding the Community Involvement Process before the Action items, in order to give the Board sufficient time to discuss the NCOD. VIII. FYI/ Discussion A. Update on Analysis of Community Involvement Processes and future steps Discussion of the Commission meeting on June 15, 2015. General introduction of the proposed policy change, Lisa’s attendance at the Commission meeting and the Commission feedback. Direction from the 2 City Commission for the Preservation Board to meet and discuss their role, the extent of their membership, and their purpose and role, then come back to the City Commission with ideas and thoughts. Commission and City will discuss in more length through the summer. MK: If we’re going to discuss it at our September meeting, is that too late? LV: The BHPAB could call a special meeting in August to discuss. WT: Report back to the City Commission probably won’t be until winter, January or February. Commission also asked for other best practices for gaining citizen engagement outside of the Boards process. LV: Will meet with WT and CK to discuss what information the Board needs to gather and how to proceed. CT: There is a potential that the Mayor could place this item on an upcoming agenda. September seems reasonable. CT or Commissioner Andrus will let the Preservation Board know if they need to hold a special meeting. The discussion at the Commission level has to do with the time, energy and cost of providing City Staff to the boards, and the value of the community involvement in all of the things that the City does. CT can’t speak for the rest of the Commission, but CT believes in encouraging community involvement in whatever way they can. For him, it may be how it’s staffed and their obligations. CT values the community input in a formal way, as opposed to something outside of the City. There are rumblings for the Preservation Board, specifically regarding the low membership and difficulty in getting quorum at meetings. Those should be discussion items, and they look for Preservation Board member input. Looking through the ordinance and the BHPAB bylaws, CT finds that the City is not short of things for the BHPAB members to do. Some understanding of enthusiasm and desire would be helpful all around. Ideas should be developed, concretized and moved forward. Has heard through the grapevine that this board doesn’t think the Commission listens to it. Can only assure the Board members that having a board matters. Would hate to see where we’d be if there was not a Historic Preservation Board. It can sometimes be frustrating and hard. LV: For those who come to meetings on a regular basis, the quorum issue is apparent. The issue seems to have been stabilized and she values the people who have been dedicated to the board in the spring. Sees this as a valuable opportunity for the Board to sit down and look at what they’re doing, what their goals are, etc. This is a great opportunity to have a structured discussion about how we do board member recruitment. Notes that a smaller board membership list may be a good thing for quorum and direction. Appreciates the Commission and CD staff stepping back and giving the Board time to evaluate the matter and provide meaningful input. CT: Notes that some people have left the board because the meetings dragged. We need to figure out how to involve people in things they want to be involved with, in a way that builds education around historic preservation. Would like to see a much more active education campaign, including OpEd pieces, 3 etc., to further the cause of historic preservation in the City. Move in a direction of changing the culture that exists in the community right now. Notes that he thinks it’s odd that there is a Friends of a Story Mansion group rather than as a sub-committee of this group. Doesn’t mean that this group should be the Friends of the Story Mansion. Particularly since the Story Mansion is part of the Story Mansion at least for the foreseeable future. Notes the resurgence of the Preservation Awards. Remembers the Preservation Week in the past. LV: Will plan on talking about this at the September meeting. She will send out information via email in prep for the September meeting. IX. Action items A. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District evaluation Note the Pat Jacobs will lead the discussion, as a member of the KLJ team. She will recuse herself from any formal action on the item, as she is a member of the Preservation Board. PJ: Explains how she and her architecture firm are working with KLJ as support on the project. Wanted to have an opportunity for facilitated discussion of the NCOD evaluation. Wanted to challenge the BHPAB to creatively think with us with what the NCOD should be. Notes the information in the packet of materials, including the article that CK wrote about the history of the NCOD. CK can carry the ball when we walk about the history of the NCOD was created. Note that page 4, the stated purpose is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of established residential and commercial districts in the NCOD; in many ways it’s an incubator for future preservation districts. KLJ is looking at the intent and asking, is that still valid? Is that still what we’re trying to do? PJ is afraid to lose the preservation price, or at least not have a full conversation about it. Also points to the memorandum that she prepared outlining the thoughts she wanted feedback on. PJ Question: How effective has the City been at accomplishing those goals through the NCOD and COA process? CK: brings up the map of the reconnaissance survey to visualize PJ: Points out South Bozeman as a gap in the south side residential districts, and how South Bozeman would not be subject to all of the preservation guidelines because it’s not in a historic district. Also notes that properties outside of the NCOD could be historic districts that could or should be protected. How could we capture those neighborhoods and what should we be protecting? The map really presents the growing pains associated with the NCOD as it exists. Also, note the gap in the Main Street/ B3 cultural resource information. We have residential districts, commercial districts, areas with spotty historic buildings in it, but areas that are highly developable, some mixed areas, the MSU district that is new. The time is really perfect to have this discussion, and is a really important time for this board. 4 CK: brings up the smaller area map and asks Bridget to explain what’s going on the smaller map. The smaller map shows the Westridge neighborhood, with the parcels highlighted to show architectural style, as well as eligibility. PJ: Trying to differentiate between National Register and the NCOD. They are two different things. The reconnaissance survey data feeds that conversation. Rather than NRHP criteria, let’s talk about character. What is a neighborhood? What is the character defined by that neighborhood? Is there a neighborhood organization that wants to actively protect something? As a community, how important are cultural resources? How do we begin to make a difference in the preservation community? Is there an opportunity to look at the NCOD differently? Throws out the idea of mini-districts? Or again, do we throw it out entirely? MK: What would be the pros and cons of a mini-district vs a NRHP district? PJ: Notes difference between NRHP and the NCOD ordinance. MK: Clarify, if we established mini-districts, would they have to abide by the same rules? PJ: Looking at that. Does it get a new name? Is there three different classes? Historic district, conservation district (more flexibility), design district (which has design guidelines and parameters for new construction but lacks a historic bent). CK: Clarifies the term “district;” NRHP districts, local historic districts, new design review districts. MH: Don’t equate the beginnings of preservation in Bozeman with the demolition/ construction of Pizza Hut.. Describes the history of preservation in Bozeman, including the South Willson district and the 1984/86 survey efforts. The NCOD is an incremental step. The early 80’s process was heavily neighborhood driven. Particular blocks interested in becoming NRHP districts were able to get that accomplished through their efforts. As a result of that, there are few NRHP districts in town that meet the modern standards for district creation. To that end, it’s difficult to use those geographic boundaries to institute regulatory policies. Would advocate considering eligible properties as “contributing” (CK clarify with Bridget the terminology used). Great map showing the great concentrations of historic buildings. Thinks that PJ is going into this discussion with a really interesting potential path for the NCOD. The NCOD doesn’t recognize that there are different neighborhoods in town that have different character, desires, etc. If the NCOD could be reconfigured to recognize the neighborhoods that exist, it would be more successful. At the very least, the commercial zone, north side and south side are different. To have the same overlay district and same rules apply in both of those areas is problematic. Still valuable to come up with tools to encourage the preservation of that character. MK: Notes that Mark said something last meeting that enables organic growth of the boundaries. Make the boundaries for the NCOD able to grow. 5 MH: Notes that the cut-off date for the NRHP is 50 years, so it’s always a moving target. Things built in the 1960’s are potentially eligible. If the City can come up with a planning tool that responds to the ongoing march of time would be great. MK: Thinks that the here-level process that PJ mentioned might be great. PJ: Floats the idea of Form-based code, which would be used to look at mass and scale issues. MH: Form based code is something to tink about. Almost all of the current historic areas in town have construction from a variety of time period. But as a group they are cohesive and have a sense of respect for houses in the adjacent neighborhood. If you do form-based zoning, in part, that issue can be mitigated. PJ: The same holds true. For example, let’s take the South Willson Historic Districts. Perhaps it had a higher level of design guidelines. Stricter adherence to design guidelines, massing, design nuances. Something that doesn’t get talked about much is the need to respect the forms and shapes established, especially in the context of the need to increase density. Especially in the context of the South Willson HD, which has very defined size, massing, scale, style, etc. Other districts are much more diverse in their character, have infill opportunities, how do we begin to increase our density in our urban core? The matrix at the beginning of the NCOD design guidelines is a really good way to understand how different design guidelines apply. CT: Points to a few recently approved projects as causing confusion as to what “character” means. The Commission has interest in character of a neighborhood, but the Commissioners don’t know how to describe “character.” CT thinks that as property values soar, there are pressures to build and fill on the owners that wouldn’t exist if the property had a lower value. How do we, as a City, address the issue. At what point have we reached a tipping point and the character is totally destroyed. The temptation for a Commission is to allow damage to character in a piece by piece manner. MH: Thinks that CT is talking about is exactly the same thing that PJ is talking about. It’s a problem shared by all urban planners; the need to quantify a decision that is inherently unquantifiable. That’s not how you create high quality design, but it’s the only way that many zoning codes have come up with to get developments that meet a certain minimum. PJ: Wants to discuss process. What could the design review/ character conservation process look like? With the objective to keep the community involved, the inherent subjectivity. Would like to see more neighborhood involvement in describing their character they want to preserve. Help the neighborhood define the character and expand the quantifiable criteria. Everyone gets bogged down in cost, time and frustration. Is there a way to improve the process? If the project meets the criteria defined by the neighborhood, it’s a cut and dried approval. 6 LV: That goes back to the current historic districts being community driven rather than meeting the standards for a historic district. It was an exercise in community members self-identifying similarities. Creates buy-in from the community members, and would fit the initial goal of the NCOD. MH: That’s a really good point. One of the cool things about that is that starts with Bridget’s data and begins a community conversation about community character. We could go forth and say, “look at the character your neighborhood has and how cool this is.” May need to stop using the word “district” and begin using the word neighborhood. There aren’t rigid defined boundaries around all of these things. There are not such explicit delineations between neighborhoods. LV: That may really help with things like Mid-century buildings, where people don’t have strong associations with the architecture. Using words like neighborhood and community helps people understand why their area is special. KM: Echoes some of the things have been said. Using GIS to help people understand cultural resources is a powerful tool. Its so visual and helps bring in community involvement. Allows you to recognize gradations in the community character. Offers the input that the map could be improved to show truly Individually eligible properties. The value of GIS is to map things like age, historic integrity, architectural style, enablers the visualization of different characteristics in a quantitative manner. Should leverage that to bring in qualitative community feedback, which will feed back on each other in a reciprocal way. PJ: Agrees that GIS can be used to understand what stylistic interpretation for new construction would fit in a neighborhood. How do we support those neighborhoods to begin to define the character? Is that the role of the BHPAB? Who are the players that need to be involved to make some of these things happen? How do we engender neighborhood efforts to acquire some kind of protection for their area? What are the tools they would use? We would be short-sighted to not look at areas outside the NCOD? What’s the role of the BHPAB We often talk about residential areas. What about Commercial areas, like the signs on North 7th Avenue? MH: The signs are something the BHPAB has discussed in the past. To bring the discussion back to the beginning, there is some discussion in the community about which boards are effective. The DRB is an example where early input is very helpful. How to offer a preservation-focused DRB for projects at historic sites. PJ: Looking at how the DRB and BHPAB could be used to release some of the pressure from Staff? Almost insurmountable to understand how we get our arms around this issue. MH: All of these boards could and should be designed to take the pressure off of staff. CK: gives BG mill site example. MH: For the DRB, many developers approach the DRB for feedback because they understand they will get a better project and process in the ned. 7 PJ: Has talked at length at how to facilitate these conversation. What’s the carrot? How could the City or the Process be a mechanism to facilitate the carrot or the project. It’s a challenge that needs to be discussed by the group. PJ will welcome an email from Board members on this thought. The education component could be a critical component of the BHPAB role. Thank you for letting her have your time tonight. CK: describes future process for the NCOD evaluation. WT: thinks it would be useful for the consultants if you could make a few basic recommendations to the consultant. For example, should the NCOD stay the way it is? Should it go away? Would be helpful to know if we should keep the NCOD guidelines or should they be amended? The Commission/ Staff is struggling with the idea that we created a program 20 years ago that has been phenomenally successful. Unfortunately, we’ve been so successful that we’ve created a situation where the land is more valuable than the house. How do we build on what we have and ensure future successes? The most direct guidance you could give is motion and vote style. CT: heard a sense of thinking of neighborhoods and neighborhood character and not drawing lines between the two. Heard a desire to build off of what Bridget has done. What happens in the middle, especially in the area around Main Street. MH: Motions the BHPAB reiterate support for the broad fundamental concept of a NCOD, but we recognize that our neighborhoods are more diverse than the current ordinance recognizes and the boundaries of those neighborhoods are changing organically over time, therefore the NCOD be enhanced to be more responsive to the understanding of the individual neighborhood characters and advocate innovative broad-based planning approaches that will preserve historic landscapes in neighborhoods. KM: seconds the motion. LV: can open a public comment period. Recongizes PJ as a member of the public. PJ: There needs to be some strong consideration of the transition between the neighborhoods. That’s the difference between having firm boundary lines. MH: Reiterates the need to use the word neighborhood rather than district. CK: Notes the Mason Street neighborhood as a good case study. LV: Any further comment? MH: I think the data set being developed has to be the fundamental component of moving forward. Would encourage the relationship between the two sets. CK: Notes potential value of Bridget surveying in the districts. MH: Call the motion 8 LV: All in favor. Motion passes. PJ: recused/ abstained from the discussion. CK: Have Bridget survey in the districts? Have Bridget give us a list of 50 Individually eligible properties? X. Adjournment MH Motion to adjourn. LD: second Meeting adjourned at 7:45pm