HomeMy WebLinkAboutDelaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation RequestCommission Memorandum
Memorandum edited on January 16, 2008
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner for Historic Preservation & Staff Liaison to the BHPAB
SUBJECT: Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, January 22, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: The BHPAB voted 5-4 to recommend Denial of the Delaney request for tax abatement
for historic preservation at their November 29, 2007 meeting.
BACKGROUND: In January of 2007 Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland expressed interest in tax abatement for historic
preservation, for the recently completed project at their home, 415 South Willson Avenue. The project received a
Certificate of Appropriateness in June of 2006 and approval of needed deviations in February of 2006.
Both the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and Staff were aware that such a state statute and commission
resolution existed, and spent the spring of 2007 researching the statute and resolution and their intents. In June the
BHPAB notified Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland that the BHPAB would likely recommend preliminary denial. After
some discussion amongst Staff, the BHPAB, the City Attorney Tim Cooper and Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland a
formal application was created and submitted. The application was reviewed by the BHPAB on November 29, 2007,
who has made a recommendation to the City Commission, who is the final authority on this matter.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff would like to point out the 5-4 vote amongst the BHPAB members to recommend
denial of the tax abatement request. Some BHPAB members expressed frustration that if it wasn’t for the addition, the
rehabilitation and restoration of the property would have easily qualified for the tax abatement. Staff has worked with
the Montana Department of Revenue to try to put a value on the improvements made to the historic structure separate
of the addition, but finds such assessments difficult to execute.
FISCAL EFFECTS: In 2006, before alteration, the property at 415 South Willson Avenue was assessed $13, 454 in
Total Taxable Value. In 2007 the property was assessed $21, 478 in Total Taxable Value, an increase of 60%. Under
state statute the tax abatement offers to pause taxes paid on mills levied for local government and schools. In 2006 the
property was assessed $6,283.04 in Public Safety Taxes, City/ Rural Taxes and School Taxes; hypothetically these
assessments would increase by 60% as well, meaning the property would pay roughly $10,052.86 ($6,283 + ($6,283.04 x
.60= $3,769.82). If the abatement is approved, the property would continue to pay the $6,283.04 amount for five years
before seeing an increase in those taxes.
It should be noted that at this time neither the state statute or commission resolution discuss monetary amounts or
financial need as a qualification and the state appraiser has final say in the actual dollar amount of the abatement.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Courtney Kramer at ckramer@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public
meeting.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
67
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request
Item: Application for Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation, for
the project completed at 415 South Willson Avenue.
Said property is zoned as “R-1” (Residential Single Household, Low Density District) and is
located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
and the Bon Ton Historic District.
Owner/Applicant: Mike Delaney and Ileana Indreland, 415 South Willson Avenue,
Bozeman
Date & Time: City Commission Hearing: Monday, December 10, 2007, 6:00
p.m., in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse,
311 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner and Staff Liaison to the
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Recommendation: The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board voted 5-4
to recommend denial of the Delaney Tax Abatement for
Historic Preservation at the November 29, 2007 meeting of the
BHPAB.
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at 415 South Willson Avanue and is legally as lots 4, five, six and
seven, Block two of the Fairview Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The
property is 16,200 square feet in lot area, zoned as “R-1” (Residential Single Household, Low
Density District) and located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the Bon
Ton Historic District.
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request
1 68
PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland are applying for property tax abatement under Part 16 of Montana
Annotated Code, 15-24-1601, which provides legislation and guidance for the administration of a
property tax abatement program for the restoration, rehabilitation, expansion and new construction
of certified residential and commercial properties located within national register historic districts
and properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Bozeman further
authorized tax abatement for historic preservation on December 4, 1989 in Commission
Resolution Number 2766, when the Commission “determines that it is in the public’s interest to
encourage the rehabilitation, restoration or expansion of certified historic, commercial and
residential properties or new construction that meets design review criteria compatible with an
historic district…” The State Statute and Commission Resolution allow the local governing body to
approve a tax abatement limited to 100% of the increase in taxable value caused by the
rehabilitation, restoration, expansion or new construction for a period of five years.
In June of 2006 Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland received a Certificate of Appropriateness with three
deviations, to allow the following alterations at 415 South Willson Avenue: (1) demolition of a two-
story enclosed rear patio of the existing house, (2) partial demolition, remodel and relocation of an
existing detached, four-car garage, (3) new construction of a rear addition and attached two-car and
one-car garages to the existing house and (4) new construction of 4-foot and 7-foot high fences on
the site. The project required three deviations, all of which were approved by the City Commission
on February 27, 2006. Planner Allyson Bristor’s Staff Report is included as an addendum to this
Staff Report.
The applicants, who may not have known about the availability of tax abatement for historic
properties while the project was undergoing COA review, did not notify Planning Staff of their
intentions to pursue tax abatement for historic preservation. As such the proposed project was
approved and carried out pursuant to the City of Bozeman’s standard Certificate of Appropriateness
standards. If Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland had made Planning staff aware of their desire to seek
tax abatement Planning Staff would have used the additional review criteria provided by the
Secretary of the Interior and used in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program.
These more stringent Standards and Guidelines have now been used by the BHPAB to review and
evaluate the requested tax abatement and are discussed in length later in this report.
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 2 69
Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland initially expressed interest in utilizing the program in January of 2007
after completing rehabilitation and expansion of their residence at 415 South Willson Avenue. The
program has been infrequently used in the last 18 years and an application and review process did
not exist in January. Planning Staff and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board spent
the spring months of 2007 researching and struggling to understand Bozeman and the State of
Montana’s tax abatement for historic preservation program. In June the Planning and Policy
Subcommittee of the BHPAB informally reviewed the project and notified Mr. Delaney and Ms.
Indreland that the project likely did not meet the intent of the program.
After prodding from Brian Gallik, of Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin law firm, and on the advice of Tim
Cooper, City of Bozeman Attorney, and the BHPAB Planning and Policy Subcommittee worked on
creating an application checklist for Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation. On October 25, 2007
Courtney Kramer, Staff Liaison to the BHPAB, under direction of Tim Cooper, mailed Mr. Delaney
and Ms. Indreland a letter requesting more information in order to review the project and notifying
the applicants of the scheduling for the abatement request’s review. The materials requested
reflected specific considerations of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program and
Application.
On November 19, 2007 Ms. Indreland submitted a formal application for tax abatement for historic
preservation to the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Service. Courtney
Kramer emailed the application materials to the BHPAB members, who formally reviewed the
project at their November 29, 2007 meeting. After extensive discussion the BHPAB voted 5-4 to
recommend denial, with one letter from absent BHPAB member Mark Hufstetler recommending
denial as well. As the BHPAB bylaws do not address voting by proxy Mr. Hufstetler’s vote has not
been counted in the 5-4 denial recommendation. Minutes reflecting discussion amongst the BHPAB,
as well as Courtney Kramer’s notes from the meeting, are included with this Staff Report.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USE
The subject property is zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density District). As stated
in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the R-1 residential district is to
provide for single-household residential development, and to provide for such community facilities
and services that serve the area’s residents while respecting the residential character of the area. The
development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the
“Residential” land use designation. The requested tax abatement would have no effect on planning
or zoning designations.
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS:
As the Commission Resolution No. 2766 cites the state statute and its use of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards as criteria, staff and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board has
used those documents to evaluate this application:
State Statute, 2005 MCA Part 16 “Historic Properties” 15-24-1601:
15-24-1602. Definitions.
“Rehabilitation” means the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or
alteration that makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those features
of a property that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values.
“Restoration” means the process of accurately recovering the form, details, and setting of a property
as it appeared when it was originally built or constructed by removing later work or replacing
missing earlier work.
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 3 70
The rehabilitation at 415 South Willson incorporated elements of restoration as well. While windows
were replaced with exact modern replicas (rehabilitation) the foundation was repointed (restoration)
and protected with a water barrier that is not seen from ground level (rehabilitation). The house was
rewired for electricity (rehabilitation) but the old light switches were rewired to be useable
(restoration). The four-plex to the south was removed and a garden installed as the house was
historically (restoration) and an addition to the house was built to the rear (west) that exactingly
mimicked many of the architectural features of the historic building (rehabilitation) while providing
garage, storage, bedroom and recreation space.
15-24-1604. Eligibility.
A property that meets the design review criteria in 15-24-1605 is eligible for the property tax
abatement if it is:
1. Located within the boundaries of a national register historic district and contributes
to a district, as determined by the state historic preservation office;
2. A newly constructed property within the boundaries of a national register historic
district that meets design review criteria as being architecturally compatible with
the historic district, as determined by the local review board or the state historic
preservation office; or
3. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places.
The property at 415 South Willson Avenue is listed as “contributing” to the Bon Ton National
Register Historic District. Preservation Staff believes the alterations will not “de-list” the building as
contributing to a district.
15-24-1605. Responsibilities of local governing bodies- local review board- design review
process. (1) A local governing body that approves the tax benefit may designate a local review
board to establish an application and review process to certify eligible properties. The review process
must include design review criteria based on the secretary of the interior’s standards for preservation
projects or other standards approved by the state historic preservation office.
(2) The board shall include:
(a) at least three members with professional expertise in history, planning, archaeology, architectural
historic, historic archaeology or another historic preservation-related discipline;
(b) at least one architect; and
(c) up to two members of the general public.
(3) The board shall determine whether a property is eligible under 15-24-10604 and is qualified for
tax abatement. The board shall approve or deny an application for the tax abatement and report its
recommendation to the local governing body.
Please see below for itemized response.
(1) The secretary of the interior’s standards for preservation projects:
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or
alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient
contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy
materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character.
Exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the
extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the
Standards. The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic
buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 4 71
exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment
as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to
specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic
and technical feasibility.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that
requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its
site and environment.
The property at 415 South Willson was built in 1915 as a single family residence. In the
mid-1960’s a brick four-plex was built on the lot to the south. This structure was deemed
“non-contributing” to the Bon Ton Historic District during the Historic Architecture
Inventory of the 1980’s. Recent rehabilitation of the property restored the site by
removing the four-plex to the south while allowing for continued use of the structure as
a single family residence.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal
of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
Although the open garden to the south of the structure has been restored the size and
scale of the addition to the rear (west) of the house negatively impacted the home’s
integrity of site and setting. The addition, which added 2,130 (interior spaces plus garage)
square feet to house’s the footprint on the lot, essentially consumes the entire rear yard
of the residence. Further, the addition’s total square footage, 2,190, increased the house’s
square footage by 31%, and altered the structure’s visual focal points to the south and
north.
As reflected in the minutes of the November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting, as well as Mark
Hufstetler’s public comment on the matter, a majority of BHPAB members do not
believe this criterion has been met. The BHPAB acknowledged the state statute and
commission resolutions’ reference to expansion, however feel that the size of the
expansion of 415 South Willson Avenue, while certainty beautifully done and probably
architecturally appropriate, damages the integrity of the historic structure on the
property.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
The addition, which exactly matches the house in materials, finish, size and scale, implies
that the house was originally the size it is now. It is difficult to tell where the 1915
construction ends and the 2007 construction begins.
Again, the minutes of the November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting reflect the lengthy
discussion amongst members regarding this criterion.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
None of the later alterations had acquired historic significance at the time of their
demolition.
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 5 72
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Rehabilitation of the structure included repointing the historic brick work, repainting the
historic wood trim, and repointing of the historic stone and mortar foundation. Interior
preservation included the reinstallation of historic light fixtures and leaded glass. The
historic windows were removed and replaced with exact replicas that are energy efficient.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities
and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Please Criteria number five above.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Chemical and physical treatments that would jeopardize the longevity of historic
materials were avoided.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
No significant archeological resources were identified or affected by the project to
planning staff, the applicant, or the BHPAB’s knowledge.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
The addition to the rear of the structure was completed to match the existing house in
terms of size and scale. In situations involving historic structures modern materials are
often used in historic patterns to differentiate new from old. The addition to the
structure at 415 South Willson Avenue so minutely matches the historic structure that
the integrity of the original design is sacrificed. Again, it is difficult to tell where the old
ended and new begins. Please see criteria 3.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Openings to the addition were created through existing doorways and windows. In
spaces where windows were closed off display niches were created to serve as a
reminder of the window that was there. Staff is uncertain as to how the addition was
attached to the historic house and if the historic materials would be salvageable.
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 6 73
(2) The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board currently includes (a) Mark Hufstetler, an
architectural historian, Mike Neeley, an archaeologist, and Edwin Sczypinski, a former
planner as its professional members. (b) Edwin Ugorowski, an architect, serves as the
BHPAB’s architect, as well as Blake Maxwell, a contractor specializing in historic structures.
(c) Six members of the public round out the BHPAB’s member list.
(3) As part of the November 29, 2007 regularly scheduled BHPAB agenda, members of the BHPAB
reviewed and voted 5-4 to recommend denial of Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland’s request
for tax abatement to the Bozeman City Commission. This information is reflected in the
minutes from the November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Email from Jim Webster, BHPAB member
Letter from Mark Hufstetler, BHPAB member
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Should the City Commission approve the Delaney tax abatement request, Staff asks that the
following occur as conditions of approval:
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall sign paperwork clearly stating that they understand the ramifications
alterations to the house may have. Per Section 5 of the Commission Resolution:
“Following certification, and during the creative tax abatement of property which is altered
in any way that adversely affects those elements that qualify it as historically contributing,
must be disqualified from receiving the tax abatement. If the historic property has received a
tax abatement under this party is disqualified, the owner is liable for back taxes, interest and
a penalty. These investments must be extended against the property in the next general real
property tax roll, to be collected and distributed in the same manner as the currently assessed
real property tax. The back taxes, interest and a penalty must equal the sum of the following:
a. The difference in the total real property taxes due during the years the tax abatement
was in effect and the total of real property taxes which would have been due had the
special assessments not been in effect for those years;
b. Interest on the amount calculated in subsection 2a. as the rate for delinquent
property taxes provided for in 15-16-102 MCA; plus
c. A penalty of 15% on the sum of subsections 2a and 2b.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above review criteria the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board voted to
recommend denial in a 5-4 vote. The BHPAB acknowledged that the project received a Certificate
of Appropriateness with deviations, however expressed concern that projects receiving tax
abatement should be held to standards similar to those used by the federal government.
Staff and the BHPAB would like to thank Mr. Delaney and Ms. Indreland for bringing forward their
application for tax abatement for historic preservation. Without their interest it is a program that
would have likely continued to go unused. The BHPAB is actively working to refine and strengthen
review criteria in order to encourage true preservation, restoration, and reconstruction of Bozeman’s
historic properties.
Planners Bristor and Kramer would like to thank the BHPAB members for their hard work and
thoughtful consideration of the application and the precedent its approval could set. Staff urges the
Commissioners to carefully read the minutes from the November 29th, 2007 meeting in order to
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 7 74
think about the precedent setting effects this project could have if it is approved without the caveat
that the BHPAB, ADR Staff and City Commission will work towards creating an updated program
for tax abatement for historic preservation.
Staff believes such a program is important for Bozeman’s existing historic districts and potential
historic districts because it provides an incentive to go above and beyond standard Certificate of
Appropriateness criteria.
Encl: Public Comment:
Email from Jim Webster to Commissioners
Letter from Mark Hufstetler
Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Montana Annotated Code/ State Statute
Commission Resolution
Correspondence between the BHPAB, Mr. Delaney & Ms. Indreland and Mr. Gallik
Federal Tax Credit Application
Allyson Bristor’s Staff Report, February 2006
Courtney Kramer’s personal notes on the Request for Tax Abatement from the
November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting
Unofficial (un-ratified) minutes of the November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting from
Edwin Ugorowski, BHPAB secretary.
CC: The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Mike Delaney and Ileana Indreland
415 South Willson Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Brian Gallik
35 North Grand
PO Box 6580
Bozeman, MT 59771-6580
Patricia White
Gallatin County Area Manager- Region 5
Montana Department of Revenue
2273 Boot Hill Court, Suite 100
Bozeman, MT 59715-7149
Delaney Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation Request 8 75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
From: Jim Webster
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Chris Kukulski (ckukulski@bozeman.net); 'Karen Semerau'; Jeff Krauss
(jkrauss@bozeman.net); Jeff Rupp; Kaaren Jacobson (kjacobson@bozeman.net); Sean Becker
(sbecker@bozeman.net); Steve Kirchhoff
Subject: Last night's BHPAB meeting and the Delaney Tax Abatement
Quick thumbnail here as I'm headed out of town shortly and I thought that you might find the
below comments helpful:
Mike and Ileana presented their case for tax abatement at last night's meeting and brought their
architect, former BHPAB member Thomas Bitnar, with them. As for Brian Gallik and Tim Cooper,
both were originally scheduled to appear, but neither did.
Bottom line: With 9 of 12 board members present, the board turned down the Delaney's request
by a 5-4 margin. Board member Mark Hufstetler, an architectural historian sent us the below
piece which was also a "No" vote making it 6-4 against granting tax abatement.
The meeting was civil although Mike brought up how there have been lawsuits "in at least four
other states over this topic" (as a result of projects being turned down). That did not phase
Courtney Kramer or me and we said as much. Clearly some board members I feel felt somewhat
intimidated, but that was to be expected. I say this as when I hear one reaction in private and
hear the opposite in public, then I know there are other forces at work.
For the record, (as I will be out of town for the December 10th Commission Meeting when this is
scheduled), I feel as I stated last night that this project does not qualify for the Historic Tax
Abatement program for several reasons.
1. Historic Tax Abatement programs are about incentives and typically are for those that may
otherwise not do a project. The Delaneys disclosed that they spent almost $2mm on the
renovation/addition and that the difference in their tax bills was about $5,000 for the first year.
Thus, it can reasonably assumed that over the next five years with some probable tax increases,
their difference would be about $25,000 on the lowest end and perhaps $35,000 or so on the
upper end. One can thus reasonably assume that the project was going to be done anyway and
was not predicated on any incentives.
2. As an old-fashioned "New England Yankee," I had first-hand experience as a banker in
Boston (in an earlier life) seeing run-down old mills get recycled into schools, low-income housing
and retail establishments as an example. These are the kinds of projects that in my mind warrant
consideration for tax abatement. Single family homes can too, but they need to be in worse
condition and make a clear-cut case for this sort of treatment. I speak from experience as my
wife and I completed a home renovation 10 years ago and I was aware that this tax
abatement program existed. What we did was not unlike what the Delaneys did and I could not
justify applying for the program. Thus here, I'm imposing the same criteria for this project
that I applied to my own.
3. I'm concerned about the precedent we set if we approve this request as we would be implying
that anyone who does some kind of remodel or expansion should apply for a tax abatement.
That is not practical and nor is it the intent of the Historic Tax Abatement program. With regards
to this project, the "historic" component is lacking and the result is just another modern day large
home. The increased mass really affects the footprint of the whole property and adds little if
nothing at all in the way of any historic context. While it is an attractive enough property, that
should not be confused with the overall intent of this tax abatement program.
88
Please see BHPAB member Mark Hufstetler's comments below as he constructed a thoughtful
response two days ago on the topic. I will be back in town next week for a few days before
heading back out. As always, thanks for your time and consideration!
Best,
Jim Webster
89
From: Mark Hufstetler [mailto:pitamakan@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:30 PM
To: Courtney Kramer
Cc: Anne Sherwood; Blake Maxwell; Bonnie Martin; Edwin (EJ) Engler; Edwin Sypinski; Edwin
Ugorowski; Jane Davidson Klockman; Jim Webster; Michael Neeley; Ryan Olson; Tuli Fisher;
Allyson Bristor; Tim Cooper; Andy Epple
Subject: Re: Delaney Discussion
To the Board,
I'm sorry that I won't be able to attend Thursday night's Preservation Board meeting, but I wanted
to share with you a few general thoughts on the Delaney Tax Abatement request.
First of all, I want to express my thanks to the property owners for graciously allowing us to visit
the property on Tuesday. In many ways, they've completed an exceptional expansion project,
with great attention to design and detail. The home certainly deserves the architectural accolade
that it has received.
However, as an architectural historian I need to state my very strong conclusion that this project
is not one that qualifies for an historic preservation tax abatement. In my professional judgement
the project has taken an historic home that was clearly eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, and transformed it into a property that is no longer National Register eligible.
There are several reasons for this -- including the near-wholsale replacement of historic windows
-- but by far, my primary reason for this judgement is the overwhelming size of the non-historic
addition to the building. Three of the building's four elevations have been completely reconfigured
by this addition, and both the north and south facades now have non- historic focal points.
I know that one possible point of concern is that the language of the abatement program includes
"expansion" as one of the activities which may qualify for abatement. However, the language also
states that we "must include design review criteria based on the Secretary of the Interior’s
standards for preservation projects." The scale of the addition to this building is clearly not
congruent with those standards for the treatment of National Register-eligible properties, and
therefore this project is not appropriate for the abatement program. To approve it would be
contrary to both the wording of the governing statutes, and the spirit of the program's intent.
Finally, I believe that it's important that we remember that this is a new program for Bozeman,
and the decisions we make on the early abatement applications are destined to set a precedent
for future projects and applications for tax relief. If we do not adhere to our mandated focus on the
Secretary of Interior's standards and approve this request, other projects consisting primarily of
new construction will be certain to follow, and we will be harder-pressed to deny them. The
possibility of a project such as the Rialto building expansion -- or any of numerous others --
receiving a preservation abatement is very troubling to me.
Once again, though, I want to stress that my conclusions are in no way
meant to disparage the architectural quality of the Delaney project.
The house is simply not an appropriate candidate for the abatement program.
90
Thanks for reading this, and best of luck with your discussions.
Mark Hufstetler
91
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DELANEY/INDRELAND REMODEL & ADDITION COA/ADR/DEV FILE #Z-05301
Item: Zoning Application #Z-05301, a Certificate of Appropriateness
Application with three deviations, to allow the following
alterations at 415 South Willson Avenue: 1) demolition of a two-
story enclosed rear patio of the existing house, 2) partial
demolition, remodel and relocation of an existing detached,
four-car garage, 3) new construction of a rear addition and
attached two-car and one-car garages to the existing house and
4) new construction of 4-foot and 7-foot high fences on the site.
Said property is zoned as R-1 (Residential Single-Household,
Low Density District) and is located within the Bon Ton
Historic District and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
Owners: Mike Delaney & Ileana Indreland
415 South Willson Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Applicant: Bitnar Architects
c/o Thomas Bitnar
502 South Grand Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date & Time: City Commission Hearing: Monday, February 27, 2006,
6:00 p.m., in the Community Room, Gallatin County
Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at 415 South Willson Avenue and is legally described as Lots 4 – 7,
Block 2, Fairview Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.. The property is 16,200
square feet in lot area (120 feet x 135 feet), zoned as R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low
Density District) and located within the Bon Ton Historic District and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
The property is predominately surrounded by one-and-one- half and two-story, single-household
residences. Property lots are fairly large on this block, averaging 80 feet in width and 124 feet in
depth, with an average lot size of 9,920 square feet.
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 1 92
PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
This is a Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application to allow the following
alterations at 415 South Willson Avenue: 1) demolition of a two-story enclosed rear patio of the
existing house, 2) partial demolition, remodel and relocation of an existing detached, four-car garage,
3) new construction of a rear addition and attached two-car and one-car garages to the existing
house and 4) new construction of 4-foot and 7-foot high fences on the site. Three deviations are
requested with this application. The first deviation is requested from Section 18.16.050 “Yards,” to
allow the rear addition, attached two-car and one-car garages to encroach into the required 20-foot
rear yard setback. The second is requested from Section 18.42.130 “Fences, Walls and Hedges,” to
allow approximately 225 linear feet of a fence exceeding 6 feet in height to be located on the
property’s lot line. The third is requested from Section 18.46.020, “Stall, Aisle and Driveway
Design,” to allow the attached one-car garage to provide less than 26 feet of backing distance.
Currently existing on the site is a two-and-one-half-story, rectangular plan, Georgian styled house
and a one-story, four-car detached garage with a driveway access on South Willson Avenue. The
house, historically known as the Blair House and designed by Fred F. Willson, was constructed
c.1912. The four-car garage is post-1950 construction and is not a contributing building for the
historic Bon Ton District site.
This application was opened and continued for several weeks to allow the applicant to revise the
original, submitted application materials and to allow Planning Staff to issue public notice for an
additional deviation request.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density District). As stated
in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the R-1 residential district is to
provide for single-household residential development, and to provide for such community facilities
and services that serve the area’s residents while respecting the residential character of the area.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 2 93
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 3
North: Single-Household Residence, zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density
High Density District);
South: Multi-Family Residence (fourplex), zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low
Density High Density District);
East: Single-Household Residences, zoned R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low
Density High Density District);
West: Single- and Two-Household Residences zoned R-4 (Residential High Density
District).
GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Residential” land use designation. This classification designates places where the primary
activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses that complement residences are also acceptable,
such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches and schools. The
dwelling unit density expected within this category varies and a variety of housing types should be
blended to achieve the desired density, with large areas of single type housing discouraged.
Additionally, all residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to the existing
character of adjacent development.
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 18.28.050 specifies the required standards for granting certificate of appropriateness
approval. In the discussion below, ADR Staff has evaluated the applicant's request in light of these
standards.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall
be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995),
published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services,
Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
The Secretary of Interior Standards are examined in detail below, in the design guidelines.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject
structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus
upon the following:
1. Height;
The two-and-one-half-story rear addition is historically appropriate by not exceeding the
existing house’s height. ADR Staff compliments the applicant’s decision to lower the
attached garage height to one-story along the alley.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
94
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 4
ADR Staff compliments the proposed fenestration on all elevations of the rear addition and
attached garage, as it appropriately compliments the existing house’s Georgian design (same
style and size of windows, etc.).
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The proposed two-and-one-half story rear addition is historically appropriate by not
exceeding the original house’s footprint width (allowing the front view of the house from
South Willson to practically remain the same).
The existing linear length of the existing four-car garage is approximately 60 feet along the
alley. The proposed attached garage is approximately 50 feet in length. ADR Staff therefore
feels that the historic pattern of garage massing and spacing along the rear alley is respected
with the new construction.
The house addition adds approximately 2,500 square feet of building footprint living space
to the existing house footprint. The total lot coverage is approximately reaches 27 percent
(below the maximum of 40 percent).
4. Roof shape;
The two-and-one-half-story rear addition is historically appropriate by extending the existing
house’s cross gable roofline. ADR Staff compliments the applicant’s decision to use a flat
roof on the attached garage as it helps to minimize the height and massing along the alley.
5. Scale;
Though the addition is adding a significant amount of building footprint square footage, the
scale of the new construction is appropriate and in proportion for the existing house, as well
as the neighboring residences.
6. Directional expression;
N/A.
7. Architectural details;
ADR Staff compliments the applicant in the selection of exterior siding for the new addition.
As conditioned by ADR Staff, the applicant shall provide a color and material palette of the
new construction for final design and approval.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened
from all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be either fully screened by incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully
hidden behind a parapet wall.
9. Materials and color scheme.
95
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 5
As conditioned by ADR Staff, the applicant shall provide a color and material palette of the
new construction for final design and approval.
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 18.28.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. In the discussion below, ADR Staff has evaluated the applicant's request in light of
these criteria.
A. Modifications shall be historically appropriate for the building and site in question
and the adjacent properties;
Deviation #1, Section 18.16.050 “Yards”:
For over 40 years, the existing one-story, four-car garage has been located on the alley right-of-
way line, with no rear yard setback provided. The linear length of the four-car garage is
approximately 60 feet. With the proposed new construction, the applicant is improving the non-
conformity by providing 3-foot and 6-foot setbacks off the alley for the rear addition. The non-
conformity is also improved because the new construction’s elevation that is closest to the alley
edge reduces approximately 10 feet in length from the existing garage (so, 50 feet in total length).
Because the existing house is one of the major contributor’s to the Bon Ton Historic District,
ADR Staff is very supportive of adding new construction to the rear of the existing house. To
allow minimal disturbance to the existing house’s interior plan, Staff is supportive of the rear
yard setback encroachment for the rear addition.
With the conditions outlined by ADR Staff, the proposed design of the rear addition is
determined to be compatible and appropriate to the architectural fabric of the site and
neighborhood.
Deviation #2, Section 18.42.130 “Fences, Walls and Hedges”:
ADR Staff is requiring the relocation of a portion of the 7-foot high fence, so that it does not
interact with the solarium on the south elevation of the existing house.
With the conditions outlined by ADR Staff, the proposed design of the fence is determined to
be compatible and appropriate to the architectural fabric of the site and neighborhood.
Deviation #3, Section 18.46.020, “Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design”:
ADR Staff is not supportive of a garage space with access off the alley, because of the
inadequate backing distance provided (17 feet instead of the required 26 feet). The visible
pattern along this alley is accessory sheds/garages with their sides or backs along the alley, rather
than their doors. This particular alley is very narrow with only 14 feet of right-of-way. Staff can
not support daily automobile access to a garage space off the alley.
With the conditions outlined by ADR Staff, the applicant has an opportunity to resubmit
modified plans and elevations that show a reduction in width and design of the garage door off
the alley and a change of the interior space to storage. Staff feels comfortable with the
conditions to prevent inappropriate automobile access to the space.
96
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 6
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria A of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the
permitted uses thereof;
As the existing one-story, four-car garage has been located directly on the alley right-of-way line
for over 40 years, ADR Staff believes that the new construction will have minimal adverse effect
on abutting properties.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria B of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
ADR Staff is not supportive of a garage space with access off the alley because of the risk to
public health and safety. With the conditions outlined by ADR Staff, the applicant has an
opportunity to resubmit modified plans and elevations that show a reduction in width and
design of the garage door off the alley and a change of the interior space to storage. Staff feels
comfortable with the conditions to prevent inappropriate automobile access to the space.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions
of approval, the project generally meets Criteria C of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from
Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Department of Planning did not receive any form of public comment in regards to this
application.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff has reviewed the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with three deviations, against
the criteria set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. Based on the evaluation of
the criteria and findings by Administrative Design Review Staff, Staff recommends conditional
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval
1. No garage space shall be proposed with automobile access along the alley, due to inadequate
backing distance.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a modified fence site
plan that depicts the proposed 7-foot high fence avoiding connection to the solarium on the
existing house’s south elevation. The modified fence site plan shall rather show the 7-foot
high fence to intersect at the existing house’s southwest corner, at the quoin bonding. The
modified fence site plan shall be reviewed and approved by Administrative Design Review
Staff.
97
#Z-05301 Delaney/Indreland Remodel & Addition COA/ADR/DEV 7
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a modified west
elevation and ground level floor plan that depicts the proposed one-car garage space
along the alley as (1) having an eight-foot width, (2) having a different door style
than the other garage doors proposed with the new construction, and (3) being noted
as storage rather than a one-car garage. The modified west elevation and ground
level floor plan shall be reviewed and approved by Administrative Design Review
Staff.
4. The applicant shall provide a color and materials palette for final design review and
approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
5. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay all required fees prior to
construction, and within one year of Certificate of Appropriateness approval or this
approval shall become null and void.
6. This project shall be constructed as approved and conditioned in the Certificate of
Appropriateness with deviations application. Any modifications to the submitted
and approved drawings shall invalidate the project's approval unless the applicant
submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the Department of
Planning prior to undertaking said modifications, as required by Section 18.64.110 of
the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code that are applicable
to this project.
CONCLUSION
Administrative Design Review Staff recommends conditional approval of said Certificate of
Appropriateness application with three deviations. The applicant is advised that unmet code
provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, do not, in
any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal
Code or state law.
BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
WITH THREE DEVIATIONS, THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION SHALL MAKE
THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE CITY
COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH
IN CHAPTER 18.66 OF THE BOZEMAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
Encl: Applicant’s Submittal Materials, Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
CC: Mike Delaney & Ileana Indreland, 415 S. Willson Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Bitnar Architects, c/o Thomas Bitnar, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Form 10-168 Rev. 12/90 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OMB Approved No. 1024-0009 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
PART 1 – EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
NPS Office Use Only NPS Office Use Only
NRIS No: Project No:
Instructions: Read the instructions carefully before completing application. No certifications will be made unless a completed application form has been received. Type or print clearly in black ink. If additional space is needed, use continuation sheets or attach blank sheets.
1. Name of Property: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Property: Street ______________________________________________________________________________________________
City ______________________________County State Zip
Name of historic district:
National Register district certified state or local district potential district
2. Check nature of request:
certification that the building contributes to the significance of the above-named historic district (or National Register property) for the purpose of rehabilitation.
certification that the structure or building, and where appropriate, the land area on which such structure or building is located contributes to the significance of the above-named historic district for a charitable contribution for conservation purposes
certification that the building does not contribute to the significance of the above-named historic district.
preliminary determination for individual listing in the National Register.
preliminary determination that a building located within a potential historic district contributes to the significance of the district.
preliminary determination that a building outside the period or area of significance contributes to the significance of the district.
3. Project contact:
Name
Street _________________________________________________City ___________________________________________________
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
4. Owner:
I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct, and that I own the property described above. I understand that
falsification of factual representations in this application is subject to criminal sanctions of up to $10,000 in fines or imprisonment for up to five years
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Name _____________________________ Signature ____________________________________Date _________________________
Organization
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number
Street _________________________________________________City ___________________________________________________
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
NPS Office Use Only
The National Park Service has reviewed the “Historic Certification Application – Part 1” for the above-named property and hereby determines that the property:
contributes to the significance of the above-named district (or National Register property) and is a “certified historic structure” for the purpose of rehabilitation.
contributes to the significance of the above-named district and is a “certified historic structure” for a charitable contribution for conservation purposes in accordance with the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980.
does not contribute to the significance of the above-named district.
Preliminary determinations:
appears to meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and will likely be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if nominated by the State
Historic Preservation Officer according to the procedures set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
does not appear to meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and will likely not be listed in the National Register.
appears to contribute to the significance of a potential historic district, which will likely be listed in the National Register of Historic Places if nominated by
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
appears to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district but is outside the period or area of significance as documented in the National
Register nomination or district documentation on file with the NPS.
does not appear to qualify as a certified historic structure.
Date National Park Service Authorized Signature National Park Service Office/Telephone No.
See Attachments
109
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 1 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
5. Description of physical appearance:
Date of Construction: Source of Date:
Date(s) of Alteration(s):
Has building been moved? yes no If so, when?
6. Statement of significance:
7. Photographs and maps.
Attach photographs and maps to application
Continuation sheets attached: yes no
110
Form 10-168a Rev. 12/90 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OMB Approved No. 1024-0009 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
PART 2 – DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION
NPS Office Use Only NPS Office Use Only
NRIS No: Project No:
Instructions: Read the instructions carefully before completing the applications. No certifications will be made unless a completed application form has been received. Type or print clearly in black ink. If additional space is needed, use continuation sheets or attach blank sheets. A copy of this form may be provided to the Internal Revenue Service. The decision by the National Park Service with respect to certification is made on the basis of the descriptions in this application form. In the event of any discrepancy between the application form and other, supplementary material submitted with it (such as architectural plans, drawings, and specifications), the application form shall take precedence.
1. Name of Property: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Property: Street ________________________________________________________________________________________________
City ______________________________County State Zip
Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places; give date of listing:
Located in a Registered Historic District; specify:
Has a Part 1 Application (Evaluation of Significance) been submitted for this project? yes no
If yes, date Part 1 submitted: Date of certification: NPS Project Number:
2. Data on building and rehabilitation project:
Date building constructed: Total number of housing units before rehabilitation:
Type of construction: Number that are low-moderate income:
Use(s) before rehabilitation: Total number of housing units after rehabiltation:
Proposed use(s) after rehabilitation: Number that are low-moderate income:
Estimated cost of rehabilitation: Floor area before rehabilitation:
This application covers phase number of phases Floor area after rehabilitation:
Project/phase start date (est.): Completion date (est.):
3. Project contact:
Name
Street _________________________________________________City ____________________________________________________
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
4. Owner:
I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct, and that I own the property described above. I understand that
falsification of factual representations in this application is subject to criminal sanctions of up to $10,000 in fines or imprisonment for up to five years
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Name _____________________________ Signature ____________________________________Date __________________________
Organization
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number
Street _________________________________________________City ____________________________________________________
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
NPS Office Use Only
The National Park Service has reviewed the “Historic Certification Application – Part 2” for the above-named property and has determined:
that the rehabilitation described herein is consistent with the historic character of the property or the district in which it is located and that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation.” This letter is a preliminary determination only, since a format certification of rehabilitation can be issued only to the owner of a “certified historic structure” after rehabilitation work is completed.
that the rehabilitation or proposed rehabilitation will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation” if the attached conditions are met.
that the rehabilitation described herein is not consistent with the historic character of the property or the district in which it is located and that the project
does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation.” A copy of this form will be provided to the Internal Revenue Service.
Date National Park Service Authorized Signature National Park Service Office/Telephone No.
See Attachments
111
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 2 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION / PRESERVATION WORK – Includes site work, new construction, alterations, etc. Complete blocks below.
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
1
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
2
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
3
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
4
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
112
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 2 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
5
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
6
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
7
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
8
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
113
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 2 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
9
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
10
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
11
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
12
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
114
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 2 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
13
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
14
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
15
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
16
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
115
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CERTIFICATION APPLICATION –
Property Name PART 2 NPS Office Use Only
Project Number:
Property Address
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number 17
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
18
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number 19
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
Architectural feature Describe work and impact on existing feature: Number
20
Approximate Date of feature
Describe existing feature and its condition:
Photo no. Drawing no
116
Form 10-168c Rev. 12/90 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OMB Approved No. 1024-0009
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETED WORK
PART 3
NPS Office Use Only
NRIS No:
Instructions: Upon completion of the rehabilitation, return this form with representative photographs of the completed work (both exterior and interior views) to
the appropriate reviewing office. If a Part 2 application has not been submitted in advance of project completion, it must accompany the Request for Certification
of Completed Work. A copy of this form will be provided to the Internal Revenue Service. Type or print clearly in black ink. The decision of the National Park
Service with respect to certification is made on the basis of the descriptions in this application form. In the event of any discrepancy between the application form
and other, supplementary material submitted with it (such as architectural plans, drawings and specifications), the application form shall take precedence.
1. Name of Property: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Property: Street ________________________________________________________________________________________________
City ______________________________County State Zip
Is property a certified historic structure? yes no If yes, date of certification by NPS:
or date of listing in the National Register:
2. Data on rehabilitation project:
National Park Service assigned rehabilitation project number:
Project starting date: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rehabilitation work on this property was completed and the building placed in service on:
Estimated costs attributed solely to rehabilitation of the historic structure: $
Estimate costs attributed to new construction associated with the rehabilitation, including additions, site work, parking lots, landscaping: $
3. Owner: (space on reverse for additional owners)
I hereby apply for certification of rehabilitation work described above for purposes of the Federal tax incentives. I hereby attest that the information
provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct, and that, in my opinion the completed rehabilitation meets the Secretary’s “Standards for Rehabilitation”
and is consistent with the work described in Part 2 of the Historic Preservation Certification Application. I also attest that I own the property described
above. I understand that falsification of factual representations in this application is subject to criminal sanctions of up to $10,000 in fines or imprisonment
for up to five years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Name _____________________________ Signature _________________________________________________Date:
Organization
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number
Street _________________________________________________City ____________________________________________________
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
NPS Office Use Only
The National Park Service has reviewed the “Historic Certification Application – Part 2” for the above-listed “certified historic structure” and has determined:
that the completed rehabilitation meets the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation and is consistent with the historic character of the
property or the district in which it is located. Effective the date indicated below, the rehabilitation of the “certified historic structure” is hereby designated a
“certified rehabilitation.” A copy of this certification has been provided to the Department of the Treasury in accordance with Federal law. This letter of
certification is to be used in conjunction with appropriate Internal Revenue Service regulations. Questions concerning specific tax consequences or
interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code should be addressed to the appropriate local Internal Revenue Service office. Completed projects may be
inspected by an authorized representative of the Secretary to determine if the work meets the “Standards for Rehabilitation.” The Secretary reserves the
right to make inspections at any time up to five years after completion of the rehabilitation and to revoke certification, if it is dertemined that the
rehabilitation project was not undertaken as presented by the owner in the application form and supporting documentation, or the owner, upon obtaining certification, undertook unapproved further alterations as part of the rehabilitation project inconsistent with the Secretary’s “ Standards for Rehabilitation.”
that the rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the property or the district in which it is located and that the project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation.” A copy of this form will be provided to the Internal Revenue Service
Date National Park Service Authorized Signature National Park Service Office/Telephone No.
See Attachments
117
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETED WORK, continued
NPS Project No.
Additional Owners:
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
Name
Street
City __________________________________________________________________State Zip
Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number: __________________________________________________________________________________
118
Form 10-168b OMB Approved
Rev. 12/90 No. 1024-0009
CONTINUATION / AMENDMENT SHEET
Historic Preservation
Certification Application Property Name
Property Address
Instructions. Read the instruction carefully before completing. Type, or print clearly in black ink. Use this sheet to continue sections of the
Part 1 and Part 2 application, or to amend an application already submitted. Photocopy additional sheets as needed.
This sheet: continues Part 1 continues Part 2 amends Part 1 amends Part 2 NPS Project Number:___________________
Name Signature Date
Street City
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
NPS Office Use Only
The National Park Service has determined that these project amendments meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for
Rehabilitation.”
The National Park Service has determined that these project amendments will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standard for
Rehabilitation” if the attached conditions are met.
The National Park Service had determined that these project amendments do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for
Rehabilitation.”
Date National Park Service Authorized Signature National Park Service Office/Telephone No.
See Attachments
119
CONTINUATION / AMENDMENT SHEET
Historic Preservation
Certification Application Property Name
Property Address
120
Form 10-168b OMB Approved
Rev. 12/90 No. 1024-0009
CONTINUATION / AMENDMENT SHEET
Historic Preservation
Certification Application Property Name
Property Address
Instructions. Read the instruction carefully before completing. Type, or print clearly in black ink. Use this sheet to continue sections of the
Part 1 and Part 2 application, or to amend an application already submitted. Photocopy additional sheets as needed.
This sheet: continues Part 1 continues Part 2 amends Part 1 amends Part 2 NPS Project Number:___________________
Name Signature Date
Street City
State Zip Daytime Telephone Number
NPS Office Use Only
The National Park Service has determined that these project amendments meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for
Rehabilitation.”
The National Park Service has determined that these project amendments will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standard for
Rehabilitation” if the attached conditions are met.
The National Park Service had determined that these project amendments do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for
Rehabilitation.”
Date National Park Service Authorized Signature National Park Service Office/Telephone No.
See Attachments
121
CONTINUATION / AMENDMENT SHEET
Historic Preservation
Certification Application Property Name
Property Address
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
November 29, 6:00 p.m., HRDC boardroom
I. Meeting called to order, 6:00 p.m.
BHPAB members present: Jane Klockman, Bonnie Martin, Chair, Blake
Maxwell, Mike Neeley, and Ryan Olson, Anne Sherwood, Ed Sypinski, Vice-
Chair, Ed Ugorowski, Secretary, and Jim Webster
Not present: E.J. Engler, Tuli Fisher, and Mark Hueffsteller
Board Liaisons present: Courtney Kramer and Allyson Bristor, City Planner.
Guests present: Michael Delaney Ileana Indreland, Thomas Bitnar, Architect.
II. Minutes approved from BHPAB 10/24/07 meeting.
III. Tax abatement request 415 S. Wilson:
Ileana introduced project with a brief history or her growing up in the area
with a strong appreciation of the historic Southside homes and dreaming of
owning one. The homes restoration was taken to great lengths and expense,
such as:
• Bricks tuck pointed, existing lighting and wallpaper saved. The
windows were updated with Pella windows that are historic replicas of
the original design. The foundation was stabilized with structural
foam. The electrical wiring was updated.
• Thomas Bitnar explained how the addition was completed to be
symmetrical in true form to the Georgian Style, as it would have been
if the original design was of a similar size.
• The removals of the detached garage, together with the addition of the
new garden area were both aspects of the home originally.
BHPAB member discussion questions & answers:
• Ed S. discussed the window replacement and the altering of the
elevations caused by the mass of the addition.
• Courtney outlined a discussion she and Allyson had earlier, with either
yes or no qualifications (based on ten points set forth by the Secretary
of the Interior Standards): (1) Yes (2) Yes, due to garden (3) No (4)
Yes, garage removed and was not original (5) Yes (6) Yes, tuck
pointing (7) Yes (8) Yes (9) No “such extremes to match everything
done too well” (10) Yes
• Jim mentioned Mark’s email addressing specific concerns with the
project and for the precedence it will set for future tax abatement
projects.
• Courtney initiated a round table discussion on the State Standards
versus the Secretary of the Interior standards. Allyson noted that the
state standards are broad. Michael mentioned there have been several
lawsuits filed and won due to ambiguous language.
• Amount of tax abatement estimated to be $5,000 per year for five
years or approximately $25,000.
168
Ed S. motioned to recommend an approval for the tax abatement, Mike
seconded. Voting totals:
• Four votes in favor (Anne, Bonnie, Jane and Ryan)
• Five votes against (Blake, Ed S., Ed U., Jim and Mike)
Mark’s proxy vote against the project was discussed and noted as a mute
issue regarding this project. A future review of the by-laws regarding
allowing proxy votes is needed.
Note: Courtney voted in favor and Allyson voted against.
IV. Policy and Planning Committee recap:
• Armory- Demolition application submitted.
Anne and Ed S. are submitting an article for the Tributary along with
interior photographs (December 15submittal/publication date). It was
noted again that the city should have put restrictions/covenants on the
property prior to selling it.
• Convent- moving the building versus incorporating into new design
discussed. Ed U. had a meeting with Bill Hansen at Think One earlier
in the week and has renderings to be shown to BHPAB members only.
These will be reviewed at the retreat.
• Story Mansion (and Delaney tax abatement) scheduled to be reviewed
at the December 10th, City Commission meeting.
• Story Mill to be reviewed at the next Commission meeting; 1,100
residential units and 60 deviations requested.
• “Demolition by Neglect” ordinance discussed, tabled until retreat.
• Mike will be starting the PSA announcements in January.
V. New BHPAB member applications reviewed with nominations made and
approved for Mike Fox and Todd Wilkinson. Motion made and approved for
Bonnie to contact E.J. regarding attendance/interest in remaining a member.
VI. Education & Outreach projects discussed: Rialto, Love Inc. home tour,
nominations for preservation awards (Golden Rule), Preservation 365
calendar, Armory and Holy Rosary to be discussed at retreat.
VII. Upcoming meetings/events:
• No December board meeting.
• December 9 (1:30 pm to 6 pm)- Love Inc. home tours
• December 12 (6 pm) - Education & Outreach meeting [Jane’s house].
• December 13 (6pm) - Planning & Policy meeting [D.A. Davidson].
• December 16 (4:30 pm to 6 pm) - Year-end party [Anne’s house].
• January 12 (9am to 1pm) – annual Retreat [Beal Park Rec. Center].
169
November 29, 2007 BHPAB meeting notes
Courtney Kramer’s personal notes
To: the Bozeman City Commission for use in reviewing the Delaney request for tax
abatement
I. Ms. Indreland introduced the project.
a. House designed by Fred Willson in 1913 for the Blair family.
b. Ms. Indreland sees abatement as a great opportunity for the City of
Bozeman to offer a financial incentive for preservation work
c. Noted that she and Mr. Delaney receive a lot of attention and thank for the
work on the house by the community at large.
d. They want to inspire further work of this sort. Sees the abatement as the
potential for a positive finaincial incentive.
e. Anticipates taxes going from $7,000 to $12,000, a difference of $5,000.
f. Expresses that they did not know the tax abatement was available unitl
after the project was completed. They are seeking to be an inspiration
through a small and minor dollar amount as a reward for leadership.
II. BHPAB Questions:
a. Member Ed Sczypinski asks about the replacement of historic windows.
i. Ms. Indreland responds by explaining that the windows were
exactly matched to fit in the historic sashes, with the muttons and
cross bars exactly matching the historic dimensions while offering
double paned glass for energy efficiency. They are still wood
windows.
b. Staff Liaison Courtney Kramer inquires about the preservation work done
to the historic house.
i. Mr. Delaney responds by discussing how the stone foundation was
dug out and repointed with appropriate mortar, and then a thermal
waterproof barrier was inserted around the foundation to prevent
water intrusion. Insufficiently supported areas in the home were
strengthened with concrete piers in the basement. The entire brick
house was repointed and work done on the roof as well.
III. BHPAB Member Discussion
a. Anne Sherwood: Approve
i. Thinks the home has been lovingly restored and doesn’t see a
problem with compatible new construction.
ii. She has a problem with the NPS standard and its interpretation of
compatible but different. Mentions the detail put into restoration.
iii. Sees this project as the kind of restoration we want to encourage.
iv. Sees the integrity of the windows as preserved.
v. After reading the state statute thinks the property qualifies under
current statute. Takes what we have now and thinks it has to be
approved. Thinks the opportunity to address issues of size and
scale is in the future through a Tax Abatement COA
1
170
vi. Thinks we should encourage this type of attention to detail and
apply it to everyone
vii. Questions if we are holding our homeowners to a higher standard
than we hold owners of historic buildings on main street.
b. Bonnie Martin: Approve
i. Dittos Anne’s comments
ii. Believes expansions should look like they were there originally
and this one was beautifully done and should be an example of
what to be done.
iii. Tour of the home made her feel the painstaking time and energy of
saving the fabric of the house.
iv. She notes the extreme measures in preserving and thinks they
should be commended.
v. Doesn’t see alteration of the windows as a big deal.
vi. Sees the future creation of a tax abatement COA as an alternative
and thinks we need a definite solution on the windows.
c. Jim Webster: Denial
i. In his mind the project does not qualify because the statute and
resolution aim for projects that take something dilapidated and
overhaul it from its bootstraps.
ii. Nothing personal, but sees this request as something very different.
iii. Mentioned Mark Hufstetler’s letter.
d. Jane Klockman: Approve
i. Notes that homes on Willson have been incrementally changed,
including her own.
ii. Is glad the four-plex was torn down and knows the garage at the
back of the house was not original.
iii. Impressed by removing the garage and incorporating it into the
new addition.
iv. Notes that removing the addition would not negatively affect the
historic structure, and no walls were removed to aid the expansion.
e. Blake: Unsure (eventually voted denial)
i. He is not so caught up in the minutiae, but looked at the intent of
the legislation.
ii. Wants people to continue to re-invest in historic neighborhoods.
iii. Weighs his desire to encourage investment against the tax
incentive that delays increased revenues from the city and schools.
f. Ryan: Unsure (eventually voted approval)
i. Thinks it is important to encourage preservation than its opposite.
ii. Clarified with Allyson Bristor that the building would remain
contributing to the Bon Ton National Register Historic District.
g. Mike: Denial
i. He is very impressed with the level of detail that went into the
rehabilitation and restoration.
ii. Has issues with the scale of the addition and sees how it changes
the structure’s individual eligibility and district status.
2
171
h. Ed Sczypinski: Denial
i. He is concerned with the scale of the addition.
ii. Dittoes Mike Neeley
iii. Has a real concern for the message and precedent approval of the
abatement request would send.
iv. Sees the program as an incentive
v. Doesn’t see the abatement as the true motivator in this project.
i. Ed U: Denial
i. Inquired about the financial numbers.
ii. Again scale is the concern.
iii. Sees loss of the four plex as a concern
IV. Motion by Ed Sczypinski to approve the Delaney request for Tax Abatement
a. Seconded by Mike Neeley
b. Vote: 5-4 for denial
c. Some questioning about Mark Hufstetler’s letter of voting by proxy. His
vote is not counted but will be included as public comment in the Staff
Report.
3
172