HomeMy WebLinkAboutCaldwell Demolition and New Construction at 601 South Black.pdfCommission Memorandum
Memorandum created on March 23, 2010
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Caldwell Demolition and New Construction, 601 South Black Avenue (#Z-10021)
MEETING DATE: Monday, March 29, 2010
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission makes the findings required of BMC 18.28.080 to
conditionally approve the Caldwell Demolition Certificate of Appropriateness application (#Z-10021).
BACKGROUND: This is a Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness application requesting the
following redevelopment at 601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the historic structure on the site,
which contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register of Historic
Places; 2) new residential construction in place of the historic residence, on the eastern portion of the lot;
and 3) related site improvements.
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 18.28.080 requires public notice, review by Administrative Design
Review Staff and the Design Review Board, and approval of demolition by the Bozeman City
Commission for any structure identified by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory as
“Contributing” to a historic district. The same section of Municipal Code requires subsequent treatment or
development of the property to be approved prior to demolition.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Planning Staff is not aware of any unresolved issues at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The development, if carried forward, will require site improvements to meet City
standards that will be the responsibility of the applicant. The loss of the structure will impact the City of
Bozeman’s revenues, as a landscaped lot has less taxable value than an occupied residence.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Courtney Kramer at ckramer@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to
the public meeting.
APPROVED BY: Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
63
City Commission STAFF REPORT
Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan COA FILE #Z-10021
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness
Item: Zoning Application #Z-08243, a Sketch Plan Certificate of
Appropriateness application requesting the following
redevelopment at 601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the
historic structure on the site, which contributes to the South
Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register
of Historic Places; 2) new residential construction in place of
the historic residence, on the eastern portion of the lot; and 3)
related site improvements. Said property is zoned as “R-2”
(Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District) and is
located within the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District.
Owner/Applicant: Brian and Britta Caldwell
601 South Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Meeting Date & Time: 6pm, Monday, March 29, 2010 in the Commission Room of
City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT
Report By: Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Conditional approval of the application.
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is legally described as Lots 1 & 2; Hoffman’s Addition to the City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana and is zoned as “R-2” (Residential Two Household,
Medium Density District) and located within the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District.
Please refer to the vicinity map below.
64
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 2
PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
This is a Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness application requesting the following
redevelopment at 601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the historic structure on the site,
which contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register of
Historic Places; 2) new residential construction in place of the historic residence, on the eastern
portion of the lot; and 3) related site improvements.
No deviations are requested with this application.
Preservation Planning Staff has been working with the applicant regarding this property since
late 2007. The initial application proposed to rehabilitate the existing structure, and build
contemporary addition to the rear. The vastly different type of architecture proposed with the
addition was intended to offset and contrast the vernacular pyramidal bungalow structure which
contributed to the historic district.
65
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 3
The proposed project was approved through Administrative Design Review in early 2008,
primarily because the project proposed to restore the historic structure and the new construction
strived to exemplify the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, specifically:
Standard 9: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize
the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” And,
Standard 10: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
Phased construction of the project began with the tower addition, with the intent to rehabilitate
the existing house as Phase II. The current application asserts that additional investigation of the
existing structure proved the rehabilitation proposed to be economically cost prohibitive, and
provides information to that end.
The current application proposes to demolish the existing historic structure on the eastern portion
of the lot at 601 South Black Avenue, in order to enable new residential construction on the site.
Built between 1898 and 1904, the existing residence is described by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory as follows:
“This detached one-story single-family residence has a rectangular plan with an
arched over door supported by wood posts. The one-bay façade is symmetrical
and consists of a central front entrance flanked by fixed and 1/1 double-hung
windows. The frame construction is finished in bevel siding and rests on a
concrete foundation. The hipped roof is covered with green asphalt shingles and
66
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 4
features boxed eaves and a metal stovepipe. The axis of the roof is square to the
street. Outbuildings include a shed.”1
Completed in Bozeman in the mid-1980’s, the Montana Historical and Architectural
Inventory formed the basis of a number of district and individual nominations to the
National Register of Historic Places. This property became part of Bozeman’s North
Tracy/ North Black Historic District, which
“Consists of 93 diverse, vernacular houses linking S. Tracy and S. Black Avenues
between Olive and Alderson Streets… It is distinct from the two large, adjacent
residential historic districts in Bozeman due to its greater building density and its
high concentration of significant architecture of generally more modest scale and
ornamentation. Many of the most significant buildings occur in pairs or groups of
three, which heights the overall visual impact of the district. Although many 19th
century houses are found here, the numerous excellent examples of the Bungalow
style are visually predominant. Overall, a continuous rhythm of regularly spaced
houses along tree-lined streets acts as a strong unifying element in the district.”2
The South Tracy/ South Black Historic District is historically significant as one of the first
contiguous residential areas in Bozeman to develop off of Main Street, thus containing most of
the oldest remaining historic houses in the city.
“Contributing” Inventory file triggers City Commission Review
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 18.28.080 requires public notice, review by Administrative
Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board, and approval of demolition by the Bozeman
City Commission for any structure identified by the Montana Historical and Architectural
Inventory as “Contributing” to a historic district. The same section of Municipal Code requires
subsequent treatment or development of the property to be approved prior to demolition.
The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory form for this property, on record with the
City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development, indicates the
“structure qualifies as a contributing element within a potential historic district due to its
association with the residential aspect of the Civic Phase of Bozeman’s historic/architectural
development.” The Inventory later became the basis for the formation of the South Tracy/ South
Black Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places. Any structure listed as
contributing, as the structure at 601 South Black is, has been listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The City of Bozeman, in conjunction with property owners who must sign a
consent form, completed this process in the late 1980’s.
Preservation Planning Staff finds the existing inventory file reflects the current “contributing”
status of the property.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned “R-2” (Residential Two Household, Medium Density District). As
stated in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the “R-2” residential
district is to provide for one and two household residential development at urban densities within
the City in areas that present few or no development constraints, and for community facilities to
1 James McDonald Architects P.C. “Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory: Bozeman”. Montana Historical
Society, Helena. 1984.
2 (South Tracy, South Black National Register Historic District Nomination, 1985, Section 8, p. 68)
67
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 5
serve such development while respecting the residential quality and nature of the area.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Single Household Residence, zoned “R-2”
South: Single Household Residence, zoned “R-2”;
East: Single Household Residence, zoned “R-2”,
West: Longfellow School, zoned “R-2”
GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Residential” land use designation. This classification designates places where the primary
activity is urban density living quarters. Other uses that complement residences are also
acceptable, such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches and
schools. The dwelling unit density expected within this category varies and a variety of housing
types should be blended to achieve the desired density, with large areas of single type housing
discouraged. Additionally, all residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to
the existing character of adjacent development.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 18.28.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness
approval. In the discussion below, Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff evaluated the
applicant's request in light of these standards.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness
shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995),
published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services,
Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
As this project proposes demolition of a structure listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, all proposed work is not in conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness
and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject
structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus
upon the following:
1. Height;
The ridge line height of the proposed new structure matches the height of the rear
“tower” addition, and is within the range of heights found on the block face.
Staff finds the height of the proposed new construction appropriate within the context
of the neighborhood.
68
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 6
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
In a memo to the Design Review Board, Staff expressed concern regarding the
proportions of doors and windows within the context of the neighborhood.
Specifically, Bozeman’s Design Guidelines, Chapter Two “Guidelines for All
Properties”, note the following about doors and windows:
G. Solid-to-Void Ratio
Policy:
A typical building appeared to be a rectangular solid, with small holes “punched”
in the walls for windows and doors. Most buildings had similar amounts of glass,
resulting in a relatively uniform solid-to-void ratio. This ratio on a new building,
the amount of facade that is devoted to wall surface, as compared to that
developed as openings, should be similar to that of historic buildings within the
neighborhood.
Guideline:
1. Use a ratio of solid-to-void (wall-to-window) that is similar to that found
on historic structures in the district.
• Large surfaces of glass may be inappropriate. Divide large glass
surfaces into smaller panes similar to those seen traditionally.
Staff notes that the project proposes window openings that differ significantly
from the pattern of double-hung window openings found in the neighborhood.
Windows proposed with this project are wider than they are long, creating a
horizontal nature that differs from the verticality of windows found in the existing
neighborhood context. The windows proposed also lack the division of glass
surfaces into smaller panes that the guidelines recommend. ADR Staff finds the
windows proposed with this application to be inconsistent with the Design
Guidelines.
The Design Review Board, in their review of the project, disagreed with staff, and
thought the windows were appropriate in the context of the proposed new design.
Please see the attached minutes from the DRB meeting for additional information.
Staff finds the proposed windows and doors inappropriate within the context of the
neighborhood.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
Preservation Planning Staff finds the massing of the proposed new construction to be
appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
In a memo to the DRB, Staff expressed concern about the proposed spatial layout of
the site. The architectural description of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic
District referenced above specifically notes the continuous rhythm of regularly spaced
houses as a strong unifying element of the district, and the Design Guidelines direct
projects to be aware of the streetscape character.
69
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 7
The existing historic structure at 601 South Black Avenue is sits 30 feet outside of the
right of way, which Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate to be generally in character
with the other residences on the street. The porch of the new construction proposed
will be about thirty two feet from the street, and the massing of the overall new
structure will be 45 feet from the street.
Planning Staff referenced Chapter Two of the Design Guidelines, item B “Street
Patterns: which notes:
Policy:
Historic settlement patterns seen in street and alley plans often contribute to the
distinct character of the historic district and therefore they should be preserved.
These street plans influence the manner in which primary structures are sited and
they also shape the manner in which secondary structures and landscape features
may occur on the site.
Guidelines:
1. Respect historic settlement patterns.
• Site a new building such that it is arranged on its site in a way similar to historic
buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks and open
space.
70
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 8
Figure 1: 1904 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue.3
Figure 2: 1912 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 4
3 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1904)
4 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1912)
71
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 9
Figure 3: 1927 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 5
Figure 4: 1943 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 6
During their review of the project, most of the DRB members disagreed with
5 (Sanborn Map Company 1927)
6 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1943)
72
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 10
Preservation Planning Staff regarding the setback concerns. They noted that the
historic structure has always sat away from the street, and the property across the
street has a large setback as well. Please review the DRB minutes from that meeting
for additional comments.
Given the existing condition of a structure well out of the pattern of setbacks on the
street, staff finds the proposed large front yard setback acceptable within the context
of the neighborhood.
4. Roof shape;
The predominant roof form in the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District is a
front-facing gable and this application proposes a side-gable roof form. Preservation
Planning Staff expressed uncertainty about the appropriateness of the side-gable form
in a memo to the DRB. The side gable form does reinforce the new construction
rather than mimic a historic structure; however, it is not consistent with the roof form
found in the neighborhood.
During their review of the new design, the DRB expressed admiration for the side
gable design proposed, noting that the principal view of the property is from the
north-east corner, which presents the gable form to Alderson Street.
Staff finds the proposed side gable form to be an appropriate differentiation from the
neighborhood character.
5. Scale;
Please see comments under “Relationship of building masses and spaces.”
6. Directional expression;
The proposed design does include a front door and porch which addresses the
northeast corner of the property. Vehicular access will be in the rear.
Staff finds the proposed directional expression appropriate within the context of the
neighborhood.
7. Architectural details;
The proposed design is very minimal in its fenestration. Architectural details are kept
principally to the front porch, doors, windows and basic form of the structure. The
new construction proposed with this project certainly distinguishes itself from historic
structures that will remain in the neighborhood. The east and west elevations are a
very basic form that is a historic reference to a house shape, while not being an
imitation of a historic style.
The proposed materials create much of the proposed detailing for the structure. Please
see comments under “Materials and color scheme”.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
All mechanical equipment is required by code to be outside of the front or side yard
73
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 11
setbacks and screened from view.
9. Materials and color scheme;
Staff expressed concern regarding the proposed materials and color scheme in a
memo to the DRB. Bozeman’s Design Guidelines Chapter Two reveal the following
regarding appropriate materials within historic districts:
H. Materials
Policy:
Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should
contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. They should appear
similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity.
Guidelines:
1. Use building materials that appear similar to those used traditionally in
the area.
• Horizontal lap siding is appropriate in most residential
neighborhoods. Brick and stone are also appropriate in most areas.
• All wood siding should have a weather-protective finish.
• The use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
2. The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen
historically is appropriate.
• Brick should have a modular dimension similar to that used
traditionally.
Brick larger than the nominal 2-3/8” x 8” is discouraged.
• Stone, similar to that used traditionally, is also appropriate.
3. New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be
acceptable with appropriate detailing.
• Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion,
texture and finish to those used traditionally.
4. Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of
the block.
• This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.
Ø Chapter 3, page 61 also says of materials: “Brick, stone and
painted wood are preferred primary building materials.”
The materials proposed with this application differ greatly from those seen
historically in this district. The unique metal materials used on the phase one
“tower” addition were approved because they starkly differentiated the new
tower construction from the historic structure on the site.
74
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 12
Figure 5: Are the materials proposed appropriate within the context of the
South Tracy/ South Black Historic District?
The principal exterior cladding material proposed for the new construction is a
vertical fir skip siding, over a waterproof membrane underlayment. While the use of
new and innovative materials adds interest to the project, ADR Staff is concerned that
use of these materials on the front portion of the complex is inappropriate and does
not meet Guidelines 1, 3 and 4 above. Perhaps the skip siding should be turned
horizontally, to mimic a horizontal lap siding, and painted to create a “finished” look
rather than allowed to weather in order to maintain a more traditional siding
appearance? The porch is proposed to be constructed of painted wood framing.
The vinyl windows and asphalt shingles are proposed with this project. ADR staff
routinely approves asphalt shingles as a roofing material in the historic districts, but
recommends against vinyl windows as replacements for historic windows in
structures. Given that these vinyl windows would be installed in a completely new
structure, staff finds them acceptable.
The DRB disagreed with staff’s concerns regarding the proposed materials, primarily
commenting that new construction should reflect it’s time and place. Please review the
minutes from that meeting for more information.
Preservation Planning Staff finds the proposed materials inappropriate within the context
of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, and has conditioned that the building
permit application indicate the use of traditional-looking materials.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to
existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do
not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their
components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the
structure and the surrounding structures.
The application proposes complete demolition of a structure listed as “contributing” to
the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The new construction proposed to take the place of the historic structure is
certainly innovative and contemporary. Please see above comments under B regarding
75
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 13
the proposed design’s compatibility with the foregoing elements of the structure and
surrounding structures.
Given the demolition proposed with the application, Planning Staff has included a
condition clarifying the no demolition shall take place until a Building Permit has been
granted. This condition is intended to further ensure that if a structure listed on the
National Register of Historic places is to be demolished, new construction will take place
as proposed. This condition is not a reflection of the proposed application; rather, an
attempt to prevent a public nuisance and public safety hazard.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be
guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a
contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to
existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for
the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal
is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
The Introduction, as well as Chapters One, Two, Three, Four, Five and the Appendix of
the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District apply to this project as the property contributes to the South Tracy/
South Black Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Said
guidelines were all considered during ADR Staff’s architectural review and reflected in
the above comments.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
The required criteria for granting demolition are examined in the following section.
Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation
District”
Section 18.28.080 specifies the required criteria for granting demolition or movement of
any structure or site within the conservation district. In the discussion below, ADR Staff
evaluated the applicant’s request in light of these criteria.
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 before a
demolition or moving permit may be issued.
The demolition application does include a complete submittal for the subsequent
development of the site should the commission approve the demolition.
B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory
structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral 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
76
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 14
per Chapters 18.34 and 18.62, BMC, and the standards outlined in §18.28.050,
BMC. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed
and, if necessary, updated by the Historic Preservation Planner to reflect current
conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal.
The final approval authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites
described within this section shall rest with the City Commission when proposed in
conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit
development application.
Not Applicable, the proposal meets Review Criteria C below.
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 holding 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 Planner to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the
review of the demolition or movement proposal. The final approval authority for the
demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall rest
with the City Commission.
The demolition application was publicly noticed through a posting on the site, on the City
of Bozeman’s website, and in the newspaper. This staff report makes a recommendation
that includes comments from ADR staff and the DRB. The 1984 Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory Form continues to reflect that the structure at 601 South Black
“contributes” to the South Tracy/ South Black National Historic District.
The City Commission shall base its decision on the following:
1. The standards in §18.28.050, BMC 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.
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 and/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 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 has included detailed information regarding the economic feasibility of
rehabilitating the existing structure, including a written narrative and engineering reports.
77
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 15
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 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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At the time this Staff Report was due the Department of Planning & Community Development
had received three letters of public comment:
· From Ken Ryder, 533 South Black Avenue, in favor of the project
· From Linda Karell and Kenda Minter, 609 South Black Avenue, in favor of the project
· From Jon Maxwell, 618 South Black Avenue, in favor of the project
· From Dennis Steinhauer, in support of the project
CONCLUSION
The purpose and intent of the Bozeman Municipal Code 18.28 the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District is to:
“Stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements
contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods
and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and
encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing
buildings and further provided the design of such new space enhances and
contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the
surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design will be encouraged,
provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of
the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changing community.”
Preservation Planning Staff generally advocates for the retention of historic and cultural fabric
through rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. BMC 18.28.080 C 2 b acknowledges that
although a structure may be valuable for its historic or cultural significance, it can be un-
economic to retain a structure. The applicant has provided information indicating that the historic
structure at 601 South Black Avenue suffered years of disrepair and demolition by neglect,
allowing the structure to be financially unsalvageable. Preservation Planning Staff, therefore,
recommends approval of said Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness application with
demolition with the following conditions:
1. The Backflow Specialist shall be contacted to arrange a time for an inspection at this
property to determine if the water service has a backflow preventer or not. If it does not
applicant will have a preventer and expansion tanks installed and schedule a follow up
visit after installation of these devices. The Backflow Specialist can be contacted at 582-
3200.
2. Any existing city sidewalk panels for this property that are currently damaged or
are damaged during the demolition shall be replaced.
3. The Water Department is requiring you to contact their Backflow Specialist at
78
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 16
582-3200 to arrange a time for an inspection at this property to determine if the
water service has a backflow preventer or not. If it does not applicant will have a
preventer and expansion tanks installed and schedule a follow up visit after
installation of these devices.
4. The Montana Historical Architecture Record for the property shall be updated and
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to
Demolition Permit application.
5. In order to prevent public nuisance, the Department of Planning will sign a
Demolition Permit for the existing structure only when a Building Permit
application is submitted for the new construction.
6. The Building Permit application shall include a revised materials palette that
incorporates traditional materials more suitable for the South Tracy/ South Black
Historic District.
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code that are
applicable to this project, including those identified in this staff report:
§ Per Section 18.02.080 & 18.64.110, the proposed project shall be completed as approved
and conditioned in the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Any modifications to
the submitted and approved application materials shall invalidate the project's legitimacy,
unless the applicant submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the
Department of Planning prior to undertaking said modifications. The only exception to
this law is repair.
§ Per Section 18.64.100.F, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of
Certificate of Appropriateness approval, or said approval shall become null and void.
Please call the Building Department at 406-582-2375 for more information on the
building permit process.
§ Per Section 18.38.050. F, all Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened.
Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible. Ground mounted
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way with walls, fencing or
evergreen plant materials. Mechanical equipment shall not encroach into required
setbacks.
§ 18.42.150 F “Lighting Specifications for All Lighting, In all light fixtures, the light
source and associated lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and
shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. For lighting horizontal areas such
as roadways, sidewalks, entrances and parking areas, fixtures shall meet IESNA “full-
cutoff” criteria (no light output emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the
fixture).
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically
listed as conditions of approval, do not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the
lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE
CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUTH TRACY/ SOUTH BLACK HISTORIC DISTRICT,
79
#Z-10021 Caldwell Demolition and New Construction Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness 17
THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON
THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION MAY BE
APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.66 OF
THE BOZEMAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
If the Commission grants conditional approval, the revised materials as conditioned shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development prior to issuance
of a Demolition Permit and within six (6) months from the date of this report for review by
ADR Staff. Once the materials are deemed complete and adequate, your COA certificate (white
copy) and notice (pink copy) will be released for the project.
Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials
Design Review Board Minutes
CC: Brian and Britta Caldwell, 601 South Black Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
80
81
82
83
84
33 NORTH BLACKBOZEMAN,MT 59715406.587.3628BRIAN@THINKTANKAIA.COMCALDWELL RESIDENCE PHASE IIMODIFCATION TO COATHINKTANK DESIGN GROUP, INC.85
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA P01PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM SIDEWALK ON BLACK 86
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA P02PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM SIDEWALK ON BLACK 87
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA P03BUILDING SECTION - PROGRAM 88
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA P04PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM 609 SOUTH BALCK89
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 05 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"90
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 04 EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"91
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 06SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"92
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010 601 SOUTH BLACK THINKTANKAIAA 12WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"93
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 01 BASEMENT PLAN SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"94
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 02 MAIN LEVEL PLAN SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"95
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA
LOFT PLAN SCALE 1/8" =1'-0"A 03 96
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 07 SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=30'97
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA D01SIDING DETAIL -NTS98
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA A 09 TRIM DETAIL - NTS99
CALDWELL -PHASE II MOD. COA2/15/2010601 SOUTH BLACKTHINKTANKAIA D03SIDING DETAIL - NTS100
101
NEIGHBORHOOD RECOGNITION ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
On December 10, 2007 the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance as part of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. This new ordinance contains the following requirement:
Section 2.82.020, Responsibilities of Individuals or Entities Submitting an Application to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
A. In order for the City Liaison to effectively perform their duties executing the intent and purpose of this chapter, as defined in
2.82.020, the following shall be performed:
1. As part of any application to the Department of Planning and Community Development, the applicant shall provide written
notice via certified mail, e-mail, facsimile transmission, and/or personal delivery to the City Liaison if notification guidelines
(BMC 18.76) require that notice be posted “on-site”, published in the local newspaper or mailed first class.
2. Such notice shall contain a complete set of application materials as submitted to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
B. Failure to provide proof of such mailing via certified mail, e-mail and/or facsimile transmission report to the most recent City
Liaison address, e-mail address and/or fax number of record, or an affidavit attesting hand delivery, shall result in an incomplete
application.
I, , hereby certify that I have delivered via certified mail, e-
mail, facsimile transmission or hand delivery written notice and a complete set of application materials for the project known
as in compliance with Section 2.82.02 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. I further understand that failure to comply will result in this application being deemed incomplete
and may result in a delay in the review of this project.
Signature Date
(Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance Compliance Certificate – Prepared 1/7/08)
NEIGHBORHOOD RECOGNITION ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
On December 10, 2007 the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance as part of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. This new ordinance contains the following requirement:
Section 2.82.020, Responsibilities of Individuals or Entities Submitting an Application to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
A. In order for the City Liaison to effectively perform their duties executing the intent and purpose of this chapter, as defined in
2.82.020, the following shall be performed:
1. As part of any application to the Department of Planning and Community Development, the applicant shall provide written
notice via certified mail, e-mail, facsimile transmission, and/or personal delivery to the City Liaison if notification guidelines
(BMC 18.76) require that notice be posted “on-site”, published in the local newspaper or mailed first class.
2. Such notice shall contain a complete set of application materials as submitted to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
B. Failure to provide proof of such mailing via certified mail, e-mail and/or facsimile transmission report to the most recent City
Liaison address, e-mail address and/or fax number of record, or an affidavit attesting hand delivery, shall result in an incomplete
application.
I, , hereby certify that I have delivered via certified mail, e-
mail, facsimile transmission or hand delivery written notice and a complete set of application materials for the project known
as in compliance with Section 2.82.02 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. I further understand that failure to comply will result in this application being deemed incomplete
and may result in a delay in the review of this project.
Signature Date
(Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance Compliance Certificate – Prepared 1/7/08)
102
Brian and Britta Caldwell
601 South Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
103
planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood
coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
February
Brian and Britta Caldwell
601 South Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application to demolish the existing
structure, which contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, and
construct a new residential structure on the eastern half of the lot at 601 South
Black Avenue (#Z-10021)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Caldwell,
The Department of Planning and Community Development received your above
referenced application on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 and project was scheduled
to me on Thursday, February 18, 2010. The application was reviewed in accordance
with the submittal checklists and Chapter 18.78 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) and appears to be adequate for initial review by the Department of Planning.
As such, the project has been tentatively scheduled for review by the Design Review
Board during their regular meeting on Wednesday, March 10, 2010. The DRB meets at
5:30 pm in the Upstairs Conference Room of the Stiff Building, 20 East Olive Street in
Bozeman. I will prepare a Staff Report detailing the project for the DRB by Thursday,
March 4, 2010, which you will be given a copy of.
As the project proposes demolition of a “contributing” structure, the City Commission is
the final review authority. I have scheduled the City Commission’s review of the
project for Monday, March 22, 2010. The commission meets in the Commission Room of
City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. I will prepare a Staff Report
detailing the project for the Commission by Wednesday, March 17, 2010, which you
will be given a copy of.
Although the application contains enough information to begin review, a few items
are missing or incomplete. Please submit the below listed information by March 1, 2010
in order to make the application acceptable for complete review by the Design
Review Board. Failure to submit these items by March 1 will result in the project being
deemed inadequate for continued review by the Design Review Board.
105
Please address the following items to create a complete application:
1. Bozeman Municipal Code 18.76 will require a notice posted on the property for
15 days to alert the neighbors that this project proposes to demolish a
“contributing” structure. The public comment period for this project will be
March 1-17. Any public noticing also triggers noticing to the neighborhood
association. As this property is located within the boundaries of a neighborhood
association, please submit a neighborhood recognition ordinance compliance
certificate and fulfill the requirements of the certificate by sending an
application set to the current neighborhood liaison. Public notice on the site
cannot begin until the neighborhood association submittal is completed.
2. Please submit a west elevation of the existing structure and pergola proposed
over the porch.
3. Please submit a written narrative giving a background of the property, your
initial program for new construction, and how that program has shifted, as well
as any additional information you feel might be helpful.
4. Please submit information regarding the remaining economic viability of the
existing structure, including engineering reports or contracting bids.
5. Please submit a material sample for the materials you propose on the structure.
This can be in the form of a materials board, photos to be matched, or catalog
pages.
6. Please submit a digital version of all of the complete application, in order to
send it electronically to the city commission.
7. Please be aware that a condition of approval will be replacement of sidewalk
panels currently broken or damaged by construction.
8. Please also make arrangements to speak with John Alston, the Water and Sewer
Department Superintendant regarding any service issues that might arise.
Please feel free to contact me at 582-2260 if you have any questions regarding the
application or the review process in general.
Sincerely,
Courtney Kramer
Assistant Planner
Encl: Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance compliance Certificate
106
Written narrative background for 601 South Black Avenue
2-22-2010
The property was purchased Feb 1st 2008.
The original concept is included in page 2 of the COA application dated 2-15-2010.
North Elevation - Original COA plan file
The original design concept included a new structure that reflected modern ideas about design. We
planned on then connecting the new with the old. The existing structure would be restored and
connected to the new with a glass bridge. This concept was described in phase I of the original
application.
107
Axon perspective - Original COA plan file
We lived in the front house (existing old structure) while we built the two story addition behind the
existing structure. While we lived in the front house, we paid for asbestos mitigation, removed moldy
carpet, installed a new heating system, and replaced the dangerous exposed wiring with surface-
mounted conduit wiring, and lived with black mold caused by ice damming. Without question, the last
two years have had the original design intent as the direction for this location. We conducted ourselves
in a manner that was consistent with the original design intent. Through the course of the project, it
became evident the existing structure should not be restored.
This document is intended to provide definitive evidence to demonstrate the following factors prove the
structure has no viable economic life remaining. The useful life of the original structure is no longer
remaining.
Let’s begin with the site itself: The total cost to provide updated natural gas lines and replace the metal
gas pipes with plastic gas pipes cost us $3,600. The underground electrical service we paid for was
required due to the adjacent property not having the required easements in place for utility services
without encumbering our property. The cost to us was $6,750. As with most utility projects located in
older sections of town, the time and effort is always amplified. We created a perpetual utility easement
with the utility company, phone and cable companies for two services for 601 South Black and 607
South Black.
The original house is riddled with issues. Perhaps one of the most devastating impacts on this structure
was the direct contact of soil with the wood structural system. Approximately 75% of the rim joist is in
advanced level of decay due to dry rot and insects. Due to inadequate drainage and soil separation from
untreated wood, the first 10” of the floor system and the first 12” of the stud framing is subject to
108
decay. The amount of deterioration of the rim joist and sole plate rendered the structural floor system
and stud wall framing members without viable economic value or any useful life. Because of this lack of
additional load carrying capacity, additional problems came up with the roof framing and foundation
system that will be addressed further in this narrative.
The existing structure is insulated with rocks. That right, rocks. We discovered this while trying to rewire
the front house to make it temporarily habitable. Unfortunately, rocks are not the best in keeping out
the cold. The existing structure would need to have the rocks removed and replaced with insulation. We
were unable to blow in insulation unlike many other structures of a similar era. This issue would
necessitate a new thermal insulation layer to the exterior walls. Due to the added cost of demolition of
the interior finishes, the economic value or usefulness would be gone.
The attic area is also without any form of insulation. The problem with simply providing insulation in the
roof is the fact of persistent water infiltration. The insulation would quickly become ineffective if water
were allowed to soak into the insulation. An additional side effect of wet insulation is the likelihood of
harmful molds. In addition to the attic lacking insulation, there is also clear evidence of at least three
structure fires in the attic. All three fires were obviously extinguished, but it is safe to say that they
compromised the integrity of the structure.
The roof system is a threat to public health. The roof is not properly framed to carry the additional
weight of roof sheathing or the persons required to secure any proposed sheathing and roofing material
without an unreasonable amount of repair and alterations. The attached framing plan specified by our
structural engineer is included in this application. The plan proposed four glue lam beams that can carry
the entire roof loads spanning 27’ each. These beams would need to be supported at each end. The
existing wall system is without the ability to carry the concentrated loads from the reactions of each
roof beam for the previously mentioned reasons, such as rotting as the base and top of wall.
The next definitive evidence is the foundation system. The combination of rubble foundation, hand dug
foundation, and concrete walls without steel reinforcement with a range of thicknesses from ¼” to 6”
thick is entirely without structural utility and is a hazard in the event of seismic activity. The existing
basement does not keep out ground water in the early spring and late fall, and we have learned to stack
any stored items in the basement up on pallets. The aggregate in the wall exceeds 2” in diameter, which
could allow the bonding agent in the cement to fail and is not to code. Any attempt to provide seismic
lateral resistance is not possible without completely removing and replacing the foundation. The cost of
repairing and replacing the existing foundation would cost $12,800 not including the $7,000 cost to
move the structure, and the unknown costs of framing requirements to replace the sole plate, rim joist
and floor joists. Alternatively, complete demolition of the existing structure would cost roughly $6000.
In speaking with contractors, we have found this formula to be consistent for all stages of the project:
demolition and rebuilding a smaller structure will be less than half the cost of rehabbing the existing
structure.
The exterior windows do not satisfy the energy standards of today. As we look towards a sustainable
future, we need to make the necessary improvements to the windows when the interior and exterior
109
finishes are proposed to be replaced. The original COA plan called for twice as many windows than the
current proposed design.
The point made here is definitive. The foundation is nonexistent in some cases or without usefulness
and requires replacement. The wood framing in the floor requires replacement. The exterior walls are
water damaged, uninsulated, rotten, and no longer have the strength to provide additional structural
value. The roof framing is inadequate. The interior finishes require to be removed in order to insulate.
The elevation of the floor is below grade. The utilities were unsafe. In short, the roofing, framing,
interior finishes, the foundation, the siding, the windows, the site grading, the utilities all need to be
replaced or unreasonably altered to avoid complete deletion of the existing structure.
By allowing the demolition of the existing structure, we can build a new, smaller space that retains the
ideas that initiated this project. Our proposed modification to the COA calls for less than ½ the floor
area, ½ the foundation and ½ the footprint. To be frank, we do not have enough money to complete the
project as originally approved. That is why we are proposing a project of ½ of the original size and an
even further reduced workload. The cumulative effect of essentially replacing 100% of the building while
working around decaying framing resulted in a unreasonable project and is why we are proposing
demolition.
The total area for the original concept is 1430 s.f. above ground floor area. The proposed new area is
448 square feet above grade. This allows for less interior finish, less floor finish, and reduced surface
area of exterior walls and roof systems. We believe this is our only viable option to complete the
project. It is important to my family to finish this project and enjoy living in this great neighborhood. We
do not want to look at the empty shell of what was once a house; we want to finish this project.
As far as the proposed new construction is concerned, we believe the proposed structure addresses the
street and maintains a front entrance from the street. The building massing balances the two story
addition and will make for an increase in value for the neighborhood in comparison with the existing
condition of the property.
110
111
112
113
A4.4A4.3111A3.41A3.41A3.21A3.31A3.31A3.56' - 10 11/16"KJ95A50 SFLIGHT WELL93302 SFFINISHEDBASEMENT9192A83 SFSTORAGE921A3.61A3.6PHASE I /EXISTINGFOUNDATIONL4' - 0"3' - 10"110 SFLIGHT WELL9641 SFLIGHT WELL973' - 0"8' - 8"4' - 1 7/8"2' - 0"3' - 8 1/4"3' - 7 3/4"3' - 2"3' - 8 1/4"6' - 5 1/4"11' - 6 3/4"3' - 2"3' - 2"AA9' - 4"EE56 SFMECH98USE EXISTING WALL ASSHORING DURINGCONSTRUCTION OF NEWFOUNDATION WALLSAW CUTSAW CUT EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLREMOVE EXISTINGFOUNDATION WALLFROM SAW CUT TOSAW CUTREMOVE SLABIN ALLEXTERIORLOCATIONSPROPOSED FOUNDATION WALLMATCH PHASE I WALL HEIGHTAND POSITIONPROPOSED FOUNDATION WALLMATCH PHASE I WALL FOR HEIGHTAND POSITIONSTEP IN T.O.W.EXISTING SEWER CONNECTIONEXISTING WATER LINECONNECTIONSAW CUT SLABINSTALL 8"THICK FOOTINGMATCH PROPOSED CONCRETEWALL TOT.O.W OF WOOD FRAMED WALLLESS TREATED PLATE(1-1/2")FORM WALL 8" MIN. FROM EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLOR EXCAVATE SOILS TO EXPOSE EXISITNG FOUNDATIONWALL SECTION AND REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH NEWFOUNDATION WALL2A3.72A3.7ORIGINAL FOUNDATIONCRAWL SPACE AREA1A3.71A3.7255 SFLAUNDRY ROOMAND STORAGE99339 SFCRAWL SPACE100227 SFFUTURE BATH /BEDROOM9417' - 10 25/32"12' - 9 3/8"94CJScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:25:53 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A1.1BasementPlan09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009BCEN 1/4" = 1'-0"1BasementNo. Description Date114
A4.1A4.4A4.31311A3.11A3.11A3.41A3.2ADC10' - 3 3/8"8' - 0 1/8"10' - 0 1/2"2' - 8"6"2' - 0"9' - 5 7/8"4' - 2"2' - 9 1/4"8' - 8 3/4"6' - 1"A1.41A6.15207 SFVISITING ROOM1011A3.61A3.6207 SFKITCHEN102EXISTING HOUSEOPEN TO BELOWOPENTOBELOWOPENTOBELOWFRIDGEFOODSTORAGEDISHWASHERGAS +ELECTRICSTOVE-----2A3.72A3.7PHASE IIEXISTINGHOUSE1A3.71A3.758 SFGUEST BATH10351 SFCLOSET104253 SFDINING ROOM105395 SFLIVING ROOM106164 SFGUEST BEDROOM10729' - 7 27/32"27' - 10 5/8"AAAAAAAAA7' - 8"7' - 8"7' - 8"15' - 4"7' - 8"PROPOSED SPEC LAM INSULATIONPANELS ATTACHEDTO THE EXTERIOR OF EXISTINGSHEATHING94B13' - 8"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:28:10 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A1.2First FloorPlan09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009BCEN 1/4" = 1'-0"2First Floor (SUB)No. Description Date115
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.41A3.4T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.31A3.3A3.51232.13.1A6.16302 SFFINISHEDBASEMENT91207 SFVISITING ROOM1011A3.61A3.6----compresion box16' - 0 1/2"PHASE IEASTSKINEREMOVE EXISITNG FOUNDATION WALL1A3.71A3.7PHASE IIsecond floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:28:30 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.1BuildingSections09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.1No. Description Date116
1A3.4T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.3232.13.11A3.6compresion box16' - 0 1/2"PHASE ILEASTSKINE1A3.7T.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:28:54 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.2BuildingSections09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.2No. Description Date117
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.11A3.2Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"154 SFMASTER205BB.1A.1FDJG.1----M207 SFKITCHEN10275 SFBATH HALL202207 SFVISITING ROOM101302 SFFINISHEDBASEMENT9183 SFSTORAGE92ANORTHSKINT.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:29:15 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.3BuildingSections09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.3No. Description Date118
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"Roof20' - 8"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.11A3.2T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"FirsT.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.5BB.1A.1A6.14A6.11A6.12A6.139' - 5 3/8"17' - 2 5/8"2' - 0"3' - 5 5/16"7' - 8 1/4"7' - 1 3/4"CG.110' - 6"9' - 10"3' - 0"7' - 6"23' - 6 1/8"ANORTHSKINT.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:29:33 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.4BuildingSections09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.4No. Description Date119
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.11A3.11A3.21A3.2Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"1A3.51A3.5BB.1A.1--------ANORTHSKIN2A3.72A3.7T.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"7' - 10 1/4"2' - 2 7/16"REMOVE EXISTINGFOUNDATION WALLPROPOSED NEWFOUNDATIONWALLPROPOSEDFOUNDATION WALLCONTINUEFOUNDATION WALL2" TOPING SLAB12-1/4' SIP PANELBEAMBEAM4' - 11 1/2"4' - 11 1/2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:29:51 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.6BUILDINGSECTION09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorCheckerNo. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"1Section 6120
1A3.11A3.1--------2A3.72A3.7GRADE BEAMSPEC LAM /SIP PANELEXISTINGFRAMING1A3.61A3.6compresion box16' - 0 1/2"1A3.71A3.7support new roofwith new fraingand blocking SSD.PROPOSED FRAMING2X6EXISTING FLOOR SYSTEMSAW CUT EXISTING SLABAND PROVIDE FOOTING- SSD.PROPOSE FLOOR FRAMINGPROPOSED BEAMPROPOSED SPEC LAMWALL INSULATION.EXISTING FRAMINGPROVIDE BRACINGTO EXISTING ROOFTRUSSESEXSITING GRADEEXISTING FROUNDATIONEXISITNG FOUNDATION339 SFCRAWL SPACE100395 SFLIVING ROOM10656 SFMECH98255 SFLAUNDRY ROOMAND STORAGE99227 SFFUTURE BATH /BEDROOM94253 SFDINING ROOM105ATTIC2" RIDGID INSULATION AT ALLTRUSS BAYS TOP COVERING ALLAREASR- 49 FIBERGLASS INSULATIONGRADE BEAMScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:30:11 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.7BUILDINGSECTION09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorCheckerNo. Description Date3 Revision 3 Date 3 1/4" = 1'-0"1Section 14 1/4" = 1'-0"2Section 9121
ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-99929/24/2009 1:30:30 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A3.8BUILDINGSECTIONS09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorCheckerNo. Description Date122
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.4T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.3FDC232.13.116' - 4"16' - 0"1A3.61A3.6SITE PLAN-3' - 1 1/4"EXISITNG FIN. FL.-2' - 2"T.O.W. EXISITNG7' - 0"compresion box16' - 0 1/2"10' - 1 1/16"3' - 4 15/16"EASTSKINE1A3.71A3.7T.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:30:48 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A4.1Elevations09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"3SouthNo. Description Date123
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"Roof20' - 8"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.11A3.11A3.21A3.2T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.51A3.5EB.1HBB.1A.128' - 4"101BAB.27' - 0"9' - 11"4' - 10 3/4"4' - 10 3/4"5' - 7 5/16"3' - 4 7/16"5' - 7 9/16"4' - 3 7/16"5' - 0"3' - 2 5/16"W-1-AW-2-AW-3-AW-3-BW-2-BW-1-BW-2-CW-3-CW-2-DW-3-DW-2-EW-3-EW-1-FW-2-FW-3-F9' - 11"2A3.72A3.7T.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:31:14 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A4.2Elevations09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"2WestNo. Description Date124
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"Roof20' - 8"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.11A3.11A3.21A3.2T.O.W.10' - 7 3/4"Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"stair platform10' - 6"1A3.51A3.5G.2BB.1A.128' - 4"--------SITE PLAN-3' - 1 1/4"EXISITNG FIN. FL.-2' - 2"T.O.W. EXISITNG7' - 0"A3' - 5 3/8"3' - 5 3/8"E-3-AE-2-AE-1-AE-3-BE-2-BE-1-BE-2-CE-3-CE-3-DE-3-EE-3-FE-3-G4' - 6 5/8"4' - 6 5/8"NORTHSKIN2A3.72A3.79' - 2"T.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:31:30 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A4.3Buildingelevation09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1EastNo. Description Date125
First Floor FINISH0' - 0"Second Floor11' - 6"T.O. Footing-10' - 2 1/4"B.O. Footing-10' - 10 1/4"Foundation-0' - 4 1/4"1A3.41A3.4Second FloorFINISH11' - 8"First Floor (SUB)-0' - 2"T.O.S.-9' - 9 7/8"1A3.3AG.133.1M1A3.61A3.6EXISITNG FIN. FL.-2' - 2"T.O.W. EXISITNG7' - 0"EASTSKIN9' - 11"4' - 7 5/16"5' - 7 5/16"7' - 0"3' - 2 5/16"4' - 6"4' - 0 5/8"3' - 11 1/2"3' - 10 9/16"2' - 11 3/8"3' - 4 5/8"N-1-AN-2-AN-3-AN-1-BN-2-BN-3-BN-1-CN-2-CN-3-CN-1.1-DN-1.3-DN-1.2-DN-2-DN-3-D4' - 4 5/16"1A3.71A3.77' - 8"7' - 8"7' - 8"AAAAT.O.W. SOUTHWALL OF BRIDGE7' - 10 1/4"second floor +158' - 2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked bye-mail: brian@thinktankdesign.netaddress: 600 N Wallace AvenueLoft #3Bozeman, MT 59715phone:406-587-3628cell:406-580-9750108 W. BABCOCK - BOZEMAN , MT 59715TEL: (406) 582-9901 FAX:(406)582-9992 1/4" = 1'-0"9/24/2009 1:31:46 PM601 South BlackBozeman, MT 59715A4.4BuildingElevation09-021Caldwell ResidencePhase II - Remodelexisting home9-11-2009AuthorChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1NorthNo. Description Date126
127
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
APPLICATION WITH DEMOLITION
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness application with
demolition has been submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development
requesting the following alterations at 601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the historic
structure on the site, which “contributes” to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the
National Register of Historic Places; 2) new residential construction in place of the historic
residence, on the eastern portion of the lot; and 3) related site improvements.
No deviations are requested with this application.
The Bozeman City Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed application on
Monday, March 29, 2010, in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N Rouse Avenue Bozeman
MT at 6:00 p.m.
The City invites the public to comment in writing and to attend the public hearing. Written
comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman, Department of Planning and Community
Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. The submittal materials regarding this
application may be reviewed in the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development, Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who
require accommodations for disabilities, please contact James Goehrung, City of Bozeman ADA
Coordinator, 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD). Caldwell Demolition and new construction (#Z-
10021)
SUBMITTED THURSDAY, 3/11/10 FOR SUNDAYS, 03/14/10 & 03/21/10 LEGAL AD
PUBLICATION. PLEASE SEND AFFIDAVIT TO BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
128
planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION WITH DEMOLITION
A Certificate of Appropriateness application with demolition has been submitted to the
Department of Planning & Community Development requesting the following alterations at
601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the historic structure on the site, which “contributes”
to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places; 2)
new residential construction in place of the historic residence, on the eastern portion of the lot;
and 3) related site improvements.
The Department of Planning and Community Development invites the public to
comment on the Caldwell Demolition and new construction (#Z-10021) project, requested by
property owner and applicant Brian and Britta Caldwell, 601 South Black Avenue,
Bozeman, MT 59715, pursuant to Chapter 18.28 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance.
No deviations are requested with this application.
The property is legally described as Lots 1 & 2, Hoffman’s Addition to the City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The zoning designation for said property is “R-2”
(Residential, Medium Density) and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
The City invites the public to comment in writing or contact the Department of Planning
with questions or concerns. Written comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman,
Department of Planning and Community Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-
1230. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the City of
Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, Alfred M. Stiff Professional
Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities,
please contact James Goehrung, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-3203 (voice), 582-
2301 (TDD).
Caldwell Demolition and new construction (#Z-10021)
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, March 29, 2010
6pm
Commission Room
Of City Hall
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MT
129
Page 2
130
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
APPLICATION WITH DEMOLITION
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness application with
demolition that has been submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development
requesting the following alterations at 601 South Black Avenue: 1) demolition of the historic
structure on the site, which “contributes” to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the
National Register of Historic Places; 2) new residential construction in place of the historic
residence, on the eastern portion of the lot; and 3) related site improvements.
No deviations are requested with this application.
The Bozeman City Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed application on March
29, 2010, in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N Rouse Avenue Bozeman MT at 6:00 p.m.
The City invites the public to comment in writing and to attend the public hearing. Written
comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman, Department of Planning and Community
Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. The submittal materials regarding this
application may be reviewed in the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development, Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who
require accommodations for disabilities, please contact James Goehrung, City of Bozeman ADA
Coordinator, 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD). Caldwell Demolition and new construction (#Z-
10021)
SUBMITTED THURSDAY, 3/11/10 FOR SUNDAYS, 03/14/10 & 03/21/10 LEGAL AD
PUBLICATION. PLEASE SEND AFFIDAVIT TO BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
131
planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: COURTNEY KRAMER, ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RE: CALDWELL DEMO/ NEW CONSTRUCTION
DATE: MARCH 3, 2010
MEETING DATE: MARCH 10, 2010
Introduction:
This application proposes to demolish an existing residential structure at 601 South Black Avenue, a
property which “contributes” to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register of
Historic Places. As required by Bozeman Municipal Code 18.28.080 A, the demolition application
includes a proposal for new construction, roughly in the area of the existing house, to be connected to
the 2008 addition to the existing structure. The Bozeman City Commission has the final review and
approval authority for projects which propose demolition of a “contributing” structure, and BMC
18.26.080 C requires the Design Review Board to make a recommendation to the City Commission with
demolition applications. The project has also been routed to Administrative Design Review Staff for
additional comments regarding the proposed design. All design review comments will be collated into
a Staff Report to the City Commission.
Project Background:
Preservation Planning Staff has been working with the applicant regarding this property since late 2007.
The project proposed to rehabilitate the existing structure, and build a very contemporary addition to
the rear. The vastly different type of architecture proposed with the addition was intended to offset and
contrast the vernacular pyramidal bungalow structure which contributed to the historic district.
132
Page 2
Figure 1: The initial proposal for this development intended to preserve and rehabilitate the existing historic structure, while adding a
very contemporary addition on to the rear of the lot through a glass box connection.
Figure 2: Phase one of the project is complete.
The project was proposed and commenced in phases, with the addition being constructed first.
Additional investigation of the existing structure proved the rehabilitation proposed to be economically
cost prohibitive, and the applicant has provided materials as such. The focus of this DRB memo shall be
to review the design for all new construction proposed on the site, which staff believes should be
consistent with all guidelines recommended for historic properties within a historic district. In particular,
ADR Staff would appreciate responses on the following questions:
133
Page 3
1. Does the proposed new construction fit within the neighborhood context in terms of streetscape
rhythm and character? Is the 45 foot setback to the principal massing of the proposed new
construction appropriate, or too large of a setback?
2. Should the roof form be a front gable, like those found in the neighborhood context, or a side
gable, to further reinforce the differentiation between the historic context and the new
construction? Would the addition of a front gable dormer be an appropriate reference to the
predominance of the front gable form in the neighborhood?
3. Are the proposed windows consistent with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines? Are
the proposed windows appropriate within the context of the neighborhood?
4. Is the proposed form of the structure appropriate within the context of the neighborhood? Is it
too much of an interpretation rather than an actual historic reference?
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at 301 South Black Avenue and is legally described as Lots 1 & 1 of
Hoffman’s addition to the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is zoned as R-2
(Residential Two Household) and is a “contributing” property within the South Tracy/ South Black Historic
District and within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Please refer to the following location map:
PROJECT PROPOSAL
This project proposes to demolish the existing historic structure on the eastern portion of the lot at 601
South Black Avenue, in order to enable new residential construction on the site.
Built between 1898 and 1904, the existing residence is described by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory as follows:
“This detached one-story single-family residence has a rectangular plan with an arched
over door supported by wood posts. The one-bay façade is symmetrical and consists of
a central front entrance flanked by fixed and 1/1 double-hung windows. The frame
construction is finished in bevel siding and rests on a concrete foundation. The hipped
134
Page 4
roof is covered with green asphalt shingles and features boxed eaves and a metal
stovepipe. The axis of the roof is square to the street. Outbuildings include a shed.”1
Completed in Bozeman in the mid-1980’s, the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory
formed the basis of a number of district and individual nominations to the National Register of
Historic Places. This property became part of Bozeman’s North Tracy/ North Black Historic District,
which
“Consists of 93 diverse, vernacular houses linking S. Tracy and S. Black Avenues
between Olive and Alderson Streets… It is distinct from the two large, adjacent
residential historic districts in Bozeman due to its greater building density and its
high concentration of significant architecture of generally more modest scale
and ornamentation. Many of the most significant buildings occur in pairs or
groups of three, which heights the overall visual impact of the district. Although
many 19th century houses are found here, the numerous excellent examples of
the Bungalow style are visually predominant. Overall, a continuous rhythm of
regularly spaced houses along tree-lined streets acts as a strong unifying element
in the district.”2
The South Tracy/ South Black Historic District is historically significant as one of the first
contiguous residential areas in Bozeman to develop off of Main Street, thus containing
most of the oldest remaining historic houses in the city.
Review within Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District
As a contributing structure within a historic district, the Introduction and Chapters 2, 3 and 5 apply to
design review of this project proposal.
Introduction:
Part I: Overview
B. Preservation Goals for Bozeman
A primary design goal for Bozeman is to preserve the integrity of its individual historic structures and the
character of its streetscapes in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. To maintain the
character of a historic building, design elements such as form, mass and materials should be considered
in any alteration. The relationship each building has with other neighborhood design elements are also
important, as well as the hierarchy of site elements, such as street trees, front yards, walkways and
accessory structures.
ADR Staff’s principal concern is the appropriateness of the proposed new construction within the
context of the neighborhood. The architectural description of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic
District referenced above specifically notes the continuous rhythm of regularly spaced houses as a
strong unifying element of the district, and the Design Guidelines direct projects to be aware of the
streetscape character. The existing historic structure at 601 South Black Avenue is sits 30 feet outside of
the right of way, which Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate to be generally in character with the other
residences on the street. The porch of the new construction proposed will be about thirty two feet from
the street, and the massing of the overall new structure will be 45 feet from the street.
1 James McDonald Architects P.C. “Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory: Bozeman”. Montana Historical Society,
Helena. 1984.
2 (South Tracy, South Black National Register Historic District Nomination, 1985, Section 8, p. 68)
135
Page 5
Figure 3: 1904 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue.3
Figure 4: 1912 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 4
3 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1904)
4 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1912)
136
Page 6
Figure 5: 1927 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 5
Figure 6: 1943 Sanborn Map of South Black Avenue. 6
Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for All Properties:
5 (Sanborn Map Company 1927)
6 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1943)
137
Page 7
B. Street Patterns
Policy:
Historic settlement patterns seen in street and alley plans
often contribute to the distinct character of the historic
district and therefore they should be preserved. These
street plans influence the manner in which primary
structures are sited and they also shape the manner in
which secondary structures and landscape features may
occur on the site.
Guidelines:
1. Respect historic settlement patterns.
• Site a new building such that it is arranged on its
site in a way similar to historic buildings in the
area. This includes consideration of building
setbacks and open space.
ADR Staff expresses concern that the 45 foot front yard
setback to the principal massing of the structure is outside
of the established setback range that defines the
neighborhood’s character.
Figure 77: Is the principal massing of the
proposed structure too far outside of the
established setback range that defines the
neighborhood character?
D. Streetscape
Policy:
Maintain the traditional character of the streetscape. This includes a rich collection of varying street
designs, sidewalk types and street trees.
Guidelines:
1. Maintain the variety of street paving designs.
• Most streets in the neighborhood are paved and have both curb and gutter. However, some
streets lack sidewalks or paving. Thus, they possess their own character and serve as informal
pedestrian ways. This tradition of unpaved streets should continue when it is not a hazard to
pedestrians or bicyclists.
2. Maintain the variety of sidewalk designs.
• Where a detached (sidewalks separated from the street by a strip of grass) sidewalk exists, it
should be preserved.
• Where no sidewalk exists a new sidewalk is required; it should be constructed to be in
character with the traditional sidewalks in the neighborhood.
3. Continue the use of planting strips.
• Planting strips should act as a transition between public and semipublic spaces.
• Where planting strips between the curb and sidewalk exist they should be maintained.
• If new detached sidewalks are installed in the neighborhood, new planting strips should be
provided.
4. Continue the pattern of street trees in a block. Because street trees serve various aesthetic and
practical functions, they should be maintained.
• Existing street trees should be preserved, when feasible.
7 (Nore V. Winter 2005, 45)
138
Page 8
• If a new detached sidewalk is to be created, street trees should be an accompanying
feature.
• If a new sidewalk is to be installed, it should detour around mature street trees, when
feasible.
• When an existing street tree dies, it should be replaced.
• Any new developments should include street trees.
• The historic urban design character for street tree placement should be considered when
enforcing city street standards.
E. Landscape Design
Policy:
Traditionally, plant beds were located around building foundations, along walkways and sometimes in
front of fences. Some of these plantings may have historic significance and should be retained, to the
extent feasible. Some mature trees may also contribute to the historic landscape and should be
preserved.
Guidelines:
1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation within all corridors.
• Include existing vegetation as a part of a landscape design scheme where appropriate.
• In development areas, healthy trees and vegetation clusters should be identified for
preservation. Special consideration should be given to mature trees, 6” or greater in
diameter, and to vegetation clusters with signify cant visual impact. Vegetation designated
for preservation should be incorporated into new development site design to the maximum
extent possible.
ADR Staff included Chapter 2, parts D and E guidelines during design review, as the proposed project
does meet these standards. No changes will be made to the boulevard setbacks and all existing
vegetation on the site will be maintained.
F. Building Form
Policy:
A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity.
In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should have basic roof and building
forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall facade proportions also should be in harmony
with the context.
Guidelines:
1. Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
• Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.
2. Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged.
• Geodesic domes and A-frames are not generally considered traditional building forms and
should not be used in the designated historic districts.
• Sloping roof forms such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate in most residential and
transition areas.
• Flat roofs are appropriate in most commercial and transition areas, and in some cases may
be appropriate in residential areas.
A front-facing gable is the predominant roof form found in this section of the South Black Historic District.
This project proposes to use a side gable with a 12:12 roof pitch moving away from the street. ADR Staff
is undecided; should the new construction roof mimic the front-facing gable found to be dominant in
the immediate area, or does the side gable roof further reinforce that this structure is not of the same
time period as the remainder of the district?
139
Page 9
G. Solid-to-Void Ratio
Policy:
A typical building appeared to be a rectangular solid, with small holes “punched” in the walls for
windows and doors. Most buildings had similar amounts of glass, resulting in a relatively uniform solid-to-
void ratio. This ratio on a new building, the amount of facade that is devoted to wall surface, as
compared to that developed as openings, should be similar to that of historic buildings within the
neighborhood.
Guideline:
1. Use a ratio of solid-to-void (wall-to-window) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the
district.
• Large surfaces of glass may be inappropriate. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller panes
similar to those seen traditionally.
The project proposes window openings that differ significantly from the pattern of window openings
found in the neighborhood. Windows proposed with this project are wider than they are long, creating
a horizontal nature that differs from the verticality of windows found in the existing neighborhood
context. The windows proposed also lack the division of glass surfaces into smaller panes that the
guidelines recommend. ADR Staff finds the windows proposed with this application to be inconsistent
with the Design Guidelines.
H. Materials
Policy:
Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to the visual
continuity of the neighborhood. They should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a
sense of visual continuity.
Guidelines:
1. Use building materials that appear similar to those used traditionally in the area.
• Horizontal lap siding is appropriate in most residential neighborhoods. Brick and stone are
also appropriate in most areas.
• All wood siding should have a weather-protective finish.
• The use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
2. The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen historically is appropriate.
• Brick should have a modular dimension similar to that used traditionally.
Brick larger than the nominal 2-3/8” x 8” is discouraged.
• Stone, similar to that used traditionally, is also appropriate.
3. New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with
appropriate detailing.
• Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those
used traditionally.
4. Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.
• This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.
Ø Chapter 3, page 61 also says of materials: “Brick, stone and painted wood are preferred
prinamry building materials.”
The materials proposed with this application differ greatly from those seen historically in this district. The
unique metal materials used on the phase one “tower” addition were approved because they starkly
differentiated the new tower construction from the historic structure on the site.
140
Page 10
Figure 8: Are the materials proposed appropriate within the context of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District?
The principal exterior cladding material proposed for the new construction is a vertical fir skip siding,
over a waterproof membrane underlayment. While the use of new and innovative materials adds
interest to the project, ADR Staff is concerned that use of these materials on the front portion of the
complex is inappropriate and does not meet Guidelines 1, 3 and 4 above. Perhaps the skip siding
should be turned horizontally, to mimic a horizontal lap siding, and painted to create a “finished” look
rather than allowed to weather in order to maintain a more traditional siding appearance? The porch is
proposed to be constructed of painted wood framing.
ADR Staff does not have detailed information about the materials of the proposed doors and windows.
The asphalt shingles proposed for the roof are a material routinely approved by the Planning
Department in the historic districts.
I. Architectural Character
Policy:
New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
Guidelines:
1. The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged for newer structures.
• One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and
new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural
evolution of the district.
2. Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged.
• Interpretations of historic styles may be considered, if they are subtly distinguishable as
being new.
• New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual
interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for
porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs also
could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.
The new construction proposed with this project certainly distinguishes itself from historic structures that
will remain in the neighborhood. The east and west elevations are a very basic form that is a historic
reference to a house shape, while not being an imitation of a historic style. Is the combination of the
proposed interpretive part, in connection to the recently constructed “tower”, however, too much
interpretation and too little historic reference on the site?
Chapter 3: Guidelines for Residential Character Areas
141
Page 11
GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AREAS
A. Hierarchy of Public and Private Space
Policy:
The hierarchy of public and private space is a progression that begins at the street, which is the most
public space, proceeds through the front yard, which appears "semi-private," and ends at the front
door, which is the "private" space. This sequence enhances the pedestrian environment and contributes
to the character of the neighborhood; it should be maintained.
Guidelines:
1. Provide a front yard similar in character to its neighbors when possible.
• The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material, and
not covered with paving or large outdoor decks.
2. Provide a walkway from the street to the building.
• A walkway running from the street to the front porch provides unity to the streetscape.
Where a walkway has been an element of the hierarchy, this should continue.
3. Orient the front porch to the street.
• While the porch serves as a transition area from the street to the house, it is also an
essential element of the streetscape: It provides human scale to the house; it offers interest
to pedestrians; and it is a catalyst for personal interaction.
• This should not be interpreted to exclude side porches.
4. Clearly define the primary entrance by using a front porch.
• The porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
The design proposed does include a front porch space. The proposed porch is oriented towards South
Black Avenue as well as East Alderson Street, to the north east corner of the lot. ADR Staff finds the
proposed porch to be an interesting interpretation of front porch design, and generally appropriate in
the context of the neighborhood.
B. Building Mass and Scale
Policy:
The mass and scale of a building is also an important design issue in a residential character area. The
traditional scale of single household houses dominates the neighborhood, and this similarity of scale also
enhances the pedestrian-friendly character of many streets. Similarities in scale among prominent
building features, such as porches and fences, are also important. In many cases, earlier buildings were
smaller than current tastes support; nonetheless, a new building should, to the greatest extent possible,
maintain this established scale. While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger
than many of the earlier structures, this new construction should not be so dramatically greater in scale
than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised.
Guidelines:
1. Construct a new building to be similar in mass and scale to those single household residences seen
traditionally.
• Traditional features that convey a human scale should also be used.
Consider these techniques:
- Use building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
- Provide a one-story porch that is similar to those seen traditionally.
2. On larger structures, step down a building's height toward the street, neighboring structures and the
rear of the lot.
142
Page 12
• When zoning regulations permit, the back side of a building may be taller than the established
norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.
3. On larger structures, subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single
household residences seen traditionally.
• Other, subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
4. The front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height.
• The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures
in the block.
• A new multi-household structure should not overwhelm existing single household structures, in
terms of height.
5. A facade should appear similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
• Typically, a residential building front ranges from 14-30 feet in width. Additional widths were
accomplished with a setback or change in building plane.
ADR staff believes the proposed new construction fulfills the guidelines above. The building’s massing
and scale does not overpower those found in the neighborhood; a one story porch is proposed; and
the massing of the structure is broken up into modules. ADR Staff finds the overall massing and scale of
the proposed design to be appropriate in the context of the neighborhood.
C. Roof Form
Policy:
In most neighborhoods, a similarity of roof form also contributes to a sense of visual continuity. In order to
maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should have basic roof form that is similar to those
seen traditionally.
Guideline:
1. Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
• The primary ridge line of a residential structure should not exceed the typical maximum for the
block.
As noted earlier, this application proposes a roof form that differs from the pattern of front facing gable
roofs found in the neighborhood. While this may be an appropriate way to differentiate this property
from the surrounding area, perhaps a front facing gable dormer should be added in order to break up
the street-side roof form, and provide a reference to the predominant pattern in the district?
Chapter 5: District Specific Guidelines
… for the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District”
Period of Significance: 1872-1939
District Character:
• Residential neighborhood setting
• Similar front yard setback
• Simple one and two-story wood frame residential buildings
• Porches address the street
• Secondary structures & garages to the rear of the lot
• Automobile access is primarily from the alley
Guideline:
1. Reflect the district character when building within the district.
• Consider the use of wood and masonry materials.
• Consider developing a design palette for new construction that draws from design elements
and materials found in the area.
143
Page 13
• Use simple rectangular building forms with sloping roofs
ADR Staff finds the proposal generally addresses the district’s character and recommended guidelines.
CONCLUSION
Administrative Design Review Staff has reviewed this application as a “contributing” element to an
existing historic district within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Staff acknowledges that
the applicant has provided sufficient materials indicating the economic lifespan of the existing structure
has passed, and has reviewed the proposed new construction as infill within a historic district. Staff
questions the appropriateness of the extensively contemporary design of the entire complex (tower and
new structure), and wonders if new construction on the eastern end of the lot should be more
traditional in form and materials. Staff asks the DRB to make design recommendations and/or
comments in regards to the Caldwell proposal, which will be forwarded to the Bozeman City
Commission as part of the demolition hearing. In particular, ADR Staff would appreciate to hear
responses on the following questions:
1. Does the proposed new construction fit within the neighborhood context in terms of streetscape
rhythm and character? Is the 45 foot setback to the principal massing of the proposed new
construction appropriate, or too large of a setback?
2. Should the roof form be a front gable, like those found in the neighborhood context, or a side
gable, to further reinforce the differentiation between the historic context and the new
construction? Would the addition of a front gable dormer be an appropriate reference to the
predominance of the front gable form in the neighborhood?
3. Are the proposed windows consistent with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines? Are
the proposed windows appropriate within the context of the neighborhood?
4. Is the proposed form of the structure appropriate within the context of the neighborhood? Is it
too much of an interpretation rather than an actual historic reference?
Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials
CC: Brian and Britta Caldwell
601 South Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155