The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOsborne Block Building Demolition Certificate of Appropriateness Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Osborne Block Demolition Certificate of Appropriateness #Z-09194 MEETING DATE: Monday, October 12, 2009 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item RECOMMENDATION: Motion 1: The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. A written statement prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which explains the structural stabilization in place to ensure that the demolition of the west wall (common/shared wall) will not structurally impair or cause further damage to the remaining exterior walls, floor systems and roof systems of the existing structure. 2. The applicant must make proper application and receive approval for a demolition permit by the Building Department. Motion 2: The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after the Commission’s action, that the demolition will apply to all elements of the structure except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, City Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demolition permit; and any demolition be completed in accordance with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and that if concurrence amongst the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants is that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demolition permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The applicant shall complete Level II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property. The documentation should follow the most current version of the HABS/HAER Standards published by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Bozeman Planning Department prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit. The documentation shall include high-resolution digital copies (in TIFF format) of all non-text documentation and a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF version of the written narrative. 2. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which includes the following information: 1) phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations, 2) a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase, 3) the proposed protection plan for the three, existing boulevard trees in front of the building, and 4) security measures in place to prevent damage or destruction to the adjacent building to the east (237 East Main Street). Commission Memorandum 3. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Osborne Block building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the demolition request. 4. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation prior to a demolition permit approval. 5. All water line services shall be disconnected prior to demolition. BACKGROUND: The property owner Chinook Properties, LLC, and applicant Chris Pope, made formal application with the Department of Planning & Community Development for a Certificate of Appropriateness application. The application is requesting the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with this application. The proposed subsequent development is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. The demolition of contributing properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing, after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR) Planning staff and the Design Review Board (DRB). The application also required a review by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The application was scheduled for a one-week review by the DRC at their standard meeting time on October 7, 2009. The DRC recommended the application be forwarded to the City Commission with City Staff’s recommendations and related conditions of approval. The application was scheduled for review as a special meeting for the DRB on October 7, 2009. The DRB recommendations are the same as Planning Staff’s recommendations. FISCAL EFFECTS: Budgeted funds were used to advertise the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file for 229-233 E. Main Street “Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings,” a National Trust publication “Preservation Briefs #41,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication “Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Main Street Commercial Buildings,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication The Economics of Historic Preservation, “Chapter 9: Historic Preservation and Building Economics,” by Donovan D. Rypkema Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Staff Report Design Review Board Minutes Report compiled on October 8, 2009 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OSBORNE BLOCK DEMOLITION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA) #Z-09194 Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 1 Item: Zoning Application #Z-09194, a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with the application. The property is zoned as “B-3” (Central Business District) and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The property is legally described as 20 feet of the east section of Lot 8, Lot 9 and the 8.63 feet of the west section of Lot 10, Block D, Original Townsite, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana (accurate record on Film 87, Page 1210 and Film 88, Page 4185). Owner: Chinook Properties, LLC c/o Leandra Pope (sole member) 1508 S. Willson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant: Christopher Pope 1508 S. Willson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Date: Design Review Board Public Meeting: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room, Professional Stiff Building, 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer Recommendations: 1) The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and 2) The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after the Commission’s action, that the demolition will apply to all elements of the structure except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, City Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demolition permit; and any demolition be completed in accordance with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and that if concurrence amongst the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants is that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demolition permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property is addressed as 229-233 East Main Street and is 8,550 square feet in size (approximately 57 feet in width by 150 feet in depth). The property contains a two-story, masonry, commercial building that is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as “contributing” in the Main Street Historic District. It is one of two buildings that border the March 5, 2009 downtown Bozeman explosion site. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 District is to provide a central area for the community’s business, government service and cultural activities. The subject property is flanked by the March 5, 2009 gas explosion site to the west. Otherwise, the property is surrounded by a mix of business uses including banking services, retail businesses, restaurants and service establishments. All adjacent properties are zoned B-3. ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The property is designated as “Community Core” in the Bozeman Community Plan. The traditional core of Bozeman is the historic downtown. This area has an extensive mutually supportive diversity of uses, a strong pedestrian and multi-modal transportation network, and a rich architectural character. Essential government services, places of public assembly, and open spaces provide the civic and social core of town. Residential development on upper floors is well established. New residential uses should be high density. The area along Main Street should be preserved as a place for high pedestrian activity uses, with strong pedestrian connectivity to other uses on nearby streets. Users are drawn from the entire planning area and beyond. The intensity of development is high with a Floor Area Ratio well over 1. Future development should continue to be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent areas and preserving the historic character of Main Street. Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan speaks directly on the community’s historic preservation goals. The first goal states the following: “Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community’s identity, history, and quality of life.” One of the suggested objectives to achieve this goal is to “establish and encourage partnerships between preservation-related community groups and stakeholders to protect historically and culturally significant resources in a coordinated and cooperative manner.” Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 2 PROJECT PROPOSAL The property owner Chinook Properties, LLC, and applicant Chris Pope, made formal application with the Department of Planning & Community Development for a Certificate of Appropriateness application. The application is requesting the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with this application. The proposed subsequent development is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. The demolition of contributing properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing, after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR) Planning staff and the Design Review Board (DRB). The application also required a review by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The application was scheduled for a one-week review by the DRC at their standard meeting time on October 7, 2009. The DRC recommended the application be forwarded to the City Commission with City Staff’s recommendations and related conditions of approval. The application was scheduled for review as a special meeting for the DRB on October 7, 2009. The DRB recommendations are the same as Planning Staff’s recommendations. ADR Staff also took the application to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) for their professional recommendations. A special meeting was held September 29, 2009 for the board’s review. The Board made the following recommendation: “The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board recommends to the Department of Planning and the City Commission that the City of Bozeman allow selected demolition of the west wall of the Osborne Block, assuring structural integrity of the building is kept, to allow construction of the Legion building to begin. We also recommend that a minimum six month stay of [total] demolition be enacted to allow alternative resources to be pursued and revaluation of the building’s structural integrity be completed with the help of the BHPAB and our resources on a local, state and federal level.” Planning Staff considered the HPAB’s recommendation before making the recommendation as presented in this report. PROPERTY HISTORY1 The Osborne Block was constructed in 1882 and is the largest commercial building in the Main Street Historic District remaining from the early-1880’s building boom that accompanied the arrival of the railroad. The two- story, unreinforced masonry building is an example of the Italianate architectural style. It has a symmetrical façade with exception to the ground floor storefront which was altered on the west side (previously Starky’s Deli) with the removal of the recessed entry. The east side remains original with a recessed entry (previously Rocky Mountain Toy Company) and the recessed, central entrance for the second floor uses is also original. The upper story features seven arched windows, with two-over-two pane glazing. The windows have corbelled arches with keystones and stone lintels with carved bands running through the center. The brick construction features a decorative metal cornice. The commercial building was built by Dr. S.H. Osborne who followed the gold strikes to Colorado and Montana, eventually settling in Bozeman in 1871 and deciding to engage in his former business as a druggist. Osborne built the block in collaboration with Frank Harper, whose small 1973 brick blacksmith shop stands adjacent to the east (237 E. Main Street – Montana Gift Corral). The two buildings stood together as an isolated unit until the 1920’s, when 241 E. Main Street was built adjoining them to the east of Harper’s shop. Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 3 The commercial building originally housed Osborne’s drug store and the Sebree, Ferris & White banking house on the first floor. On the second floor, the first occupants were the businesses of Eastman House and Imes & Hartman. Later occupants, in addition to Osborne’s drug business, included a hardware store through 1889, and beginning in 1890, a ladies hat store and a grocery and feed store. In 1891, an insurance company and the Northern Pacific express office were renting spaces in the second floor. Osborne and Harper built a nearly identical Italianate style building also in 1882 across the street for L.S. Willson & Co. However, that building was demolished prior to 1912 to allow for the construction of Hotel Baltimore (222-224 E. Main Street). In the morning of March 5, 2009, a gas explosion and subsequent 16-hour fire destroyed four commercial buildings in the 200 block of East Main Street. The addresses and historic information of the buildings destroyed are the following: 1) 209-215 E. Main, c. 1929, “Ellis, Davis and Sperling Block” (Rocking R Bar, Pickle Barrel & Boodles), 2) 219 E. Main, 1889-90, 1936, “Joyce Theatre” (Montana Trails Gallery), 3) 221-223 E. Main, c. 1891, “IOOF Hall” (Lily Lu, Tolstedt Architects), and 4) 225 E. Main, 1949, “Gallatin Post - American Legion” (Legion Bar and Hall). All buildings, with exception of the American Legion, were listed as “contributing” properties within the Main Street Historic District. Since the devastating explosion, the applicant Chris Pope has worked with a local team of professionals, including a structural engineer, architect and general contractor, to produce a work plan focused on structural repair efforts for the Osborne Block building. Emergency stabilization efforts were put in place at the expense of the property owner to reduce the public safety hazard of the building. A set of rehabilitation plans for the building were developed by the property owner’s structural engineer, also at the expense of the property owner, and are included within the applicant’s submittal materials. REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS The Department of Planning & Community Development reviewed this Certificate of Appropriateness application against the relevant section of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and as a result offers the following initial comments. Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: A. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved prior to the demolition or moving permit may be issued. No plans for new construction are proposed with this demolition application. The proposed subsequent development, following the demolition of the Osborne Block building, is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. Historic preservation staff in the Department of Planning generally does not support demolition of Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 4 historic buildings without plans for subsequent reconstruction or new construction. B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structure or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neural elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, and are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director after review and recommendation of Administrative Design Review staff or Design Review Board as per Chapters 18.34 and 18.62, BMC, and the standards outlined in Section 18.28.050, BMC. Not applicable, as the building proposed for demolition is designated as a “contributing” structure within the Main Street Historic District. C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to approval by the City Commission, through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.76, BMC. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The final authority for demolition or movement of structures or sites within this section shall rest with the City Commission. The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department. The application is requesting the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with this application. The proposed subsequent development is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. Certificate of Appropriateness standards in Section 18.28.050 of the UDO do not apply because new construction is not proposed. Therefore, the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure and its relationship to the Main Street Historic District shall be considered prior to demolition. The Osborne Block was constructed in 1882 and is the largest commercial building in the Main Street Historic District remaining from the early-1880’s building boom that accompanied the arrival of the railroad. The building did sustain damage from the March 5, 2009 gas explosion. However, the building is determined by historic preservation staff within the Department of Planning as retaining its significant historic architectural features that is the reason for obtaining contributing status within the Main Street Historic District. The other buildings within the district that were constructed during the same time period as the Osborne Block, and have retained their historic integrity2, are 1 E. Main Street (Bridger Kitchens), 29 E. Main Street (Plonk Wine Bar), and 240-246 E. Main Street (Barrel Mountaineering/Homepage Coffee/Pita Pit). The Avant Courier building’s, 1 E. Main Street, second floor is the only part of the building dating from the early 1880’s. 29 E. Main Street is also an example of 1880’s Italianate Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 5 architecture, but is much smaller in scale in comparison to the Osborne Block. The Spieth and Krug Brewery building, 240-246 E. Main Street, is the closest example of building construction and style to the Osborne Block. Therefore, the demolition of the Osborne Block removes an extremely significant building from the Main Street Historic District as it is one of only two examples of larger Italianate architecture built in the early 1880’s. The Main Street Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the City of Bozeman in the late 1980’s. The district is a collective example of significant commercial and architectural development in Bozeman between 1870 and 1937. Removal of buildings through demolition or inappropriate alteration negatively affects the integrity and strength of the historic district listing. In contrast, appropriate rehabilitation positively affects the integrity and strength of the historic district listing. Over the last twenty years, both examples have occurred within the district boundaries, most recently with the loss of three contributing buildings from the gas explosion on March 5, 2009. Because of its individual historic significance and its important relationship to the Main Street Historic District, the proposed demolition of the Osborne Block is found by ADR staff and the Department of Planning to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The criteria of this section are not satisfied. 2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. The applicant’s COA application includes a variety of materials that partially address the criteria of this subsection. Walker Construction’s bid estimate for the building rehabilitation plans, prepared by Nishkian Monks Structural Engineers, is included and totals at approximately 1.7 million dollars. The total excludes some additional work items, including sidewalk improvements, water line upgrades, asbestos abatement, and the construction of the common/shared wall between the Osborne Block building and future American Legion building (to the west). The applicant estimates these costs at 300 to 350 thousand dollars, bringing the total cost of rehabilitation to 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars. It is important to note that only one bid estimate for the rehabilitation plans was considered by the applicant. Potentially, a lower total could be obtained if the rehabilitation plans received multiple bids. As previously mentioned, subsequent new construction is not proposed with this demolition application. However, the applicant did provide a “guesstimate” on the costs of new construction in an attempt to address the criteria of this subsection. New construction costs were formulated around a plan where the new building is the same size as the existing structure. Estimated rates per square foot, based on shell construction and interior finishes, produced a total of approximately 2.3 million dollars. This total does not include costs affiliated with pre-construction preparation of the site, which would include demolition costs. It is important to note that this estimate is highly variable because it does not include demolition costs and it is not linked to specific construction plans that are Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 6 prepared by a professional designer. The applicant obtained bids for demolition costs after submitting his application. The low received was 80 thousand dollars and the high received was 250 thousand dollars. When incorporating demolition, the cost of new construction greatly increases over 2.3 million dollars. The Department of Planning is somewhat concerned with the accuracy of the cost estimates presented in the application comparing rehabilitation to new construction. Rehabilitation costs could be more accurate if a group of bids were received and an average was formulated. New construction costs could be more accurate if they were linked to actual construction plans prepared by a design professional. However, when the cost estimates are considered they clearly demonstrate that the cost of building rehabilitation is less than the cost of demolition and new construction. The materials in the application also contain information pertaining to the building’s threat to public health or safety. Letters from Bob Risk, City of Bozeman Chief Building Official, and Ty Monks, Principal Engineer of Nishkian Monks Structural Engineers, both identify the existing structure sustained damage from the March 5, 2009 explosion that caused the building to become a threat to public health and safety. The Department of Planning agrees with this conclusion. However, it is important to note how the applicant performed preliminary stabilization of the structure following the explosion to address the immediate public safety concerns of the Building Department. It is also crucial to consider the level of detriment to the community that occurs with the loss of a significant building in the Main Street Historic District. Historic preservation creates a bond between a community and its citizens.3 The historic downtown was identified by Bozeman residents as one of the community’s most important amenities and assets.4 Demolition of a part of this amenity removes the community’s connection to it and can potentially cause citizens to consider moving to a different community. The next part of the demolition criteria asks the consideration between costs of reasonable repairs or alterations, which removes the threat to public safety, to the value of the structure. As previously mentioned, the estimated cost of building rehabilitation is 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars. This estimate is for the entire building’s rehabilitation. The applicant received one appraisal for the property. The existing structure, once repaired and rehabilitated, was appraised at approximately 1.5 million dollars. The land which the structure sits upon was appraised as approximately 300 thousand dollars. This creates a total value of 1.8 million dollars for the property. The applicant concludes the cost of repair and rehabilitation “significantly exceeds the current market value of the structure.” The Department of Planning makes the argument that both the building and land on which it resides creates the total market value of the property. Therefore, the rehabilitation cost of 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars is 10 to 12 percent more than the market value of the property. ADR staff finds the cost of repair and rehabilitation as slightly exceeding the current market value of the property. Another important point linked with this discussion should be identified; the question was not raised by the applicant whether a portion of the total building rehabilitation could occur to adequately address the Building Department’s immediate concerns of public safety with regards to the building. There is the chance that minor, inexpensive repairs could occur to address the Building Department’s identified concerns. In addition to the information discussed above, the applicant states his great personal concern with the fact that the Nishkian Monks’ rehabilitation plans do not meet the seismic regulations in the City’s adopted building code. Ty Monks letter clearly explains why this is the reality; it lies in the ability to take exemptions from the building code for existing, or historic, structures. The International Existing Building Code (IEBC), a part of the City’s adopted International Building Code (IBC), provides exemptions for historic structures. Nishkian Monks’ proposed repair and rehabilitation will restore (and some could argue exceed) the Osborne Block building’s pre-blast level of safety and pass Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 7 all IEBC provisions so that the building is legally abiding to the City’s adopted building code. Nishkian Monk’s primarily focused their plans on structural repair efforts rather than any structural improvements to the historic Osborne Block building. Therefore, plans for a seismic retrofit of the building, so that it meets current seismic regulations, were not developed. The applicant is anticipating the costs of a seismic retrofit to greatly increase the costs of a rehabilitation project so that it far exceeds the market value of the property and becomes financially unfeasible. The Technical Preservation Services division of the National Park Service publishes a line entitled “Preservation Briefs.” Each brief focuses on an item of technical expertise that can arise with a historic structure. Preservation Brief #41 focuses on the seismic retrofit of historic buildings. The authors state “the most appropriate approach for a particular historic building will depend on a variety of factors, including the building’s use, whether it remains occupied during construction, applicable codes, budgetary constraints, and projected risk of damage.” They continue to state “From a design perspective, the vast majority of historic buildings can tolerate a well-planned hidden system of reinforcement.” The Preservation brief provides four classifications of seismic retrofit. Realistically, for historic buildings, only the first three categories apply: 1) Basic Life Safety: This addresses the most serious life-safety concerns by correcting those deficiencies that could lead to serious human injury or total building collapse. Upgrades may include bracing and tying the most vulnerable elements of the building, such as parapets, chimneys, and projecting ornamentation or reinforcing routes of exit. It is expected that if an earthquake were to occur, the building would not collapse but would be seriously damaged requiring major repairs. 2) Enhanced Life Safety: In this approach, the building is upgraded using a flexible approach to the building codes for moderate earthquakes. Inherent deficiencies found in older buildings, such as poor floor to wall framing connections and unbraced masonry walls would be corrected. After a design level earthquake, some structural damage is anticipated, such as masonry cracking, and the building would be temporarily unusable. 3) Enhanced Damage Control: Historic buildings are substantially rehabilitated to meet, to the extent possible, the proscribed building code provision. Some minor repairable damage would be expected after a major earthquake. 4) Immediate Occupancy: This approach is intended for designated hospitals and emergency preparedness centers remaining open and operational after a major earthquake. Even most modern buildings do not meet this level of construction, and so for a historic building to meet this requirement, it would have to be almost totally reconstructed of new materials which, philosophically, do not reflect preservation criteria.5 Each property owner has to weigh the costs and benefits of undertaking seismic retrofit. Owners may find that an extended engineering study evaluating a wide range of options is worthwhile. Not only can such a study consider the most sensitive historic preservation solution, but the most cost-effective one as well.6 The Department of Planning is recommending a demolition permit be issued effective 120 days from the City Commission’s action. Planning Staff believes that this time is a reasonable amount of time to continue the structural analysis of the building and obtain factual information on the costs and feasibility of rehabilitating and preserving the east and south façades. After reviewing the application, the Department of Planning recognizes that the applicant did not investigate any financial incentives or grants that could assist in the rehabilitation of the historic structure. Several financial incentives are potentially available for the rehabilitation of the Osborne Block building because it is a contributing building within the Main Street Historic District. Incentives are made available for historic preservation projects to help offset costs linked with Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 8 appropriate rehabilitation. The recommended effective date of 120 days provides time for the team of preservation experts to explore all potential incentives available and actively pursue them (for example, write a preservation grant application for the benefit of the property owner and applicant). It also allows time to see what, if any, federal appropriations are awarded to the City of Bozeman for the redevelopment of the explosion site (final federal vote expected to occur in late October 2009). Some examples of these potential “pots of money” are the following: 1) 20% federal tax credit for the rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings, 2) HB 645 Stimulus Bill Historic Preservation Grants – request up to 250 thousand dollars, 3) National Trust for Historic Preservation grants, and 4) Federal appropriation requests for the redevelopment of the explosion site and the preservation of the damaged buildings – original request of 1.5 million dollars. (Note: Seismic strengthening is considered an allowable expense in historic rehabilitation projects as long as the plans meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation). D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C of this section. The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following two recommendations for the Osborne Block COA demolition request: 1. The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and 2. The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after the Commission’s action, that the demolition will apply to all elements of the structure except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, City Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demolition permit; and any demolition be completed in accordance with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and that if concurrence amongst the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants is that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demolition permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. Though the code allows the Commission to consider a two year stay for demolition permits, the Department of Planning recommends issuance of a demolition permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after the Commission’s action. ADR and historic preservation staff recognizes the fact that winter weather is approaching the community and it is in no interest to the historic and structural integrity of the building to have it withstand weather elements for an entire winter without actions of protection. Staff additionally recognizes the benefit of combining local, state and federal historic preservation professionals to consider additional alternatives to complete demolition of the Osborne Block building. At this time, the organizations willing to participate in an exploration of alternatives are the following: 1) Bozeman Department of Planning, 2) Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, 3) Montana State Historic Preservation Office, 4) Montana Preservation Alliance, and 5) National Trust for Historic Preservation. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 9 issuance of demolition or moving permits. If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request, several conditions of approval are included in Planning staff’s recommendation to mitigate the loss of the Osborne Block building. Those conditions include the Level II of HABS/HAER documentation. F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64, BMC, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request. PUBLIC COMMENT Two letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application. One is from the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, stating support of the demolition. The second is from the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board stating a demolition stay of six months. If public comment is received after the submittal of this report, it will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the public hearing for consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following two recommendations for the Osborne Block COA demolition request: 1. The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and 2. The City Commission grant a demolition permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after the Commission’s action, that the demolition will apply to all elements of the structure except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, City Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demolition permit; and any demolition be completed in accordance with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval; and that if concurrence amongst the property owner, City Staff and outside consultants is that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demolition permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City Commission. They are discussed in the following section. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL If the recommendation to demolish the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) is supported by the City Commission, Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. A written statement prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which explains the structural stabilization in place to ensure that the demolition of the west wall Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 10 (common/shared wall) will not structurally impair or cause further damage to the remaining exterior walls, floor systems and roof systems of the existing structure. 2. The applicant must make proper application and receive approval for a demolition permit by the Building Department. If the recommendation to grant a demolition permit with an effective date of 120 days is supported by the City Commission, Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval prior to demolition: 1. The applicant shall complete Level II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property. The documentation should follow the most current version of the HABS/HAER Standards published by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Bozeman Planning Department prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit. The documentation shall include high-resolution digital copies (in TIFF format) of all non-text documentation and a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF version of the written narrative. 2. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which includes the following information: 1) phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations, 2) a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase, 3) the proposed protection plan for the three, existing boulevard trees in front of the building, and 4) security measures in place to prevent damage or destruction to the adjacent building to the east (237 East Main Street). 3. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Osborne Block building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the demolition request. 4. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation prior to a demolition permit approval. 5. All water line services shall be disconnected prior to demolition. CONCLUSION The March 5, 2009 gas explosion in historic downtown Bozeman was a devastating event for the community. It can be agreed by many that there is a vital need and desire to begin the redevelopment process. The new American Legion building site plan received final approval by the Department of Planning in September 2009 and the construction drawings received final approval by the Building Department shortly thereafter. It is in the City of Bozeman’s best interest to encourage appropriate rebuilding on the explosion site. Therefore, the Department of Planning is recommending to the City Commission as a part of this application the conditional approval of the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building). Over the last two decades, the City of Bozeman has implemented a historic preservation program to protect the community’s historically and culturally significant resources. The Bozeman Community Plan states how the City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The Community Plan continues to state the City’s mission in regards to historic preservation: carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.7 Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 11 Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 12 It is because of the sudden and unexpected loss of four buildings within our Main Street Historic District, from the downtown explosion, that historic preservation goals and objectives are more important than ever. “Preservationists are often accused of opposing demolition of any and all buildings. In fact, few, if any, preservationists have that attitude. But preservationists often take the position that demolition permit should not be issued without knowing what is going to built instead, and without having some surety that the proposed construction project will, in fact, go forward if the demolition is approved.”8 Considering demolition of a historic structure before all alternatives are weighed and balanced, including investigating financial incentives that can decrease the financial realities of rehabilitation, is not striving toward the community’s goal of promoting historic resources for their continued survival. It is at this time of important redevelopment for Bozeman’s historic downtown that private, public and non-profit partnerships should be encouraged and explored. Therefore, the Department of Planning is recommending the issuance of a demolition permit for the Osborne Block structure with an effective date of 120 days to explore the possibilities of preserving and rehabilitating the front and east facades of the structure. Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file for 229-233 E. Main Street “Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings,” a National Trust publication “Preservation Briefs #41,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication “Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Main Street Commercial Buildings,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication The Economics of Historic Preservation, “Chapter 9: Historic Preservation and Building Economics,” by Donovan D. Rypkema Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Report Sent To: Leandra Pope & Christopher Pope, 1508 S. Willson Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 1 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, “229-231 E. Main,” 1985 revision, Matt Cohen surveyor. 2 Historic integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period. Historic integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Bozeman Community Plan, “Chapter 5: Historic Preservation, most recent edition June 1, 2009. 3 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,” Donovan D. Rypkema. 4 City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan, “Chapter III: Economic Profile of Bozeman,” Prospera Business Network and City of Bozeman, 2009. 5 Preservation Briefs 41, “The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, October 1997. 6 Ibid. 7 Bozeman Community Plan, “Chapter 5: Historic Preservation, most recent edition June 1, 2009. 8 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,” Donovan D. Rypkema. 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 241 242 243 244 a national trust publicationControlling Disaster: Earthquake-HazardReduction for Historic BuildingsBy Rachel CoxThe National Trust forHistoric Preservation providesleadership, education, andadvocacy to save America’sdiverse historic places andrevitalize our communities.Support for the NationalTrust is provided by mem-bership dues; endowmentfunds; individuals, corporateand foundation contribu-tions; and grants fromstate and federal agencies.1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036202.588.6296245 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Trust Forum is a membership program for preservationists—from boardmembers to students, from architects to educators, frompreservation commissioners toplanners, from volunteers torestoration contractors. Forummembership provides you with the knowledge, tools andresources to protect your community. As a Forum member you receive a subscrip-tion to Preservation magazine,Forum Journal, and Forum News.Benefits also include discounts on conferences and all publica-tions listed in the PreservationBooks catalog as well as participation in financial/ insurance assistance programs,technical advice and access toForum Online, the online systemdesigned for the preservationcommunity. To join send $115 to: National Trust Forum National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-6296Preservation Books are publishedby the National Trust for HistoricPreservation. For a complete listof titles call or write: Preservation Books, National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-6286 FAX (202) 588-6223,or visit our web site at www.nthpbooks.org.Copyright 2001 National Trustfor Historic PreservationRichard MoePresidentNational Trust for Historic PreservationPeter BrinkSenior Vice PresidentProgramsKatherine AdamsDirectorPreservation ServicesElizabeth Byrd WoodEditorJanie BlackmanBusiness CoordinatorHeadquarters1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 588-6296Southern Field Office1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 588-6107(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,Maryland, Virginia, Virgin Islands)Midwest Office53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 350Chicago, IL 60604-2103(312) 939-5547(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)Northeast OfficeSeven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,4th FloorBoston, MA 02109-1649(617) 523-0885(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,New Hampshire, New York, RhodeIsland, Vermont)Northeast Field Office6401 Germantown AvenuePhiladelphia, PA 19144(215) 848-8033(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)Southern OfficeWilliam Aiken House456 King StreetCharleston, SC 29403-6247(843) 722-8552(Alabama, Florida, Georgia,Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,North Carolina, South Carolina,Tennessee, West Virginia)Mountains/Plains Office910 16th Street, Suite 1100Denver, CO 80202-2910(303) 623-1504(Colorado, Kansas, Montana,Nebraska, North Dakota, SouthDakota, Utah, Wyoming)Southwest Office500 Main Street, Suite 1030Fort Worth, TX 76102-3943(817) 332-4398(Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas,Oklahoma)Western Office8 California Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94111-4828(415) 956-0610(Alaska, Arizona, California,Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,Washington, Pacific island territories)This publication was made possible bythe generous support of the Williamand Flora Hewlett Foundation.246 P RESERVATION B OOKS 1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Earthquake preparedness is a subject that tends to evoke either great emotion or great indifference. Those who have felt the earth shake hope fervently never to repeat the experience, while those who have never expe- rienced a quake prefer to believe they never will. What’s more, the topic seems to lead down confus- ing technical byways—from geo- logical probabilities to engineering equations—that may appear too forbidding to enter. Yet there are numerous rea- sons why owners of older build- ings, especially, ought to concern themselves with the subject. The earthquakes that have rattled California have left behind graphic images of the frightening effects of even moderately strong earth shaking. The Loma Prieta quake that interrupted the 1989 World Series in San Francisco left 62 dead and caused $6 billion in property damage. Lessons learned and precautions taken as a result of this and other earthquakes proved very effective when the 6.7 magnitude Northridge Earth- quake struck in 1994. It was the most destructive earthquake in the United States since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, killing more than 50 people, injuring thousands, and causing some $40 billion in damage. Were it not for the seismic strengthening and risk reduction programs that had been implemented, the devasta- tion would have been significantly greater. Further north, the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake that shook Seattle, Wash., in 2001 caused extensive damage, but investments in retrofitting paid off here as well, while those buildings without seismic upgrades suffered greater damage. Fortunately, preparing for the next earthquake need not be enormously complicated or terri- bly expensive. Information about nonstructural hazards and gen- eral disaster preparedness can be obtained from your local chapter of the American Red Cross. Assessing a commercial or residen- tial building for earthquake haz- ards may result simply in greater peace of mind or taking a few sim- ple steps to reduce risks to human safety. Alternatively, you may find that a full-scale seismic retrofit is well worth the investment. The good news that rarely accompanies the frightening images is that earthquake hazards can be reduced. As practicing engineers and engineering research analysts have studied the damage associated with recent quakes, they have identified structural characteristics com- mon to hazardous buildings and refined analytical tools and engi- neering techniques to mitigate potential damage. Often, the prescribed correc- tive is relatively simple and inex- pensive. Wood-frame houses can be bolted to their foundations and have crawlspace walls reinforced, usually for less than the cost of remodeling a bathroom. Masonry chimneys can be tied in to the house to prevent collapse. The brick parapets, or low walls, often found along the rooflines of com- mercial buildings are exception- ally vulnerable to collapse during earthquake shaking. Reinforcing them may require only a series of steel brackets fastened to parapet and roof framing. It is difficult to make a cate- gorical statement about the costs of seismic upgrades, because every building poses individual chal- lenges and construction costs vary widely. But it is clear that reinforcement is far less costly than reconstruction. Like regular building maintenance, earth- quake-hazard reduction repre- sents the ounce of prevention that eliminates the need for a pound of cure. What’s more, with historic structures, waiting for a quake before investing in improvements risks the loss of historical value. Historic materi- als that are damaged or destroyed are often impossible to replace, and introducing modern materi- als not only damages a building’s integrity but also may compound maintenance problems. Cover: Wood-frame buildings are often jolted off their foundations during an earthquake, causing porches to separate from the body of the building. A seismic upgrade using bolts and braces to “tie” the building together will reduce damage to the building during a future quake. — Photo courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation A seismic retrofit before an earthquake strikes is often well worth the investment. Historic materials that are damaged or destroyed in an earthquake are often impossible to replace. This historic home in Salinas, Calif., sustained more than $400,000 in damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. — Photo courtesy of the National Trust Western Office Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings By Rachel Cox 247 Reducing earthquake hazards in older properties also poses particu- lar challenges. Meeting building code requirements without damag- ing historic fabric requires the skills of an engineer or architect experienced with historic struc- tures and comfortable with a range of engineering options. Solutions should, and can, be designed to preserve important features and respect original design. Yet these caveats should not discourage the owner of an older building, whether commercial or residential, from carefully con- sidering a seismic retrofit. This booklet contains background information needed to approach the subject with confidence, focusing primarily on unrein- forced masonry, that is, structures with no steel reinforcing within a masonry wall. It outlines the steps to take to consider the risk for your particular building, to identify your goals, and to select and work productively with an engineer or other qualified pro- fessional to evaluate engineering and design options. It discusses financing issues and offers exam- ples to illustrate the process. A bibliography at the end lists sources of additional information. Understanding the Threat A safe, sound building must be able to withstand certain forces. Its ability to support its own weight, along with the weight of its contents, occupants, and any occasional loads such as snow, is known as its vertical loading capacity. Building codes define what vertical loads a building must be able to support. They also define its lateral loading capacity, or the ability to resist transient horizontal forces such as wind and earthquake shaking. Vertical and lateral loads are supported by the building’s struc- tural system—the interlocking framework of joists, beams, studs, walls, columns, and foundations. Construction materials, includ- ing wood, steel, masonry, and concrete, also contribute to the strength of a building. All the elements play critical, yet vary- ing roles, depending on the building, in providing a stable, sturdy, and safe structure. An engineer uses knowledge of the structural system of a build- ing, along with building weight, to analyze how it would respond to different intensities of ground shaking. A building’s ability to withstand an earthquake depends on how it resists the “equivalent lateral forces” that engineers use to express the complex inertial forces generated within a build- ing by seismic vibrations. Modern steel-frame buildings are designed to bend, or deflect, with these forces, dissipating the earthquake energy without col- lapsing. Similarly, a wood-frame building, old or new, is flexible enough as a unit to absorb energy, although the absorption is often revealed by cracked wall and ceil- ing finishes. Unreinforced masonry build- ings, on the other hand, where floors and roof are usually sup- ported by the walls themselves, are commonly damaged in strong ground shaking. Without appro- priate reinforcement, they are usually most vulnerable at the top of the building, where the walls may be poorly anchored to beams or joists and may be exces- sively slender (that is, too tall for their thickness). Freestanding sections of masonry such as chimneys and unanchored para- pets are also prone to collapse. Identifying the potential prop- erty damage associated with var- ious levels of shaking allows earthquake-hazard reduction schemes to be developed. The weight of a building is determined by careful measurement and the identification of materials, whose average weights are known in advance. The engineer also should consider the building as a chain of interconnected components, thus identifying the relative importance of the various parts during ground shaking. In a wood-frame building raised sev- eral feet off the foundation, for instance, the weak link is usually the short wall connecting the foundation with the first floor. This element, often called the cripple wall, frequently lacks the interior finishes, such as plaster or gypsum board, that strengthen the walls above. If not anchored P RESERVATION B OOKS 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Freestanding sections of masonry, such as chimneys and parapets, are often prone to collapse during an earthquake, as seen in this photo taken in Seattle following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. — Photo by Mike Buhler 248 adequately to the foundation, it is especially vulnerable to earth- quake damage. In addition, it is often weakened by moisture fluc- tuations and insect infestations. Assessing the Risks When the owner of an older building undertakes routine main- tenance, it is usually for a clear and present reason. If the roof leaks, water will penetrate the building and rot will set in. But deciding whether, and at what level, to reinforce against earth- quakes often seems a complex project undertaken for unclear reasons, like an abstract game of “what if?” Sometimes, the decision to rein- force will be made for you. Building owners planning other significant changes or improve- ments may find that seismic upgrading to a given level is part of building code requirements. Seismic improvements may also be required when the use of a building is changed. In parts of California, the strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings is now required by law, except for dwellings with fewer than five units. Otherwise, deciding what to do about earthquake reinforcement means making decisions based on probabilities and observed build- ing performances in past earth- quakes. First, one must consider the probability of a seismic event and what source and duration it is most likely to have. Then one considers the most probable kinds of damage and, from there, what damage is acceptable and what is not. Modern buildings that conform to current building codes are con- structed to seismic standards that minimize the possibility of col- lapse and emphasize the reduction of property damage that threatens life safety. Since earthquake- related deaths are almost always caused by falling objects, mitiga- tion strategies for older buildings usually begin with the reinforce- ment of masonry chimneys in res- idences and the bracing and anchorage of parapets and walls that could topple, crushing adja- cent structures or injuring people directly. A second level of priority might be the protection of signifi- cant building elements, from a magnificent portico to extraordi- narily detailed plasterwork. No building—not even a new building—can be made com- pletely earthquake proof. But once you accept that earthquake damage, and the resulting costs, must be discussed in terms of probabilities, you can begin to make judgments about a sensible course of action. Four variables are particularly important to consider as you think about rein- forcing your building. How Dangerous Is Your Site? Earthquakes are caused by the motion of the tectonic plates that compose the earth’s outer crust. When the plates slide past or go under one another, stresses accumulate along the bound- aries, or faults, so that proximity to a fault increases the risk of damage when the stresses are released in an earthquake. In California and Alaska, where destructive quakes have occurred within recent memory, most resi- dents are well aware that they live near major faults. Yet there are many other areas near geo- logical faults where the earth- quake hazard is less commonly recognized. Areas around St. Louis; Salt Lake City; Charleston, S.C.; Helena, Mont.; and Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest are also at risk, for example, and Boston has experienced earth- quakes in the past. Past earthquakes have taught that the soil conditions below a building and along the route back to the fault are often more important than the building structure in determining earth- quake damage. A rock substrate, for instance, is known to dampen ground motion,while poorly compacted fill and mud can actually accelerate it. In San Francisco during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, houses in the Marina District, many miles from the quake’s epicenter near Santa Cruz, were severely dam- aged because the sandy soil and landfill beneath them liquefied during the earthquake. If you live in a high-seismicity area, your city or county planning department may have maps show- P RESERVATION B OOKS 3• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Since most earthquake-related deaths are caused by falling objects, mitigation strategies for older buildings usually begin with the bracing and anchorage of parapet and walls that could topple during a quake. — Photo by Heather MacIntosh 249 ing different zones of soil condi- tion. California, for example, has undertaken a major mapping pro- gram. The U.S. Geological Survey, state soils offices, and local build- ing departments may also offer guidance. For a more detailed analysis, a licensed geologist or soils engineer can perform a geo- logical investigation of your site—a step that can save money in the long run, especially for large projects. Determining what kind of soil conditions exist on your property will enable the engineer to develop a more accu- rate prediction of how ground motion will be transmitted to your building, so that mitigation strate- gies can be tailored to the need. What Structural Type Is Your Building? There are a number of basic structural systems prevalent in American residential and com- mercial buildings. Each system has different characteristics in terms of its response to earthquake forces. Wood-frame buildings Wood-frame buildings contain vertical framing of wood studs or posts and horizontal framing of joists and rafters or beams. Whether sheathed with clap- board or stucco, they generally perform well in terms of life safety. The wooden framing mem- bers that support the building and tie it together tend to distort but not break under earthquake stress. Yet for owners of homes and stores damaged by earthquakes, the effects can still seem devas- tating. In the 1992 Humboldt County quakes in northern California, numerous wood-frame houses were jolted off their foun- dations, causing porches and additions to separate from the body of the building and damag- ing such masonry elements as chimneys and stairways. Water and gas lines were disrupted and electrical service was lost. Many of the houses literally came apart at the seams, and interior fin- ishes and contents were badly damaged. The buildings could be jacked up and restored, but only at considerable expense and after weeks when the owners could not live in their homes. The Humboldt County houses were extreme examples of the two commonest shortcomings of wood-frame buildings. First, they often are not adequately fastened to their foundations. Buildings bolted directly to a concrete slab— a common practice after about 1940—almost never suffer earth- quake damage at the foundation. Second, the wall between the foundation and the first floor, or cripple wall, is often unsheathed on the interior, making it weaker and more subject to moisture and insect damage than the rest of the house and vulnerable to buckling. In Humboldt County, the founda- tions themselves were often mini- mal and/or poorly maintained, as well. Many of the houses stood on wooden posts resting directly on the earth or on small concrete footings. In some instances, houses with even minimal brac- ing between the posts suffered less damage than houses with no hor- izontal strengthening. Both potential problems are relatively easy and inexpensive to solve as long as there is ade- quate access to the foundation. By looking in the basement or crawl space of your building, you can probably determine whether or not it has been bolted to the foundation (see illustration, page 5). If it has, and the bolts appear old, loose, or damaged, you can hire a registered building inspec- tor or contractor to check the anchor bolts’ attachment to the foundation using a calibrated torque wrench. You can also look at the periph- eral wall that connects the foun- dation with the first floor. If it is open, or only partially sheathed, you may want to consider sheath- ing it with plywood or installing “x bracing”—wooden studs run- ning diagonally between floor framing and sill plates—to pre- vent the walls from buckling. A side benefit of the plywood sheath- ing could be improved energy efficiency and increased comfort, since enclosing the crawl space will keep the floor warmer. Be sure to design adequate ventila- tion for any enclosed crawl space. Another problem common to older wood-frame buildings is the separation of individual elements P RESERVATION B OOKS 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Although wood-framed houses generally perform well in terms of life safety, a quake can serious damage masonry elements such as chimneys and stairways as seen in this home damaged during the Loma Prieta Earthquake. — Photo courtesy of the National Trust Western Office 250 such as additions and porches that, because of their foundation system or poor connections with the main structure, move inde- pendently during an earthquake. An architect or engineer can identify ways to tie the building elements together. Wood-Frame Buildings with Masonry Veneer Many buildings that appear to be brick, or other types of masonry, are in fact wood-frame buildings with a single thickness of the masonry units laid against the sheathing. This system is fairly common in 20th-century build- ings. You can usually see the wood framing by checking the peripheral walls in the attic or crawl space. Veneer buildings will generally behave like wood-frame buildings with one important exception. If the masonry veneer becomes dis- lodged, it can threaten life safety. For this reason, the attachment of masonry veneer should be evaluated, especially in a build- ing’s upper stories. Normally, a small zone of veneer is carefully removed to verify bonding and anchorage patterns, if any. Nondestructive test methods exist for the anchors in place. The veneer sample can be replaced. It is possible to increase the bond between veneer and back-up wall by pressure grouting. Infilled-Frame Masonry Buildings This type of masonry building contains an independent frame- work of steel or concrete that supports the loads of the building while the masonry fills in the walls and provides additional lat- eral resistance but does not sup- port vertical loads. It is commonly found among older, multistory commercial buildings, usually in older downtowns. A masonry building of more than four stories usually contains a frame, but making a certain iden- tification can be tricky. A con- crete framework may be visible either inside or out, but a steel framework is usually clad with masonry for fire protection. If available, review the original construction drawings and then verify conditions by field inspec- tion. Infilled-frame masonry build- ings are generally considered to be less hazardous than unreinforced masonry buildings, but addi- tional reinforcement may still be advisable—or, under certain cir- cumstances, required—in seismi- cally active areas. Unreinforced Masonry Bearing-Wall Buildings In this most common of masonry building types, the masonry walls —whether brick, stone, terra- cotta, adobe, concrete block, or fieldstone—actually support the weight of the floors and roof. The wooden beams, joists, and rafters usually rest in pockets in the masonry. It is considered to be the most hazardous building type and has received the most atten- tion following recent earthquakes. URMS, as they are often called, can be identified by the configuration of the masonry and the thickness of the walls. For brick, the wall thickness is usu- ally equal to a multiple of four inches plus one, since bricks are usually four inches wide. The brickwork can take many pat- terns, but generally speaking the presence of “header” bricks, laid crosswise so that the short end rather than the long side is visi- ble, is a sign that a wall is solid masonry. The pattern of the brick and the thickness of the walls will affect how they respond to earthquake shaking. The best place to check the masonry pattern is at the side or back of a building, in stairwells and ele- vator shafts, or behind a parapet, since facades may be covered in brick veneer. To check wall thickness, measure at a doorway or win- dow. Another rule of thumb: an unre- inforced bearing-wall building is extremely unlikely to be more than six stories tall. Usually, it is three stories or less. In general, a masonry building, like a wood-frame building, will bene- fit from good main- tenance. Cracks and loose mortar should be repaired. Cracks that run all the way through the wall thickness or that propagate many feet parallel to the wall surface horizontally, vertically, or at an angle merit a call to an engineer or architect. Keep in mind that old brick must be repointed with compatible mor- tar and often requires periodic inspection by a registered masonry inspector as part of earthquake- hazard reduction ordinances. High parapets should be braced, chim- neys should be anchored, and protruding ornamentation should be firmly attached. How is the Building Used? Occupancy level and type of use—that is, how many people use the building—affect the level of structural analysis that an engineer uses to develop earth- P RESERVATION B OOKS 5• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Foundation bolts and sheathed cripple wall. — Drawing courtesy of Architectural Resources Group 251 quake-hazard reduction schemes. To analyze an auditorium, for example, where many people con- gregate on a regular basis, an engi- neer must use higher equivalent lateral forces than for, say, a house museum, where the number of visitors is strictly controlled. Beyond building code require- ments, how a building is used should figure into your cost-ben- efit considerations. Damage to a vacation home that may be out of commission for a few months will be far less inconvenient than damage to your principal resi- dence or place of business, for instance. Mitigation of threats to life safety should be emphasized regardless of the occupancy. What Are Your Financial Parameters? Earthquake reinforcement costs can range from inexpensive—as when a homeowner installs anchor bolts in the sills of his wood-frame house—to an exten- sive reinforcement of an old commercial masonry building rehabilitated as an investment. In both cases the money invested must be weighed against the future payoff. In the case of a commercial ven- ture, reinforcement costs are, of course, part of the capital costs of the project—usually required by building codes—and will be repaid as the building turns a profit. But it is also worth considering the cost of lost business if your building is unusable for a few weeks or a few months after a quake and of long- term business lost as customers learn to go elsewhere. For a homeowner, reinforce- ment costs can be weighed against the probable costs of repairing potential damage. Earthquake insurance is usually so costly, with such high deductibles, that it is not a cost-effective alter- native to reinforcement. Another factor to consider is the cost of time when, in the event of a major quake, the structure may become uninhabitable. Can you afford to spend anywhere from a few days to several months living elsewhere, possibly without access to your home, while repairs are made? Might not that money be better spent now to prevent such an eventuality? It will be easier to secure the services of qualified engineers, architects, and con- tractors prior to a seismic event than afterward, when they will be greatly in demand. Another important considera- tion is whether or not your building is due for repairs or remodeling. It makes sense in the long run to include seismic improvements in your work plans, since you will already be paying to get professional advice and open up the building for work. Another possible money saver is to share some of the expenses with neighbors who are also interested in having their build- ings surveyed by an architect, engineer, or contractor. You will probably realize a per person sav- ings on a visual survey of the buildings if you ask for the work to be done as a package. In areas of California where surveys of unreinforced masonry buildings are required by law, some towns have hired engineers or engineer- architect teams to survey and make preliminary recommenda- tions for all the buildings at once. The success of such surveys depends on finding well-quali- fied engineers and architects familiar with older materials and building types. More detailed assessments of individual build- ing requirements demand close scrutiny of each building, how- ever, and little money is likely to be saved by seeking this level of engineering analysis as a group. P RESERVATION B OOKS 6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Some potential problems and basic precautions are rel- evant regardless of building type. •Good maintenance practices are a basic starting point for all buildings. Earthquake damage can rarely be traced to a single cause, and any deteriorated condition in a building may be exacerbated by shaking. Well-main- tained buildings have been observed to sustain less dam- age in earthquakes than buildings in poor condition. •Foundations should be in good repair. Even unrein- forced masonry foundations can perform adequately if the mortar quality is good and bricks are sound (see box, page 7). •Large wall openings, such as garage doors or large win- dows, can rack, or distort, during strong ground shak- ing. Buildings that contain a “soft story”—a home or apartment atop a garage for example—may require the installation of a steel frame to strengthen the opening. Glass breakage was observed in storefronts with large openings in several communities in Humboldt County after the 1992 earthquakes. Often there was inade- quate space in the mullions or muntins to accommo- date glass distortion. •Chimneys are another feature commonly damaged dur- ing strong ground shaking. They too should be main- tained by repointing damaged mortar and resetting loose bricks (see box, page 7). Tying the chimney into the house structure wherever possible will help it to move with the house during shaking. An interior chimney can be anchored where it passes through floors and roof, for instance. Exterior chimneys may be strapped to the house or braced to the roof. Adding a chimney liner, or new flue, of stainless steel or terra- cotta can improve seismic response without altering the chimney’s appearance, if the liner is chosen cor- rectly. Often, reinforcing bars are placed between liner and masonry and held in place with concrete. While chimneys are potentially hazardous building ele- ments, they are also important character-defining features of the architecture. In cases where reinforcement may sig- nificantly alter the appearance of the house or destroy his- toric material, one should seek advice from an architect experienced with historic restoration. Generally speaking, it is preferable to add an element, such as a brace, rather than to lose original materials—by tearing down and then rebuilding a reinforced chimney, for instance. A Few Basics 252 Developing a Plan of Action (1) Check Regulations You will need to determine who are the “reviewing authorities” for any changes you wish to make. Although they may be as simple as a single building inspec- tor, in a historic district, with a landmark building, or with a large project, there may be addi- tional levels of review, such as a local historic district commission, city planning commission, or, in the case of a historic tax credit project, the state historic preser- vation office and the National Park Service. Begin by calling your local building department to determine permitting and approval procedures, or ask an architect, engineer, or contractor about them. Be aware that you may need to work closely with building officials to gain approval of any approaches to reinforce- ment that are sometimes required to meet preservation objectives. In California, a building listed on any official survey of historic buildings must use the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) as a performance standard in conjunction with local prescrip- tive codes. The SHBC sets gen- eral performance standards that emphasize mitigation of potential property damage that threatens life safety or disrupts the historic fabric. The engineer can use judg- ment in meeting these standards, often allowing for less costly alter- natives. For a prescriptive code that recognizes the unique char- acteristics of archaic materials, the Uniform Code for Building Conservation is a useful reference. Occasionally, local building departments are unfamiliar with performance-based codes. Your architect and/or engineer should be prepared to negotiate a con- sensus about an earthquake-haz- ard reduction scheme that real- izes reasonable safety goals and protects the building’s historic qualities. In California, if a con- sensus cannot be reached at the local level, it is possible to appeal local decisions to the State Historical Building Safety Board in Sacramento. (2) Hire a Qualified Professional In seismic risk areas, especially after a tremor, there are often many contractors who offer to “earthquake proof” homes quickly and even cheaply. Be wary, for they may not be sensitive to his- toric buildings and may suggest a few quick fixes without adequately assessing your specific risks. On the other hand, contrac- tors are not necessarily unquali- fied. The goal is to find a licensed, professional engineer, architect, or contractor (or a team of all three) who is knowl- edgeable about archaic construc- tion materials and experienced with planning and executing seis- mic retrofits in older buildings. Often, finding a preservation architect will lead to the right engineer, or a good contractor can recommend a good architect, and so on. A structural engineer has received more specialized training than a civil engineer, but a civil engineer experienced with seismic reinforcement may be acceptable. An architect, espe- cially a preservation architect, can work with an engineer to develop strengthening plans that minimize the impact on the building’s appearance and func- tioning and protect character- defining features and finishes. Once you have found several names, call them for references, then go see their work. Ask them in advance what they would charge for a consultation—some charge to write a proposal for ser- vices, others do not. Once you have identified three or four you feel comfortable with, set up indi- vidual meetings, buying an hour or two of their time if necessary. Getting a few opinions will make you more knowledgeable about your particular problems and potential solutions and will allow you to consider each individual’s advice in perspective. Plan in advance what ques- tions to ask, not only about your building but about the services they will provide. Then don’t be afraid to press for answers. For example: What information will be included in your assessment? Will it be in a form ready to take to a contractor? How long will it take? Do I need to bring in any other professionals (architect, engineer, soils specialist)? Taking the necessary time to select the right person to work with—someone who shares a sensitivity to historic preserva- P RESERVATION B OOKS 7• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Repairing deteriorated mortar joints will strengthen historic masonry. But the process of repair, or repointing, must be executed carefully to prevent new damage to archaic bricks. Repointing involves removing by hand deteriorated mortar from the joints of a masonry wall and replacing it with new mortar. It is extremely important that the new mortar be compatible with the existing bricks. It should match the historic mortar in color and texture and must be as soft, or softer, than the historic mortar in order to prevent damage to the bricks. To preserve the appearance of the building, the mortar joints also should be tooled, or detailed, to match the existing joints. A detailed treatment of mortar joint repair in historic brick buildings is published by the technical assistance division of the National Park Service as part of the “Preservation Briefs” series. To obtain a copy of Preservation Briefs 2, Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings, contact your state historic preservation office. (The full text is available at www.nps.gov) Masonry Repair 253 tion—is well worthwhile. For no matter how much research you do and how many questions you ask, there will be times when you will have to trust their judgment. (3) Define the Scope of Work You will need to work with the professionals you choose to define exactly what services they will perform. Tell them up front what your preservation and service requirements are. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are considered the standard for all rehabilitation work on historic buildings, par- ticularly those seeking tax credits. Review the standards, determine how they apply to your building, and discuss them with your architect and engineer. Are there features of the house that you are particularly concerned not to alter during construction? One architect suggests that owners of historic buildings begin their retrofits by locating the most important zones to save from damage, not only in an earthquake but also during construction. Ask for an analysis of the risk for your building, not just a pre- scription for strengthening it. You need to know the rationale for each of the steps suggested, so that if you must choose among them for cost reasons you can make a sound decision. Ask for maintenance sugges- tions and a consideration of the overall condition of the building as well, so that you can accom- plish other objectives with seis- mic improvements. Ask about materials testing as part of the assessment. The intrin- sic strength of the materials that compose the building will affect its existing earthquake resis- tance. What’s more, the strength of old materials is not a given, as it is with new materials. Such nondestructive testing as a mor- tar quality testing program for an unreinforced masonry building or a torque test for existing foun- dation anchor bolts is a relatively inexpensive step that can save money by avoiding unnecessary strengthening. Existing bolts in unreinforced masonry walls, often called “government anchors,” should not be tested because the procedure is destructive. These anchors can be supplemented to improve their resistance to future ground shaking. Ask for reasonably complete drawings to substantiate recom- mendations. The drawings should be based on engineering compu- tations. You may discover that doing nothing is an acceptable course, but if you go ahead with a retrofit, you will need drawings to get a building permit anyway, as well as to get accurate pricing from contractors. Ask for alternative solutions during the preliminary phase of the project. Seismic reinforce- ment is not an exact science and opinions often diverge on how much reinforcement is enough. Even if the building code pre- scribes a minimum resistance for the building, it will not tell you exactly how to achieve it, and there are usually several ways to meet a given goal. Ask how the proposed solu- tions will be achieved—in other words, what parts of your building will be opened up—so that you know what parts of your house will be disrupted on the way to being improved. This way, you can consider what historic fabric may be affected. There is usually more than one way to complete a given procedure, and if you have an unusual cornice on your living room ceiling, for instance, you should advise the contractor to P RESERVATION B OOKS 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Several professional organizations can assist in the search for the right engineer, architect, and contractor. Other useful resources might be the local homeowners’ associa- tion, historical society, or preservation group. Each state has a historic preservation office in the capital, and most have a private, nonprofit statewide group that also should be a strong source for advice. Your state department of consumer affairs can tell you if an individual is licensed. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (World headquarters) 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, VA 20191-4400 (800) 548-2723 1015 15th Street, NW #600 Washington, DC 20005-2605 (202) 789-2200 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) 1730 I Street #240 Sacramento, CA 95814-3017 (916) 447-1198 National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) 1420 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 684-22800 American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 626-7300 The regional offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation are listed on the inside back cover of this booklet. Finding the Best Advice 254 work from the roof or floor above. You will also want to understand in advance which parts of your building will be unusable and for how long. (4) Estimate Costs Show the engineering drawings to a few different contractors and ask them to itemize their esti- mates for the work. If you already have the specific analysis and preliminary drawings from the engineer, the contractor should be able to “count quantities” and itemize costs. If you accept an unsubstantiated lump sum, you don’t know what you are paying for. With a detailed bid, you can again consider your alternatives and negotiate a final price more effectively, or the architect or engineer can do it for you. (5) Work with an Appropriate Contractor Like the engineer and architect, the contractor should be knowl- edgeable about the materials involved and the engineering techniques employed. It is often useful to retain the services of a contractor early in the process, to help with the assessment of alternatives both financially and pragmatically; however, these services are not substitutes for engineering consultations. Assessing Your Options Choosing the best hazard-reduc- tion techniques for an older building is often a balancing act. Level of safety, construction costs, preservation of historic fab- ric, and building appearance must all be weighed, and trade-offs are often unavoidable. Getting good advice from an architect or engi- neer knowledgeable about his- toric buildings can go a long way toward reaching a good decision. As a general rule, a respect for aesthetics and preserving your building’s original appearance are essential parts of the equation. Every building poses a differ- ent problem, yet there are some standard solutions that, depend- ing on building type, you can almost predict. While the exact procedure for carrying out any of these reinforcement techniques will vary from building to build- ing, they are described here in ascending order of complexity, along with guidelines for assuring a job appropriate to a historic building. The simplest techniques are recommended for all build- ings where earthquakes are a probability, while the more com- plex solutions are appropriate only in the areas of highest risk. For all buildings, good mainte- nance practices are an essential first step. Reinforcing Hazardous Elements Any poorly anchored or slender building element located above head level could pose a threat to life safety if it falls. Consequently, the basic and best investment in earthquake safety is to anchor loose or protruding elements— masonry ornamentation that could separate, chimneys that extend above the building, para- pets that extend above the roof line. The key to preserving the appearance of a building is to make the anchorage as unobtru- sive as possible while striving to preserve historic materials. Anchoring Masonry Walls The observation that an unrein- forced masonry wall can separate from the roof or floors during earthquake shaking is quite common. Installing anchors to connect masonry walls to floors and roofs reduces the risk of sep- aration, and adding anchors is probably the commonest retrofit procedure. For all-masonry build- ings, anchorage accomplishes much of the necessary reinforce- ment and reduces most threats to life safety. Anchor bolts, usually 3/4 inch in diameter, are attached at one end to joists or rafters and then passed through holes drilled through the masonry to a metal plate on the face of the wall, which, like the washer on a com- mon household bolt or screw, disperses the force on the wall and prevents the bolt from dis- lodging. The plates may serve as decorative elements in a building facade: star-shaped, round, and cruciform government anchors are features of many historic buildings. Newly developed alternative anchors that do not completely penetrate the exterior walls have also been tested and approved. This technique avoids the neces- sity of scaffolding on the exterior to attach the plates, retains the original appearance of the build- ing, and may be less costly than through anchorage. It is recom- mended for use in historic facades. If through anchorage is recom- mended for your building, con- sider in advance where the exterior plates will be located so that they will be as unobtrusive P RESERVATION B OOKS 9• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Engineer’s drawing for parapet reinforcement and veneer anchoring that retain the original materials and appearance of the building. — Drawing courtesy of Kariotis and Associates 255 as possible. Use stainless or gal- vanized steel bolts to prevent rust streaks and paint them to further protect them from weathering. Align them carefully to avoid a haphazard appearance and be sure they do not intrude on areas of relief ornamentation. Mitigating Slender Walls Unreinforced masonry walls which are excessively slender have been observed to become unstable and partially collapse in recorded strong ground shaking. This damage is generally observed at the top of a building where the walls are the thinnest and unsup- ported at an attic. Anchorage of these walls to ceilings, roofs and floors reduces the slenderness. Steel or wood members can be added along the wall to further reduce slenderness. Another technique to miti- gate excessive slenderness is the addition of exterior buttresses, usually of wood or steel. This technique can destroy the visual character of the building exterior and may even require the removal of decorative elements. However, adding exterior buttresses can be an acceptable alternative to damaging a highly significant interior. In these cases, the but- tresses should be designed to blend with the building’s original lines and to avoid obscuring or damaging decorative elements. An alternative approach is to thicken the existing walls by, in effect, attaching a new rein- forced concrete wall to one side of them. The new wall is blown on to the old in the form of shot- crete or gunite. A very costly technique, it requires the removal or concealment of the finish on one side of a wall. Because of this permanent damage to historic fabric, it should be considered a technique of last resort. Reducing Horizontal Displacements Sheathed assemblies in houses, such as plaster, plywood, gypsum board, and clapboard absorb energy during an earthquake and limit horizontal displacements. For this reason, interior partitions should be removed with discre- tion. Often, they can be rein- forced with plywood and tied in to the building frame to add additional resistance. Partitions of hollow clay tile—common in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in the West, and dangerous in earth- quakes because the tile tends to explode—can be retrofitted and kept in place by providing a steel lath and concrete covering. In unreinforced masonry build- ings the addition of steel frames or walls behind glass fronts also limits horizontal displacements and protects against glass break- age. Adding frames, braces, or walls in the interior of a building will reduce horizontal displace- ments of floors and roofs and pro- tect wall and ceiling finishes. Adding additional sheathing to roofs and floors can be an alter- native to new interior frames and walls if they would disrupt inte- rior service requirements. Another relatively simple method of strengthening unrein- forced masonry walls is to fill window or door openings with reinforced masonry. However, this technique should be consid- ered extreme, since it alters the overall architectural effect of a building. It may be more accept- able in side and back walls than in a public facade. If it is unavoidable, care should be taken to preserve visually the location of the openings. By recessing the new masonry above the sill, one can retain a sense of the original visual rhythm of the facade. The new infill material should either match the sur- rounding material or create a deliberate contrast through the use of color or texture. Vertical Coring with Grouted Reinforcement Reinforcing masonry buildings to mitigate slenderness can also be achieved by vertical coring, rein- forcing, and grouting at regular intervals. To save the steeple of the Church of the Ascension, an important 19th-century building in Sierra Madre, Calif., for instance, engineers used a tech- nique known as core drilling, which involves boring long ver- tical holes through the masonry (in this case, solid granite) and installing steel reinforcing bars. The reinforced hole is then grouted solid. This costly tech- nique is justified only in certain installation situations, but it has the advantage of leaving both the interior and the exterior of a building intact. Financing a Retrofit After a major earthquake, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration offer limited funds to help victims rebuild, and state and federal governments may allocate additional emer- gency help targeted to specific problems. But financing seismic retrofits before disaster strikes is generally left to the building owner. Usually, the best approach is to treat it as you would other renovations or maintenance work and finance it accordingly, with a bank loan if necessary. For income-producing property—a commercial structure or apart- ment or condominium build- ing—listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the federal rehabilitation P RESERVATION B OOKS 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 256 tax credits may help to defray costs. The work must be a “sub- stantial” rehabilitation—defined as $5,000 or an amount over the adjusted basis of the building. In California, some towns and cities subject to the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law have estab- lished assessment districts and issued bonds as part of local incen- tive programs to help building owners defray the cost of building analysis. Other cities have used Redevelopment Agency funds to provide grants and loans for every- thing from engineering evaluation to construction costs, sometimes in conjunction with financing pro- grams from local banks. Creative financing methods are best developed community by community. Contact local and state community development and housing agencies. Consider acting collectively. In an older downtown or historic neighbor- hood, you could commission a cooperative analysis, then incor- porate retrofit into other plans for rehabilitation and repair. Acknowledgments This booklet was produced by the Western Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and written by Rachel S. Cox, a free-lance writer specializing in historic preserva- tion and design. It was written in 1992 and updated in 2001. The original technical consultants were Michael Krakower, a prin- cipal in the engineering firm Kariotis and Associates of South Pasadena, Calif., and Stephen J. Farneth, A.I.A., a partner in the Architectural Resources Group of San Francisco. Additional information and advice came from numerous helpful sources, includ- ing Toni Michali of Milofsky and Michali Architects in Los Angeles; Rob Cole of Carey & Co., Architecture, in San Francisco; Pat Noyes of the California Main Street Program; George Sheldon, president of SERA Architects in Portland, Ore.; John Meffert of the Preser- vation Society of Charleston, S.C.; Steade Craigo, acting state historic preservation officer with the California Department of Parks and Recreation; and George Siekkinen, senior archi- tect with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Bill Dupont, Graham Gund Architect at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, provided advice for the updated version. Selected Bibliography Many of the following publica- tions can also be ordered online by visiting the publishing organi- zation’s website. Architectural Design Guide for Exterior Treatments of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings during Seismic Retrofit. Preservation Committee, American Institute of Architects San Francisco Chapter. San Francisco: City Planning Depart- ment, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and City Planning Commission. 1991. A succinct, well-illustrated evaluation of seismic retrofit techniques in terms of their impact on historic buildings. To obtain a copy, call the San Francisco City Planning Department. (415) 558-6377. An Assessment of Damage Caused to Historic Resources by the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Architectural Resources Group. San Francisco: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1990. A detailed analysis of the impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake with policy recommendations to improve human, as well as build- ing, response. To obtain a copy, write: Western Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 8 California Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, Calif. 94111- 4828. (415) 956-0610. The Engineers’ View—Loma Prieta: Historic Buildings, Earthquake Damage and Seismic Strengthening. John Kariotis, Mike Krakower, and Nels Roselund. Oakland, Calif.: California Preservation Foundation. 1991. A fairly tech- nical but lucid summary of build- ing damage caused by Loma Prieta and other recent quakes and the implications for seismic reinforcement. To obtain a copy, write: California Preservation Foundation, 1611 Telegraph, Suite 820, Oakland, Calif. 94612. (510) 763-0972. A Guide to Tax-Advantaged Rehabilitation. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1994. A 20- page guide to the rehabilitation tax credits, including eligibility requirements and a summary of the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. To obtain a copy, write: Preservation Books, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 588-6296 (www. preservationbooks.org) Guidelines for the Evaluation of Historic Unreinforced Brick Masonry Buildings in Earthquake Hazard Zones. ABK, a joint venture. Funded by the California Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation and the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service. 1986. A technical engi- neering document that provides guidance on evaluating seismic hazards in URM buildings and recommends design procedures for mitigation. To obtain a copy, write: Kariotis and Associates, 348 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #205, Sierra Madre, Calif. 91024. (626) 355-4184. P RESERVATION B OOKS 11• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 257 History at Risk. Oakland, Calif.: California Preservation Foundation. The California Preservation Foundation’s “earth- quake policy manual” helps local communities prepare for future earthquakes, develop sensitive seismic strengthening programs, prevent unnecessary demolitions and help property owners do necessary work. Additional chap- ters outline funding, financing and incentives, and recommen- dations for changes in policy administration and law at the state level. To obtain a copy, write: California Preservation Foundation, 1611 Telegraph, Suite 820, Oakland, Calif. 94612. (510) 763-0972. History at Risk-Loma Prieta: Seismic Safety & Historic Buildings. John F. Merritt. Oakland, Calif.: California Preservation Founda- tion. 1990. An analysis of gov- ernmental responses to the earthquake as they affected his- toric resources, with policy rec- ommendations to encourage improvement. To obtain a copy, write: California Preservation Foundation, 1611 Telegraph, Suite 820, Oakland, Calif. 94612. (510) 763-0972. Methodology for Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Existing Unrein- forced Masonry Buildings. ABK, a joint venture. El Segundo, Calif.: Agbabian Associates. Jan. 1984. A technical engineering docu- ment that presents recommen- dations for earthquake hazard reduction based on detailed analysis and testing of URM buildings. To obtain a copy, write: ABK, 348 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #205, Sierra Madre, Calif. 91024. (626) 355-4184. The Next Big Earthquake in the Bay Area May Come Sooner Than You Think. United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, in cooperation with the American Red Cross and United Way. Menlo Park, Calif.: U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. A newspaper supplement that provides practical advice on earthquake preparedness useful in any seismically active area. To obtain a copy, write: Earthquakes, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, Calif. 94025. (650) 329-4085. Preparing for Earthquakes: It’s Your Business. Jeff Eichenfield. Oakland, Calif.: California Preser- vation Foundation. Originally prepared as a Business District Preparedness and Recovery Plan for the city of Alameda following the 1989 Loma Prieta earth- quake, this publication also serves as a model to help other cities, chambers of commerce and downtown business associa- tions better prepare for disasters within their business districts. To obtain a copy, write: California Preservation Foundation, 1611 Telegraph, Suite 820, Oakland, Calif. 94612. (510) 763-0972. Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings. Preservation Brief 5. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service. A guide to sensi- tive maintenance and restoration. To obtain a copy, contact your state historic preservation office or see an online version on the Park Service website at www.nps.gov. Safety, Building Codes, and Historic Buildings. Marilyn Kaplan. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1992. This 16-page booklet reviews the evolution of the building regulatory system and addresses the problems faced by existing and historic buildings to comply with building codes. To obtain a copy, write: Preservation Books, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 588-6296 (www. preservationbooks.org) Secretary of the Interior’s Stan- dards for Rehabilitation and Guide- lines for Rehabilitating Historic, Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. The standard for all rehabilita- tion work on historic buildings. To obtain a copy, contact your state historic preservation office. The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings—Keeping Preservation in the Forefront. David W. Look, AIA, Terry Wong, PE, and Sylvia Rose Augustus. Preservation Brief 41. Washington, D.C.: Historic Preservation Services, National Park Service. Discusses balancing the needs of seismic retrofitting with preservation goals, planning for retrofitting, seismic strengthening approaches, cost assessment, and post-earth- quake issues. To obtain a copy, contact your state historic preser- vation office or see an online version on the Park Service web- site at www.nps.gov. State Historical Building Code. Sacramento, Calif.: State Histori- cal Building Code Board. 1988. This reference source is a perfor- mance-based code for use by engineers and architects working on historic buildings. To obtain a copy, write: Office of the State Architects, 400 P St., 5th floor, Sacramento, Calif. 95814. Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Whittier, Calif.: International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. A pre- scriptive code, used primarily by engineers and architects in the western U.S., that includes stan- dards for existing buildings. To obtain a copy, write: International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, Calif. 90601-2298. (562) 699-0541. P RESERVATION B OOKS 12 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 258 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Trust Forum is a membership program for preservationists—from boardmembers to students, from architects to educators, frompreservation commissioners toplanners, from volunteers torestoration contractors. Forummembership provides you with the knowledge, tools andresources to protect your community. As a Forum member you receive a subscrip-tion to Preservation magazine,Forum Journal, and Forum News.Benefits also include discounts on conferences and all publica-tions listed in the PreservationBooks catalog as well as participation in financial/ insurance assistance programs,technical advice and access toForum Online, the online systemdesigned for the preservationcommunity. To join send $115 to: National Trust Forum National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-6296Preservation Books are publishedby the National Trust for HistoricPreservation. For a complete listof titles call or write: Preservation Books, National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-6286 FAX (202) 588-6223,or visit our web site at www.nthpbooks.org.Copyright 2001 National Trustfor Historic PreservationRichard MoePresidentNational Trust for Historic PreservationPeter BrinkSenior Vice PresidentProgramsKatherine AdamsDirectorPreservation ServicesElizabeth Byrd WoodEditorJanie BlackmanBusiness CoordinatorHeadquarters1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 588-6296Southern Field Office1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 588-6107(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,Maryland, Virginia, Virgin Islands)Midwest Office53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 350Chicago, IL 60604-2103(312) 939-5547(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)Northeast OfficeSeven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,4th FloorBoston, MA 02109-1649(617) 523-0885(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,New Hampshire, New York, RhodeIsland, Vermont)Northeast Field Office6401 Germantown AvenuePhiladelphia, PA 19144(215) 848-8033(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)Southern OfficeWilliam Aiken House456 King StreetCharleston, SC 29403-6247(843) 722-8552(Alabama, Florida, Georgia,Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,North Carolina, South Carolina,Tennessee, West Virginia)Mountains/Plains Office910 16th Street, Suite 1100Denver, CO 80202-2910(303) 623-1504(Colorado, Kansas, Montana,Nebraska, North Dakota, SouthDakota, Utah, Wyoming)Southwest Office500 Main Street, Suite 1030Fort Worth, TX 76102-3943(817) 332-4398(Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas,Oklahoma)Western Office8 California Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94111-4828(415) 956-0610(Alaska, Arizona, California,Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,Washington, Pacific island territories)This publication was made possible bythe generous support of the Williamand Flora Hewlett Foundation.259 a national trust publicationControlling Disaster: Earthquake-HazardReduction for Historic BuildingsBy Rachel CoxThe National Trust forHistoric Preservation providesleadership, education, andadvocacy to save America’sdiverse historic places andrevitalize our communities.Support for the NationalTrust is provided by mem-bership dues; endowmentfunds; individuals, corporateand foundation contribu-tions; and grants fromstate and federal agencies.1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036202.588.6296260 41 The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings Keeping Preservation in the Forefront David W. Look, AIA, Terry Wong, PE, and Sylvia Rose Augustus »Introduction »Balancing Seismic Retrofit and Preservation »Earthquake Damage to Historic Buildings »Putting a Team Together »Planning for Seismic Retrofit »Assessing the Cost of Seismic Retrofit »Seismic Strengthening Approaches »Post-Earthquake Issues »Questions to Ask »Conclusion A NOTE TO OUR USERS: The web versions of the Preservation Briefs differ somewhat from the printed versions. Many illustrations are new, captions are simplified, illustrations are typically in color rather than black and white, and some complex charts have been omitted. Violent, swift, and unpredictable, earthquakes result from sudden movements of the geological plates that form the earth’s crust, generally along cracks or fractures known as "faults." If a building has not been designed and constructed to absorb these swaying ground motions, then major structural damage, or outright collapse, can result, with grave risk to human life. Historic buildings are especially vulnerable in this regard. As a result, more and more communities are beginning to adopt stringent requirements for seismic retrofit of existing buildings. And despite popular misconceptions, the risks of earthquakes are not limited to the West Coast. Although historic and other older buildings can be retrofitted to survive earthquakes, many retrofit practices damage or destroy the very features that make such buildings significant. Life-safety issues are foremost and, fortunately, there are various approaches which can save historic buildings both from the devastation caused by earthquakes and from the damage inflicted by well-intentioned but insensitive retrofit procedures. Building owners, managers, consultants, and communities need to be actively involved in preparing documents and readying irreplaceable historic resources from these threats. This Preservation Brief provides essential information on how earthquakes affect historic 261 buildings, how a historic preservation ethic can guide responsible decisions, and how various methods of seismic retrofit can protect human lives and historic structures. Because many of the terms used in this Brief are technical, a glossary is provided at the end. The Brief focuses on unreinforced masonry buildings because these are the most vulnerable of our older resources, but the guidance is appropriate for all historic buildings. Damage to non-structural elements such as furnishings and collections is beyond the scope of this Brief, but consideration should be given to securing and protecting these cultural resources as well. Planning the retrofit of historic buildings before an earthquake strikes is a process that requires teamwork on the part of engineers, architects, code officials, and agency administrators. Accordingly, this Brief also presents guidance on assembling a professional team and ensuring its successful interaction. Project personnel working together can ensure that the architectural, engineering, financial, cultural, and social values of historic buildings are preserved, while rendering them safe for continued use. Balancing Seismic Retrofit and Preservation Reinforcing a historic building to meet new construction requirements, as prescribed by many building codes, can destroy much of a historic building’s appearance and integrity. This is because the most expedient ways to reinforce a building according to such codes are to impose structural members and to fill irregularities or large openings, regardless of the placement of architectural detail. The results can be quite intrusive. However, structural reinforcement can be introduced sensitively. In such cases, its design, placement, patterning, and detailing respect the historic character of the building, even when the reinforcement itself is visible. Both exteriors and interiors can be severely damaged in an earthquake. This Craftsman Style bungalow was successfully rehabilitated and seismically upgraded after the Northridge earthquake in California. Photos: Courtesy, Historic Preservation Partners in Earthquake Response. Before Before After After 262 Three important preservation principles should be kept in mind when undertaking seismic retrofit projects: • Historic materials should be preserved and retained to the greatest extent possible and not replaced wholesale in the process of seismic strengthening; • New seismic retrofit systems, whether hidden or exposed, should respect the character and integrity of the historic building and be visually compatible with it in design; and, • Seismic work should be "reversible" to the greatest extent possible to allow removal for future use of improved systems and traditional repair of remaining historic materials. It is strongly advised that all owners of historically significant buildings contemplating seismic retrofit become familiar with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which are published by the National Park Service and cited in the bibliography of this publication. These standards identify approaches for working with historic buildings, including preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Code-required work to make buildings functional and safe is an integral component of each approach identified in the Standards. While some seismic upgrading work is more permanent than reversible, care must be taken to preserve historic materials to the greatest extent possible and for new work to have a minimal visual impact on the historic appearance of the building. Earthquake Damage to Historic Buildings: Assessing Principal Risk Factors 263 Typical earthquake damage to most older and historic buildings results from poor ductility--or flexibility--of the building and, specifically, poor structural connections between walls, floors, and foundations combined with the very heavy weight and mass of historic materials that are moved by seismic forces and must be resisted. In buildings that have not been seismically upgraded, particularly unreinforced masonry buildings, parapets, chimneys, and gable ends may dislodge and fall to the ground during a moderate to severe earthquake. Walls, floors, roofs, skylights, porches, and stairs which rely on tied connections may simply fail. Interior structural supports may partially or totally collapse. Unreinforced masonry walls between openings often exhibit shear (or diagonal) cracking. Upper stories may collapse onto under-reinforced lower floors with large perimeter openings or atriums. Unbraced infill material between structural or rigid frame supports may dislodge. Adjacent buildings with separate foundations may move differently in an earthquake creating damage between them. Poorly anchored wood frame buildings tend to slide off their foundations. Ruptured gas and water lines often cause fire and water damage. Many of these vulnerabilities can be mitigated by understanding how the forces unleashed in an earthquake affect the building, then planning and implementing appropriate remedial treatments. Six principal factors influence how and why historic buildings are damaged in an earthquake: (1) depth of the earthquake and subsequent strength of earthquake waves reaching the surface (2) duration of the earthquake, including after-shock tremors (3) proximity of the building to the earthquake epicenter, although distance is not necessarily a direct relationship (4) geological and soil conditions (5) building construction details, including materials, structural systems, and plan configuration; and (6) existing building condition, including maintenance level. The first three factors--the depth, duration, and proximity to the fault--are beyond human control. Recent earthquakes have shown the fourth factor, geological soil conditions, to be as important as any of the other factors because loose, soft soils tend to amplify ground motion, thereby increasing damage. Further, there is the tendency of soft, unstable soils to "liquefy" as the ground vibrates, causing the building foundations to sink unevenly. This fourth factor, geological and soil conditions, is difficult to address in a retrofit situation, although it can be planned for in new construction. The last two factors--the building's construction type and its existing physical condition--are the two factors over which building owners and managers have control and can ultimately affect how the historic property performs in an earthquake. This computer model illustrates the comprehensive methods used to fully reinforce a building for the future. Oakland City Hall, CA. Computer Model ©Douglas Symes, San Francisco. 264 Although historic buildings present problems, the way they were constructed often has intrinsic benefits that should not be overlooked. Diagonal subflooring under tongue-and- groove nailed flooring can provide a diaphragm, or horizontal membrane, that ties the building together. Interior masonry walls employing wire lath with plaster also add strength that binds materials together. The typical construction of older buildings with partition walls that extend from floor to ceiling ( instead of just to the underside of a dropped ceiling) also provides additional support and load transfer during an earthquake that keeps shifting floors from collapsing. Moreover, buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry with a wall thickness to height ratio that does not exceed code requirements can often survive shaking without serious damage. The stability of unreinforced masonry walls should not be underestimated; while the masonry may crack, it often does not shift out of plumb enough to collapse. Type of Building and Construction A historic building’s construction and materials determine its behavior during an earthquake. Some buildings, such as wooden frame structures, are quite ductile and, thus, able to absorb substantial movements. Others, such as unreinforced brick or adobe buildings comprised of heavy individual load-bearing units, are more susceptible to damage from shaking. If an earthquake is strong, or continues for a long time, building elements that are poorly attached or unreinforced may collapse. Most historic buildings still standing in earthquake zones have survived some shaking, but may be structurally weakened. Buildings of more rigid construction techniques may also have seismic deficiencies. Masonry infill-wall buildings are generally built of steel or concrete structural frames with unreinforced masonry sections or panels set within the frame. While the structural frames may survive an earthquake, the masonry infill can crack and, in some cases, dislodge. The reaction of concrete buildings and concrete frame structures is largely dependent upon the extent and configuration of iron or steel reinforcement. Early buildings constructed of concrete are often inadequately reinforced, inadequately tied, or both, and are thus susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Recognition of the configuration of the historic structure and inherent areas of weakness are essential to addressing appropriate alternatives for seismic retrofit. For example, the plan and elevation may be as important as building materials and structural systems in determining a historic building’s survival in an earthquake. Small round, square, or rectangular buildings generally survive an earthquake because their geometry allows for equal resistance of lateral forces in all directions. The more complex and irregular the plan, however, the more likely the building will be damaged during an earthquake because of its uneven strength and stiffness in different directions. Structures having an "L," "T," "H," "U," or "E" shape have unequal resistance, with the stress concentrated at corners and intersections. This is of particular concern if the buildings have flexible structural systems and/or an irregular layout of shear walls which may cause portions of the building to pull apart. Similarly, the more complex and irregular a building elevation, the more susceptible it is to damage, especially in tall structures. Large or multiple openings around the building on the ground level, such as storefronts or garage openings, or floors with columns and walls running in only one direction are commonly known as "soft stories" and are prone to structural damage. 265 Building Condition Much of the damage that occurs during an earthquake is directly related to the building’s existing condition and maintenance history. Well maintained buildings, even without added reinforcement, survive better than buildings weakened by lack of maintenance. The capacity of the structural system to resist earthquakes may be severely reduced if previous alterations or earthquakes have weakened structural connections or if materials have deteriorated from moisture, termite, or other damage. Furthermore, in unreinforced historic masonry buildings, deteriorated mortar joints can weaken entire walls. Cyclical maintenance, which reduces moisture penetration and erosion of materials, is therefore essential. Because damage can be cumulative, it is important to analyze the structural capacity of the building. Over time, structural members can become loose and pose a major liability. Unreinforced historic masonry buildings typically have a friction-fit connection between horizontal and vertical structural members, and the shaking caused by an earthquake pulls them apart. With insufficient bearing surface for beams, joists, and rafters against the load bearing walls or support columns, they fail. The resulting structural inadequacy may cause a partial or complete building collapse, depending on the severity of the earthquake and the internal wall configuration. Tying the building together by making a positive anchored or braced connection between walls, columns, and framing members, is key to the seismic retrofit of historic buildings. Putting a Team Together The two goals of the seismic retrofit in historic buildings are life safety and the protection of older and historic buildings during and after an earthquake. Because rehabilitation should be sensitive to historic materials and the building’s historic character, it is important to put together a team experienced in both seismic requirements and historic preservation. Team members should be selected for their experience with similar projects, and may include architects, engineers, code specialists, contractors, and preservation consultants. Because the typical seismic codes are written for new construction, it is important that both the architect and structural engineer be knowledgeable about historic buildings and about meeting building code equivalencies and using alternative solutions. Local and state building officials can identify regulatory requirements, alternative approaches to meeting these requirements, and if the jurisdiction uses a historic preservation or building conservation code. Even on small projects that cannot support a full professional team, consultants should be familiar with historic preservation goals. The State Historic Preservation Office and the local historic preservation office or commission may be able to identify consultants who have been successful in preserving historic buildings during seismic retrofit work. Once the team has been assembled, their tasks include: The use of fiber composite materials can enhance the shear capacity of existing structural components. Photo: The Crosby Group. 266 Compiling documentation. The team should review all available documentation on the historic building, including any previous documentation assembled to nominate the structure to the National Register of Historic Places, and any previous Historic Structures Reports. Original plans and specifications as well as those showing alterations through time often detail structural connections. Early real estate or insurance plans, such as the Sanborn Maps, note changes over time. Historic photographs of the building under construction or before and after previous earthquakes are invaluable. Base maps for geological or seismic studies and utility maps showing the location of water, gas, and electric lines should be also identified. The municipal or state office of emergency preparedness can provide data on earthquake hazard plans for the community. Evaluating significant features and spaces. The team must also identify areas of a historic building and its site that exhibit design integrity or historical significance which must be preserved. It is critical, and a great challenge, to protect these major features, such as domes, atriums, and vaulted spaces or highly decorative elements, such as mosaics, murals, and frescoes. In some cases, secondary areas of the building can provide spaces for additional reinforcement behind these major features, thus saving them from damage during seismic retrofit work. Both primary and secondary spaces, features, and finishes should, thus, be identified. Assessing the condition of the building and the risk hazards. The team then assesses the general physical condition of the building’s interior and exterior, and identifies areas vulnerable to seismic damage. This often requires a structural engineer or testing firm to determine the strength and durability of materials and connections. A sliding scale of potential damage is established, based on the probability of hazard by locale and building use. This helps the owner distinguish between areas in which repairable damage, such as cracking, may occur and those in which life-threatening problems may arise. These findings help guide cost-benefit decisions, especially when budgets are limited. Evaluating local and state codes and requirements. Few codes consider historic buildings, but the California State Historical Code and the Uniform Code for Building Conservation provide excellent models for jurisdictions to adopt. Code officials should always be asked where alternative approaches can be taken to provide life safety if the specified requirements of a code would destroy significant historic materials and features. Some jurisdictions require the removal of parapets, chimneys, or projecting decoration from unreinforced masonry buildings which is not a preservation approach. Professionals on the team should be prepared with alternatives that allow for mitigating potential damage to such features while retaining them through reattachment or strengthening. Developing a retrofit plan. The final task of the project team is to develop a retrofit plan. The plan may require multiple treatments, each more comprehensive than the last. Treating life-safety issues as well as providing a safe route of exit should be evaluated for all buildings. Developing more comprehensive plans, often combined with future rehabilitation, is reasonable. Long-term restoration solutions phased in over time as funding is available should also be considered. In every case, owners and their planning teams should consider options that keep preservation goals in mind. There are significant advantages of completing a seismic survey and analysis even if resources for implementing a retrofit are not yet available. Once the retrofit plan is 267 finished, the project team will have a document by which to assess future damage and proceed with emergency repairs. If construction is phased, its impact to the whole building should be understood. Some partially completed retrofit measures have left buildings more rigid in one area than in others, thereby contributing to more extensive damage during an ensuing earthquake. Planning for Seismic Retrofit: How Much and Where? The integrity and significance of the historic building, paired with the cost and benefit of seismic upgrading, need to be weighed by the owner and the consulting team. Buildings in less active seismic areas may need little or no further bracing or tying. Buildings in more active seismic zones, however, may need more extensive intervention. Options for the level of seismic retrofit generally fall into four classifications, depending on the expected seismic activity and the desired level of performance. Realistically, for historic buildings, only the first three categories apply. 1) Basic Life Safety. This addresses the most serious life-safety concerns by correcting those deficiencies that could lead to serious human injury or total building collapse. Upgrades may include bracing and tying the most vulnerable elements of the building, such as parapets, chimneys, and projecting ornamentation or reinforcing routes of exit. It is expected that if an earthquake were to occur, the building would not collapse but would be seriously damaged requiring major repairs. 2) Enhanced Life Safety. In this approach, the building is upgraded using a flexible approach to the building codes for moderate earthquakes. Inherent deficiencies found in older buildings, such as poor floor to wall framing connections and unbraced masonry walls would be corrected. After a design level earthquake, some structural damage is anticipated, such as masonry cracking, and the building would be temporarily unusable. 3) Enhanced Damage Control. Historic buildings are substantially rehabilitated to meet, to the extent possible, the proscribed building code provision. Some minor repairable damage would be expected after a major earthquake. 4) Immediate Occupancy. This approach is intended for designated hospitals and emergency preparedness centers remaining open and operational after a major earthquake. Even most modern buildings do not meet this level of construction, and so for a historic building to meet this requirement, it would have to be almost totally reconstructed of new materials which, philosophically, does not Upon completion, the changes to this ca. 1932 Gothic Revival building to add base isolation at the foundation were not visually apparent. Photo: © Jonathan Farrer 268 reflect preservation criteria. Devising the most appropriate approach for a particular historic building will depend on a variety of factors, including the building’s use, whether it remains occupied during construction, applicable codes, budgetary constraints, and projected risk of damage. From a design perspective, the vast majority of historic buildings can tolerate a well- planned hidden system of reinforcement. Utilitarian structures, such as warehouses, may be able to receive fairly visible reinforcement systems without undue damage to their historic character. Other more architecturally detailed buildings or those with more finished interior surfaces, however, will benefit from more hidden systems; installation of such systems may even require the temporary removal of significant features to assure their protection. Most buildings, particularly commercial rehabilitations, can incorporate seismic strengthening during other construction work in a way that ensures a high degree of retention of historic materials in place. Assessing the Cost of Seismic Retrofit Cost plays a critical role in selecting the most appropriate retrofit measure. It is always best to undertake retrofit measures before an earthquake occurs, when options are available for strengthening existing members. Once damage is done, the cost will be substantially higher and finding engineers, architects, and contractors available to do the work on a constricted schedule will be more difficult. Planned seismic retrofit work may add between $10 and $100 per square foot to the cost of rehabilitation work depending on the level of intervention, the condition of the building, and whether work will be undertaken while the building is occupied. Costs can exceed several hundred dollars a square foot for combined restoration and seismic upgrade costs in major public buildings, in order to provide a level of structural reinforcement that would require only minor repairs after a major earthquake. But maintenance and incremental improvements to eliminate life-safety risks are within the cost realm of responsible upkeep. Each property owner has to weigh the costs and benefits of undertaking seismic retrofit in a timely manner. Owners may find that an extended engineering study evaluating a wide range of options is worthwhile. Not only can such a study consider the most sensitive historic preservation solution, but the most cost-effective one as well. In many cases, actual retrofit expenses have been lower than anticipated because a careful analysis of the existing building was made that took the durability and performance of existing historic materials into consideration. Most seismic retrofit is done incrementally or incorporated into other rehabilitation work. In large public buildings, seemingly expensive "high-tech" solution such as installing foundation base isolators can turn out to be justified because significant historic materials do not have to be removed, replaced, or replicated. The cost for a fully retrofitted building can offset the potential loss of income, relocation, and rebuilding after an earthquake. Without careful study, these solutions often are not evaluated. Some municipalities and states provide low-interest loans, tax relief, municipal bonds, or 269 funding grants targeted to seismic retrofit. Federal tax incentives for the rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings include seismic strengthening as an allowable expense. Information on these incentives is available from the State Historic Preservation Office. It is also in the best interest of business communities to support the retrofit of buildings in seismically active areas to reduce the loss of sales and property taxes, should an earthquake occur. Seismic Strengthening Approaches Seismic strength within buildings is achieved through the reinforcement of structural elements. Such reinforcement can include anchored ties, reinforced mortar joints, braced frames, bond beams, moment-resisting frames, shear walls, and horizontal diaphragms. Most historic buildings can use these standard, traditional methods of strengthening successfully, if properly designed to conform to the historic character of the building. In addition, there are new technologies and better designs for traditional connection devices as well as a greater acceptance of alternative approaches to meeting seismic requirements. While some technologies may still be new for retrofit, the key preservation principles previously outlined should be applied, to ensure that historic buildings will not be damaged by them. There are varying levels of intervention for seismically retrofitting historic buildings based on the owner’s program, the recommendations of the team, applicable codes, and the availability of funds. Maintenance/Preparedness Adequate maintenance ensures that existing historic materials remain in good condition and are not weakened by rot, rust, decay or other moisture problems. Without exception, historic buildings should be well maintained and an evacuation plan developed. Expectation that an earthquake will occur sometime in the future should prepare the owner to have emergency information and supplies on hand. • Check roofs, gutters, and foundations for moisture problems, and for corrosion of metal ties for parapets and chimneys. Make repairs and keep metal painted and in good condition. • Inspect and keep termite and wood boring insects away from wooden structural members. Check exit steps and porches to ensure that they are tightly connected Limited intervention should correct obvious structural deficiencies, such as tying vulnerable elements together and repointing masonry. Upon replastering and painting these reinforcements will not be visible. Photo: Courtesy, Historic Preservation Partners for Earthquake Response. 270 and will not collapse during an emergency exit. • Check masonry for deteriorating mortar, and never defer repairs. Repoint, matching the historic mortar in composition and detailing. • Contact utility companies for information on flexible connectors for gas and water lines, and earthquake activated gas shut-off valves. Strap oil tanks down and anchor water heaters to wall framing. • Collect local emergency material for reference and implement simple household or office mitigation measures, such as installing latches to keep cabinets from flying open or braces to attach tall bookcases to walls. Keep drinking water, tarpaulins, and other emergency supplies on hand. Basic/Traditional Measures This is not an exhaustive list, but illustrates that most measures to reduce life-safety risks rely on using mechanical fasteners to tie a building together. Incorporating these measures can be done incrementally without waiting for extensive rehabilitation. An architectural or engineering survey should identify what is needed. Care should be taken to integrate these changes with the visual appearance of the building. • Bolt sill plates to foundations and add plywood stiffeners to cripple wall framing around wood frame buildings. Keep reinforcement behind decorative crawlspace lattice or other historic features. • Reinforce floor and roof framing connections to walls using joist hangers, metal straps, threaded bolts, or other means of mechanical fasteners. Tie columns to beams; reinforce porch and stair connections as well. • Repair weakened wooden structural systems by adding, pairing, or bracing existing members. Consider adding non-ferrous metal straps in alternating mortar joints if extensive repointing is done in masonry walls. • Reinforce projecting parapets and tie parapets, chimneys, balconies, and unsecured decorative elements to structural framing. Make the connections as unobtrusive as possible. In some cases, concrete bond beams can be added to reinforce the top of unreinforced masonry or adobe walls. • Properly install and anchor new diaphragms, such as roof sheathing or subflooring, to the walls of a structure prior to installing finish materials. • Avoid awkwardly placed exposed metal plates or rosettes when using threaded bolts through masonry walls. When exposed plates will interfere with the decorative elements of the facade, use less visible grouted bolts or plates that can be set underneath exposed finished materials. • Use sensitively designed metal bracing along building exteriors to tie the unsupported face of long exterior walls to the floor framing. This is often seen along side or party walls in commercial or industrial buildings. Rehabilitation 271 When buildings are being rehabilitated, it is generally the most cost effective time to make major upgrades that affect the structural performance of the building. New elements, such as concrete shear walls or fiber reinforcing systems can be added while the structure is exposed for other rehabilitation or code compliance work. • Inspect and improve all lateral tie connections and diaphragms. • Reinforce walls and large openings to improve shear strength in locations of doors, windows, and storefront openings. Carefully locate "X" and "K" bracing to avoid visual intrusion, or use moment frames, which are a hidden perimeter bracing in large openings. From a preservation perspective, the use of a more hidden system in finished spaces is generally preferable. • Strengthen masonry walls or columns with new concrete reinforcement or fiber wrap systems. Avoid the use of heavy spray concrete or projecting reinforced walls that seriously alter the historic relationship of the wall to windows, trim, and other architectural moldings or details. • Selectively locate new shear walls constructed to assist the continuous transfer of loads from the foundation to the roof. If these walls cannot be set behind historic finishes, they should be located in secondary spaces in conjunction with other types of reinforcement of the primary spaces or features. • Consider the internal grouting of rubble masonry walls using an injected grout mixture that is compatible in composition with existing mortar. Ensure that exposed areas are repaired and that the mortar matches all visual qualities of the historic mortar joints in tooling, width, color and texture. • Evaluate odd-shaped buildings and consider the reinforcement of corners and connections instead of infilling openings with new construction. Altering the basic configuration and appearance of primary facades of buildings is damaging to those qualities that make the building architecturally significant. Specialized Technologies Shown here is an interior diagonal frame which will dampen and transfer seismic loads in a designed path from foundation to roof. Photo: David Look, AIA. 272 New technologies, being developed all the time, may have applicability to historic preservation projects. These specialized technologies include: vertical and center core drilling systems for unreinforced masonry buildings, base isolation at the foundations, superstructure damping systems, bonded resin coatings, and reproducing lost elements in lighter materials. However, many new technologies may also be non-reversible treatments resulting in difficulties of repair after an earthquake. The reinforcement of historic materials with special resins, or the use of core drilling to provide a reinforced vertical connection from foundation to roof may not be as repairable after an earthquake as would more traditional means of wall reinforcement. New technologies should be carefully evaluated by the design team for both their benefits as well as their shortcomings. Using computer modeling of how historic buildings may act in an earthquake suggests options for seismic upgrade using a combination of traditional methods and new technologies. While most projects involving base isolation and other complex damping systems constitute only a small percentage of the projects nationwide that are seismically reinforced, they may be appropriate for buildings with significant interior spaces that should not be disturbed or removed during the retrofit. Each building will needs its own survey and evaluation to determine the most appropriate seismic reinforcement. Post-Earthquake Issues New structural steel and restoration of the historic stucco and decorative tile work and a repaired tile roof reinstated this earthquake damaged building as a major element of the historic district. Northridge, CA Photo: Courtesy of Historic Preservation Partners for Earthquake Response. Should a historic building suffer damage during an earthquake, it is the owner who has a plan in place who will be able to play a critical role in determining its ultimate fate. If the The new base isolator allows the structural support member at the foundation to move horizontally as it absorbs the earthquake forces. Photo: ©Jonathan Farrer. 273 owner has previously assembled a team for the purpose of seismic upgrading, there is a greater chance for the building to be evaluated in a timely fashion and for independent emergency stabilization to occur. In most municipalities, a survey, often by trained volunteers, will be conducted as soon as possible after an earthquake, and buildings will be tagged on the front with a posted notice according to their ability to be entered. Typically red, yellow, and green tags are used to indicate varying levels of damage--no entry, limited entry, and useable--to warn citizens of their relative safety. Heavily damaged areas are often secured off-limits and many red tagged, but repairable, buildings have been torn down unnecessarily because owners were unable to evaluate and present a stabilization plan in time. Owners or members of the preservation community may engage their own engineers with specialized knowledge to challenge a demolition order. Because seismic retrofit is complex and many jurisdictions are involved, the coordination between various regulatory bodies needs to be accomplished before an earthquake. During times of emergencies, many communities, banks, and insurance agencies will not be in a position to evaluate alternative approaches to dealing with damaged historic buildings, and so they often require full compliance with codes for new construction for the major rehabilitation work required. Because seismic after-shocks often create more damage to a weakened building, the inability to act quickly--even to shore up the structure on a temporary basis--can result in the building's demolition. Penetrating rain, uneven settlement, vandalism, and continuing after-shocks can easily undermine a building’s remaining structural integrity. Moreover, the longer a building is unoccupied and non-income-producing, the sooner it will be torn down in a negotiated settlement with the insurance company. All of these factors work against saving buildings damaged in earthquakes, and make having an action plan essential. Having an emergency plan in place, complete with access to plywood, tarpaulins, bracing timbers, and equipment, will allow quick action to save a building following an earthquake. Knowing how the community evaluates buildings and the steps taken to secure an area will give the owner the ability to be a helpful resource to the community in a time of need. If the federal government is asked to intervene after a natural disaster, technical assistance programs are available. Often after a disaster, grant funds or low-cost loans from federal, state, and congressional special appropriations are targeted to qualified properties, which can help underwrite the high cost of rehabilitation (see information about FEMA) Conclusion Recent earthquakes have shown that historic buildings retrofitted to withstand earthquakes survive better than those that have not been upgraded. Even simple efforts, such as bracing parapets, tying buildings to foundations, and anchoring brick walls at the highest, or roof level, have been extremely effective. It has also been proven that well maintained buildings have faired better than those in poor condition during and after an earthquake. Thus, maintenance and seismic retrofit are two critical 274 components for the protection of historic buildings in areas of seismic activity. It makes no sense to retrofit a building, then leave the improvements, such as braced parapets or metal bolts with plates, to deteriorate due to lack of maintenance. Damage to historic buildings after an earthquake can be as great as the initial damage from the earthquake itself. The ability to act quickly to shore up and stabilize a building and to begin its sensitive rehabilitation is imperative. Communities without earthquake hazard reduction plans in place put their historic buildings--as well as the safety and economic well-being of their residents -- at risk. Having the right team in place is important. Seismic strengthening of existing historic buildings and knowledge of community planning for earthquake response makes the professional opinions of the team members that much more important when obtaining permits to do the work. Local code enforcement officials can only implement the provisions of the model or historic preservation codes if the data and calculations work to ensure public safety. Buildings do not need to be over-retrofitted. A cost-effective balance between protecting the public and the building recognizes that planned for repairable damage can be addressed after an earthquake. Engineers and architects, who specialize in historic buildings and who have a working knowledge of alternative options and expected performance for historic structures, are critical to the process. It is clear that historic and older buildings can be seismically upgraded in a cost-effective manner while retaining or restoring important historic character-defining qualities. Seismic upgrading measures exist that preserve the historic character and materials of a buildings. However, it takes a multi-disciplined team to plan and to execute sensitive seismic retrofit. It also takes commitment on the part of city, state, and federal leaders to ensure that historic districts are protected from needless demolition after an earthquake so that historic buildings and their communities are preserved for the future. SEISMIC RISK ZONES Most local jurisdictions measure seismic risk based on seismic zones established by code, such as the Uniform Building Code with its 4 risk zones [1=low to 4=high]. There are also maps, such as this one, which identify the Effective Peak Acceleration (EPA) which further reflect the light, moderate, and severe shaking risks as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity that can be expected in an area. In the United States, the greatest activity areas are the western states, Alaska, and some volcanic island areas. However, noted historical earthquakes occurred in Massachusetts (1755), Missouri (1811), South Carolina (1886), and Alaska (1964). The Caribbean Islands and Puerto Rico have been sites of severe earthquakes. The history of earthquakes in the United States has been recorded for over 200 years and new areas of concern include moderate risk areas in southern and mid-western states. The Richter Magnitude Scale, first published in 1935, records the size of an earthquake 275 at its source, as measured on a seismograph. Magnitudes are expressed in whole numbers and decimals between 1 and 9. An earthquake of a magnitude of 6 or more will cause moderate damage, while one of over 7 will be considered a major earthquake. It is important to remember that an increase of one whole number on the Richter Scale is a tenfold increase in the size of the earthquake. The Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency -- FEMA -- is an independent agency of the federal government, reporting to the President. Since its founding in 1979, FEMA's mission has been to reduce loss of life and property and protect our nation's critical infrastructure from all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, emergency management program. FEMA works with the state and local governments and the private sector to stimulate increased participation in emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery programs related to natural disasters. To minimize damage-repair-damage cycles, FEMA carries out and encourages preventive activities referred to as hazard mitigation. The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program, established in 1988 with the passage of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, offers a framework for protecting historic structures from natural disasters. In the event of a federally declared disaster, state and local governments as well as eligible non-profit applicants may receive financial and technical assistance to identify and carry out cost-effective hazard mitigation activities. FEMA encourages hazard mitigation projects, including the restoration of buildings, by providing technical assistance and funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG), which can underwrite up to 50% of the cost of the project. FEMA's public-assistance program provides financial and other assistance to rebuild disaster-damaged facilities that serve a public purpose, such as schools, hospitals, government buildings and public utilities. In terms of technical assistance, FEMA, under a cooperative agreement with the Building Seismic Safety Council has produced two volumes of comprehensive material dealing with the seismic retrofit of existing buildings (see Further Reading). In addition an ongoing project ATC-43 involves earthquake analysis procedures for Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Reinforced Concrete Buildings. These documents contain nationally applicable technical criteria intended to ensure that buildings will withstand earthquakes better than before. There is a great deal of information that is applicable to historic buildings, although historic buildings are not necessarily identified as a category. Write for FEMA publications at: FEMA, PO Box 70274, Washington, DC 20024 For current information about emergency activities, federally declared disaster areas, or how to contact regional offices see the FEMA website: http://www.fema.gov/ 276 Questions To Ask When Planning Seismic Retrofit: These questions should be asked with the assistance of the team to determine acceptable alternatives. Since there is never a single right answer, the design team and code officials should work together to determine the appropriate level of seismic retrofit with the lowest visual impact on the significant spaces, features, and finishes of both the interior and exterior of historic buildings. As with the illustrations above, this guide is not intended to proscribe how seismic retrofit should be done, but rather, to illustrate that every physical change to a building will have some consequence. By asking how impacts can be reduced, the owner will have several options from which to choose. »Can bracing be installed without damaging decorative details or appearance of parapets, chimneys, or balconies? »Are the visible features of the reinforcement, such as anchor washers or exterior buttresses adequately designed to blend with the historic building? »Can hidden or grouted bolts be set on an angle to tie floors and walls together, instead of using traditional bolts and exposed washers or rosettes on ornamental exteriors? »Are diagonal frames, such as X, K, or struts located to have a minimal impact on the primary facade? Are they set back and painted a receding color if visible through windows or storefronts? »Can moment frames or reinforced bracing be added around historic storefronts in order to avoid unsightly exposed reinforcement, such as X braces, within the immediate viewing range of the public? »Can shorter sections of reinforcement be "stitched" into the existing building to avoid removal of large sections of historic materials? This is particularly true for the insertion of roof framing supports. »Can shear walls be located in utilitarian interior spaces to reduce the impact on finishes in the primary areas? »Are there situations where thinner applied fiber reinforced coating would adequately strenghten walls or supports without the need for heavier reinforced concrete? »Can diaphragms be added to non-significant floors in order to protect highly decorated ceilings below, or the reverse if the floor is more ornamental than the ceiling? »Are there adequate funds to retain, repair, or reinstall ornamental finishes once 277 structural reinforcements have been installed? »Should base isolation, wall damping systems, or core drilling be considered? Are they protecting significant materials by reducing the amount of intervention? »Are the seismic treatments being considered "reversible" in a way that allows the most amount of historic materials to be retained and allows future repair and restoration? Further Reading Buildings at Risk: Seismic Design Basics for Practicing Architects. Washington, DC. AIA/ACSA Council on Architectural Research. February, 1992 Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings. Washington, DC. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1992. Earthquake-Damaged Historic Chimneys: A Guide to the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Chimneys. Oakland, CA. Historic Preservation Partners for Earthquake Response. July, 1995. Eichenfield, Jeffrey. 20 Tools That Protect Historic Resources After an Earthquake; Lessons learned from the Northridge Earthquake. Oakland, CA. California Preservation Foundation.1996. History at Risk, Loma Prieta: Seismic Safety & Historic Buildings. Oakland, CA. California Preservation Foundation. 1990. Kariotis, John C., Roselund, Nels; and Krakower, Michael. Loma Prieta, An Engineer’s Viewpoint. Oakland, CA; California Preservation Foundation, 1990. Langenbach, Randolph. "Bricks, Mortar, and Earthquakes; Historic Preservation vs. Earthquake Safety." Apt Bulletin, Vol.21, Nos.3/4 (1989), pp.30-43. Langenbach, Randolph. "Earthquakes: A New Look at Cracked Masonry." Civil Engineering. November, 1992. pp. 56-58. NEHRP commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings ( second ballot version). Washington, DC. Building Seismic Safety Council (Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency) Draft, April, 1997. FEMA 274. NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Washington, DC. Building Seismic Safety Council (Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1992. FEMA 273. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office, 1992. Seismic Retrofit Alternatives for San Francisco’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: 278 Estimates of Construction Cost & Seismic Damage. San Francisco, CA. City and County of San Francisco Department of City Planning (prepared by Rutherford & Chekene, Consulting Engineers). 1990 The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings Conference Workbook. San Francisco, CA. Association for Preservation Technology, Western Chapter. 1991. [contains an excellent bibliography of additional sources]. Schuller, M.P. Atkinson, R.H. and Noland, J.L. "Structural Evaluation of Historic Masonry Buildings."APT Bulletin, Vol 26, No. 2/3,pp. 51-61. State Historical Building Code. Sacramento, CA: State Historical Building Code Board. Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Whittier, CA: International Conference of Building Officials, 1991. Glossary Anchor Ties or bolts: Generally threaded rods or bolt which connect walls to floor and roof framing. Washers, plates, or rosettes anchor the bolt in place. Base isolation: the ability to isolate the structures from the damaging effects of earthquakes by providing a flexible layer between the foundations and vertical supports. Diagonal Braces: the use of diagonal, chevron or other type of bracing (X or K) to provide lateral resistance to adjacent walls. Core drilling: a type of vertical reinforcement of masonry walls that relies on drilling a continuous vertical core that is filled with steel reinforcing rods and grouting to resist in- plane shear and out-of-plane bending. Cripple wall: A frame wall between a building’s first floor and foundation. Diaphragm: A floor, roof, or continuous membrane that provides for the transfer of earthquake loading to the exterior or interior shear walls of the structure. Fiber wrap reinforcement: A synthetic compound of filaments that increase the shear capacity of structural members. Grouted bolts: anchor bolts set, generally on an angle, in a concrete grout mixture, avoid the problem of using an exposed washer. Requires a greater diameter hole than an anchor bolt with washer. Lateral forces: Generally the horizontal forces transferred to the building from the dynamic effects of wind or seismic forces. Life-safety: providing a level of assurance that risk of loss of life is kept to minimal levels. For buildings, this includes strengthening to reduce 1)structural collapse, 2) 279 falling debris, 3)blocking exits or emergency routes, and 4) prevention of consequential fire. Moment-resisting frame: A steel frame designed to provide in-plane resistance to lateral loads particularly by reinforcing the joint connection between column and beams without adding a diagonal brace. Often used as a perimeter frame around storefronts or large door and window openings. Seismic retrofit: All measures that improve the earthquake performance of a building especially those that affect structural stability and reduce the potential for heavy structural damage or collapse. Shear stress: A concept in physics where forces act on a body in opposite directions, but not in the same line. Horizontal forces applied to a wall that is insufficient to move with these forces will crack, often in a diagonal or X pattern. Connections at beams and walls will also crack from shear stress. Shear wall: A wall deliberately designed to transfer the building’s loads from the roof and floors to the foundation thereby preventing a building from collapse from wind or earthquake forces. Unreinforced Masonry (URM): This designation refers to traditional brick, block,and adobe construction that relies on the weight of the masonry and the bonding capacity of mortar to provide structural stability. Acknowledgments David W. Look, AIA, is the Chief, Cultural Resource Team, Pacific Great Basin Support Office, National Park Service. Terry Wong, PE, is the Chief, Structural Engineering, Denver Service Center, National Park Service. Sylvia Rose Augustus, is the Historical Architect, Yosemite National Park The authors wish to thank their collaborator, Sharon C. Park, FAIA, Senior Historical Architect, Heritage Preservation Services, NPS, who undertook the technical editing of the publication and took the authors’ original manuscript and developed it into the Preservation Brief complete with compiling information from other sources and selecting the photographs. Kay D. Weeks and Michael J. Auer, Heritage Preservation Services, NPS, contributed substantially to the published manuscript by revising the draft with an eye to articulation of policy, organizational structure, and cohesiveness of language. The authors also wish to thank the following for providing information for the publication and/or reviewing the final draft: Steade R. Craigo, AIA, Senior Restoration Architect, State of California; Randolph Langenbach, Architect, FEMA; Bruce Judd, FAIA, Architectural Resources Group; Melvyn Green & Associates; Cassandra Mettling-Davis and Carey & Co. Inc. Architecture; Curt Ginther, Architect, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Capital Program; The Crosby Group; American Institute of Architects, San Francisco Chapter; Jeffrey L. Eichenfield, California Preservation Foundation; Michael Jackson, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency; George Siekkinen, the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and colleagues at Heritage Preservation Services, NPS, including: deTeel Patterson Tiller, Chief; Charles E. Fisher, Anne E. Grimmer, John Sandor, and Jason Fenwick. Washington DC October 1997 Home page logo: Earthquake damaged building. Photo: NPS files. 280 This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), Heritage Preservation Services Division, National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. Order Brief | Technical Preservation Services | Preservation Briefs | Search | Questions/Answers KDW 281 Beside the storefront, windows on the upper floors and the roof cornice usually help define the historic character of small commercial buildings. Repair historic windows when possible, adding exterior or interior storm windows as needed. If the historic windows are beyond repair, suitable replacements are ones that match the appearance and materials of the old units. Depending on the level of historic integrity, the interiors of Main Street commercial buildings on both the upper and lower floors often contribute to the historic character through their historic spaces, features, and/or finishes. Main Street buildings typically had a large open floorplan on all or part of the first floor, making it easily adaptable to numerous uses. While retaining the open plan is recommended, it may be possible to divide portions of the space, provided the sense of openness is preserved. Many commercial buildings retain their historic decorative ceilings, such as pressed metal, and their finished walls. These finished appearances should not be dramatically altered. Throughout the building avoid the removal of plaster to expose masonry walls or removing a pressed metal ceiling to expose the above floor joists. In most cases, mechanical ductwork is best concealed, rather than being left exposed, since exposed mechanicals can visually impact a historic space. When more floor space is needed, it is often possible to add to the rear of Main Street buildings and still qualify as a “certified rehabilitation.” Rooftop additions to most small commercial buildings are not appropriate. While costs associated with new additions are not eligible for the rehabilitation credit, the work is still reviewed by the National Park Service. Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Main Street Commercial Buildings Do you own a commercial building located in a historic district? Does it need to be fixed up? Will it be used for a business or rental housing? If you answered YES to all three questions, then you should be aware of a program that offers significant federal tax incentives for rehabilitating historic buildings. • • • The Program Administered by the National Park Service in conjunction with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program offers a 20% federal tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenses. Thousands of property owners across the country have already utilized these tax incentives to rehabilitate historic commercial buidings and similar properties. Why does the program exist? Recognizing the importance of preserving our building heritage and the need to encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated properties, Congress created in 1976 federal tax incentives to promote historic preservation and community revitalization. These tax incentives have successfully spurred the rehabilitation of historic structures of every period, size, style, and type. Tax Credit Basics In general, a tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. The amount of credit under this program equals 20% of the qualifying costs of your rehabilitation. A project must be “substantial” in that your qualifying rehabilitation expenses must exceed the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted basis of the building. Your building needs to be certified as a historic structure by the National Park Service. Rehabilitation work has to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as determined by the National Park Service. The process is straight-forward, and the tax savings can be significant. For example, a property owner planning a project estimated to cost $60,000 could realize a tax credit of $12,000 on their federal income taxes. Applicants are encouraged to consult their accountant or tax advisor to make sure that this federal tax credit is beneficial to them. For additional information visit the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives website of the National Park Service at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax and click on “IRS Connection.” • • • • • This booklet was prepared by Daniel Bruechert, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Heritage Preservation Service, National Park Service, with the assistance of Charles Fisher, National Park Service. Thanks are extended to Elizabeth Creveling and Jennifer Parker of the National Park Service for their collaboration and Michael Auer for his review. All photographs are from National Park Service files unless otherwise indicated. First-time user guides for owners of small buildings interested in the federal rehabilitation tax credits are prepared pursuant to the National Preservation Act, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning the preservation of historic properties. This and other guidance on rehabilitating small buildings can be found on our web site at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or by writing Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. 2008 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program was created to encourage the rehabilitation and re-use of historic structures while preserving the historic character of individual buildings and districts. Many historic districts in small towns and cities have Main Streets of small shops and other commercial buildings, typically one to four stories high. The variety of architectural styles reflects the popular taste of different eras and the image an entrepreneur wanted to project. The commercial storefront is usually one of the most significant elements of a Main Street building. In its simplest form, a storefront traditionally consisted of several display windows in a wood or metal frame, set above a bulkhead and below a glass transom, and an entranceway to the store on the first floor. It was also common for a second doorway to be located on one end of the storefront to provide access to the floors above. A sign and a canopy or awning often embellished the storefront. When the historic storefront has survived largely unaltered, it should be repaired whenever possible, rather than replaced, in order to preserve both the historic appearance and historic materials. Similarly, a later storefront installed during the historic district’s period of significance that may have acquired significance in its own right should be repaired. Where the existing storefront is not significant or has deteriorated beyond repair, the following guidance applies, in most cases, when designing a compatible replacement (for further guidance see Preservation Briefs 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts): Relate the new storefront to the design of the building. Correctly proportion display windows so as to consist predominantly of glass, typically with a transom above and bulkhead below. Retain, where possible, the location of the historic storefront entrances and any separate outside entrance to the upper floors. Duplicate the historic doors or replace with doors that are sized to the opening. (This usually requires a custom-made door to achieve the necessary height and width; avoid doors that have a residential appearance.) Ensure that replacement storefronts that aim to recapture the historic design are finished so as to be consistent with the historic appearance. With non- historic or replacement storefronts of a compatible design, avoid unpainted wood surfaces as well as in most cases bright metallic or bronze anodized metal finish. Design and attach signage and any canopies in a manner so as to avoid damage to the historic material and to be compatible with the features and appearance of the building facade. • • • • • Rehabilitating Your Main Street Building How is a tax credit different from a deduction? A tax credit usually saves you more in income tax. Unlike a deduction, which reduces your taxable income, a credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. Can I receive federal tax credits for fixing up my personal residence? In general, the tax credits are not available for rehabilitating your personal home. If you live in the upper floor and rent out the first floor, the money spent on rehabilitating the rental portion can be used, provided you meet the adjusted basis test. Contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the availability of any state credits or other tax incentives for personal residences. If I have already begun my project, is it too late to get the credit? As long as your building is in a registered historic district and you submit your Part 1 of the application prior to completing the project, then you may apply for the tax credits. However, you are strongly encouraged to submit rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) prior to construction. In doing so, you ensure that any required changes are identified early and the resulting cost and inconvenience are minimized. Can anyone help me through this process? Help is available through a variety of resources. SHPOs and local historic preservation organizations, including state or local Main Street programs, are the best place to begin if you have questions. Advice is available on the National Park Service website (www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/) or through many SHPO websites. Some people choose to hire a professional consultant, but for most small Main Street projects owners complete the process themselves. How long does it take to get approval of my proposed project? You should submit your rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) well in advance of beginning work – many states recommend six months prior – to allow time if additional information is needed by the SHPO or National Park Service. When original submittals contain sufficient information, reviews by the NPS are generally completed in 30 days, once received from the SHPO. When can I claim the tax credit? A credit may be claimed in the same year the building is placed in service. Where the building is never out of service, the credit is usually taken in the year in which the rehabilitation is completed. How are the Federal and local reviews different? Local commissions develop their own guidelines that are particular to the district and the community’s preservation goals. Under the Federal tax credit program, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are applied uniformly to projects from across the country. Work on both the exterior and the interior of a building is reviewed by the SHPO and NPS; while local review commissions generally only consider exterior work. Are there any application fees? It depends on the cost of your project. For information on current fees, visit our web address. To locate your State Historic Preservation Office visit www.ncshpo.org Monroe, MI 1910. Awnings were a prominent building feature on many of America’s Main Streets. Photo: Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University. Approval by the National Park Service for purposes of federal tax credits is a separate and different process from that of approval by a local architectural review commission for purposes of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. Frequently Asked Questions Drawing courtesy of Winter & Company Transom DisplayWindows Bulkhead StorefrontCornice RecessedEntry Arched Head Windows Building Cornice Typical Storefront Details 282 First: Does your building contribute to a historic district recognized by the National Park Service? The easiest way to determine if your building is located in a historic district is to contact your local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Recognized historic districts, for purposes of federal tax credits, include those listed in the National Register of Historic Places (maintained by the National Park Service) and certain local historic districts that are certified by the National Park Service. Over one million buildings are already listed in the National Register, either individually or as part of historic districts. If your property is located in one of these districts, it still must be designated by the National Park Service as a structure that contributes to the historic character of the district and thus qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” Not every building in a district is contributing. For example, when historic districts are designated, they are usually associated with a particular time period, such as “1820 to 1935.” In this case, a building constructed in 1950 would not contribute and would not be eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit. Within this same district, an 1892 building might not contribute to the historic character if it was almost completely changed in the 1950s. Second: Will your rehabilitation be “substantial”? The cost of a project must exceed the greater of $5000 or the building’s adjusted basis. The following formula will help you determine if your project will meet the substantial rehabilitation test: A - B - C + D = adjusted basis A = purchase price of the property B = the part of the purchase price attributed to the land cost C = depreciation taken for an income-producing property D = cost of any capital improvements made since purchase For example, Mr. Dillon has owned a downtown building for a number of years. He originally purchased the property for $150,000, and of that purchase price $40,000 was attributed to the cost of the land. Over the years, Mr. Dillon has depreciated the building for tax purposes by a total of $60,000. He recently replaced the roof at a cost of $8000. Mr. Dillon’s adjusted basis would be $58,000. Since he intends to spend $60,000 to fix a leaking basement wall; upgrade the heating/air conditioning systems; and repair the deteriorated storefront, the rehabilitation would qualify as a substantial project. If he completes the application process and receives approval, Mr. Dillon will be eligible for a 20% credit on the cost of his rehabilitation, or a $12,000 credit. The Application The Historic Preservation Certification Application (NPS Form 10-168) consists of 3 parts. This form can be downloaded from the web at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/. Part 1 of the application is a request to obtain a determination by the National Park Service that your building is a “certified historic structure.” You will need to describe the physical appearance of the exterior and interior of the building, submit photographs, and provide a brief narrative on its history and significance to the historic district in which it is located. Part of this information is likely contained in the National Register Nomination for the district, which should be available from you local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or SHPO. Three Steps to Determine if a Project is Eligible for Tax Credits Part 2 of the application is where you describe the condition of the building prior to rehabilitation and the proposed work. Three forms of information are needed: a description or narrative for each main building feature (see sample left, below); ample photographs showing the condition and views of the property prior to beginning work (exterior and interior as well as the surrounding site); and architectural plans or drawings that include existing floor plans and proposed changes. If no work is planned for a major feature (such as windows, roof, 2nd floor plan, etc.), include a statement to that effect in the application and still provide photographs. You are encouraged to submit Parts 1 and 2 during the early planning of the project. This provides the opportunity to make changes with minimal inconvenience or additional expense if some aspect of the work is determined not to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Part 3 of the application is a Request for Certification of Completed Work. This is a presentation of the finished rehabilitation and, once approved by the National Park Service, serves as documentation to the Internal Revenue Service that your project is a “certified rehabilitation.” Approval of the Part 3 application is a condition for obtaining federal rehabilitation tax credits. Material and information to provide in your application include: • historic district map • site plan • photographs • floor plans • elevation drawings (if exterior changes are planned) On a copy of the historic district map, indicate where your building is located. Photographs are essential in conveying what the building looks like prior to your rehabilitation. Think of the pictures as providing a “virtual tour’ of your property. Include pictures showing each exterior side, the building’s relationship to surrounding structures, and close-ups of such primary exterior features as display windows, doors, and other character- defining features. On the interior, provide views of the main spaces on each floor, and include details like decorative ceilings, stairs, interior doors, and window trim. Document deteriorated conditions, such as crumbling brickwork or water stained plaster. Number each photograph on the back and write the building’s address and a brief description of the image. Include a floor plan with the number of each photograph and an arrow pointing in the direction it was taken. Please indicate if the image is pre- or post-rehabilitation. Elevation drawings often will be needed where major changes to the exterior of the building are planned. For example, a drawing should show the size, design, and details of a proposed new storefront. Floor plans of the existing room layouts are important and, where changes are proposed, floor plans showing the new layout are needed as well. Supplemental material may also be helpful in describing your project. For example, product literature or a simple sketch might best detail a new side entrance door. Remember that the SHPO and National Park Service reviewers who will be evaluating the application will probably be seeing your building for the first time through the material you provide. Your application should communicate: (a) the appearance of the building prior to beginning work; (b) the building’s condition on both the interior and the exterior prior to work; and (c) your proposed rehabilitation work. Photo Documentation Good quality photos (4 x 6 or larger) are needed. If using digital images, print in high-resolution on photo quality paper. Images printed on regular copy paper are discouraged due to the general lack of clarity and detail. Label and number each photo and reference it in the application. In addition, key the picture to a floor plan with an arrow indicating the direction in which it was taken. Photo 3, Pre-Rehab 2147 Hamilton Rd. City, State Front facade with cornice detail and mismatched mortar used in earlier repointing. Example: Photo and label on reverse side. Describing Your Project Some expenses associated with a project may not qualify for the tax credit, such as an addition off the back of the building, new kitchen appliances, or paved parking. Third: How does your project become “certified”? To qualify for the tax credits you need to complete a 3- part application. In Part 1 of the application, you provide information to help the National Park Service determine if your building qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” In Part 2, you describe the condition of the building and the planned rehabilitation work. The proposed work will be evaluated based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – a set of 10 widely accepted standards of practice for historic preservation. Part 3 of the application is submitted after completion of the project and is used by the National Park Service to certify that the project as completed meets the Standards and is a “certified rehabilitation.” The 3 parts of the application should be completed in order. You will need to submit 2 copies of each part to your SHPO. One copy will be forwarded by the SHPO with a recommendation to the National Park Service, which will issue the final decision for each part of the application. It is important to submit Part 2 before beginning work, because if your initial project proposal does not meet the Standards, you are provided an opportunity to modify the plans. To learn more about the Standards, visit the National Park Service website at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Retaining historic character: The historic tin ceiling was retained during the rehabilitation for this Main Street clothing store. The photograph above shows the buildnig described in the sample application prior to the rehabilitation work. Below left, the building is shown after its successful rehabilitation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 1 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. Description of physical appearance: The Houseal Buliding is a symmetrical two-story painted brick commercial building. The display windows are large plate-glass windows set in aluminum frames and have a metal-sided bulkhead. Each storefront has a recessed entry, with a pair of glass and aluminum doors. The segmented arched window openings on the second floor have had their sash removed some time ago and have been boarded up with plywood. There is a simple three brick course cornice with a tall parapet wall. Above the cornice, “HOUSEAL BUILDING” is applied in painted wood letters. The first floor interior consists of one large open space with structural posts running down the middle of the room, and an enclosed bathroom in the back right corner. It has wood floors and plaster walls. A dropped ceiling system obscures the original pressed metal still in place. A staircase along the left wall provides access to the second floor. The second floor interior has deteriorated due to water damage and has warped wood floors and plaster falling off the brick walls. Two rows of structural posts run from the front of the building to the rear and evidence indicates that there were historically two residential or office spaces separated by a central hallway. Date of Construction: c. 1890 Source of Date: City Directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Date(s) of Alteration(s): Late 1940’s, 1960’s Has building been moved? yes no If so, when? 6. Statement of significance: The Houseal Building, a contributing building to the Downtown Historic District, is representative of the town’s late 19th century commercial development and is within the district’s period of significance, which ends in 1942. The building retains both its integrity of materials and historic form. The addition of aluminum doors and display windows occurred outside the period of significance of the district. 7. Photographs and maps. Attach photographs and maps to application Complete these boxes until all aspects of your project are fully described. Be sure to indicate details like proposed finishes (drywall, plaster, etc.) and planned methods of repair. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 2 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION / PRESERVATION WORK – Includes site work, new construction, alterations, etc. Complete blocks below. Number 1 Architectural feature Brick Facade Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 The paint will be removed from the brick following the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 1: Assessing, Cleaning, and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings, using the gentlest means possible. The mortar joints will be repaired using a mortar that matches the composition and appearance of the historic. All work will be done in accordance with the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. Any replacement bricks required for repairs will match the historic appearance. The Portland cement and top course of brick will be removed; a new brick course and copper parapet cap will be installed. Describe existing feature and its condition: The building is constructed of red brick. It has been painted white sometime after the period of significance for the district. There is some brick spawling and a number of degraded mortar joints. The parapet cap was covered in Portland cement in a prior rehabilitation; there is some brick damage. Photo no. 1-4 Drawing no A-1 Number 2 Architectural feature Storefront Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1960 This current storefront system will be replaced with a more historically compatible storefront. The brick bulkhead will be restored and a wooden storefront system that includes a transom will be installed. The two recessed entries will be retained in form. The paired doors will be replaced with a single wide glass door set in a wood frame. A new smaller retractable awning will be installed in a manner to reveal the decorative belt course above. Describe existing feature and its condition: The storefront system is a replacement consisting of two symmetrical recessed entrances with large plate glass display windows set in aluminum frames. Metal siding encases the bulkhead and columns. The entrances are paired aluminum and glass doors. There is a canvas awning across the width of the building. Photo no. 1-4, 7, 8 Drawing no A-1, A-1.2 Number 3 Architectural feature Second-Story Windows Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 and Unknown Replacement wood double-hung windows with insulated glass will be installed with a one over one light configuration. The upper sash will have an arched top. The plans are to re-use the historic frames where possible. Where frames are severely rotted, new ones will be installed to match the historic in appearance and materials. Describe existing feature and its condition: The windows sash were removed from the building sometime in the last 20 years and the openings covered with plywood. Many of the window frames remain intact. Photo no. 1-4, 11-13 Drawing no A-1, A-7 Number 4 Architectural feature Interior Staircase Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature 1890 The existing staircase will be retained. 283 First: Does your building contribute to a historic district recognized by the National Park Service? The easiest way to determine if your building is located in a historic district is to contact your local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Recognized historic districts, for purposes of federal tax credits, include those listed in the National Register of Historic Places (maintained by the National Park Service) and certain local historic districts that are certified by the National Park Service. Over one million buildings are already listed in the National Register, either individually or as part of historic districts. If your property is located in one of these districts, it still must be designated by the National Park Service as a structure that contributes to the historic character of the district and thus qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” Not every building in a district is contributing. For example, when historic districts are designated, they are usually associated with a particular time period, such as “1820 to 1935.” In this case, a building constructed in 1950 would not contribute and would not be eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit. Within this same district, an 1892 building might not contribute to the historic character if it was almost completely changed in the 1950s. Second: Will your rehabilitation be “substantial”? The cost of a project must exceed the greater of $5000 or the building’s adjusted basis. The following formula will help you determine if your project will meet the substantial rehabilitation test: A - B - C + D = adjusted basis A = purchase price of the property B = the part of the purchase price attributed to the land cost C = depreciation taken for an income-producing property D = cost of any capital improvements made since purchase For example, Mr. Dillon has owned a downtown building for a number of years. He originally purchased the property for $150,000, and of that purchase price $40,000 was attributed to the cost of the land. Over the years, Mr. Dillon has depreciated the building for tax purposes by a total of $60,000. He recently replaced the roof at a cost of $8000. Mr. Dillon’s adjusted basis would be $58,000. Since he intends to spend $60,000 to fix a leaking basement wall; upgrade the heating/air conditioning systems; and repair the deteriorated storefront, the rehabilitation would qualify as a substantial project. If he completes the application process and receives approval, Mr. Dillon will be eligible for a 20% credit on the cost of his rehabilitation, or a $12,000 credit. The Application The Historic Preservation Certification Application (NPS Form 10-168) consists of 3 parts. This form can be downloaded from the web at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/. Part 1 of the application is a request to obtain a determination by the National Park Service that your building is a “certified historic structure.” You will need to describe the physical appearance of the exterior and interior of the building, submit photographs, and provide a brief narrative on its history and significance to the historic district in which it is located. Part of this information is likely contained in the National Register Nomination for the district, which should be available from you local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or SHPO. Three Steps to Determine if a Project is Eligible for Tax Credits Part 2 of the application is where you describe the condition of the building prior to rehabilitation and the proposed work. Three forms of information are needed: a description or narrative for each main building feature (see sample left, below); ample photographs showing the condition and views of the property prior to beginning work (exterior and interior as well as the surrounding site); and architectural plans or drawings that include existing floor plans and proposed changes. If no work is planned for a major feature (such as windows, roof, 2nd floor plan, etc.), include a statement to that effect in the application and still provide photographs. You are encouraged to submit Parts 1 and 2 during the early planning of the project. This provides the opportunity to make changes with minimal inconvenience or additional expense if some aspect of the work is determined not to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Part 3 of the application is a Request for Certification of Completed Work. This is a presentation of the finished rehabilitation and, once approved by the National Park Service, serves as documentation to the Internal Revenue Service that your project is a “certified rehabilitation.” Approval of the Part 3 application is a condition for obtaining federal rehabilitation tax credits. Material and information to provide in your application include: • historic district map • site plan • photographs • floor plans • elevation drawings (if exterior changes are planned) On a copy of the historic district map, indicate where your building is located. Photographs are essential in conveying what the building looks like prior to your rehabilitation. Think of the pictures as providing a “virtual tour’ of your property. Include pictures showing each exterior side, the building’s relationship to surrounding structures, and close-ups of such primary exterior features as display windows, doors, and other character- defining features. On the interior, provide views of the main spaces on each floor, and include details like decorative ceilings, stairs, interior doors, and window trim. Document deteriorated conditions, such as crumbling brickwork or water stained plaster. Number each photograph on the back and write the building’s address and a brief description of the image. Include a floor plan with the number of each photograph and an arrow pointing in the direction it was taken. Please indicate if the image is pre- or post-rehabilitation. Elevation drawings often will be needed where major changes to the exterior of the building are planned. For example, a drawing should show the size, design, and details of a proposed new storefront. Floor plans of the existing room layouts are important and, where changes are proposed, floor plans showing the new layout are needed as well. Supplemental material may also be helpful in describing your project. For example, product literature or a simple sketch might best detail a new side entrance door. Remember that the SHPO and National Park Service reviewers who will be evaluating the application will probably be seeing your building for the first time through the material you provide. Your application should communicate: (a) the appearance of the building prior to beginning work; (b) the building’s condition on both the interior and the exterior prior to work; and (c) your proposed rehabilitation work. Photo Documentation Good quality photos (4 x 6 or larger) are needed. If using digital images, print in high-resolution on photo quality paper. Images printed on regular copy paper are discouraged due to the general lack of clarity and detail. Label and number each photo and reference it in the application. In addition, key the picture to a floor plan with an arrow indicating the direction in which it was taken. Photo 3, Pre-Rehab 2147 Hamilton Rd. City, State Front facade with cornice detail and mismatched mortar used in earlier repointing. Example: Photo and label on reverse side. Describing Your Project Some expenses associated with a project may not qualify for the tax credit, such as an addition off the back of the building, new kitchen appliances, or paved parking. Third: How does your project become “certified”? To qualify for the tax credits you need to complete a 3- part application. In Part 1 of the application, you provide information to help the National Park Service determine if your building qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” In Part 2, you describe the condition of the building and the planned rehabilitation work. The proposed work will be evaluated based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – a set of 10 widely accepted standards of practice for historic preservation. Part 3 of the application is submitted after completion of the project and is used by the National Park Service to certify that the project as completed meets the Standards and is a “certified rehabilitation.” The 3 parts of the application should be completed in order. You will need to submit 2 copies of each part to your SHPO. One copy will be forwarded by the SHPO with a recommendation to the National Park Service, which will issue the final decision for each part of the application. It is important to submit Part 2 before beginning work, because if your initial project proposal does not meet the Standards, you are provided an opportunity to modify the plans. To learn more about the Standards, visit the National Park Service website at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Retaining historic character: The historic tin ceiling was retained during the rehabilitation for this Main Street clothing store. The photograph above shows the buildnig described in the sample application prior to the rehabilitation work. Below left, the building is shown after its successful rehabilitation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 1 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. Description of physical appearance: The Houseal Buliding is a symmetrical two-story painted brick commercial building. The display windows are large plate-glass windows set in aluminum frames and have a metal-sided bulkhead. Each storefront has a recessed entry, with a pair of glass and aluminum doors. The segmented arched window openings on the second floor have had their sash removed some time ago and have been boarded up with plywood. There is a simple three brick course cornice with a tall parapet wall. Above the cornice, “HOUSEAL BUILDING” is applied in painted wood letters. The first floor interior consists of one large open space with structural posts running down the middle of the room, and an enclosed bathroom in the back right corner. It has wood floors and plaster walls. A dropped ceiling system obscures the original pressed metal still in place. A staircase along the left wall provides access to the second floor. The second floor interior has deteriorated due to water damage and has warped wood floors and plaster falling off the brick walls. Two rows of structural posts run from the front of the building to the rear and evidence indicates that there were historically two residential or office spaces separated by a central hallway. Date of Construction: c. 1890 Source of Date: City Directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Date(s) of Alteration(s): Late 1940’s, 1960’s Has building been moved? yes no If so, when? 6. Statement of significance: The Houseal Building, a contributing building to the Downtown Historic District, is representative of the town’s late 19th century commercial development and is within the district’s period of significance, which ends in 1942. The building retains both its integrity of materials and historic form. The addition of aluminum doors and display windows occurred outside the period of significance of the district. 7. Photographs and maps. Attach photographs and maps to application Complete these boxes until all aspects of your project are fully described. Be sure to indicate details like proposed finishes (drywall, plaster, etc.) and planned methods of repair. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 2 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION / PRESERVATION WORK – Includes site work, new construction, alterations, etc. Complete blocks below. Number 1 Architectural feature Brick Facade Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 The paint will be removed from the brick following the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 1: Assessing, Cleaning, and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings, using the gentlest means possible. The mortar joints will be repaired using a mortar that matches the composition and appearance of the historic. All work will be done in accordance with the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. Any replacement bricks required for repairs will match the historic appearance. The Portland cement and top course of brick will be removed; a new brick course and copper parapet cap will be installed. Describe existing feature and its condition: The building is constructed of red brick. It has been painted white sometime after the period of significance for the district. There is some brick spawling and a number of degraded mortar joints. The parapet cap was covered in Portland cement in a prior rehabilitation; there is some brick damage. Photo no. 1-4 Drawing no A-1 Number 2 Architectural feature Storefront Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1960 This current storefront system will be replaced with a more historically compatible storefront. The brick bulkhead will be restored and a wooden storefront system that includes a transom will be installed. The two recessed entries will be retained in form. The paired doors will be replaced with a single wide glass door set in a wood frame. A new smaller retractable awning will be installed in a manner to reveal the decorative belt course above. Describe existing feature and its condition: The storefront system is a replacement consisting of two symmetrical recessed entrances with large plate glass display windows set in aluminum frames. Metal siding encases the bulkhead and columns. The entrances are paired aluminum and glass doors. There is a canvas awning across the width of the building. Photo no. 1-4, 7, 8 Drawing no A-1, A-1.2 Number 3 Architectural feature Second-Story Windows Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 and Unknown Replacement wood double-hung windows with insulated glass will be installed with a one over one light configuration. The upper sash will have an arched top. The plans are to re-use the historic frames where possible. Where frames are severely rotted, new ones will be installed to match the historic in appearance and materials. Describe existing feature and its condition: The windows sash were removed from the building sometime in the last 20 years and the openings covered with plywood. Many of the window frames remain intact. Photo no. 1-4, 11-13 Drawing no A-1, A-7 Number 4 Architectural feature Interior Staircase Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature 1890 The existing staircase will be retained. 284 First: Does your building contribute to a historic district recognized by the National Park Service? The easiest way to determine if your building is located in a historic district is to contact your local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Recognized historic districts, for purposes of federal tax credits, include those listed in the National Register of Historic Places (maintained by the National Park Service) and certain local historic districts that are certified by the National Park Service. Over one million buildings are already listed in the National Register, either individually or as part of historic districts. If your property is located in one of these districts, it still must be designated by the National Park Service as a structure that contributes to the historic character of the district and thus qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” Not every building in a district is contributing. For example, when historic districts are designated, they are usually associated with a particular time period, such as “1820 to 1935.” In this case, a building constructed in 1950 would not contribute and would not be eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit. Within this same district, an 1892 building might not contribute to the historic character if it was almost completely changed in the 1950s. Second: Will your rehabilitation be “substantial”? The cost of a project must exceed the greater of $5000 or the building’s adjusted basis. The following formula will help you determine if your project will meet the substantial rehabilitation test: A - B - C + D = adjusted basis A = purchase price of the property B = the part of the purchase price attributed to the land cost C = depreciation taken for an income-producing property D = cost of any capital improvements made since purchase For example, Mr. Dillon has owned a downtown building for a number of years. He originally purchased the property for $150,000, and of that purchase price $40,000 was attributed to the cost of the land. Over the years, Mr. Dillon has depreciated the building for tax purposes by a total of $60,000. He recently replaced the roof at a cost of $8000. Mr. Dillon’s adjusted basis would be $58,000. Since he intends to spend $60,000 to fix a leaking basement wall; upgrade the heating/air conditioning systems; and repair the deteriorated storefront, the rehabilitation would qualify as a substantial project. If he completes the application process and receives approval, Mr. Dillon will be eligible for a 20% credit on the cost of his rehabilitation, or a $12,000 credit. The Application The Historic Preservation Certification Application (NPS Form 10-168) consists of 3 parts. This form can be downloaded from the web at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/. Part 1 of the application is a request to obtain a determination by the National Park Service that your building is a “certified historic structure.” You will need to describe the physical appearance of the exterior and interior of the building, submit photographs, and provide a brief narrative on its history and significance to the historic district in which it is located. Part of this information is likely contained in the National Register Nomination for the district, which should be available from you local historic district commission, municipal planning office, or SHPO. Three Steps to Determine if a Project is Eligible for Tax Credits Part 2 of the application is where you describe the condition of the building prior to rehabilitation and the proposed work. Three forms of information are needed: a description or narrative for each main building feature (see sample left, below); ample photographs showing the condition and views of the property prior to beginning work (exterior and interior as well as the surrounding site); and architectural plans or drawings that include existing floor plans and proposed changes. If no work is planned for a major feature (such as windows, roof, 2nd floor plan, etc.), include a statement to that effect in the application and still provide photographs. You are encouraged to submit Parts 1 and 2 during the early planning of the project. This provides the opportunity to make changes with minimal inconvenience or additional expense if some aspect of the work is determined not to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Part 3 of the application is a Request for Certification of Completed Work. This is a presentation of the finished rehabilitation and, once approved by the National Park Service, serves as documentation to the Internal Revenue Service that your project is a “certified rehabilitation.” Approval of the Part 3 application is a condition for obtaining federal rehabilitation tax credits. Material and information to provide in your application include: • historic district map • site plan • photographs • floor plans • elevation drawings (if exterior changes are planned) On a copy of the historic district map, indicate where your building is located. Photographs are essential in conveying what the building looks like prior to your rehabilitation. Think of the pictures as providing a “virtual tour’ of your property. Include pictures showing each exterior side, the building’s relationship to surrounding structures, and close-ups of such primary exterior features as display windows, doors, and other character- defining features. On the interior, provide views of the main spaces on each floor, and include details like decorative ceilings, stairs, interior doors, and window trim. Document deteriorated conditions, such as crumbling brickwork or water stained plaster. Number each photograph on the back and write the building’s address and a brief description of the image. Include a floor plan with the number of each photograph and an arrow pointing in the direction it was taken. Please indicate if the image is pre- or post-rehabilitation. Elevation drawings often will be needed where major changes to the exterior of the building are planned. For example, a drawing should show the size, design, and details of a proposed new storefront. Floor plans of the existing room layouts are important and, where changes are proposed, floor plans showing the new layout are needed as well. Supplemental material may also be helpful in describing your project. For example, product literature or a simple sketch might best detail a new side entrance door. Remember that the SHPO and National Park Service reviewers who will be evaluating the application will probably be seeing your building for the first time through the material you provide. Your application should communicate: (a) the appearance of the building prior to beginning work; (b) the building’s condition on both the interior and the exterior prior to work; and (c) your proposed rehabilitation work. Photo Documentation Good quality photos (4 x 6 or larger) are needed. If using digital images, print in high-resolution on photo quality paper. Images printed on regular copy paper are discouraged due to the general lack of clarity and detail. Label and number each photo and reference it in the application. In addition, key the picture to a floor plan with an arrow indicating the direction in which it was taken. Photo 3, Pre-Rehab 2147 Hamilton Rd. City, State Front facade with cornice detail and mismatched mortar used in earlier repointing. Example: Photo and label on reverse side. Describing Your Project Some expenses associated with a project may not qualify for the tax credit, such as an addition off the back of the building, new kitchen appliances, or paved parking. Third: How does your project become “certified”? To qualify for the tax credits you need to complete a 3- part application. In Part 1 of the application, you provide information to help the National Park Service determine if your building qualifies as a “certified historic structure.” In Part 2, you describe the condition of the building and the planned rehabilitation work. The proposed work will be evaluated based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – a set of 10 widely accepted standards of practice for historic preservation. Part 3 of the application is submitted after completion of the project and is used by the National Park Service to certify that the project as completed meets the Standards and is a “certified rehabilitation.” The 3 parts of the application should be completed in order. You will need to submit 2 copies of each part to your SHPO. One copy will be forwarded by the SHPO with a recommendation to the National Park Service, which will issue the final decision for each part of the application. It is important to submit Part 2 before beginning work, because if your initial project proposal does not meet the Standards, you are provided an opportunity to modify the plans. To learn more about the Standards, visit the National Park Service website at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Retaining historic character: The historic tin ceiling was retained during the rehabilitation for this Main Street clothing store. The photograph above shows the buildnig described in the sample application prior to the rehabilitation work. Below left, the building is shown after its successful rehabilitation. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 1 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. Description of physical appearance: The Houseal Buliding is a symmetrical two-story painted brick commercial building. The display windows are large plate-glass windows set in aluminum frames and have a metal-sided bulkhead. Each storefront has a recessed entry, with a pair of glass and aluminum doors. The segmented arched window openings on the second floor have had their sash removed some time ago and have been boarded up with plywood. There is a simple three brick course cornice with a tall parapet wall. Above the cornice, “HOUSEAL BUILDING” is applied in painted wood letters. The first floor interior consists of one large open space with structural posts running down the middle of the room, and an enclosed bathroom in the back right corner. It has wood floors and plaster walls. A dropped ceiling system obscures the original pressed metal still in place. A staircase along the left wall provides access to the second floor. The second floor interior has deteriorated due to water damage and has warped wood floors and plaster falling off the brick walls. Two rows of structural posts run from the front of the building to the rear and evidence indicates that there were historically two residential or office spaces separated by a central hallway. Date of Construction: c. 1890 Source of Date: City Directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Date(s) of Alteration(s): Late 1940’s, 1960’s Has building been moved? yes no If so, when? 6. Statement of significance: The Houseal Building, a contributing building to the Downtown Historic District, is representative of the town’s late 19th century commercial development and is within the district’s period of significance, which ends in 1942. The building retains both its integrity of materials and historic form. The addition of aluminum doors and display windows occurred outside the period of significance of the district. 7. Photographs and maps. Attach photographs and maps to application Complete these boxes until all aspects of your project are fully described. Be sure to indicate details like proposed finishes (drywall, plaster, etc.) and planned methods of repair. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAMPLE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION – PART 2 Property Name 316 Main Street Property Address 5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION / PRESERVATION WORK – Includes site work, new construction, alterations, etc. Complete blocks below. Number 1 Architectural feature Brick Facade Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 The paint will be removed from the brick following the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 1: Assessing, Cleaning, and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings, using the gentlest means possible. The mortar joints will be repaired using a mortar that matches the composition and appearance of the historic. All work will be done in accordance with the guidance found in Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. Any replacement bricks required for repairs will match the historic appearance. The Portland cement and top course of brick will be removed; a new brick course and copper parapet cap will be installed. Describe existing feature and its condition: The building is constructed of red brick. It has been painted white sometime after the period of significance for the district. There is some brick spawling and a number of degraded mortar joints. The parapet cap was covered in Portland cement in a prior rehabilitation; there is some brick damage. Photo no. 1-4 Drawing no A-1 Number 2 Architectural feature Storefront Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1960 This current storefront system will be replaced with a more historically compatible storefront. The brick bulkhead will be restored and a wooden storefront system that includes a transom will be installed. The two recessed entries will be retained in form. The paired doors will be replaced with a single wide glass door set in a wood frame. A new smaller retractable awning will be installed in a manner to reveal the decorative belt course above. Describe existing feature and its condition: The storefront system is a replacement consisting of two symmetrical recessed entrances with large plate glass display windows set in aluminum frames. Metal siding encases the bulkhead and columns. The entrances are paired aluminum and glass doors. There is a canvas awning across the width of the building. Photo no. 1-4, 7, 8 Drawing no A-1, A-1.2 Number 3 Architectural feature Second-Story Windows Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature c. 1890 and Unknown Replacement wood double-hung windows with insulated glass will be installed with a one over one light configuration. The upper sash will have an arched top. The plans are to re-use the historic frames where possible. Where frames are severely rotted, new ones will be installed to match the historic in appearance and materials. Describe existing feature and its condition: The windows sash were removed from the building sometime in the last 20 years and the openings covered with plywood. Many of the window frames remain intact. Photo no. 1-4, 11-13 Drawing no A-1, A-7 Number 4 Architectural feature Interior Staircase Describe work and impact on existing feature: Approximate Date of feature 1890 The existing staircase will be retained. 285 Beside the storefront, windows on the upper floors and the roof cornice usually help define the historic character of small commercial buildings. Repair historic windows when possible, adding exterior or interior storm windows as needed. If the historic windows are beyond repair, suitable replacements are ones that match the appearance and materials of the old units. Depending on the level of historic integrity, the interiors of Main Street commercial buildings on both the upper and lower floors often contribute to the historic character through their historic spaces, features, and/or finishes. Main Street buildings typically had a large open floorplan on all or part of the first floor, making it easily adaptable to numerous uses. While retaining the open plan is recommended, it may be possible to divide portions of the space, provided the sense of openness is preserved. Many commercial buildings retain their historic decorative ceilings, such as pressed metal, and their finished walls. These finished appearances should not be dramatically altered. Throughout the building avoid the removal of plaster to expose masonry walls or removing a pressed metal ceiling to expose the above floor joists. In most cases, mechanical ductwork is best concealed, rather than being left exposed, since exposed mechanicals can visually impact a historic space. When more floor space is needed, it is often possible to add to the rear of Main Street buildings and still qualify as a “certified rehabilitation.” Rooftop additions to most small commercial buildings are not appropriate. While costs associated with new additions are not eligible for the rehabilitation credit, the work is still reviewed by the National Park Service. Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Main Street Commercial Buildings Do you own a commercial building located in a historic district? Does it need to be fixed up? Will it be used for a business or rental housing? If you answered YES to all three questions, then you should be aware of a program that offers significant federal tax incentives for rehabilitating historic buildings. • • • The Program Administered by the National Park Service in conjunction with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program offers a 20% federal tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenses. Thousands of property owners across the country have already utilized these tax incentives to rehabilitate historic commercial buidings and similar properties. Why does the program exist? Recognizing the importance of preserving our building heritage and the need to encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated properties, Congress created in 1976 federal tax incentives to promote historic preservation and community revitalization. These tax incentives have successfully spurred the rehabilitation of historic structures of every period, size, style, and type. Tax Credit Basics In general, a tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. The amount of credit under this program equals 20% of the qualifying costs of your rehabilitation. A project must be “substantial” in that your qualifying rehabilitation expenses must exceed the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted basis of the building. Your building needs to be certified as a historic structure by the National Park Service. Rehabilitation work has to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as determined by the National Park Service. The process is straight-forward, and the tax savings can be significant. For example, a property owner planning a project estimated to cost $60,000 could realize a tax credit of $12,000 on their federal income taxes. Applicants are encouraged to consult their accountant or tax advisor to make sure that this federal tax credit is beneficial to them. For additional information visit the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives website of the National Park Service at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax and click on “IRS Connection.” • • • • • This booklet was prepared by Daniel Bruechert, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Heritage Preservation Service, National Park Service, with the assistance of Charles Fisher, National Park Service. Thanks are extended to Elizabeth Creveling and Jennifer Parker of the National Park Service for their collaboration and Michael Auer for his review. All photographs are from National Park Service files unless otherwise indicated. First-time user guides for owners of small buildings interested in the federal rehabilitation tax credits are prepared pursuant to the National Preservation Act, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning the preservation of historic properties. This and other guidance on rehabilitating small buildings can be found on our web site at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or by writing Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. 2008 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program was created to encourage the rehabilitation and re-use of historic structures while preserving the historic character of individual buildings and districts. Many historic districts in small towns and cities have Main Streets of small shops and other commercial buildings, typically one to four stories high. The variety of architectural styles reflects the popular taste of different eras and the image an entrepreneur wanted to project. The commercial storefront is usually one of the most significant elements of a Main Street building. In its simplest form, a storefront traditionally consisted of several display windows in a wood or metal frame, set above a bulkhead and below a glass transom, and an entranceway to the store on the first floor. It was also common for a second doorway to be located on one end of the storefront to provide access to the floors above. A sign and a canopy or awning often embellished the storefront. When the historic storefront has survived largely unaltered, it should be repaired whenever possible, rather than replaced, in order to preserve both the historic appearance and historic materials. Similarly, a later storefront installed during the historic district’s period of significance that may have acquired significance in its own right should be repaired. Where the existing storefront is not significant or has deteriorated beyond repair, the following guidance applies, in most cases, when designing a compatible replacement (for further guidance see Preservation Briefs 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts): Relate the new storefront to the design of the building. Correctly proportion display windows so as to consist predominantly of glass, typically with a transom above and bulkhead below. Retain, where possible, the location of the historic storefront entrances and any separate outside entrance to the upper floors. Duplicate the historic doors or replace with doors that are sized to the opening. (This usually requires a custom-made door to achieve the necessary height and width; avoid doors that have a residential appearance.) Ensure that replacement storefronts that aim to recapture the historic design are finished so as to be consistent with the historic appearance. With non- historic or replacement storefronts of a compatible design, avoid unpainted wood surfaces as well as in most cases bright metallic or bronze anodized metal finish. Design and attach signage and any canopies in a manner so as to avoid damage to the historic material and to be compatible with the features and appearance of the building facade. • • • • • Rehabilitating Your Main Street Building How is a tax credit different from a deduction? A tax credit usually saves you more in income tax. Unlike a deduction, which reduces your taxable income, a credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. Can I receive federal tax credits for fixing up my personal residence? In general, the tax credits are not available for rehabilitating your personal home. If you live in the upper floor and rent out the first floor, the money spent on rehabilitating the rental portion can be used, provided you meet the adjusted basis test. Contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the availability of any state credits or other tax incentives for personal residences. If I have already begun my project, is it too late to get the credit? As long as your building is in a registered historic district and you submit your Part 1 of the application prior to completing the project, then you may apply for the tax credits. However, you are strongly encouraged to submit rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) prior to construction. In doing so, you ensure that any required changes are identified early and the resulting cost and inconvenience are minimized. Can anyone help me through this process? Help is available through a variety of resources. SHPOs and local historic preservation organizations, including state or local Main Street programs, are the best place to begin if you have questions. Advice is available on the National Park Service website (www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/) or through many SHPO websites. Some people choose to hire a professional consultant, but for most small Main Street projects owners complete the process themselves. How long does it take to get approval of my proposed project? You should submit your rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) well in advance of beginning work – many states recommend six months prior – to allow time if additional information is needed by the SHPO or National Park Service. When original submittals contain sufficient information, reviews by the NPS are generally completed in 30 days, once received from the SHPO. When can I claim the tax credit? A credit may be claimed in the same year the building is placed in service. Where the building is never out of service, the credit is usually taken in the year in which the rehabilitation is completed. How are the Federal and local reviews different? Local commissions develop their own guidelines that are particular to the district and the community’s preservation goals. Under the Federal tax credit program, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are applied uniformly to projects from across the country. Work on both the exterior and the interior of a building is reviewed by the SHPO and NPS; while local review commissions generally only consider exterior work. Are there any application fees? It depends on the cost of your project. For information on current fees, visit our web address. To locate your State Historic Preservation Office visit www.ncshpo.org Monroe, MI 1910. Awnings were a prominent building feature on many of America’s Main Streets. Photo: Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University. Approval by the National Park Service for purposes of federal tax credits is a separate and different process from that of approval by a local architectural review commission for purposes of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. Frequently Asked Questions Drawing courtesy of Winter & Company Transom DisplayWindows Bulkhead StorefrontCornice RecessedEntry Arched Head Windows Building Cornice Typical Storefront Details 286 Beside the storefront, windows on the upper floors and the roof cornice usually help define the historic character of small commercial buildings. Repair historic windows when possible, adding exterior or interior storm windows as needed. If the historic windows are beyond repair, suitable replacements are ones that match the appearance and materials of the old units. Depending on the level of historic integrity, the interiors of Main Street commercial buildings on both the upper and lower floors often contribute to the historic character through their historic spaces, features, and/or finishes. Main Street buildings typically had a large open floorplan on all or part of the first floor, making it easily adaptable to numerous uses. While retaining the open plan is recommended, it may be possible to divide portions of the space, provided the sense of openness is preserved. Many commercial buildings retain their historic decorative ceilings, such as pressed metal, and their finished walls. These finished appearances should not be dramatically altered. Throughout the building avoid the removal of plaster to expose masonry walls or removing a pressed metal ceiling to expose the above floor joists. In most cases, mechanical ductwork is best concealed, rather than being left exposed, since exposed mechanicals can visually impact a historic space. When more floor space is needed, it is often possible to add to the rear of Main Street buildings and still qualify as a “certified rehabilitation.” Rooftop additions to most small commercial buildings are not appropriate. While costs associated with new additions are not eligible for the rehabilitation credit, the work is still reviewed by the National Park Service. Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Main Street Commercial Buildings Do you own a commercial building located in a historic district? Does it need to be fixed up? Will it be used for a business or rental housing? If you answered YES to all three questions, then you should be aware of a program that offers significant federal tax incentives for rehabilitating historic buildings. • • • The Program Administered by the National Park Service in conjunction with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program offers a 20% federal tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenses. Thousands of property owners across the country have already utilized these tax incentives to rehabilitate historic commercial buidings and similar properties. Why does the program exist? Recognizing the importance of preserving our building heritage and the need to encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated properties, Congress created in 1976 federal tax incentives to promote historic preservation and community revitalization. These tax incentives have successfully spurred the rehabilitation of historic structures of every period, size, style, and type. Tax Credit Basics In general, a tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. The amount of credit under this program equals 20% of the qualifying costs of your rehabilitation. A project must be “substantial” in that your qualifying rehabilitation expenses must exceed the greater of $5,000 or the adjusted basis of the building. Your building needs to be certified as a historic structure by the National Park Service. Rehabilitation work has to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as determined by the National Park Service. The process is straight-forward, and the tax savings can be significant. For example, a property owner planning a project estimated to cost $60,000 could realize a tax credit of $12,000 on their federal income taxes. Applicants are encouraged to consult their accountant or tax advisor to make sure that this federal tax credit is beneficial to them. For additional information visit the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives website of the National Park Service at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax and click on “IRS Connection.” • • • • • This booklet was prepared by Daniel Bruechert, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Heritage Preservation Service, National Park Service, with the assistance of Charles Fisher, National Park Service. Thanks are extended to Elizabeth Creveling and Jennifer Parker of the National Park Service for their collaboration and Michael Auer for his review. All photographs are from National Park Service files unless otherwise indicated. First-time user guides for owners of small buildings interested in the federal rehabilitation tax credits are prepared pursuant to the National Preservation Act, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning the preservation of historic properties. This and other guidance on rehabilitating small buildings can be found on our web site at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/ or by writing Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. 2008 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program was created to encourage the rehabilitation and re-use of historic structures while preserving the historic character of individual buildings and districts. Many historic districts in small towns and cities have Main Streets of small shops and other commercial buildings, typically one to four stories high. The variety of architectural styles reflects the popular taste of different eras and the image an entrepreneur wanted to project. The commercial storefront is usually one of the most significant elements of a Main Street building. In its simplest form, a storefront traditionally consisted of several display windows in a wood or metal frame, set above a bulkhead and below a glass transom, and an entranceway to the store on the first floor. It was also common for a second doorway to be located on one end of the storefront to provide access to the floors above. A sign and a canopy or awning often embellished the storefront. When the historic storefront has survived largely unaltered, it should be repaired whenever possible, rather than replaced, in order to preserve both the historic appearance and historic materials. Similarly, a later storefront installed during the historic district’s period of significance that may have acquired significance in its own right should be repaired. Where the existing storefront is not significant or has deteriorated beyond repair, the following guidance applies, in most cases, when designing a compatible replacement (for further guidance see Preservation Briefs 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts): Relate the new storefront to the design of the building. Correctly proportion display windows so as to consist predominantly of glass, typically with a transom above and bulkhead below. Retain, where possible, the location of the historic storefront entrances and any separate outside entrance to the upper floors. Duplicate the historic doors or replace with doors that are sized to the opening. (This usually requires a custom-made door to achieve the necessary height and width; avoid doors that have a residential appearance.) Ensure that replacement storefronts that aim to recapture the historic design are finished so as to be consistent with the historic appearance. With non- historic or replacement storefronts of a compatible design, avoid unpainted wood surfaces as well as in most cases bright metallic or bronze anodized metal finish. Design and attach signage and any canopies in a manner so as to avoid damage to the historic material and to be compatible with the features and appearance of the building facade. • • • • • Rehabilitating Your Main Street Building How is a tax credit different from a deduction? A tax credit usually saves you more in income tax. Unlike a deduction, which reduces your taxable income, a credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of taxes you owe. Can I receive federal tax credits for fixing up my personal residence? In general, the tax credits are not available for rehabilitating your personal home. If you live in the upper floor and rent out the first floor, the money spent on rehabilitating the rental portion can be used, provided you meet the adjusted basis test. Contact your State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the availability of any state credits or other tax incentives for personal residences. If I have already begun my project, is it too late to get the credit? As long as your building is in a registered historic district and you submit your Part 1 of the application prior to completing the project, then you may apply for the tax credits. However, you are strongly encouraged to submit rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) prior to construction. In doing so, you ensure that any required changes are identified early and the resulting cost and inconvenience are minimized. Can anyone help me through this process? Help is available through a variety of resources. SHPOs and local historic preservation organizations, including state or local Main Street programs, are the best place to begin if you have questions. Advice is available on the National Park Service website (www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/) or through many SHPO websites. Some people choose to hire a professional consultant, but for most small Main Street projects owners complete the process themselves. How long does it take to get approval of my proposed project? You should submit your rehabilitation plans (Part 2 of the application) well in advance of beginning work – many states recommend six months prior – to allow time if additional information is needed by the SHPO or National Park Service. When original submittals contain sufficient information, reviews by the NPS are generally completed in 30 days, once received from the SHPO. When can I claim the tax credit? A credit may be claimed in the same year the building is placed in service. Where the building is never out of service, the credit is usually taken in the year in which the rehabilitation is completed. How are the Federal and local reviews different? Local commissions develop their own guidelines that are particular to the district and the community’s preservation goals. Under the Federal tax credit program, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are applied uniformly to projects from across the country. Work on both the exterior and the interior of a building is reviewed by the SHPO and NPS; while local review commissions generally only consider exterior work. Are there any application fees? It depends on the cost of your project. For information on current fees, visit our web address. To locate your State Historic Preservation Office visit www.ncshpo.org Monroe, MI 1910. Awnings were a prominent building feature on many of America’s Main Streets. Photo: Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University. Approval by the National Park Service for purposes of federal tax credits is a separate and different process from that of approval by a local architectural review commission for purposes of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. Frequently Asked Questions Drawing courtesy of Winter & Company Transom DisplayWindows Bulkhead StorefrontCornice RecessedEntry Arched Head Windows Building Cornice Typical Storefront Details 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 1 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes from September 29, 2009 meeting Members Present:  Courtney Gunderson  Richard Brown  Mark Hufstetler (Chair)  Ryan Olson  Lora Dalton  Crystal Alegria Staff Liaison Present:  Courtney Kramer I. Call to order at 6:015 pm II. Approval of minutes from June 25, 2009 and August 27, 2009 meetings a. Richard Brown moves approval of minutes b. Lora Dalton seconds c. Motion pases III. Public Comment Period a. No members of the public attended the meeting IV. Project Review: a. Consider, discuss and make a recommendation to the Department of Planning and Community Development and City Commission regarding the application for demolition of the Osborne Block at 233-235 East Main Street i. CK notes that the Chief Building Official believes the west wall of the building can come down to allow new construction of the legion while leaving the remainder of the building intact. ii. MH was interviewed by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle today regarding the demolition application. The article will come out on Wednesday, September 30. iii. MH also spoke with Kate Hampton of the Montana Preservation Alliance, who recommended bringing in an outside engineer. 1. RB questions the validity of an engineering report done by a firm hired by the property owner. 2. CK notes that this is an issue the BHPAB and Planning Department has grappled with in the past. The BHPAB might consider pairing preservation board monies with MPA monies to apply for a National Trust grant, the application deadline for which is October 1. 299 2 3. The board members discuss that pop might not be the person to redevelop on the site. Pope can give every intention of wanting to, but still might sell it as a buildable lot. iv. MH notes that Kate Hampton will likely be at the October 7, 2009 Design Review Board meeting to speak as public comment. The majority of the MPA staff will be in Nashville for the National Trust conference the week of October 12. v. RO reminds the board members to consider the mission statement of the BHPAB, and to set aside personal feelings and empathies for the property owner and property. Members must adhere to the mission statement. vi. RB suggests that we should find a way to provide an avenue to Pope; would be a positive thing and an offer of help. vii. RO motions that the BHPAB chair draft a letter to be sent to the City of Bozeman Commission and Department of Planning and Community Development stating” “The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board recommends to the Department of Planning and the City Commission that the City of Bozeman allow selected demolition of the west wall of the Osborn Block, assuring structural integrity of the building is kept, to allow for construction of the Legion building to begin. We also recommend that a minimum six month stay of [total] demolition be enacted to allow alternative resources to be pursued and revaluation of the building’s structural integrity be completed with the help of the BHPAB and our resources on a local, state and federal level.” 1. LD seconds 2. No further discussion 3. Motion passes viii. BHPAB members begin to formulate a plan of action to help Chris Pope save the building. 1. CK will email the above text and minutes to MH ASAP. MH will draft letter and email it to everyone on the board. MH will add a paragraph about the building’s integrity and significance, and that the BHPAB wants to be proactive. CK will send letter to Commissioners and Chris Pope. 2. A BHPAB member will contact Chris Pope and ask to meet with him in order to review the BHPAB’s recommendation and ways the BHPAB can help. Will ask for a group tour of the building. BHPAB member will also communicate that the BHPAB will continue to try to make this a community discussion, and involve the MTPA and National Trust for Historic Preservation. a. CK suggests that Lesley would be the right person, but might be seen as a conflict of interest as she is a professional historic preservation architect. i. Anne as an alternative? ix. BHPAB members notes that the idea is to engage the community in the discussion, not scare them 300 3 V. Halloween Tour a. Looks like it is a go at 10am at the Bozeman Public Library or RMR @ 777 east main. CK will confirm with the BPL on Wednesday. b. We need to work on publicity for this. VI. Meeting Close at 7:20pm Action Items:  Ask Kate Hampton to ask the National Trust to extend the deadline for applying for grant money for the Osborn Block.  Ask MPA to ask one of their members (Maire O’Neil?) or chairs (Jim MacDonald) to speak at the October 12 meeting.  CK email MH minutes/ language for letter  MH type letter & email to BHPAB members and CK  CK get letter to commissioners & CP  CK ask Anne to contact Chris Pope  CK ask Amy May to write pre-Halloween article. 301 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT OSBORNE BLOCK DEMOLITION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA) #Z-09194 Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 1 Item: Zoning Application #Z-09194, a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with the application. The property is zoned as “B-3” (Central Business District) and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The property is legally described as 20 feet of the east section of Lot 8, Lot 9 and the 8.63 feet of the west section of Lot 10, Block D, Original Townsite, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana (accurate record on Film 87, Page 1210 and Film 88, Page 4185). Owner: Chinook Properties, LLC c/o Leandra Pope (sole member) 1508 S. Willson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant: Christopher Pope 1508 S. Willson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Date: Design Review Board Public Meeting: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room, Professional Stiff Building, 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer Recommendations: 1) Conditional approval of the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building); and 2) Issuance of a demolition permit for the remaining structure be stayed for three months to allow a team of historic preservation experts to continue review of the analysis collected by the property owner’s structural engineer, to further investigate funding opportunities available to the property owner to offset rehabilitation/preservation costs, and to present alternative solutions to the property owner’s for consideration. ____________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT LOCATION The subject property is addressed as 229-233 East Main Street and is 8,550 square feet in size (approximately 57 feet in width by 150 feet in depth). The property contains a two-story, masonry, commercial building that is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as “contributing” in the Main Street Historic District. It is one of two buildings that border the March 5, 2009 downtown Bozeman explosion site. 302 ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 District is to provide a central area for the community’s business, government service and cultural activities. The subject property is flanked by the March 5, 2009 gas explosion site to the west. Otherwise, the property is surrounded by a mix of business uses including banking services, retail businesses, restaurants and service establishments. All adjacent properties are zoned B-3. ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The property is designated as “Community Core” in the Bozeman Community Plan. The traditional core of Bozeman is the historic downtown. This area has an extensive mutually supportive diversity of uses, a strong pedestrian and multi-modal transportation network, and a rich architectural character. Essential government services, places of public assembly, and open spaces provide the civic and social core of town. Residential development on upper floors is well established. New residential uses should be high density. The area along Main Street should be preserved as a place for high pedestrian activity uses, with strong pedestrian connectivity to other uses on nearby streets. Users are drawn from the entire planning area and beyond. The intensity of development is high with a Floor Area Ratio well over 1. Future development should continue to be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent areas and preserving the historic character of Main Street. Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan speaks directly on the community’s historic preservation goals. The first goal states the following: “Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community’s identity, history, and quality of life.” One of the suggested objectives to achieve this goal is to “establish and encourage partnerships between preservation-related community groups and stakeholders to protect historically and culturally significant resources in a coordinated and cooperative manner.” PROJECT PROPOSAL The property owner Chinook Properties, LLC, and applicant Chris Pope, made formal application with the Department of Planning & Community Development for a Certificate of Appropriateness application. The application is requesting the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 2 303 District. No plans for new construction are proposed with this application. The proposed subsequent development is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. PROPERTY HISTORY1 The Osborne Block was constructed in 1882 and is the largest commercial building in the Main Street Historic District remaining from the early-1880’s building boom that accompanied the arrival of the railroad. The two- story, unreinforced masonry building is an example of the Italianate architectural style. It has a symmetrical façade with exception to the ground floor storefront which was altered on the west side (previously Starky’s Deli) with the removal of the recessed entry. The east side remains original with a recessed entry (previously Rocky Mountain Toy Company) and the recessed, central entrance for the second floor uses is also original. The upper story features seven arched windows, with two-over-two pane glazing. The windows have corbelled arches with keystones and stone lintels with carved bands running through the center. The brick construction features a decorative metal cornice. The commercial building was built by Dr. S.H. Osborne who followed the gold strikes to Colorado and Montana, eventually settling in Bozeman in 1871 and deciding to engage in his former business as a druggist. Osborne built the block in collaboration with Frank Harper, whose small 1973 brick blacksmith shop stands adjacent to the east (237 E. Main Street – Montana Gift Corral). The two buildings stood together as an isolated unit until the 1920’s, when 241 E. Main Street was built adjoining them to the east of Harper’s shop. The commercial building originally housed Osborne’s drug store and the Sebree, Ferris & White banking house on the first floor. On the second floor, the first occupants were the businesses of Eastman House and Imes & Hartman. Later occupants, in addition to Osborne’s drug business, included a hardware store through 1889, and beginning in 1890, a ladies hat store and a grocery and feed store. In 1891, an insurance company and the Northern Pacific express office were renting spaces in the second floor. Osborne and Harper built a nearly identical Italianate style building also in 1882 across the street for L.S. Willson & Co. However, that building was demolished prior to 1912 to allow for the construction of Hotel Baltimore (222-224 E. Main Street). In the morning of March 5, 2009, a gas explosion and subsequent 16-hour fire destroyed four commercial buildings in the 200 block of East Main Street. The addresses and historic information of the buildings destroyed are the following: 1) 209-215 E. Main, c. 1929, “Ellis, Davis and Sperling Block” (Rocking R Bar, Pickle Barrel & Boodles), 2) 219 E. Main, 1889-90, 1936, “Joyce Theatre” (Montana Trails Gallery), 3) 221-223 E. Main, c. 1891, “IOOF Hall” (Lily Lu, Tolstedt Architects), and 4) 225 E. Main, 1949, “Gallatin Post - American Legion” (Legion Bar and Hall). All buildings, with exception of the American Legion, were listed as “contributing” properties within the Main Street Historic District. Since the devastating explosion, the applicant Chris Pope has worked with a local team of professionals, including a structural engineer, architect and general contractor, to produce a work plan focused on structural repair efforts for the Osborne Block building. Emergency stabilization efforts were put in place at the expense of the property owner to reduce the public safety hazard of the building. A set of rehabilitation plans for the building were developed by the property owner’s structural engineer, also at the expense of the property owner, and are included within the applicant’s submittal materials. Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 3 304 REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS The Department of Planning & Community Development reviewed this Certificate of Appropriateness application against the relevant section of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and as a result offers the following initial comments. Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: A. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved prior to the demolition or moving permit may be issued. No plans for new construction are proposed with this demolition application. The proposed subsequent development, following the demolition of the Osborne Block building, is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. Historic preservation staff in the Department of Planning does not recommend approval of the Osborne Block demolition without a plan for subsequent reconstruction or new construction. Other alternatives for subsequent development can be explored by the team of local, state and federal preservation professionals during the requested demolition stay of three months. Rehabilitation of the existing structure and reconstruction of the existing structure are possible options. B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structure or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neural elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, and are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director after review and recommendation of Administrative Design Review staff or Design Review Board as per Chapters 18.34 and 18.62, BMC, and the standards outlined in Section 18.28.050, BMC. Not applicable, as the building proposed for demolition is designated as a “contributing” structure within the Main Street Historic District. C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to approval by the City Commission, through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.76, BMC. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The final authority for demolition or movement of structures or sites within this section shall rest with the City Commission. The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 4 305 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department. The application is requesting the demolition of the existing commercial building at 229-233 East Main Street, which is historically known as the “Osborne Block” and is listed as a contributing building in the Main Street Historic District. No plans for new construction are proposed with this application. The proposed subsequent development is leveling of the site to provide a clean lot bounded, where appropriate and as necessary, with an appropriate fence. Certificate of Appropriateness standards in Section 18.28.050 of the UDO do not apply because new construction is not proposed. Therefore, the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure and its relationship to the Main Street Historic District shall be considered prior to demolition. The Osborne Block was constructed in 1882 and is the largest commercial building in the Main Street Historic District remaining from the early-1880’s building boom that accompanied the arrival of the railroad. The building did sustain damage from the March 5, 2009 gas explosion. However, the building is determined by historic preservation staff within the Department of Planning as retaining its significant historic architectural features that is the reason for obtaining contributing status within the Main Street Historic District. The other buildings within the district that were constructed during the same time period as the Osborne Block, and have retained their historic integrity2, are 1 E. Main Street (Bridger Kitchens), 29 E. Main Street (Plonk Wine Bar), and 240-246 E. Main Street (Barrel Mountaineering/Homepage Coffee/Pita Pit). The Avant Courier building’s, 1 E. Main Street, second floor is the only part of the building dating from the early 1880’s. 29 E. Main Street is also an example of 1880’s Italianate architecture, but is much smaller in scale in comparison to the Osborne Block. The Spieth and Krug Brewery building, 240-246 E. Main Street, is the closest example of building construction and style to the Osborne Block. Therefore, the demolition of the Osborne Block removes an extremely significant building from the Main Street Historic District as it is one of only two examples of larger Italianate architecture built in the early 1880’s. The Main Street Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the City of Bozeman in the late 1980’s. The district is a collective example of significant commercial and architectural development in Bozeman between 1870 and 1937. Removal of buildings through demolition or inappropriate alteration negatively affects the integrity and strength of the historic district listing. In contrast, appropriate rehabilitation positively affects the integrity and strength of the historic district listing. Over the last twenty years, both examples have occurred within the district boundaries, most recently with the loss of three contributing buildings from the gas explosion on March 5, 2009. Because of its individual historic significance and its important relationship to the Main Street Historic District, the proposed demolition of the Osborne Block is found by ADR staff and the Department of Planning to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The criteria of this section are not satisfied. 2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 5 306 a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. The applicant’s COA application includes a variety of materials that partially address the criteria of this subsection. Walker Construction’s bid estimate for the building rehabilitation plans, prepared by Nishkian Monks Structural Engineers, is included and totals at approximately 1.7 million dollars. The total excludes some additional work items, including sidewalk improvements, water line upgrades, asbestos abatement, and the construction of the common/shared wall between the Osborne Block building and future American Legion building (to the west). The applicant estimates these costs at 300 to 350 thousand dollars, bringing the total cost of rehabilitation to 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars. It is important to note that only one bid estimate for the rehabilitation plans was considered by the applicant. Potentially, a lower total could be obtained if the rehabilitation plans received multiple bids. As previously mentioned, subsequent new construction is not proposed with this demolition application. However, the applicant did provide a “guesstimate” on the costs of new construction in an attempt to address the criteria of this subsection. New construction costs were formulated around a plan where the new building is the same size as the existing structure. Estimated rates per square foot, based on shell construction and interior finishes, produced a total of approximately 2.3 million dollars. This total does not include costs affiliated with pre-construction preparation of the site, which would include demolition costs. It is important to note that this estimate is highly variable because it does not include demolition costs and it is not linked to specific construction plans that are prepared by a professional designer. Obtaining more detailed and accurate cost estimates is the type of information that could be obtained by the team of preservation experts during the recommended three month demolition stay. The Department of Planning is somewhat concerned with the accuracy of the cost estimates presented in the application comparing rehabilitation to new construction. Rehabilitation costs could be more accurate if a group of bids were received and an average was formulated. New construction costs could be more accurate if they were linked to actual construction plans prepared by a design professional. However, when the cost estimates are considered they clearly demonstrate that the cost of building rehabilitation is less than the cost of demolition and new construction. The materials in the application also contain information pertaining to the building’s threat to public health or safety. Letters from Bob Risk, City of Bozeman Chief Building Official, and Ty Monks, Principal Engineer of Nishkian Monks Structural Engineers, both identify the existing structure sustained damage from the March 5, 2009 explosion that caused the building to become a threat to public health and safety. The Department of Planning agrees with this conclusion. However, it is important to note how the applicant performed preliminary stabilization of the structure following the explosion to address the immediate public safety concerns of the Building Department. It is also crucial to consider the level of detriment to the community that occurs with the loss of a significant building in the Main Street Historic District. Historic preservation creates a bond between a community and its citizens.3 The historic downtown was identified by Bozeman residents as one of the community’s most important amenities and assets.4 Demolition of a part of this amenity removes the community’s connection to it and can potentially cause citizens to consider moving to a different community. Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 6 307 The next part of the demolition criteria asks the consideration between costs of reasonable repairs or alterations, which removes the threat to public safety, to the value of the structure. As previously mentioned, the estimated cost of building rehabilitation is 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars. This estimate is for the entire building’s rehabilitation. The applicant received one appraisal for the property. The existing structure, once repaired and rehabilitated, was appraised at approximately 1.5 million dollars. The land which the structure sits upon was appraised as approximately 300 thousand dollars. This creates a total value of 1.8 million dollars for the property. The applicant concludes the cost of repair and rehabilitation “significantly exceeds the current market value of the structure.” The Department of Planning makes the argument that both the building and land on which it resides creates the total market value of the property. Therefore, the rehabilitation cost of 2.0 to 2.05 million dollars is 10 to 12 percent more than the market value of the property. ADR staff finds the cost of repair and rehabilitation as slightly exceeding the current market value of the property. Another important point linked with this discussion should be identified; the question was not raised by the applicant whether a portion of the total building rehabilitation could occur to adequately address the Building Department’s immediate concerns of public safety with regards to the building. There is the chance that minor, inexpensive repairs could occur to address the Building Department’s identified concerns. In addition to the information discussed above, the applicant states his great personal concern with the fact that the Nishkian Monks’ rehabilitation plans do not meet the seismic regulations in the City’s adopted building code. Ty Monks letter clearly explains why this is the reality; it lies in the ability to take exemptions from the building code for existing, or historic, structures. The International Existing Building Code (IEBC), a part of the City’s adopted International Building Code (IBC), provides exemptions for historic structures. Nishkian Monks’ proposed repair and rehabilitation will restore (and some could argue exceed) the Osborne Block building’s pre-blast level of safety and pass all IEBC provisions so that the building is legally abiding to the City’s adopted building code. Nishkian Monk’s primarily focused their plans on structural repair efforts rather than any structural improvements to the historic Osborne Block building. Therefore, plans for a seismic retrofit of the building, so that it meets current seismic regulations, were not developed. The applicant is anticipating the costs of a seismic retrofit to greatly increase the costs of a rehabilitation project so that it far exceeds the market value of the property and becomes financially doable. The Technical Preservation Services division of the National Park Service publishes a line entitled “Preservation Briefs.” Each brief focuses on an item of technical expertise that can arise with a historic structure. Preservation Brief #41 focuses on the seismic retrofit of historic buildings. The authors state “the most appropriate approach for a particular historic building will depend on a variety of factors, including the building’s use, whether it remains occupied during construction, applicable codes, budgetary constraints, and projected risk of damage.” They continue to state “From a design perspective, the vast majority of historic buildings can tolerate a well-planned hidden system of reinforcement. The Preservation brief provides four classifications of seismic retrofit. Realistically, for historic buildings, only the first three categories apply: 1) Basic Life Safety: This addresses the most serious life-safety concerns by correcting those deficiencies that could lead to serious human injury or total building collapse. Upgrades may include bracing and tying the most vulnerable elements of the building, such as parapets, chimneys, and projecting ornamentation or reinforcing routes of exit. It is expected that if an earthquake were to occur, the building would not collapse but would be seriously damaged requiring major repairs. 2) Enhanced Life Safety: In this approach, the building is upgraded using a flexible approach to the building codes for moderate earthquakes. Inherent deficiencies found in older buildings, such as poor floor to wall framing connections and unbraced masonry walls would be Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 7 308 corrected. After a design level earthquake, some structural damage is anticipated, such as masonry cracking, and the building would be temporarily unusable. 3) Enhanced Damage Control: Historic buildings are substantially rehabilitated to meet, to the extent possible, the proscribed building code provision. Some minor repairable damage would be expected after a major earthquake. 4) Immediate Occupancy: This approach is intended for designated hospitals and emergency preparedness centers remaining open and operational after a major earthquake. Even most modern buildings do not meet this level of construction, and so for a historic building to meet this requirement, it would have to be almost totally reconstructed of new materials which, philosophically, do not reflect preservation criteria.5 Each property owner has to weigh the costs and benefits of undertaking seismic retrofit. Owners may find that an extended engineering study evaluating a wide range of options is worthwhile. Not only can such a study consider the most sensitive historic preservation solution, but the most cost-effective one as well.6 The Department of Planning is recommending a three month stay on issuance of a demolition permit for the Osborne Block building. Planning Staff believes that this time is a reasonable amount of time to continue the structural analysis of the building and obtain factual information on the costs of a seismic retrofit, and the plusses and minuses linked with such a massive structural improvement to a historic building. After reviewing the application, the Department of Planning recognizes that the applicant did not investigate any financial incentives or grants that could assist in the rehabilitation of the historic structure. Several financial incentives are potentially available for the rehabilitation of the Osborne Block building because it is a contributing building within the Main Street Historic District. Incentives are made available for historic preservation projects to help offset costs linked with appropriate rehabilitation. The three month stay provides time for the team of preservation experts to explore all potential incentives available and actively pursue them (for example, write a preservation grant application for the benefit of the property owner and applicant). It also allows time to see what, if any, federal appropriations are awarded to the City of Bozeman for the redevelopment of the explosion site (expected to hear in late October 2009). Some examples of these potential “pots of money” are the following: 1) 20% federal tax credit for the rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings, 2) HB 645 Stimulus Bill Historic Preservation Grants – request up to 250 thousand dollars, 3) National Trust for Historic Preservation grants, and 4) Federal appropriation requests for the redevelopment of the explosion site and the preservation of the damaged buildings – original request of 1.5 million dollars. (Note: Seismic strengthening is considered an allowable expense in historic rehabilitation projects as long as the plans meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation). D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C of this section. The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following two recommendations for the Osborne Block COA demolition request: 1. Conditional approval for the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building); and Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 8 309 2. Issuance of a demolition permit for the remaining structure be stayed for three months to allow a team of historic preservation experts to continue review of the analysis collected by the property owner’s structural engineer, to further investigate funding opportunities available to the property owner to offset rehabilitation/preservation costs, and to present alternative solutions to the property owner’s for consideration. Though the code allows the Commission to consider a two year stay for demolition permits, the Department of Planning recommends a stay of just three months. ADR and historic preservation staff recognizes the fact that winter weather is approaching the community and it is in no interest to the historic and structural integrity of the building to have it withstand weather elements for an entire winter without actions of protection. Staff additionally recognizes the benefit of combining local, state and federal historic preservation professionals to consider additional alternatives to complete demolition of the Osborne Block building. At this time, the organizations willing to participate in an exploration of alternatives are the following: 1) Bozeman Department of Planning, 2) Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, 3) Montana State Historic Preservation Office, 4) Montana Preservation Alliance, and 5) National Trust for Historic Preservation. E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request, several conditions of approval are included in Planning staff’s recommendation to mitigate the loss of the Osborne Block building. Those conditions include the Level II of HABS/HAER documentation. F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64, BMC, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request. PUBLIC COMMENT No letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application. If public comment is received after the preparation of this report, it will be forwarded to the Design Review Board prior to the public meeting for consideration. RECOMMENDATION The demolition of contributing properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing, after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR) Planning staff and the Design Review Board (DRB). The application also required a review by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The application was scheduled for a one-week review by the DRC at their standard meeting time on October 7, 2009. The application was scheduled for review as a special meeting for the DRB on October 7, 2009. The Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 9 310 groups’ recommendations will be forwarded to the City Commission for their consideration at their public hearing on October 12, 2009. ADR Staff also took the application to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) for their professional recommendations. A special meeting was held September 29, 2009 for the board’s review. The Board made the following recommendation: “The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board recommends to the Department of Planning and the City Commission that the City of Bozeman allow selected demolition of the west wall of the Osborne Block, assuring structural integrity of the building is kept, to allow construction of the Legion building to begin. We also recommend that a minimum six month stay of [total] demolition be enacted to allow alternative resources to be pursued and revaluation of the building’s structural integrity be completed with the help of the BHPAB and our resources on a local, state and federal level.” Planning Staff considered the HPAB’s recommendation before making the recommendation as presented in this report. The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following two recommendations for the Osborne Block COA demolition request: 1. Conditional approval for the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building); and 2. Issuance of a demolition permit for the remaining structure be stayed for three months to allow a team of historic preservation experts to continue review of the analysis collected by the property owner’s structural engineer, to further investigate funding opportunities available to the property owner to offset rehabilitation/preservation costs, and to present alternative solutions to the property owner’s for consideration. The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City Commission. They are discussed in the following section. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL If the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building) is supported by the City Commission, Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. A written statement prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which explains the structural stabilization in place to ensure that the demolition of the west wall (common/shared wall) will not structurally impair or cause further damage to the remaining exterior walls, floor systems and roof systems of the existing structure. 2. The applicant must make proper application and receive approval for a demolition permit by the Building Department. If complete demolition of the Osborne Block building is supported by the City Commission, Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall complete Level II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property. The documentation should follow the most current version of the HABS/HAER Standards published by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Bozeman Planning Department prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit. The documentation shall include high-resolution digital copies (in TIFF format) of all non-text documentation and a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF version of the written narrative. Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 10 311 2. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, which includes the following information: 1) phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations, 2) a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase, 3) the proposed protection plan for the three, existing boulevard trees in front of the building, and 4) security measures in place to prevent damage or destruction to the adjacent building to the east (237 East Main Street). 3. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Convent building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the demolition request. This recommendation of documentation is included as the first condition of approval for the complete demolition. Planning Staff also presents one additional mitigation strategy for the City Commission’s consideration, listed below. Mitigation is an attempt to lessen the impact of losing the National Register listed building. a. The applicant shall provide a cash contribution, amount determined by the City Commission, to the City of Bozeman’s upcoming update to the City’s Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory update. The City of Bozeman is planning for a future update to the City Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file. The initial plan is for a three-year phased update, with each year budgeted for $150,000. The contribution obtained from this project could go directly to a Main Street Historic District inventory update. CONCLUSION The March 5, 2009 gas explosion in historic downtown Bozeman was a devastating event for the community. It can be agreed by many that there is a vital need and desire to begin the redevelopment process. The new American Legion building site plan received final approval by the Department of Planning in September 2009 and the construction drawings received final approval by the Building Department shortly thereafter. It is in the City of Bozeman’s best interest to encourage appropriate rebuilding on the explosion site. Therefore, the Department of Planning is recommending to the City Commission as a part of this application the conditional approval of the demolition of the existing structure’s west wall (the shared/common wall between 229-233 East Main Street and 225 East Main Street – American Legion building demolition of the common/shared wall between the American Legion building and Osborne Block building. Over the last two decades, the City of Bozeman has implemented a historic preservation program to protect the community’s historically and culturally significant resources. The Bozeman Community Plan states how the City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The Community Plan continues to state the City’s mission in regards to historic preservation: carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.7 It is because of the sudden and unexpected loss of four buildings within our Main Street Historic District, from the downtown explosion, that historic preservation goals and objectives are more important than ever. “Preservationists are often accused of opposing demolition of any and all buildings. In fact, few, if any, preservationists have that attitude. But preservationists often take the position that demolition permit should not be issued without knowing what is going to built instead, and without having some surety that the proposed construction project will, in fact, go forward if the demolition is approved.”8 Considering demolition of a historic structure before all alternatives are weighed and balanced, including investigating financial incentives that can decrease the financial realities of rehabilitation, is not striving toward the community’s goal of promoting historic resources for their continued survival. It is at this time of important redevelopment for Bozeman’s historic Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 11 312 Osborne Block Demolition COA (#Z-09194) 12 downtown that private, public and non-profit partnerships should be encouraged and explored. Therefore, the Department of Planning is recommending the issuance of a demolition permit for the Osborne Block structure be stayed for three months to allow a team of historic preservation experts to continue review of the analysis collected by the property owner’s structural engineer, to further investigate funding opportunities available to the property owner to offset rehabilitation/preservation costs, and to present alternative solutions to the property owner and applicant for consideration. Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory file for 229-233 E. Main Street “Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings,” a National Trust publication “Preservation Briefs #41,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication “Introduction to Federal Tax Credits for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Main Street Commercial Buildings,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service publication The Economics of Historic Preservation, “Chapter 9: Historic Preservation and Building Economics,” by Donovan D. Rypkema Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Report Sent To: Leandra Pope & Christopher Pope, 1508 S. Willson Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 1 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, “229-231 E. Main,” 1985 revision, Matt Cohen surveyor. 2 Historic integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period. Historic integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Bozeman Community Plan, “Chapter 5: Historic Preservation, most recent edition June 1, 2009. 3 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,” Donovan D. Rypkema. 4 City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan, “Chapter III: Economic Profile of Bozeman,” Prospera Business Network and City of Bozeman, 2009. 5 Preservation Briefs 41, “The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, October 1997. 6 Ibid. 7 Bozeman Community Plan, “Chapter 5: Historic Preservation, most recent edition June 1, 2009. 8 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,” Donovan D. Rypkema. 313 314 September 30, 2009 To the Bozeman City Commission: On September 29th, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board held a special meeting to discuss the proposed demolition of the Osborne Block on East Main. Individually and as a group, we recognize the complexity of this difﬁcult situation, and the need to balance the issues of historic preservation, economic viability, and public safety. We also recognize, though, that the Main Street explosion last March has already caused tremendous economic and structural losses to the heart of our community, and we believe that it is extremely important to do our practical best to safeguard what remains. We further believe that the retention of the Osborne Block can be accomplished without hindering reconstruction of other buildings at the blast site, and that alternative approaches to the rehabilitation of the building which are more ﬁscally sound may exist. Accordingly, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board recommends to the Department of Planning and the City Commission that the City of Bozeman allow selected demolition of only the west wall of the Osborne Block, as needed to allow for construction of the American Legion building to begin. This demolition must be undertaken in a way that will not further degrade the structural integrity of the remainder of the building. We also recommend that a minimum six-month stay of further demolition be enacted to allow alternatives to be pursued, and to allow re- evaluation of the building’s structural integrity. The Board stands ready to assist in this endeavor, in conjunction with other historic preservation resources available to us at the local, state and federal levels. We hope you will recognize the tremendous loss to our community that would be caused by the destruction of the Osborne Block, and understand that our Board’s goal is to search for a proactive, positive solution to this issue. We strongly request that you defer demolition of this very important building. Sincerely, Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Mark Hufstetler, Chair 315 1 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Wall called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:34 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Elissa Zavora Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Randy Wall Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Walter Banziger Bill Rea Visitors Present Thomas Bitnar Chris Pope Bob Risk ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 MOTION: Ms. Zavora moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of September 10, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Osborne Block Demolition COA/ADR #Z-09194 (Bristor) 229-233 East Main Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of a contributing structure within the Main Street Historic District. Chris Pope and Thomas Bitnar joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor introduced Bob Risk, Chief Building Official. She presented the Staff Report noting she would be somewhat brief with her presentation as Staff’s review of the criteria was very detailed. She noted the applicant was requesting the demolition of the existing building historically known as the Osborne Block building (Starky’s and Rocky Mountain Toy Co.). She noted the building was a contributing structure within the Main Street Historic District. She noted the building was constructed in 1882 and the largest commercial building left on Main Street from the 1880’s; which was the building boom that happened to the community with the arrival of the railroad. She stated the structure was built by S.H. Osborne. She noted four buildings were lost in the March explosion, three of which were also contributing to the Main Street Historic District; she 2 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 added the removal of contributing buildings can eventually cause a threat to the district nomination and listing. She stated the applicable sections of the Unified Development Ordinance had been laid out in the Staff Report. She stated new construction had not been included with the application for demolition. She stated the applicant had invested his money in stabilization of the building for the purpose of public safety and included a shoring wall and a blocked sidewalk in front of the structure. She noted Staff was supportive of the demolition of the shared wall between the structure and the Legion building due to the amount of damage the wall had incurred in the explosion. She noted Staff had recommended the complete demolition be stayed for a period of three months to allow for further investigation of alternatives to demolition and of funding avenues available for rehabilitation. She stated she could go through the criteria in detail if the DRB thought it was necessary. Mr. Rea asked, if in terms of inventory, what was involved in finding out the balance of contributing to non-contributing structures. Planner Bristor responded she was in the process of updating the list of properties as inventoried in 1984 with 49 contributing properties and 19 non- contributing properties; she noted 1870-1937 was the date range of significance for the district. 1937 was selected as it was 50 years since the last inventory had been completed. The update through a windshield survey would be Planning Staff recognizing non-contributing structures that had been modified to contributing structures (she cited the Golden Rule Building) or vice versa. She stated her suggestion was to apply for a 4,000 grant to update the Main Street Historic District Inventory so that a new clean slate could be started from. Mr. Rea asked the advantage of being recognized as a district was the grants available. Planner Bristor responded the advantage was the qualification for federal tax credits which was only available to significant income producing structures. She added that eventually the TIF district would be able to provide grants for downtown business owners. Mr. Hufstetler commended Staff on their detailed and comprehensive pile of PDF files. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked the result of the review of the DRC. Planner Bristor responded two additional conditions of approval had emerged from the Engineering and Water/Sewer departments; she noted they were pretty standard conditions. Mr. Risk added the conditions were for the full demolition and not just for the west wall demolition. Planner Bristor responded Staff was fine with the west wall being demolished as a true emergency issue. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if the issue at hand was also that the west wall was holding up construction of the new American Legion building. Planner Bristor responded Mr. Wall was correct. Chris Pope, 1508 South Willson Avenue, stated his family owned the building and he was not the owner of record, he was representing his mother. He introduced Thomas Bitnar, 502 South Grand Avenue. He stated he wanted to clarify what information was relevant to how the DRB needed to review the project. Planner Bristor responded the DRB typically looks at the design of a new building but in this case, the DRB is charged to make specific comments to the appropriateness of the demolition. Mr. Pope thanked the Board and noted that he was here with a heavy heart and stated he was a building owner. He stated he was not in a proactive 3 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 prescriptive mode, rather a reactive mode. He stated the structure seemed beyond repair from a safety and monetary point of view. He stated they had been working for seven months and have spent more than $100,000 on securing the building and putting together a comprehensive plan to patch the building together for the next 50 years. He noted the sad conclusion, based on the available data that the fundamental structural integrity of the building had been severely compromised and would not be able to repair the building. He stated the bid is 1.7 million dollars to rehab the building, not including the rest of the necessary improvements. He stated he had continuously had tenants in the building and since the time of the explosion, he had hired Nishkian Monks and Thomas Bitnar. He stated they had attempted to work very hard on keeping the structure standing, but the economics of the structure itself was appraised at roughly 1.5 million dollars (plus a land value of approximately $300,000) and the total cost would be nearly 2 million dollars. He stated Ty at Nishkian Monks had explained that everything had been done that could be done to put the building back together and the seismic code would not be even remotely addressed in the plan. He stated he had begun thinking that after having spent a significant amount of money; he would have to scramble to find the funding which would be difficult as building owners instead of developers. He noted the seismic aspect of the structure could not be included in a safe way and he would not be comfortable putting tenants into a structure that could be affected by strong winds or seismic activity. He stated the historic nature of the building did not require seismic requirements be met; he stated it was not in his immediate interest to demolish the west wall of the structure, but he had been asked to request the demolition by the Legion so that their approved Site Plan was not held up. He stated from an economic and safety point of view, the building would not even have the most minor seismic stability. He stated the building could be pinned back together, but it would cost him roughly 2 million dollars and noted Ty Monks had mentioned that in the event of seismic activity the building would not remain stable. He stated half of the roof would be replaced, the electric and plumbing would be removed, metal plates would be included on the front of the building to prevent it from falling on Main Street. He stated his building designed with Mr. Bitnar and Mr. Monk’s help would need to be completely redesigned and he couldn’t sign feel comfortable signing a long term lease under those unsafe conditions. He stated Mr. Bitnar was chomping at the bit to design a new structure for the downtown area. Mr. Bitnar presented color renderings of a possible new design of the building which likely reflects how it looked in 1880. Mr. Pope noted there was substantial concern that the building would not satisfy Life Safety Standards. He noted the façade was of brick and the layers had separated (due to the explosion) so much that the connecting bricks broke in half; he noted it was made of adobe and did not have much integrity. He noted that if there was the ability to pin the façade back together while seismic requirements were met, the costs would be close to that of construction of a new structure. He stated he would be cooperative with City Staff with regard to finding a historical engineer to see if the front façade could be saved and he would collaborate with whatever the Commission decided. Mr. Bitnar stated he had seen the Nishkian Monks plan and had noted the steel included in the plan for shoring up the structure would affect the historic integrity of the interior and cause difficulty in renting the property. He stated the aesthetic appearance of the structure would 4 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 suffer and framing the interior would increase the cost of the renovations. He stated he thought he could do better with the removal of the structure and new reconstruction. He stated for the sake of the future there should be quality facades on Main Street and in the alley. He stated the owner of the building almost cried at the results of the studies and a stimulus package or monetary help in some other manner could help the applicant accomplish their goals. Mr. Risk stated that for the most part, he agreed with Mr. Pope’s comments, but with historical buildings the seismic requirements existed, but were minimal. He stated the applicant would end up with a building comparable in safety to the other buildings on Main Street. He stated the question was how practical it would be to throw 2 million dollars into a building that would be no safer than what existed. He stated that immediately after the explosion he had inspected the structure and had documented the damage at that time. He stated he had noticed significant changes during a site visit to the property at the end of August and the damages were increasing. He stated the outer layer of brick was coming loose and had worked loose in a way that caused fractures that were gradually prying the building apart. He suggested the facia could be repaired and steel plates could be included but would not be a guarantee that the building would remain unharmed. He stated he agreed that reconstruction would be more practical and noted anything could be repaired it would just be a matter of how much money the owner would like to spend on it, he added that it was not his charge to make such a recommendation. Planner Bristor asked if the apartments upstairs in the structure had been up to code prior to the explosion and asked if the end product of renovation would actually exceed the previous building’s level of code standards. Mr. Risk responded Planner Bristor was correct and added that everything new would need to conform to current code including egress for upstairs apartments. Mr. Bitnar stated he had spoken with the Building Department in the past regarding the interior stairs and they had indicated the stairs would likely need to be relocated to add a landing. Mr. Risk mentioned that the historic building code could likely make exceptions to that. Mr. Pope added that their approach had been to build and be proactive toward the goal of safety; he stated it was not about building code upgrades, but about seismic requirements. Mr. Rea asked Mr. Risk the location of the shoring wall. Mr. Risk explained it was 5 feet from the west all along the whole length from Main Street to the alley. Mr. Rea asked if the common wall between the Legion and this building was located on the property line. Mr. Pope responded the wall was split on the property line. Mr. Hufstetler asked when the current seismic code had been enacted. Mr. Risk responded the current code had been adopted in 2007 and was the 2006 IBC which includes seismic code regulations; he added the building code book from 1937 included handwritten notes taped inside the document and that was as far back as he could say with certainty. Mr. Hufstetler asked which buildings in town had been retrofitted to meet seismic requirements. Planner Bristor responded the Williams Clothier building had been significantly rehabilitated in the mid 1990’s but the seismic requirements had changed significantly since that time. Mr. Hufstetler stated the applicant had been willing to discuss options for saving the façade and asked Mr. Pope if that 5 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 willingness was congruent with Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Pope responded that outside of getting his bank off his radar due to his mortgage, his financing was dependent on how much had been invested in the mortgage; he noted inside the agreement to demolish the structure, he would allow any entity to be involved that wanted to participate. He stated he would say yes to the 90 stay on the demolition as suggested by Staff and professionals would be sought. He stated he needed something in writing that in a reasonable time (12/31/09) there would be an explicit decision made with regard to the property. He stated the big problem for him being unaware of what and when a decision would be made; he added the rest of the world had not had the opportunity to study the pertinent data. He stated he did not want to see the building left as it is for 3 ½ months. Mr. Hufstetler asked if allowance of the demolition of the building in 2010 would help Mr. Pope decide whether or not the structure would be demolished. Mr. Pope responded the uncertainty would throttle him financially. Mr. Hufstetler stated he’s becoming more concerned about the survival of the building’s east wall and his concern was that the building to the east was older; he asked if there was a possibility of keeping the east wall. Mr. Pope responded that his sense was that the east wall should remain; he noted in keeping the wall they would take another hit financially and hopefully the wall could be used in anther context. Mr. Bitnar concurred. Mr. Risk added that it had been his understanding all along that the east wall would be salvaged. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of three months with nothing going on at the site was not what the applicant was seeking. Planner Bristor responded Ms. Zavora was correct. Ms. Zavora asked if the three month stay was to allow time to seek funding. Planner Bristor responded Ms. Zavora was correct and noted Mr. Risk and Mr. Pope’s concerns about a six month stay. Ms. Zavora asked if Mr. Pope was seeking more immediate allowance for demolition. Mr. Pope responded he would prefer to go to City Commission on Monday as scheduled and if conditions were placed on the proposal that clearly laid out a specific timeline he would be more definitive instead of in limbo. Planner Bristor responded that the condition read that no demolition would occur on the site, but if demolition were approved, conditions of approval would be included. She clarified that the intent of the code for demolition was the City’s way of guaranteeing that nothing happened without City approval. She added that if the City Commission agreed to the three month stay, at the end of three months, the application would be picked up where it was left off; if the approval included approval of demolition after three months, no further review would be necessary. She noted the Commission could choose to delay the proposal as a whole. Mr. Pope added that he had attempted to find rational and reasonable decisions to provide for things to happen in a reasonable amount of time. He stated he would not attempt to formulate a fix and a path and if it was turned into a study by the community, and murky and difficult decision point might be forthcoming and he was not supportive of that method. He stated he did not think he had the energy and horsepower to go through the investigation he had gone through recently again. Ms. Zavora asked if it was his intention to sell the building. Mr. Pope responded that he did not want to make that threat, but he was not confident that he was the person to do the job. Mr. Bitnar stated a preliminary study had been completed for new construction and had included square footage estimates; he added he knew they were ready for new construction and there would have to be apartments included in the proposal. 6 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 Mr. Banziger asked Planner Bristor how the west wall removal fit into a stay on the demolition permit. Planner Bristor responded the west wall would be approved for demolition, but there would be a stay on any future/other demolition of the site. Mr. Banziger asked if gutting the entire building behind the façade was being considered. Mr. Pope responded he was intending to keep the façade. Mr. Banziger asked if Mr. Pope’s estimates for restoration included the façade work. Mr. Pope responded the demolition itself would cost roughly $80,000-$250,000 (based on recent bids) and the façade renovation had not received estimates. Mr. Risk added the State should be contacted in case they would have concerns with the façade remaining against a State jurisdictional roadway (Main Street). Mr. Banziger asked the cost for rebuilding in that location. Mr. Pope responded the cost had been estimated by the square foot costs and a rough estimate would be 2.3 – 2.5 million dollars to rebuild with bare bones items. Mr. Bitnar noted the brick and mortar of the building was not as good as new construction. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant had considered current Historic Preservation stimulus grants. Mr. Pope responded the grant had been discussed, but he did not foresee the money as being a problem; he noted his primary concern was the seismic code and structural integrity. Planner Bristor asked for clarification of the demolition bid. Mr. Pope responded the bid had not been included in his application materials as the bid had only occurred during the last week; he noted demolition and preconstruction preparation had not been included in his estimate for new construction. Ms. Zavora asked if the demolition permit were issued, would Mr. Pope still be eligible for grants. Planner Bristor responded the description of the demolition could be emergent in nature and preservation money may be available for just a front façade renovation, though she couldn’t say for certain and the Commission action would need to be clearly described in the grant application. Mr. Pope stated that if on the 31st of December, he was no longer sitting in front of the Board, the agreement would need to be as clearly stated and as nicely put together as possible as an agreement between the City and the building owner. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were some sort of offer to purchase the building after demolition what would happen to the site. Planner Bristor responded the conditions linked to the approval of the demolition would still be held to the new property owner. Mr. Pope responded he would be at the table for the project for at least the three month/120 days stay period or until the proposal was nailed down. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked why asbestos testing or abatement had been excluded. Mr. Pope responded there was no asbestos evident in the structure and he had written confirmation of that. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated that Chapter 9 of the Economics of Historic Preservation that had been included in their packets explained that a high quality new structure would likely cost more than rehabilitation of a historic structure and asked Mr. Pope if he thought he would build a high quality structure. Mr. Pope responded there was only an estimate. Mr. Risk added that he thought the estimate could be close to the real costs. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if it was a fair statement to assume it would be a simple project as just a box. Mr. Pope responded he thought it was. 7 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated he had reviewed everything that was sent to him and he asked a lot of questions that had been answered by Planner Bristor and Mr. Risk. He stated he thought there were two issues before the Board; does the building stay and be renovated or does it get demolished. He stated he thought the purpose of the DRB was to look at the proposal from an aesthetics point of view; could retrofitting be accomplished, it would not be just the façade. He stated he had been in plenty of old buildings with a lot of metal in them and his suggestion would be to recommend on whether or not the building should stay or if they were alright with the building being demolished. Mr. Banziger stated it was a tough call and he certainly understood the applicant’s position as he would want definition of what the demolition permit would mean. He stated he was always looking at trying to save a historic building and he thought the applicant had a good team. He noted the applicant had been very cooperative and pushing a full retrofit for the structure would cost a substantial amount of money that he did not think a private citizen should be put in that position. Ms. Zavora stated she saw the applicant was seeking to do the right thing and spent seven months in an effort to investigate methods of saving the building. She stated she could respect the applicant’s desire to bring the structure into seismic compliance and she thought that was commendable. She stated she was supportive of the request for demolition. Mr. Hufstetler stated that in his mind, this is not just another contributing building, but one of the oldest on Main Street and the largest from that era. He noted to his mind it was one of the most important buildings on Main Street; he noted nothing of that heritage would be left in Bozeman if demolition occurred. He stated he was extremely concerned that the seismic issue was being used as a vehicle for demolition; if the seismic rule was enforced ethically, every historic building in town would need to be demolished. He suggested setting the precedent would cause issues with future Planning processes. He stated he was concerned with the timeline with which the project was being reviewed and the decision was being pushed to cause a reactive as opposed to proactive situation. He suggested it was not an either or situation but instead a situation where as much of the building as possible should be saved. He stated the town’s legacy would be preserved with the preservation of the structure; he added that as a pragmatist, he would like to see the parts of the buildings that identify with the town “legacy” be maintained as a heritage. Mr. Rea stated that Building code did not protect a building, but the lives and safety of the occupants in the building. The building had performed well in the guise of the code; he noted the building was wildly out of compliance and had still performed. He stated the Uniform Building Code had loosened some of the restrictions and the level of concern in Mr. Pope’s voice caused him to explain that building code was not written in stone. He stated the gas company’s approach to the community following the explosion was not good and the way the proposal was handled would be as important to the community as the building environment. He suggested the most minimal process should be sought for the applicant though the risk would be there for the 8 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 City. He asked if in 1882 the structure was a type of vanilla box. Mr. Hufstetler responded it was a kind of simple Italianate architectural style, but was exceptional in the community at the time. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall concurred that the importance of the building’s architecture in contrast of the time it was built should be recognized. Mr. Rea commended Mr. Pope on his work and his choice of Nishkian Monks spoke not only to their credibility, but his. He stated he was struggling with the proposal and he visited the site. He suggested minimal process and the front façade and east wall should be preserved. He suggested a specific date would be critical and he did not see how a private land owner could survive the wait if one were not specified. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated it was really helpful having the depth of expertise on the Board and it had come to bear tonight. He stated he was open and willing to help the applicant as much as possible, but he thought equal importance should be to respect the aesthetics of the City of Bozeman. He stated he had heard a meet in the middle proposal to retain the façade and the east wall and allow the demolition of the west wall. He suggested being explicit and formulating a motion as such. He suggested minimum retention for the façade and the east wall and three month stay to allow investigation of saving as much as possible. Mr. Hufstetler stated Chairperson Pro Tem Wall was right on and suggested crafting language to that effect; he suggested asking for at least reconstruction of the building if demo was approved. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall added that the more of the building that was retained would help to acquire the necessary grants and the demolition would negate the opportunity for those grants, especially if every effort were not made to preserve the façade. Mr. Banziger asked if there were interior elements of the structure that could be saved. Mr. Pope responded there were some items that could be salvaged. Mr. Hufstetler added the tin roofing and interior stairway could be salvaged, but many of the other materials do not merit salvage attempts. Mr. Banziger suggested the stay on the demolition permit should not be allowed for longer than three months. Mr. Pope suggested a proposal could be formulated within the 120 day stay period and the stay would be satisfied. Mr. Banziger stated if all the conditions had been met, the City could not hold the project up, but the applicant could still request an extension to explore alternatives. MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward Staff’s first recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the demolition of the west wall. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Chairperson Pro Tem Wall moved, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with Staff condition #1 to allow a demolition permit to be issued on October 12, 2009 with a 120 day stay, #2 demo permit be conditional on the every effort must be made to retain the façade and east wall, that recommendations and studies from historical experts be presented to the City with 9 Design Review Board Minutes – October 7, 2009 regard to salvaging interior components. No second was forthcoming, the motion died. MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with Staff’s second recommendation to be modified to read the City Commission grant a demo permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after Commission action, that the demo will apply to all elements of the building except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demo permit; any demolition be completed in accordance with Staff’s recommended conditions. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to amend the conditions to include that if concurrence amongst the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demo permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. FINAL MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Osborne Block Demo Contributing Structure COA/ADR #Z-09194 with Staff’s second recommendation to be modified to read the City Commission grant a demo permit for the structure that is effective 120 days after Commission action, that the demo will apply to all elements of the building except for the east and south facades, and that in conjunction with the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants it is deemed economically unreasonable to retain the south façade, Staff would recommend the south façade be granted a demo permit; any demolition be completed in accordance with Staff’s recommended conditions; and that if concurrence amongst the owner, City Staff, and outside consultants that all conditions of the demolition permit have been met the demo permit can be granted prior to the 120 days. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public comment forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. ________________________________ Randy Wall, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board