HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 9, 2012_Resolution No_ 4387 granting approval of the Nute _8.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Resolution #4387 granting approval of the Nute Tax Abatement at 308
South Tracy Avenue, a property within the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District
on the National Register of Historic Places (#Z11077).
MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Having reviewed the application materials, considered public
comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented
in the staff report for the Nute Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation request at 308 South
Tracy Avenue and move to approve Resolution #4387 granting said Tax Abatement.
BACKGROUND: The Certificate of Appropriateness with deviation for the Nute Addition
was approved by the Board of Adjustment on May 10, 2011. The Bozeman Historic Preservation
Advisory Board (BHPAB) initially reviewed the Tax Abatement Request at the May 26, 2011
Board Meeting, and followed up with a written memo outlining their concerns for the project
with specific focus on the proposal to remove and replace in kind the existing siding and windows.
In Spring of 2012 the applicants notified Staff of the project’s substantial completion, and
provided additional information about the completed project and decision to replace existing
windows and siding. The BHPAB reviewed this information at their May 24, 2012 meeting, and ultimately voted 6-3 to recommend denial of the request based upon a literal interpretation of the
Tax Abatement criteria, which prohibit removal of original windows and siding.
Given the information provided by the applicant, Staff respectfully disagrees with the BHPAB’s
analysis of the Tax Abatement criteria, and recommends approval of the Tax Abatement request.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: There are no unresolved issues at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available:
1. Approve the Tax Abatement request as recommended by Staff based on a finding of
compliance with applicable criteria as analyzed in the Staff Report.
2. Deny the Tax Abatement request as recommended by the BHPAB based on a finding of non-compliance with applicable criteria.
176
3. Continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to Staff or the
applicant for additional information.
FISCAL EFFECTS: If granted, the tax abatement will affect the amount of increased taxable
value for the city/county/school districts, for a period of up to five (5) years after construction. After the abatement period, the city/county/school districts will see the improvements added to the tax roll.
For the property owner, approximately 80% of the property taxes on these improvements will be
abated for five (5) years. While significant to the property owner, the amount of tax revenue abated by this one project
will not have significant financial implications for the City. Once the abatement period has
ended, the City will benefit from the increase and improvement to our tax base.
Report compiled on: June 26, 2012 Attachments: Staff Report, BHPAB minutes, BHPAB memo
Application materials
177
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 1
Staff Report for Nute Tax Abatement at 308 South Tracy Avenue #Z-11077
Item: Request for Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation subsequent to the rehabilitation of the residence at 308 South Tracy Avenue.
Owner: Robert and Joanna Nute
308 South Tracy Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715
Date submitted to the City Commission: June 28, 2012
City Commission meeting date: July 9, 2012 Report By: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer
Recommendation: Approval of the Tax Abatement request and adoption of Resolution 4387 granting
Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation at 308 South Tracy Avenue to Robert and Joanna Nute. ______________________________________________________________________________
Project Location
The property is legally described as Lots 8 & 9, Block F, Black’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 South Tracy/ South Black Historic District and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
Proposal
This application requests Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation subsequent to the extensive rehabilitation of the residence at 308 South Tracy Avenue. The rehabilitation project included the
178
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 2
installation of a new foundation, shoring of an existing foundation, replacement of windows and
replacement of deteriorated siding and roofing materials. The property contributes to the South Tracy/
South Black Avenue Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places. The property is
located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District zoning designation.
Background
The Certificate of Appropriateness with deviation for the Nute Addition was approved by the Board of
Adjustment on May 10, 2011.
The Nute Tax Abatement request was initially reviewed by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory
Board (BHPAB) at the May 26, 2011 Board meeting. The minutes from that meeting are included with
this report. The BHPAB followed up with a formal review letter on June 20, 2011, which laid out
specific areas of concern regarding how the project as proposed followed the Tax Abatement criteria as adopted by the Bozeman City Commission.
After lengthy discussion, the BHPAB chose to table final recommendation for the application until the
project was complete, in order to ensure that the finished project could be evaluated against the criteria.
In early Spring 2012, the Nutes notified Staff of the project’s completion, and submitted subsequent information regarding the tax abatement application and the project as completed. This information is
also included with this report.
The BHPAB again reviewed the project at their regularly scheduled May 24, 2012 meeting, with the
Nutes in attendance. Conversation during this meeting primarily focused on two areas: replacement of the original siding and replacement of the windows. Both of these construction choices were raised as
potential issues in the May 2011 review memo sent by the BHPAB to the Nutes prior to commencement
of construction, as replacement of original windows or siding is strongly discouraged by the ordinance.
The applicants provided information regarding the poor condition of the original siding and
documentation that the siding was replaced exactly in kind as recommended by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. The Nutes also provided information indicating that the
removed windows were not original to the structure.
The BHPAB members generally felt that they were required to take a literal interpretation of the review
criteria of the tax abatement ordinance adopted by the City Commission. Based on this interpretation of the review criteria, the BHPAB voted 6-3 to recommend denial of the tax abatement request. Minutes
from the May 2012 BHPAB meeting are included with this staff report.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The intent and purpose of the Tax Abatement Certificate of Appropriateness is to encourage the
appropriate rehabilitation, restoration and preservation of historic properties which otherwise would not
have been so carefully preserved. Tax abatement is to reward extraordinary efforts in preservation and
not minimal compliance with mandatory standards. Therefore, it is recognized that a grant of tax
abatement is a discretionary act by the City Commission.
The COA was reviewed by the Department of Planning and Community Development and found to be
in conformance with Bozeman Municipal Code 18.28, and thus has already been awarded a Certificate
of Appropriateness and Building Permit, independent of the tax abatement request. Following a
recommendation from the BHPAB, the City Commission is charged with approval of the Tax Abatement, based on the review criteria established in the ordinance.
179
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 3
Review Criteria Established in Ordinance 1744, Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation:
3.30.040 Procedures:
D. All taxes, assessments and SID obligations on any property proposed for tax abatement must be current before any tax abatement will be considered.
The application includes information from Gallatin County verifying the property is current on taxes.
3.30.050 Standards:
A. The property must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The property is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP);
2. The property is at least 50 years of age and located in an established NRHP historic district; 3. The property is determined by a qualified professional to be eligible for individual listing in the
NRHP. If this criterion is selected the applicant must complete the necessary steps to list the
property on the NRHP prior to the final approval of any abatement.
The property at 308 South Tracy Avenue contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places.
B. Alterations to the properties or structures without City approval and consent with the requirements of
this chapter nullifies the tax abatement qualification.
The property has not been altered without City approval. The property owners are aware that alterations
which negatively affect the property’s contributing status during the period of tax abatement will
disqualify the tax abatement and make the property subject to back taxes under 3.40.040 E of Ordinance
1744.
C. All standard COA requirements per 18.28 BMC or its successors apply as well as these further Tax
Abatement COA requirements:
1. Additions to existing structures
a. Additions which increase the size of the footprint are limited to no more than a 10 percent increase of the structure’s footprint.
The project did not increase the size of the footprint of the structure.
b. Additions must not exceed the height of the existing roofline.
Additions to the residence were limited to two dormers on the rear portion of the building,
which do not exceed the height of the existing roofline.
c. Additions are limited to secondary facades and evaluated in the context of the façade on
which the addition is applied.
The additional dormers were on secondary facades.
d. Due to the limited size of the addition no specific similarity or differentiation of materials
is required as referenced in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 9 & 10.
N/A.
2. Roof:
180
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 4
a. Shape and material of the existing roof must be preserved unless it can be demonstrated
that a different material is more historically appropriate for the structure.
Alterations to the roof shape were limited to the addition of dormers. The roofing material
was replaced in kind.
b. Dormers will be considered on a case by case basis and must meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and UDO standards for dormers. Dormers shall be limited to not more
than ½ the length of the existing roofline.
(1) If new dormers are added they must match existing dormers in shape, style and
materials.
Prior to the construction project, there were no dormers on the rear portion of the
residence. The dormers as constructed satisfy the requirement to be not more than ½ the
length of the existing roofline and mirror the shape of the gable end of the residence.
3. Materials:
a. Windows:
(1) Rehabilitation of viable windows is required through repair, restoration and
reconstruction.
(2) Window replacement requires a professional assessment of the existing windows.
(3) Window replacement must be historically appropriate and match historic materials.
(a) Window matching is to the fundamental historic integrity of the building, which may not be what currently exists.
(4) Historically appropriate storm windows may be applied.
The windows were replaced. The windows installed in the structure are a match to the
removed original windows. The windows on the north and east elevations were expanded
by six inches in order to satisfy the requirements for life-safety egress from a bedroom.
The BHPAB recommended denial of the tax abatement request because the windows were
replaced.
Based upon the professional assessment provided by the applicant, Staff concurs that the
deteriorated condition of the existing windows rendered them non-viable for repair,
restoration or reconstruction. The windows were failing mechanically and egress requirements necessitated slight expansion of the window openings. Moreover, the
existing windows were likely not original to the structure. The new windows installed
matched the original in appearance and material of construction.
b. Siding:
(1) If historic siding is intact it shall be preserved and restored.
(2) If historic siding is missing, new siding should follow the Department of the
Interior’s guidelines for reconstruction.
In the June 20, 2011 BHPAB formal review letter of the proposed tax abatement, specific
areas of concern were identified regarding how the project complied with the Tax
Abatement criteria. The removal of the original siding is the primary point of the BHPAB’s recommendation of denial of the Tax Abatement request.
The applicant and their contractor have provided information documenting that the
original siding was not intact and was un-salvageable, including photographs of the
deteriorated siding, a physical sample and a written narrative describing the need to re-
181
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 5
apply exterior paint on an annual basis in order to stall siding deterioration. As a result of
the condition of the siding, the applicant removed the historic siding and replaced it in
kind.
Staff finds the applicant’s information justifies the replacement of the original siding. Additionally, Staff finds that the new siding applied to the building satisfies the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Reconstruction, in that new siding applied
to the building is a match in material type, shape, and appearance.
c. Foundation:
(1) Repair and stabilization of existing foundation materials is encouraged and a primary goal.
(2) Foundation replacement is allowed at the same height or not more than plus or minus
one foot in height of the existing sill plate height.
(3) Foundation replacement requires a professional assessment of the existing
foundation.
(4) If replaced, the exterior of the new foundation shall match the historic foundation in
appearance.
Portions of the historic foundation were stabilized while other portions were removed and
replaced with poured-concrete. The height of the building changed less than one foot in
height as a result of the foundation work.
d. Roof:
(1) If historic roof material is intact it shall be preserved and restored.
(2) If historic roof material is missing, the new roof should follow the Department of the
Interior’s guidelines for restoration.
Based on information provided by the applicant, the roof material was not intact and was replaced in-kind.
4. Accessory Building: the same parameters apply to accessory buildings as for primary structures on
the property. Demolition of viable accessory buildings within five years of receiving the tax
abatement nullifies tax benefits.
No alterations to the accessory buildings on the property are proposed with this application.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment regarding the request for Tax Abatement has been received. CONCLUSION
On May 24, 2012 the BHPAB voted 6-3 to recommend denial of the Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation request at 603 South Tracy Avenue. This vote hinged upon a literal interpretation of the
Tax Abatement criteria in regards to exterior siding and windows. The BHPAB concluded that the
windows and siding were salvageable and therefore could not make the finding of compliance with the
applicable criteria to support the tax abatement request.
182
#Z-11077 Nute Tax Abatement Request at 308 South Tracy Avenue Staff Report 6
While respecting the BHPAB’s analysis and conclusions, Staff alternatively finds that the Nute project
complies with the intent and purpose of the Tax Abatement ordinance, and recommends the
Commission approve the request, based on the foregoing analysis of the applicable criteria.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials, Letter from easement owner, letter of public comment.
Report Sent to: Robert and Joanna Nute, 308 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
183
1 of 2
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4387
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ABATING ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE
INCREASE IN TAXES FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE CONSTRUCTION MONTHS AND FIVE YEARS TO COLE SHERMAN AND ANNE OWEN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 308 SOUTH TRACY AVENUE AS AUTHORIZED BY S15-24-1601 MONTANA ANNOTATED ET SEQ. FOR HISTORIC
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERICAL PROPERTIES UNDERGOING
REHABILITATION, RESTORIATION, EXPANSION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION MEETING THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY S15-24-1605 AND/OR 15-26-1606, AS WELL AS CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, RESOLUTION 2766. .
WHEREAS, The City Commission determines that it is in the public’s interest to encourage the
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction of certified historic, commercial and residential
properties or new construction that meets design review criteria compatible with an historic district by
conferring said tax benefits on improvements from those preservations, restorations, rehabilitations and
reconstructions involving certified historic properties and districts; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman received a request for tax abatement for historic preservation
from Robert and Joanna Nute for the rehabilitation, restoration and expansion of the residence at 308
South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and;
WHEREAS, the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory indicates the property at 308
South Tracy Avenue contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places; and,
WHEREAS, the restoration and expansion of the property received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development on
May 10, 2011; and
WHERAS, the Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the application for tax abatement for
184
Resolution No. 4279, Granting Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation to 404 West Curtiss Street
1 of 2
historic preservation under 15-24-1601 Montana Code Annotated and City Commission of the City of
Bozeman Resolution number 2766, as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Preservation and requirements for federal tax credits for historic preservation, and found the nature of the
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction and expansion to be in keeping with all ten of
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, and voted to advise the City
Commission approve the tax abatement requested; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, does hereby approve the tax benefits set forth in said statutes for those improvements made
through preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the property at 308 South Tracy
Avenue, a property which contributes to the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places, for a period of twelve construction months and five years.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a
regular session thereof held on the 9th day of July, 2012.
______________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
185
A22A2A214A231A31A3OFFICE/ GUEST ROOMLAUNDRYROOM1NEWCLOSET18' - 3"4' - 2 1/2"14' - 4 1/2"5' - 0"7' - 1 1/4"5' - 10 1/4"COL.COL.COL.NEW HEADERCOL.5' - 0"COATHOOKS226X6 COL.EQEQ4HEADERCOL.6X6 COL.FULL WIDTHUPPERCABINETSNEW BEAMROOF ABOVE.FRONTPORCHCHIMNEY TOBE REMOVEDNEW FLUSHHEADER, PROVIDEJOIST HANGERSAS REQ'D FOREXG JOISTCOL.EXISTINGJOIST2A3SHED ROOF5A312KITCHEN2DINING3BATH4LIVING ROOM5OFFICE /GUEST ROOM63A22A2A2141A314' - 4 1/2"18' - 0"14' - 4 1/2"18' - 0"29' - 4"4ANGLEDCEILINGFLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILING5' - 3"7' - 7"11' - 8 1/2"3' - 2"12' - 10 1/2"1CLOSETROOFBELOWROOFBELOWROOFBELOW5' - 0"9' - 5"3' - 0"9' - 7"30"30"25' - 0"CLOSETCLOSETEQEQEQEQ6' - 5 1/2"L1CASEMENT(EGRESS)FLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGANGLEDCEILING2A34" / 12"4" / 12"NEW SHEDROOFROOFABV.HAND FRAMED W/ 2X12'S5' - 6"2324CLOSET7BATHROOM8MASTERBEDROOM9GUESTBEDROOM10UPPER HALL11LOWER HALL123A22A241A3V.I.F.14' - 4"VERIFY18' - 0 1/2"32' - 4 1/2"V.I.F.1' - 6"22' - 9 1/2"5' - 0"IRREGULAR SURFACE, VERIFY29' - 3 1/2"12"X24" FOOTINGW/ 2#5'S12" DIA. CAISSON8" CAST-IN-PLACE CONC.W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE12" DIA. CAISSON3'x3' POSTFOOTING, W/#5'S 12" O.C.EACH WAYEXISTINGJOISTEXISTINGJOIST3- 2X6 POST2X6 BEARINGWALL8"X16" STRIP CONC.FOOTING W/ 2 #5'S2A33'x3' POSTFOOTING,W/ #5'S 12"O.C. EACHWAY5A3REPLACEDAMAGEDJOIST ASREQUIREDBASEMENT1REMOVE/ NOTCHEXG FOUNDATIONWALL AS REQ'D,12X24 CONC. FTGW/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACECONC. 4' HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.12X24 CONC. FTGW/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACECONC. 4' HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.V.I.F.29' - 3 1/2"MATCH EXG. HT.AND FTG, PATCHAS REQ'DPROPERTY LINE1' - 4"DATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:29:30 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715A120xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2PROPOSED PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"A11PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"A12PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"A13PROPOSED LOWER FLOORPRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-4-2010ISSUED FOR BID ANDREVIEW 11-18-2010REVISED 12-8-2010REVISED 12-16-2010DOOR SCHEDULEMark Description Manufacturer Width Height Count Finish Comments14' - 0" 6' - 8" 422' - 6" 6' - 8" 332' - 0" 6' - 8" 143' - 0" 6' - 8" 1WINDOW SCHEDULETypeMarkDescription Manufacturer Width Height Sill Height Head Height CountFrameFinishComments22' - 4" 5' - 5" 332' - 8" 2' - 9" 242' - 0" 3' - 0" 1' - 6" 4' - 6" 2ROOM SCHEDULENumber Name Base Finish Floor Finish Wall Finish Ceiling Finish Comments1 BASEMENT2 KITCHEN3 DINING4 BATH5 LIVING ROOM6 OFFICE /GUEST ROOM7 CLOSET8 BATHROOM9 MASTERBEDROOM10 GUESTBEDROOM11 UPPER HALL12 LOWER HALL186
PROPOSED MAINFLOOR0"GUEST FLOOR9' - 0"MAIN CEILING8' - 2"2ND CEILING17' - 3"GRADE-1' - 0"MASTER SUITE9' - 10 1/4"GUEST CEILING15' - 3"2A35A3RUBBLE FOUNDATIONTO BE REMOVED12X24 CONC. FTGW/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACE CONC. 4'HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.PROPOSED MAINFLOOR0"GUEST FLOOR9' - 0"MAIN CEILING8' - 2"2ND CEILING17' - 3"GRADE-1' - 0"GARAGE-3' - 0"LOWER FLOOR-9' - 0"1A3MASTER SUITE9' - 10 1/4"GUEST CEILING15' - 3"RUBBLE FOUNDATIONTO BE REMOVED12X24 CONC. FTGW/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACE CONC. 4'HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.STEPPED FOOTINGSTYP.1' - 0"2' - 0"PROPOSED MAINFLOOR0"GUEST FLOOR9' - 0"MAIN CEILING8' - 2"2ND CEILING17' - 3"GRADE-1' - 0"LOWER FLOOR-9' - 0"MASTER SUITE9' - 10 1/4"GUEST CEILING15' - 3"2A35A3PROPOSED MAINFLOOR0"GUEST FLOOR9' - 0"MAIN CEILING8' - 2"2ND CEILING17' - 3"GRADE-1' - 0"LOWER FLOOR-9' - 0"1A3MASTER SUITE9' - 10 1/4"GUEST CEILING15' - 3"TYP.2' - 0"TYP.1' - 0"STEPPED FOOTINGSRUBBLE FOUNDATIONTO BE REMOVED12X24 CONC. FTGW/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACE CONC. 4'HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.DATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:31:27 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715A220xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2PROPOSEDELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0"A21WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"A22NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"A23EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"A24SOUTHPRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-4-2010ISSUED FOR BID ANDREVIEW 11-18-2010REVISED 12-8-2010REVISED 12-16-2010187
NEW SIDING2A3OVERHANG TO MATCHEXISTING.A34NEW TRIMEXISTING WOODSHINGLE ROOFTRTD. 2x6 SILL W/SILL SEALER &5/8" A.B. @ 4' O.C.EMBED 7" MIN. IN CONC.12x24 CONC.FOOTING W/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACECONC. 4' HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.PROPOSED MAINFLOOR0"GUEST FLOOR9' - 0"MAIN CEILING8' - 2"2ND CEILING17' - 3"GRADE-1' - 0"1A3MASTER SUITE9' - 10 1/4"GUEST CEILING15' - 3"8' - 4"RIDGE BEAMHAND FRAMED 2X12'S12" 12"A33COLLAR TIESEXGFOUNDATIONEXG JOIST3/4" CDXPLYWOODSUBFLOOR3/4" CDXPLYWOODSUBFLOORNEW CDX PLYWOODSUBFLOOR THROUGHOUT STRUCTUREEXISTING 2X6 JOISTREPLACE BOTTOM PLATEW/ TREATED 2X6EXISTING WALLEXISTING DECK12x24 CONC.FOOTING W/ 2-#5'S8" CAST-IN-PLACECONC. 4' HIGH W/ 2 #5'S 48" O.C. VERT.4' - 0"TRTD. 2x6 SILL W/SILL SEALER &5/8" A.B. @ 4' O.C.EMBED 7" MIN. IN CONC.DATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:28:56 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715A320xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2PROPOSED SECTION,DETAILSPRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-4-2010ISSUED FOR BID ANDREVIEW 11-18-2010REVISED 12-8-2010REVISED 12-16-2010 1/2" = 1'-0"A31SECTION @ NEW STAIRS 1/2" = 1'-0"A32SECTION 1" = 1'-0"A33DETAIL @ WALL 1" = 1'-0"A34TYP. DETAIL @ EXT WALL 1" = 1'-0"A35SECTION AT FOUNDATION188
A22A2A214A231A31A32A35A3FILL IN FLOORHATCHREMOVE WALL,CASED OPENING18' - 3"4' - 2 1/2"14' - 4 1/2"COL.NEW HEADERCOL.FRONTPORCHCHIMNEY TOBE REMOVEDEXISTINGJOISTKITCHEN2DINING3BATH4LIVING ROOM5OFFICE /GUEST ROOM6HOLE INFLOORA22A2A2141A32A3ANGLEDCEILINGFLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGCLOSETROOFBELOWROOFBELOW30"30"FLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGCHIMNEY TOBE REMOVEDMASTERBEDROOM9GUESTBEDROOM10UPPER HALL11LOWER HALL12CHIMNEY TOBE REMOVEDREMOVE EXGFLOOR ANDPORTION OFROOF5' - 0"7' - 1 3/4"REMOVE SHEDROOFA22A2A2141A31A32A35A3IRREGULAR SURFACE, VERIFY32' - 0 1/2"5' - 0"IRREGULAR SURFACE, VERIFY29' - 1"CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACEEXISTINGJOISTEXISTINGJOISTREMOVE EXISTINGRUBBLE FOUNDATIONREPLACEDAMAGEDJOIST ASREQUIREDBASEMENT1REMOVE/ NOTCHEXG FOUNDATIONWALL AS REQ'D,VERIFY.REMOVE EXISTINGRUBBLE FOUNDATION6' - 0 1/4"7' - 3"EXCAVATETO 6'-9"NOTE: SUPPORT HOUSE WHILEREMOVING RUBBLE FOUNDATION ANDUNTIL NEW CONC. FOUNDATION ISFULLY INSTALLED.PROPERTY LINEDATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:28:00 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715D120xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2DEMOLITION PLANS 1/4" = 1'-0"D11DEMO - MAIN FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"D12DEMO - 2ND FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"D13DEMO - LOWER FLOOR189
9' - 11"22' - 5 1/2"29' - 5"6' - 2 1/2"2' - 4"5' - 10"2' - 7 3/4"3' - 1"2' - 8"2' - 7"3' - 0"4' - 0 1/4"14' - 4 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 6"2' - 5"10' - 5 1/2"18' - 4 1/2"20' - 0 1/4"4' - 7 1/4"8' - 7"2' - 4"4' - 2"2' - 8"3' - 8"2' - 4"5' - 8"18' - 0"7' - 6"2' - 8"2' - 10 1/2"2' - 11 1/2"2' - 5"4' - 6 1/2"KITCHEN5BATHROOM6DEN7FAMILY ROOM8STAIRCLOSETOPEN PORCHFLOOR HATCHPANTRYPROPERTYLINE14' - 4 1/2"18' - 0"14' - 4 1/2"18' - 0"29' - 4"2' - 0"6' - 2 1/2"2' - 4"GUESTBEDROOM1MASTERBEDROOM2CLOSET3BEDROOM414' - 2 1/2"3' - 0"3' - 0 1/4"4' - 9 1/2"ANGLEDCEILINGFLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGFLATCEILINGANGLEDCEILINGANGLEDCEILING1' - 5"ROOFBELOWROOFBELOWROOFROOFCRAWLSPACE9MECH10DATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:27:06 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715E120xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2EXISTING PLANS 1/4" = 1'-0"E11EXISTING MAIN FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"E12EXISTING 2ND FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"E13LOWER FLOOR190
A22A2A214A23TRACYALLEYEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTINGSTORAGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLINENORTHDATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:24:25 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715S120xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"S11SITE PLANPRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-4-2010ISSUED FOR BID ANDREVIEW 11-18-2010REVISED 12-8-2010REVISED 12-16-2010191
001#L01333ARoom name101150 SFA1INTERIOR ANDEXTERIORELEVATIONSDOOR TAGBUILDING AND WALLSECTIONSWINDOW TAGEQUIPMENT TAGGRIDSPLUMBING TAGELEVATION HEIGHTELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING FIXTURE TAGCENTER LINEWALL TAGKEY NOTES1REVISION TAG1A101SIMA-201A1NameElevation001A001ROOM TAGCONCRETE, STUCCOBLUESTONE/SLATE ETC.STEELOSB, PARTICLE BDPLYWOOD-SMALL SCALEBATT/LOOSEFILL INSUL.SAND/MORTAR/PLASTER/CUT STONETERRAZZOFOAM INSULATIONPLASTICRIGID INSULATIONGYPSUM WALL BOARDLARGE SCALESTEEL STUD-LARGESCALEWOOD STUDLARGE SCALEPOROUS FILL GRAVELLARGE SCALECONCRETE BLOCKBRASSROUGH FRAMINGGLASS BLOCKPLYWOOD, LVLGLASSFACE BRICKALUMINUMBLOCKINGFINISH WOODEARTH/COMPACTFILLCERAMIC TILEWOOD STUD-SMALL SCALEACOUSTIC TILEBEARING STUD-SMALLDATE:REVISIONS:JOB NO:SHEET NO:DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN SPECIFICATION OR RE-PORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUP-ERVISION AND THAT I AM AREGISTERED ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.REGISTRATION NO: 117891000 BOONE AVE N. SUITE 200GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427PHONE 612-332-8000FAX 612-332-7504WWW.KNUTSON-ARCHITECTS.COM4/13/2011 6:26:26 PM308 S TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715T20xx10-19-2010NUTE REMODELING OPTION 2TITLENUTE HISTORIC RESTORATIONLARGE SCALE MAPSMALL SCALE MAP308 TRACY AVE S. BOZEMAN, MTDRAWING LISTSHEET # SHEET NAMET TITLES1 SITE PLANE1 EXISTING PLANSD1 DEMOLITION PLANSA1 PROPOSED PLANA2 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSED SECTION, DETAILS308 TRACY AVE S. BOZEMAN, MT 12" = 1'-0"TAG SYMBOLS 12" = 1'-0"MATERIAL SYMBOLT13D View 1T23D View 2T33D View 3T43D View 4PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-1-2010PRINTED FOR REVIEW11-4-2010ISSUED FOR BID ANDREVIEW 11-18-2010REVISED 12-8-2010REVISED 12-16-2010192
Tax Abatement Application for Robert and Joanna Nute 308 South Tracy Gallatin County Bozeman Montana 59715 (952) 270-1882
Identified as the Richard and Mary McDonald House, this property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The first two-story house constructed in Bozeman, and built by freed slaves who arrived here in 1864, migrating overland by covered wagon after being freed in Missouri after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The property contributes to the integrity of a National Register of Historic Districts. The district is identified as the South Tracy and South Black Historical District. All taxes, assessments and Special Improvement District obligations on the property for tax abatement are current. 1. Location map: Lots 8 & 9 of Block F of Black’s Addition to the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, MT 2. Building was constructed in 1872 3. The original architect is unknown. Structure was built by Richard McDonald 4. Subsequent construction and later additions are unknown 5. The property has always been used as a private residence 6. Property will continue to be used as a private residence after the rehabilitation 7. Tax Assessment before rehabilitation: $1,899.66 8. Estimated tax after rehabilitation is completed: Unknown 9. Footprint before rehabilitation includes: I-House form which includes a roofed front porch, living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom stairway and roofed back porch on first level. Three bedrooms on the second level. Square footage for both floors is approximately 1,530. After rehabilitation, the footprint of the structure will be unchanged but will include a bump out portion of the south wall, amounting to approximately 80 square feet, gained by enclosing the back porch. New total square footage will be approximately 1,610 . 10. Changes to the roof structure include one dormer on the north side and one dormer on the south side of the property. A small roof cover will be added to protect the back door being relocated to the east side of the property. 11. New building materials will include: a. 4 ft. below grade footings and new 8 in. poured concrete foundation (engineered section pours) b. Buttress existing concrete walls at base on east half of the house and pour a new 4 in. concrete floor in basement c. New foundation sills as needed d. Corbund foam insulation in walls (R 20+) and ceilings (R-38) e. Metal clad over primed wood windows f. Dutch lap siding g. Miratek composite exterior trim h. New electrical to code throughout home i. New plumbing to code j. New interior floors, walls, doors and trim. Two new exterior doors k. New ductwork for existing furnace (purchased in 2008) l. Gutters and downspouts 12. No alteration to accessory structures on the property 13. Rehabilitation to the structure will not radically change, obscure or destroy the character, defining spaces, materials, features or finishes of the original construction. The street view will not be altered by the rehabilitation. Indeed, all new windows, siding and roof material will be in the style of the original 1872 construction. The two new dormers, one to include the new stairway, the other to include an upstairs bath have followed the pitch of the original front roof pitch. Corrections to the foundation will act to stabilize
193
the current deteriorating rubble foundation for future generations. The majority of improvements will be done to the inside of the home to bring it up to current energy and safety codes. Wherever possible, interior features will mirror the original, particularly in flooring, windows, molding trim and door style. 14. If development was removed at some future date, the essential I-House form and integrity of the McDonald Home and its environment would be unimpaired.
194
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 1 of 4
Security Bank model.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the HRDC Building –
26 May 2011
Members Present: Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Jecyn Bremer, Bruce Brown, Lesley Gilmore (Secretary), Jared Infanger, Steve Keuch, Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Dale Martin, Boone
Nolte, and Ryan Olson, - Quorum established.
Absent: Crystal Alegria, Lora Dalton, Jane Klockman, Paul Reichert, and Anne Sherwood.
Guests: Carson Taylor, City Commissioner Liaison
I. Meeting was called to order at 6:47 pm. II. Minutes from prior meeting:
A. Motion to approve was made by JC.
B. Motion was seconded by BN.
III. Public Comment: None.
IV. Ex Parte Communication: None.
V. Introduction of Invited Guests: None.
VI. Project Review and Recommendations to Staff:
A. Proposed Reviesions to COA guidelines - RO recommends the revisions with two modifications.
1. Change the name “sheds” to “accessory buildings.” 2. Under A.1. b. add missing comma 3. The Board unanimously approved the revisions with these modifications.
B. Tax abatement submittal for 308 S. Tracy (which expanded into a general discussion
about the abatement process):
1. CK and MH talked about how to address this. Current thought is to submit a memo from the
Professional Subcommittee to the commission.
2. The process hasn’t worked too well in the past, reflecting uncertainty as to the process.
3. This process will provide valuable information to the owner, and defer final review to
the owner to during the construction process. 4. RO: is the idea that the homeowner would come to
the professional subcommittee? MH: this is an
interim process until we come up with a process that is less prone to subjective opinion.
195
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 2 of 4
Security Bank model.
5. MH: idea is to have staff provide the professional committee with more information; committee will not be meeting with the homeowner directly.
6. Professional committee has given comments to the staff, who will give it to the
homeowner with provisional approval, based upon final review. 7. CK: it would be unwieldy for an applicant to be subject to a review that only occurs
once per month (based on professional subcommittee review). 8. RO would hate to have someone come in at the end and feel that there were other issues that should have been addressed.
9. JB: this process wouldn’t address the comments of the full board until perhaps too late. 10. MH: this is a short-term process until the process is corrected, to be more efficient
and more helpful. We need to address the issue of the ordinance. 11. JB: how was this taken off the agenda? Homeowner processed the application.
12. RO is concerned about how badly the board and city look with this process. And
what really is our plan to rectify this on-going issue? 13. MH: the avenue of difficulty is:
a) Cool looking projects – we have taken a back seat.
b) We need to have more information provided – hopefully the ordinance and planning staff will provide this.
14. CK: ordinance modification will include requirement for more information from the homeowner. And probably a staff report. 15. MH doesn’t want the professional subcommittee to have to meet frequently to review
these projects. 16. CK: have staff review the applications. Then have the professional committee and the board approve as consent agenda item.
17. CK will submit a word document on the ordinance, for all to comment on. 18. MH: should we implement a moratorium of tax abatements? a) RO: we might be doing more harm than good. Should we enact a moratorium?
b) 308 S. Tracy – they applied before the moratorium, so should still have the chance to continue their application.
c) CT: How can the commission say we’ll have a moratorium? It’s an ordinance
that people want to rely on. Either you’re telling people to put their project off for 6 months, or we’re going to change the rules.
d) JB: The timing is awkward, as this is the construction season. And, given that
this is an advisory board and not a regulatory board, we should probably not have a moratorium.
19. LG: Haven’t we agreed that the ordinance clearly states that these are only for exceptional projects? 20. MH: doesn’t want any more of these to come before the full board and have the
Board look disorganized and conflicted. 21. RO: we should be frank with the applicants that we’re muddling through this process. 22. JB: But this is spirited debate and will continue to be.
23. MH: Let’s be fully pragmatic and have the subcommittee review the applicants. Then, after the construction is completed, the full board will vote on it. Subcommittee to present a provisionary memo, to be reviewed upon completion. Shouldn’t approve
a project until complete. 24. CK: Modification to the ordinance will not be able to be prepared by city staff.
25. MH: P&P meeting, inviting all interested parties, to review and modify the ordinance.
Lora is out of town. She suggested June 14, Tuesday, at 6:30pm. LG offered to host at CTA’s office at 411 East Main Street, Suite 101.
196
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 3 of 4
Security Bank model.
VII. Chair’s Report (MH)
A. Preservation board reappointment and seats:
1. CK said the Aimee will contact members about their expirations. 2. CK will check with Aimee about which categories members should consider.
B. Streetlights 1. Highway signs: Have been installed. Pat CK on the back.
2. Streetlights: Are installed, but not as good as they could be. Just weren’t able to get the color right. Look glossy and all 20th
a) The old lights? BB is trying to salvage and has contacted the city.
century. CK noted that there was an additional shield that can be installed, to shield the light from the homeowners.
Homeowners can request shields.
b) City is providing one to each household, but no one has come to collect them.
They weigh about1300 pounds a pieces, lots of globes broken. c) MH: Should some come to Story Mansion, to replace some of the big tall
insensitive lights? Nice to have 3-4 old ones – would improve the appearance
and support the historic character of the property. d) CT will talk with Chuck Winn and CK will talk with the Friends of the Story. Act
quickly – they might be broken during the remainder of the removal.
e) CK asked Bruce to help them get shields for his parking lighting to comply with the night sky ordinance.
VIII. Policy and Planning Committee (as relayed by MH)
A. North 7th
B. CK: the North 7
Urban Renewal Board Meeting: MH and LD gave a presentation to them about
signs. It seems that the renewal board embraces a different more sterile vision than the HP board does. th
C. CK: North 7
Board was generally supportive of the idea. They liked the notion that someone was thinking about them. th
said that a lot of people have said they don’t want to remodel their
properties since they would be required to change their signs. Could be an excuse for just not wanting to remodel.
IX. Education and Outreach Committee
A. RO: Committee is focusing on historic resource inventories in lieu of meetings, however
weather has not been conducive. B. MH: Go surveying. Let the full group know – we’d like to participate. CK: wrap it around
a BBQ. A Thursday night in June? June 21? At Beall Park, E&O will figure it out. X. Staff Liaison Report
A. CK: Installation of brown historic district signs is imminent – next two weeks. The signs have been made and paid for. Will have a ribbon cutting concurrent with that for the
highway signs. B. CK: Board budget – receives $2500 per year. Due to good budgeting, and help from the Beautification Board, we have $1410 remaining. Use it or lose it.
1. Slides to be digitized – about 300. $1/slide by F11. MH: Also contact the Pioneer Museum to see if they have some to add. John Russell is working on digitizing their
images, but won’t be making them available on the
website; but they’d be happy to have digitizations of ours, and to lend us some for digitizing. CK says
they do need our money. They don’t traffic in high
resolution images.
197
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 4 of 4
Security Bank model.
2. Historic plaques fees from SHPO. Fee is about $65/plaque. MH – let’s check with the SHPO; they typically don’t accept payment for the sign until sign has been
delivered.
a) LG recommended that it be only for public entities, so there isn’t an unfair advantage for one private owner over another. Pioneer Museum, the Emerson,
???? or Main Street as a whole. Willson, Hawthorne, Longfellow, Irving Schools. Courthouse. b) RO: Could we make one for the horse? Would have to nominate it – document it
and amend it to the HD??? 3. RO: Are there historic structures that need any sandbags? The Eagles? 4. JB: Are there walking tour pamphlets available? An older one that hasn’t been
printed for ages – not sure where it’s at. There is currently one at the Downtown Business Association. CK has copies of all of them. MH: There’s also an old 1970’s
South Willson brochure. Summer is a good time to distribute them.
5. RO: Any way to market this money for potential action later – can we earmark this for a revolving fund for urgent historic preservation needs?
6. JB: Could some of the money be used for the perfect survey form for the survey form
for the volunteers to use. MH: there are reconnaissance level forms, and intensive level forms. We’re just doing reconnaissance level. DK: it would be helpful to do
several different architectural styles. Examples of different styles. MH doesn’t think we should hire someone for that. Sounds like a good education session – find representative examples of each style.
7. CK: She will provide an update to the Board on these potential expenditures later. C. Next year’s budget: Can we include a Podcast for our brochures in next year’s budget? CK will look at.
D. CK recommended an idea of Spokane newspaper then-now photos to Amanda Rickert at the Bozeman Chronicle, who responded positively to CK’s request to incorporate this idea into the Chronicle.
E. Grant applications: submitting one June 1 for MT preservation funds for the Northern Pacific Depot.
F. No news on East Willson School. Will begin working on the feasibility study later this
summer. G. MH: Would still like to get a tour of the East Willson School.
H. MH: Let’s tour the Neutra House.
I. LG: The modernism survey, funded by SHPO, has been completed. There was a limited printing run (due to expense), so copies were only provided to owners of properties
included in the survey. An electronic version will be available on the MT SHPO website in the future. J. Grants: Can’t go for the Ordin grant because it’s for communities less than 30,000.
XI. Motion to adjourn at 8 pm– by RO, seconded by JB.
END OF MINUTES
Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore
198
MEMORANDUM
To:
Courtney Kramer
From:
Mark Hufstetler, Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Reference:
Tax abatement application, Robert and Joanna Nute
Date:
June 20, 2011
As you know, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB) has asked its
Professional Review Subcommittee to conduct an initial review of tax abatement
applications submitted to the City. The Subcommittee’s reviews are considered
preliminary in nature, intended to provide guidance on a proposed project’s likely
eligibility for a tax abatement, and on steps that may be taken to strengthen that
eligibility. Final approval of an abatement application can come from the full Board only
after project completion, and evidence of compliance with the provisions of the
applicable city ordinance.
The Professional Review Subcommittee has reviewed the materials submitted by Robert
and Joanna Nute in support of their application for a tax abatement for their house
located at 308 South Tracy Avenue. The Subcommittee was very appreciative of the
owners’ clear enthusiasm for their property, a very early and significant example of
residential architecture in Bozeman. We find, however, that the rehabilitation project as
proposed does not qualify for the city’s tax abatement program. Our largest concern
with the project is the planned replacement of the building’s historic exterior cladding.
This is specifically disallowed by section 3.30.050 of the tax abatement ordinance, which
states that “If historic siding is intact it shall be preserved and restored.” If work on the
project has not already begun, we would strongly encourage the building’s owners to
consider retention of the historic siding, something that is nearly always a viable option
for buildings such as this. If the building’s historic cladding were to be retained by this
project, we would encourage re-submittal of the abatement application.
In addition to the siding issue noted above, subcommittee members also made the
following comments about the project:
•Concern was expressed about the level of change proposed for the building’s interior,
particularly the removal of historic finishes and materials. We encourage the removal
of historic interior finishes to be as minimal as possible, and encourage the
reinstallation of those materials that must be removed during construction.
199
•We find the added north dormer to be appropriate in style, though the historic
appearance of both dormers would be improved if they were somewhat smaller, and if
they terminated short of the existing building’s roofline.
•The single-story addition on the south elevation is compatible with the historic
building, but the outward projection of the large new south dormer (above the new
addition) is not historically compatible.
•Committee members were uncertain whether one-over-one or two-over-two
windows would have originally been used throughout the building, but the two-over-
two windows proposed are historically appropriate, and we are pleased that they are
being used.
•We are very pleased overall that the historic appearance of the building’s primary
façade is being carefully retained.
Thank you for giving the BHPAB the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
contact us if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Mark Hufstetler, Chair
Courtney Kramer
June 20, 2011
Page 2
200
Robert and Joanna Nute 308 South Tracy
Bozeman, Montana 59715 (952) 270-1882 . joannanute@gmail.com
Date: February 14, 2012
To: Courtney Kramer, Bozeman Historic Preservation Officer
Cc: Mark Hufstetler, Bozeman Historic Preservation Board
Re: Tax abatement re-application for Robert and Joanna Nute
Dear Courtney:
The remodeling project is finally completed on our home at 308 South Tracy and we are delighted with the results.
During construction we uncovered the outlines of the original 18’ x 14’ cabin that was built soon after Richard and Mary
McDonald arrived in Montana, in 1864. There were two, possibly three additions to the early cabin which included
extending the north and south ends of the cabin, the addition of a rear kitchen and stairwell, and a second story over all.
Windows were relocated as were the front and back doors during these early remodelings. Sheathing from the original
cabin’s north side was re-used on the north bump out. However, there was neither sheathing nor a foundation under the
south end bump-out causing the southwest corner of the house to sink by 4 inches in a 6’6” span.
Much of the home’s framing was constructed from scrap lumber - perhaps from Alder Gulch, Virginia City or Fort Ellis,
all locations that Richard McDonald served with his oxen and horse powered hauling business. The original inside
framing wood was in surprisingly good condition with little or no rot. Some of the old timbers were two stories tall.
We were not able to determine if the rear addition and second story were completed at the same time as the north and
south end bump-outs to the original cabin but family history says the upstairs was added in 1872.
We were able to save the original sheathing of the McDonald’s home wherever it existed and our remodel construction
utilizes the old frame. The original timbers can be seen in the newly constructed basement which replaced and enlarged
the old hand-dug cellar.
Preserving the integrity of the McDonald home was a key goal with our remodeling project. To that end, we replaced the
old windows with the two over two style as was used in the original kitchen. All interior doors are the original 4-panel
style. New doors, window frames, trim, flooring and cabinetry are real wood. The original panty door and door from the
home’s only closet were re-used for new closet doors. Original tongue and groove pine flooring was re-purposed as closet
doors in the master and guest bedrooms. Original hardware was re-used on all closet doors. A floorboard was used for a
coat rack in the back entry. Beadboard from the early kitchen ceiling was reused on the ceiling of the new back porch
roof.
The 13 large, flat corner stones that were part of the original rubble foundation were saved and will be used in future
landscaping. As well, the furnishings and Persian carpet that were left to us by Belle Fisher, granddaughter of the
McDonalds, are proudly displayed in our remodel.
We feel certain that Mrs. Fisher would be pleased with our efforts and her charge to us that we care for her home and
preserve it for future generations to enjoy.
201
Nute – page 2
In your June 20, 2011 letter to us, you expressed concern over several aspects of our remodel which we would like to
address. As you know, our remodel could not expand beyond the home’s original footprint due to a compromised lot line
on the south side of the property. New elevation could not be higher than the front part of the home nor could the street
view of the home be altered in any way. We fully complied with these restrictions. However, because the original stairs
were totally out of code, and indeed deemed dangerous by our architect, he designed a new split stairway to the second
floor and positioned it in a new south facing dormer. The size of this dormer was predicated on our height restriction and
the width of the split stair design.
The new north and south dormers are lower than the front part of the house and terminate short of the existing roofline.
One interior wall was partially removed between the living room and old kitchen to allow for improved natural light and
better flow for today’s more open living style. Interior finishes replicate the old: 4 ½ inch window and door trim, 8 inch
baseboards, 4- panel fir doors, hardwood flooring, painted cabinetry and exposed structural beams to support the second
floor. New windows and doors are in their original locations except where added in the 90 square foot addition to the
southeast corner of the house.
As to the siding issue, during our remodel, we found that 3 styles of exterior shiplap siding had been used in the
McDonalds’ earlier construction. All 3 had different dimensions and different decorative detail. It was determined by our
architect, contractor and painter that the 140 year old siding was in such poor condition that it could not be salvaged.
Lack of insulation and exposure to the elements had deteriorated the wood beyond repair. With this indictment we
followed the guideline set by the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation,” found in the Bozeman
Guidelines for Historic Preservation publication. We matched the old, most predominant style of pine shiplap used by the
McDonalds.
We have attached a photo of the original siding here for your review. We have saved a piece of the earlier siding if you
need it for further evidence.
We believe that we have complied with and addressed all requirements necessary for the preservation of the Richard and
Mary McDonald home. Therefore, we wish to re-submit our application for a tax abatement on the home.
Regards,
Robert Nute Joanna Nute
202
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 1 of 4
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at HRDC –
24 May 2012
Members Present: Lora Dalton, Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Lesley Gilmore (Secretary), Jared Infanger,
Angela King Keesee, Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Jessie Nunn, Ryan Olson, Paul Reichert, and
Lisa Verwys - Quorum was established.
Absent: Jillian Bowers, Jecyn Bremer, Jennifer Britton, Bruce Brown, Steven Keuch, and Cyndi Andrus (City Commission Liaison).
Guests: None.
I. Meeting was called to order at 6:44 pm. II. Minutes from prior meeting:
A. Motion to approve was made by LD and seconded by LV. B. Unanimous approval.
III. Public Comment: None.
IV. Ex Parte Communication:
A. MH received a phone call from Jerry Pape expressing his concern about an exhibit at the bank that disparaged his participation in the Armory project. No one on the Board knew of this
exhibit. Jerry now wants to come and show off the project to the BHPAB. MH discouraged
Jerry from talking further about the project because it will be coming before the board officially in the future.
V. Introduction of Invited Guests: A. Joanna and Robert Nute, here for tax abatement review of their project at 308 S. Tracy.
B. Turned the floor over to the Nutes. The Board has received the materials – copies of the original plans and the subsequent letter for consideration. CK brought copies of the plans to the meeting.
C. Robert spoke that they wrote most of what they could think of in their letter. He grew up about 4 houses away. He knew the house all of his life; his family took care of the McDonald heirs
(daughters of freed slaves). The last McDonald died in 2000 at the age of 98. She left Robert
the place in her will; it was pretty much a wreck and not terribly livable. 1. Rubble foundation was shot; they replaced it with poured concrete.
2. Frame of the house – with real 2 x 4’s – [sentence not completed].
3. Will share artifacts found during excavation with the Pioneer Museum. 4. 3 different sizes and styles of dutchlap siding. Very weathered because house had no
insulation. The architect, contractor, and painter determined that the siding couldn’t be
rehabilitated. 5. Replaced doors, windows, trim, flooring. Utilized some of the salvaged material in
decorating.
6. Family lore is that it was built in 1864 on 20 acres. Horses and oxen. 7. He believes that they (the Nutes) just finished what was the 5th
D. Joanna spoke to the damage in the sill plate.
remodeling of the building.
203
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 2 of 4
1. Sheathing had been used elsewhere previously. 2. Framing that extended two stories [balloon framing].
3. Retained the original framing – joists, studs. Built a new shell around it to contain the
insulation (Corebond foam insulation, used also as a stabilizer to the walls). 4. Didn’t use any MDF in the whole house. Used Doug Fir. Only change was oak at the
flooring (in lieu of pine). 5. Replaced single-pane windows with new insulated glass wood units. 6. Baseboard as a patchwork with rough joints.
7. Hardware holes in doors. All the doors were different. Replaced all the doors, fashioning them off what were believed to be the older 4-panel doors. 8. Only two walls were still lath and plaster – the rest were vertical boards that were covered
with muslin and layers of wallpaper. 9. Living room had been fitted with c.1960s paneling and lowered ceilings.
10. Bedroom ceilings now higher – grabbed some height (about 2’) from the rafter space.
11. Dormers to accommodate new stairs. Balanced with another dormer for a 2nd
E. Questions: bathroom.
1. LG: Please explain the extent of retention of original materials remaining in the building.
2. LD: What caused the siding to not be salvageable – what about it was not salvageable? Joanna: Old and dried – from the lack of insulation in the walls. The wood itself was terribly
deteriorated, particularly on the south and west sides.
3. It was explained that the board’s purview is the exterior only. 4. There is a staff report, but no recommendation (not in staff purview).
5. They added 80 square feet to the back of the building. It’s less than the 10% amount allowed in the regulation. 6. MH: are the windows wood-framed? Yes. One window is wider? Yes, 36” for egress; so
they widened the one below it for consistency of appearance. Outside and inside trim are the same widths as the originals. Used Living Room baseboard as a guide for rest of house. MH: Original house had a rubble stone foundation all the way around? Yes, except
a concrete foundation under the bathroom (from the 1930s or 40s). 7. LG: Were the windows salvageable? The wood was deteriorated, many were painted shut. Robert – if the storms (exterior aluminum) had been decent looking, they could have reused
them and lived with that. F. Comments:
1. MH:
a) Appreciate the Nutes coming tonight and sharing their story of the house and its history. b) The result is a house that still continues to evoke the pioneer era.
c) That said, his comments come from a direct reading and application of the ordinance.
d) The most significant noncompliance is the removal of the historic siding. The question is moot – doesn’t matter how many coats of paint. If the siding is intact, it shall be
preserved and restored. Joanna said she had applied the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines allowing for replacement of damaged historic materials in kind. e) MH also concerned about replacing the historic windows.
f) MH also concerned about removing the rubble foundation – or not using the rubble as a facing for a new concrete foundation. g) The video is telling. The contractor spoke about the project as being one to make the
house more livable (in lieu of a true preservation project). h) There’s almost no historic material left on the house today. If it were to be evaluated for
the National Register today, it wouldn’t be eligible.
2. AK: Tends to look at these issues in a broader way. 3. LMG: Concurs with Mark, and in reading the ordinance, it’s clear that the windows and
siding should have been retained. Am concerned that if we set a precedent for replacement
windows, then too many serviceable original windows will get thrown out. Use of storm windows provides similar U-value as new insulated glass units.
204
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 3 of 4
4. LD: a) This is a difficult process for the board, as the applicants really care about the house.
b) Constrained by the letter of the ordinance.
c) The project doesn’t qualify for the tax abatement under the ordinance. d) There are plenty of projects where people do scrape and reuse the siding and do restore
the windows. e) The historic siding was part of the history of the house – what the original owner could salvage – it told a story about the history of the house. That’s the kind of aesthetic the
ordinance requires. f) It’s a very special house and will continue to be so, with people living inside it and keeping it alive.
5. JN: In looking at the ordinance and the siding issues, feels that it’s a pretty clear statement of not qualifying. The mismatched and salvaged material was part of the character-defining
features of the house, that would have qualified it for listing in the National Register.
6. LV: Really glad to have enthusiastic owners of historic property come in and also willing to share their findings with the historical society. Feels constrained by the ordinance.
7. RO: Doesn’t feel constrained by the ordinance – felt that the homeowners used the advice
of their professionals that the siding was not intact. They replaced it with material that replicated it to the best of their ability.
8. JI: Also feels constrained by the ordinance. Commends the owners for caring about their building and hopes that the stories stay with the building. Piecing the stories together – of all the owners – makes the story richer. Seems that the building was stripped down to the
frame, which is no longer visible. Only the bones are left. 9. PR: Prefaces his comments with a desire to review the revisions to the tax abatement ordinance again. This is the type of project worth recognizing and giving some
credit/recognition to, regardless of what the code says. He knows that replacing things in kind is okay and is always a judgment call. If we can’t make historic building usable, then they’re not going to be saved. The owners took care about what’s been changed and
altered. Worked with difficulty in layering of history and which time period to pick. He would advocate that – provided state law allows – that the city at least accept the more lenient
federal standards, and change the ordinance.
G. Call for a motion: LD moves to approve the tax abatement for the Nute property; JI seconded. Ayes – 3. Nays – 6.
H. Process: CK takes the board minutes for this issue and will get the project onto the City
Commission agenda as an action item on their July 9 meeting. The Nutes will receive copies of everything and will be allowed to come before the City Commission meeting.
I. Future policy planning about the ordinance: It was agreed to have the Policy & Planning Sub-Committee review the efficacy and future of the ordinance, for future agenda item. CK can provide some financial information about two tax credit projects: $38 savings for one property,
$329 saved over five years for another property. VI. Chair’s Report
A. MH turned it over to PR to discuss his proposal for Historic Lighting Restoration Project as an SAT grant. 1. Metal caster’s mark (Caird from Helena) is on one of the castings.
2. Downtown Business Partnership could provide a match to the grant. 3. Meet with the property owners. Doesn’t know if we can restore the three remaining light
posts where they are. Globes are gone. Some finicky restoration aspects to this.
4. There is design work on Willson Avenue occurring right now that this might be coordinated with.
5. SAT requirements. And, who owns the light fixtures? City or power company or someone
else? 6. LG moves that we support Paul’s proposal; LD seconded it. All approved it.
B. Reminder that half the Board’s memberships expire in June.
205
BHPAB 2012 May 24 - Page 4 of 4
1. JI is moving to Mt. Ranier for 3 months, and will move to Gardner upon his return. So, he’ll be resigning.
C. Tours and speakers:
1. Neutra House: Will tour it next month. 2. RO can arrange the neon sign shop tour. Review this next month.
VII. Policy & Planning Sub-committee Report (LD) A. Short report; we did not meet last month.
B. Next meeting: Tuesday, June 5; CK’s office, 5:15 pm. CK can get a revised sign ordinance to the members.
VIII. Education & Outreach Committee (CK) A. Recap of Preservation Week:
1. Awards were really great.
2. Fun run was well attended (more than 60 people). LV heard a lot of great feedback. 3 different distances. It’s good to partner with another organization.
3. Northside walking tour had about 15 people. Trees and Dale – transportation and
commerce and how the streets were laid out. 4. Library events were not well attended.
B. Total remaining budget of $800 has to be invoiced by June 30. C. CK contacted the guy who prepared Billings’ downtown tour App and will be receiving a proposal from him.
1. It should be about $2,000-3,000. 2. Chris Naumann thinks the DBP might be willing to co-sponsor with us. 3. JN will be in Billings this weekend and test out this App.
4. Paul suggested checking with the Convention and Visitors Bureau. 5. BHPAB could pay part this year, and part next year. 6. MH: It’s important to remember that ideally we’ll be doing a series of these Apps ultimately,
so keep this in mind in developing a prototype. 7. Could this be webhosted? CK will check with interim IT director.
8. CK will keep running with this.
D. Next E&O meeting: In August.
IX. Staff Update by CK
A. SAT Grant status 1. The Pioneer Museum can’t work it out with Gallatin County, so they can’t take the grant.
2. Delaney & Company still won’t take the grant, as reported at the last meeting. 3. The grant period is until the end of 2014. 4. The Eagle’s Club continues to talk about a building rehabilitation.
5. Rialto Theatre project might apply. 6. The Lovelace Building is interested in doing something. 7. PR will check with the Emerson people.
B. CK is wrapping up the NT Grant application for the Northern Pacific Passenger Depot – just for structural analysis, etc. – to be funded with $5000 from National Trust and $15,000 from the NE neighborhood association. Needs a letter from MH by next Wednesday.
C. New member orientation planned for August – September. D. CK announced that she will be out from early November 2012 to early January 2013 probably,
for maternity leave.
X. Motion to adjourn at 8:39 pm – by LD, seconded by LMG.
XI. Next meeting June 27, 2012.
END OF MINUTES Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore
206
207
208
209
210
211