HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal of Administrative of Certificate of Appropriateness at 815 S. 7th Avenue
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: C-13002, Appeal of an administrative approval of a certificate of
appropriateness with deviation at 815 S. 7th Avenue (original application number of Z-13021).
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission uphold the original administrative action of approval for application Z-13021. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Having reviewed the appeal and original application materials,
considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby find that
the action of the Director to approve application Z-13021 was correct and move to uphold the approval given on April 5, 2013 for application Z-13021.
BACKGROUND: Property owner Catherine Zimmer, represented by ThinkTank Design Group
submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation application on February 19, 2013. The
application proposes the complete removal of the existing house and construction of two townhomes at 815 S. 7th Avenue. The property owner asserted the existing home was damaged to the extent of losing economic viability for rehabilitation. The application includes a request for a
deviation from Section 38.08.040.B to allow a lot width for each town home of 25 feet instead of
30 feet. The property has a total width of 50 feet.
Public notification for the project occurred during the week of March 1, 2013 and included posting on site, listing in the legal notices section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and the
notification by mail of neighboring property owners within 200 feet. Several public comments
were received by the Department of Community Development for this project. The Director,
Steve Worthington, considered the public comments, staff report, and application materials, conducted a site visit and tour of surrounding properties, and granted approval to the project on April 5, 2013. A copy of the original application materials, staff report and supporting materials,
and public comments are included with the materials given to the Commission in considering
this appeal.
On April 19, 2013 an appeal of the Director’s decision was received by the City Clerk. The
appeal was made per Section 38.35.030. A copy of the section is attached. The section describes
who may appeal and the process for the appeal. Notice of the appeal hearing was given by
posting on-site, publication in the newspaper and mailing to property owners within 200 feet of
the original site. Notice was given on May 1st.
192
Consideration of an appeal is based on the record of the original decision and the information
available to the Director; and on the information gathered as part of the appeal process. An
appeal is a request for the Commission to determine that an error was made in the action on the original application which is the subject of the appeal. For an appeal to be made the appellant,
per Section 38.35.030.A.1, must show that they are an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person is
defined in Section 38.42.080 as: “A person, as defined in this article, who has a specific,
personal and legal interest in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, as
distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community, and which interest would be specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision or benefited
by its reversal.” The basis for this appeal are five points as described by the appellant in their
application. As the appeal is on the basis and record of the original action, Staff has not
reanalyzed the application but has provided a note after each of the five points of the appeal to
where the subject is discussed in the original application materials, original action by the Director, or noted the applicability of the point is shown in italics.
1) The proposed buildings deviate from the historical character of the neighborhood and do not
meet the bozeman Guidelines for the Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. Pages 3-13 of the original staff report and decision address the criteria against which the application was evaluated. A memo from the Historic
Preservation Planner is also attached. The received public comment which addressed review
criteria may be compared to the staff analysis.
2) The following neighbors/landowners object to the design and do not agree that it meets the
criteria for approval. See pages 3-13 of the staff report for the Director’s conclusions of compliance.
3) The architect stated that they would reach consensus on the issues as presented by the
neighbors or not continue with the application. Consensus of the neighbors or
representations by the property owner’s representative outside of the application materials is not a review criteria which the City can apply. 4) We want to see the information that supports the inability to rehabilitate the existing structure
as required prior to demolition. This material was provided as part of the initial application
and has been available for public review since it was submitted, including during the public
comment period.
5) The application does not meet the setbacks and the width requirement for this structure. The application has been conditioned to comply with setbacks for the front yard, see condition 1
on page 2 of the staff report. The construction plans must conform to the condition. The lot
width requirement was the subject of the deviation which was less than 20% of the standard
and therefore within authority of the Director to approve. For analysis of the deviation criteria see pages 9-11 of the staff report and decision.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The appeal is asserting that the Director acted incorrectly in
reviewing and approving the application. The unresolved issue is whether the Director correctly
applied the applicable standards.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available:
1. Uphold the original approval of application Z-13021 including conditions and code
requirements as established by the Directors April 5, 2013 decision;
2. Grant the appeal after making findings as to which of the criteria are not met which would overturn the Director’s original action and deny application Z-13021; or
3. Find that the Director’s original action was incorrect in some element, make alternative
findings, and approve application Z-13021 with alternative conditions.
193
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified at this time.
Report compiled on: May 9, 2013 Attachments: Appeal application and justification
Staff Report and decision by Director
Staff review materials
Submitted public comments Application materials for the initial certificate of appropriateness with a deviation Text of Section 38.35.030, BMC
194
195
196
197
198
199
Report Page 1
Zilka Townhomes Certificate of Appropriateness
Application with Deviations, File #Z-13021
Item: A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation application for the removal of an existing house
and construction of two townhomes on existing lots. One deviation from the Bozeman Municipal Code
is required for the proposed project from Section 38.08.040, Table 38.08.070-2 “Lot Area and Width” to
allow the townhomes on 25 foot wide lots instead of 30 foot wide lots. Property Owner: Catherine Zimmer, 4405 White Eagle, Bozeman MT 59715
Applicant: Think Tank Design Group, 33 N Black Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Decision Deadline: April 5, 2013.
Staff Report By: Chris Saunders
Recommendation: Conditional Approval ______________________________________________________________________________
Project Location
The property is addressed as 815 South Seventh Avenue and is legally described as Lots 8 & 9, Block 5,
Capital Hill Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is zoned R-2
(Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District) and located within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. See below for a map of the property’s location.
Proposal
Property owner Catherine Zimmer and applicant Think Tank Design Group submitted a Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviation application that proposes the removal of an existing home and
replacement with two townhomes on existing lots.
One deviation is required for this application from Section 38.08.040, Table 38.08.040-2 “Lot Area and
200
Report Page 2
Width” to allow the lot width to be 5 feet less than the required 30 feet. The requested deviation is less
than 20% of the standard and is therefore reviewed by the Director of Community Development.
Recommendation
Based on the subsequent analysis, Staff finds that the application is in general compliance with the
adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The following
condition of approval is recommended to correct existing non-conforming fencing on the property:
Condition of Approval:
1. A final site plan showing the revision to garage configuration to satisfy internal parking stall
dimensions and porch change to conform to front yard setback shall be provided prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. 2. The final site plan shall be adequately dimensioned. A complete legend of all line types used
shall also be provided.
3. Sewer and water services shall be shown on the final site plan and approved by the
Water/Sewer Superintendent.
4. Any existing City sidewalk panels along S. Seventh Avenue that are currently damaged or damaged during construction shall be replaced.
5. The windows on the east-facing façade shall be modified to more appropriately reflect the
character of window openings and pattern of division found elsewhere in the neighborhood
(see evaluation under COA criteria on page two of the ADR report).
6. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a completed Montana Property Record Form (available through the Montana State Historic Preservation Office) shall be submitted as
documentation of the historically significant structure to be demolished.
7. Section 40.02.750 Protective Devices, In accordance with the BMC Section 40.02.750 the
Water/Sewer Superintendent is requiring an inspection of your water service to determine
whether the water service has backflow protection and if such protection is installed that the device is appropriate for the level of use for the facility. If the service has been found without
backflow protection the applicant will have a preventer and expansion tank installed. If the
existing device does not provide adequate protection, the applicant will be required to replace
the preventer with a preventer that is designed to provide adequate protection. Please call the
Water Department’s Backflow specialist @ 582‐3200 to arrange an inspection of the water
service. 8. In order to protect the existing boulevard tree it should have a temporary high – visibility construction fence at the drip line prior to and during the entire construction period, and no
equipment or material inside the fenced area. Any roots that are encountered should be cut
cleanly and kept covered until all the foundation work is completed. Any exceptions must be
coordinated with the City Forester. Code provisions are called out for the benefit of the property owner and applicant. Please be aware that
the project must comply with all provisions of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code that are
applicable, including but not limited to, the following:
Code Provisions:
• Per Section 38.01.080 & 38.34.110, 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
201
Report Page 3
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 38.08.050.A.1.c, the required front yard setback for covered porches is 15 feet.
• Per Sec. 38.21.050.F, “Accessory Buildings and Equipment”, roof top mounted and ground
mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened.
• Per Section 38.23.130.A.2, “Fences, walls and hedges”, fences, walls and hedges, in any
district may be located on lot lines provided such fences, walls and hedges comply with the following height requirements: Do not exceed four feet in height in any required front yard.
• Per Section 38.23.150.F, “Lighting Specifications for All Lighting, for all exterior 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).
• Per Table 38.25.020, the minimum dimensions for all internal and external parking areas shall
be provided.
• Per Section 38.34.100.A.3, 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.
Zoning Designation & Land Uses
The subject property is a currently a single-household residence, zoned R-2 (Residential Two-
Household, Medium Density District). The intent of the R-2 residential two-household medium density
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 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 and multi-household, zoned R-2;
South: Single- household and multi-household, zoned R-2;
East: Single- household and multi-household, zoned R-2; and
West: Single- household and multi-household, zoned R-2. Adopted Growth Policy Designation
The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan (Figure 3-1) designates the subject property
to develop as Residential. This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools.
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Section 38.16.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 38.16.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness approval
for proposed alterations. In the discussion below, Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff evaluated
the applicant's request in light of these standards.
202
Report Page 4
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in
conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
The application proposes demolition of a historically significant, but badly damaged, structure. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties do not pertain to new
construction.
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 existing neighborhood includes single story and two or two
and one half story residential dwellings. The proposed building’s maximum height of 25 feet 10 inches at the roof ridge
is stepped down to 19 feet 10 inches and shorter with the porch
roof near the street.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter Three, Guidelines for
Residential Character Areas:
2. On larger structures, step down a building's height toward
the street, neighboring structures and the rear of the lot. • 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.
Given the narrow lot width, it the proposed design is not able to step down the building’s height toward neighboring structures.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following for height:
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.
The proposed design includes front porches and single-story components facing the street, which helps break the plane of the two-story building mass.
Given the variation in building heights within the neighborhood and efforts to minimize the
perceived height of the proposed building from the public right of way, Staff finds the height of
the proposed design appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
203
Report Page 5
The proposed design uses larger window openings than seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
Larger window openings and expanses of glass are seen on the front (east-facing) façade as well
as the side and rear facades.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter
Three, Guidelines for Residential Character Areas:
6. The proportions of window and door openings should be similar to those used traditionally in
the neighborhood.
• This will help maintain the established ratio of wall-to-window and reinforce the traditional scale of the building.
• Large expanses of glass are discouraged.
• Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows to reduce their perceived scale.
Given the recommendations in the Design Guidelines, Staff finds the proposed windows inappropriate for the neighborhood because the large expanses of glass are not divided into
smaller, more proportional components and recommends modification with Final Site Plan
application.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; The application proposes construction of two townhouses on a parcel 50 feet in width. Though
the townhouses are connected at the staircase in order to satisfy City of Bozeman requirements
for townhouses, the buildings will “read” as two individual residences on individual 25 foot wide
lots. The neighborhood character is of a single structure centered on a 50 foot wide parcel.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter
Three, Guidelines for Residential Character Areas:
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.
The proposed structures do provide a one story porch and the use of white clapboard siding with a four inch reveal; a traditional dimension found in this neighborhood.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following with relation to mass and spaces:
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.
The proposed structure is divided into modules at the front, street-facing east façade as presented
to the public right of way. This modulation is not present toward the side or rear of the building.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following with relation to mass and spaces:
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.
The proposed design includes front façade widths of 15 feet, well within the recommendation
made in the Design Guidelines.
204
Report Page 6
With exception of the neighborhood pattern of a single structure on a 50 foot wide parcel, the
proposed design satisfies most of the recommendations for Mass and Spaces found in the Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposed design appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
4. Roof shape; The application proposes a simple front-gable as a primary roof form. Other modules of the
design include a flat-roof form.
The Design Guidelines recommend the following with relation to roof form:
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.
Staff finds the proposed roof shape appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
5. Scale;
Please see discussion under “Masses and Spaces.”
6. Directional expression; The proposed structures include front porches and walkways from the public sidewalk to the
residential units. Front porches along the side of the structure rather than across the front are
commonly found in historic structures in the neighborhood. All vehicular access is proposed from the alley.
The Design Guidelines recommend the following with relation to directional expression:
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.
Staff finds the proposed direction expression appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
7. Architectural details; The proposed structure includes minimal architectural detailing, thus making the exterior
cladding an important component of the building’s architectural character. The four-inch reveal
lap siding and natural wood rain screen detailing are reasonably consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
Staff finds the lack of architectural detailing appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
205
Report Page 7
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and Mechanical equipment is not shown on the application, but is subject to Municipal Code
requirements to keep mechanical equipment out of the front or side yard, and be screened from
view in the public rights of way.
9. Materials and color scheme. The application proposes a four inch-reveal wood clapboard siding in white, asphalt shingles and
a natural wood rain screen as exterior materials.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines recommends the following for materials:
7. Brick, stone and painted wood are preferred primary building materials.
• A much wider range of secondary and trim materials (including wood, metal, glass and
synthetics) occurs.
Staff finds the proposed materials and colors appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
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.
This application proposes contemporary, non-historic period design of new structures in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The 800 block of South 7th Avenue is not within one of the City of Bozeman’s many historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places but is within two blocks of the Cooper Park Historic District. The area is a potential historic district,
but the community is not pursuing nomination of the district to the National Register at this time.
Administrative Design Review Staff is primarily concerned with the ways in which the application is or is not compatible with the foregoing elements of the surrounding structures and the character of the existing neighborhood. The 800 block of South 7th Avenue is a transition point from the
Montana State University campus to the adjacent residential district. The properties across the alley
to the west on this block, which face South 8th Avenue, are entirely multi-unit dwellings. Also on
this block is a historic-era duplex fronting West Harrison Street which is similar in design and likely construction era to other multi-unit structures found in the neighborhood south of College Street.
All of the structures fronting the 800 block of South 7th Avenue appear to have been constructed as
single household dwellings. Many of them have been converted to multi-unit residential, as indicated
in the City of Bozeman’s Land Use Inventory (See Figure 1). Of the ten properties which have a front or corner-side front yard on the 800 block of South 8th Avenue, the City’s Land Use Inventory
classifies four as Single Household Residential. This classification includes the Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Fraternity on the east side of the block, for which the City of Bozeman issued a Special Temporary
Use Permit enabling the building to house more than four non-related tenants.
In short, the character of this neighborhood in terms of use within the buildings is multi-unit
structures. Additional dwelling units are accessed from a side entry or a shared entryway. Awnings
covering entrances to basement apartments are seen in the neighborhood as well. The structures
themselves, however, retain the massing and form of one single-household dwelling.
Though the use within the buildings has been modified, the buildings within the neighborhood
generally retain their original location and design as seen from the public rights of way on the street.
206
Report Page 8
As with most of the historic core of Bozeman, ownership parcels are actually two twenty-five foot
wide lots, with a dwelling constructed in the center of the parcel over the internal property line. This
pattern is consistent throughout the majority of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District,
with multiple lots held in one ownership to create a parcel over which one structure was built.
ADR Staff’s primary objection to the application is the disruption in neighborhood character and
building and yard pattern proposed with the application. The rhythm of a single structure on a 50
foot wide parcel would be disrupted by a structure that “reads” as two structures on individual 25
foot wide lots. Approval of the application would set a precedent for other such demolitions and insertions of townhomes which change the pattern of structures on 50 foot wide parcels within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
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 Design Guidelines have been incorporated into the comments on the previous page addressing
the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards.
Figure 1: City of Bozeman Land Use Inventory, January 2012
207
Report Page 9
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
The new proposed structures conform with the R-2 zoning district setbacks, height limit, lot
coverage, and parking requirements. Installation of utility services with new construction will be coordinated with the building permit. The Development Review Committee considered the
application on March 13, 2013. Six conditions were recommended which are presented above. With
these conditions the other applicable development standards except lot width are met. The required
criteria for granting a deviation for lot width are examined in a following section.
F. Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards established in chapter 2, article 6, division 2.
Not applicable.
Section 38.16.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 38.16.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. In the discussion below, Staff evaluated the applicant's request in light of these criteria.
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question, and the adjacent properties, as determined by the standards in § 38.16.050 of this chapter, than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this title;
Section 38.08.040 “Lot Area and Width”, Table 38.08.040-2 to allow a lot width of 25 feet for a townhouse instead of 30 feet.
The proposed deviation is focused on the width of the lot, not the building itself. The existing building is
significantly damaged and will be removed and replaced. The site has traditionally been used for a
single detached home. Many of the surrounding homes appear to be originally developed as single
detached homes which have been modified to have additional dwellings within them. See land use inventory image and discussion above. The site is configured with two lots as was common in the
neighborhood conservation overlay district. The lots were designed to be in a wide variety of
combinations to provide sites for homes. Standard lot width is 25 feet. Lots or fractions of lots were
commonly exchanged between adjacent owners to enable owners to develop the building pattern of their
choice. This variety of patterns is seen in Block 5, Capital Hill Addition and surrounding blocks.
208
Report Page 10
The 25 foot lot width is more consistent with the historical development pattern than a 30 foot lot width
would be. The proposed development would allow two homes, one on each 25 foot lot. Table 38.08.040-
2 would allow a duplex on a 50 foot lot width without a deviation so long as all vehicular access was
from the adjacent alley. The current proposal takes all vehicular access from the alley. The pattern of
individual ownership and the pattern of multiple homes on single ownerships of lots are both present in the immediate vicinity of the site. A single duplex could be constructed which would have a more
greater visual massing. The present proposal divides the residences into two individual modules to
reduce the visual mass of the structure to one more consistent with that of the surrounding properties.
The requested deviation does not appear to conflict with the pattern of the neighborhood and appears to
be consistent with similar properties in the area.
Paragraph C of Section 38.16.050 notes that “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 surrounding structures.” The proposed townhome exhibits a contemporary design for the new structures but
conforms with the mass and scale and other standards of paragraph B as discussed above. There is a
different visual rhythm created by the contemporary design. However, there is considerable variation in
building height and width in the other residential properties facing the 800 block of S. 7th Avenue and
the difference is not sufficient to make the site unable to comply with standards.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
Section 38.08.040 “Lot Area and Width”, Table 38.08.040-2 to allow a lot width of 25 feet for a
townhouse. The proposed deviation is focused on the width of the lot, not the building itself. The allowed density of
homes is not affected by the deviation. Either with or without the deviation two homes are allowed on
the site. The public comments express several concerns about possible adverse effects. The proposed
deviation does not alter the external yard dimensions, building height, or massing allowed. No reduction
Subject Site
209
Report Page 11
has been requested for parking or other requirements which could spill over to the neighbors. Analysis
of the COA criteria above addresses the design concerns of those who commented and generally finds
that the required criteria are met. Therefore it appears the deviation will have minimal adverse effect.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The general standards of the land use regulations address this concern. The deviation does not affect
density or other factors which may affect the general public. The proposal will be served with municipal
utilities, will comply with required setbacks, and will provide parking according to the city standards. The deviation therefore will not be counter to this criteria. The application generally conforms to the
COA criteria with the conditions established above.
It is the determination of Staff that with the recommended conditions of approval this application creates
a project which will be more historically appropriate for the site and surrounding neighborhood in question, will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties and that the protection of health,
safety and general welfare is assured. Thus the application fulfills Criterion A - C of Section
38.16.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development
Code.
Sec. 38.16.080 “Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district.”
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be
subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the
demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
1. 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 application includes a complete submittal for the subsequent development after demolition
has occurred.
2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other
ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per
articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The
review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this
section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application.
The application includes the information necessary to consider the property’s historic
significance and historic integrity with evaluation of the application.
210
Report Page 12
3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and
architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall
be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article of this chapter. Notice was posted on site, as well as in the paper and mailed to adjoining property owners,
Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a
recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation
office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or
movement proposal.
The application included sufficient information about the property’s historic significance and
integrity to enable the Department of Planning to make an educated decision on the future
development of the property. The Historic Preservation Officer is satisfied that the information
provided in the application provides definitive evidence that the existing structure is a threat to the public health and welfare and has no economic life remaining. Thus, the application was not
reviewed by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board.
The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described
within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following:
a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the state historic preservation office and the planning department.
The application materials include information regarding the historic significance of the Zilka
residence. The historic importance has been considered in light of the extent of deterioration of the structure.
b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then,
before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority 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:
1. 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. The application includes information detailing the extensive deterioration of the structure.
Staff finds the information supplied convincing.
2. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
211
Report Page 13
4. 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 2 or 3 of this section.
Not applicable. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review
staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
Given the historic significance of the structure, Historic Preservation Staff recommends documentation of the structure prior to demolition. Staff recommends using the Montana
Property Record Form, available from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, as an
appropriate method of documentation.
6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design
and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in
conformance with all applicable codes and regulations Not applicable.
Public Comment
Public notice of this application was sent to adjoining property owners within 200 feet of the property,
as well as posted physically on site and included in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Several public comments were received by the comment deadline. Comment was in opposition to the proposal.
Comments addressed issues of building design, massing, compliance with NCOD design guidelines, use
of the site for rental rather than owner occupancy, parking, and neighborhood character. Copies of the
public comment are attached. Comments were addressed in the review of the criteria applicable to this
application. Conclusion/Recommendation
The Staff has reviewed the Zilka Townhouse Certificate of Appropriateness application with Deviation
request and recommends approval of the application to Planning Director with the condition of approval and code requirements outlined in this report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code
provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver
or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or State law.
Attachments: Application materials
Public comment
ADR memo and recommendation
212
213
community planning zoning subdivision review annexation historic preservation neighborhood planning urban design GIS
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: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director; Steve Worthington, Interim Planning Director
FROM: Courtney Kramer, Planner 1/ Historic Preservation Officer RE: Z#13021 Zilka Demolition and townhome construction
DATE: April 3, 2013
I have reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) request for the Zilka demolition and new
townhome construction application, at 815 South 7th
Avenue (#Z-13021) against the criteria found in
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.16 “The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.” Please
incorporate this memo and the findings within into the Staff Report to the Director of Planning and Community Development, who is the review authority on this project.
ADR Staff is recommending denial
of the COA request for this project on the basis of the proposed
design’s disruption of the neighborhood’s character. Please see comments beginning on page five of this
report for additional information.
Should the Director choose to approve the application, ADR Staff recommends the following conditions
of approval:
1. The windows on the east-facing façade shall be modified to more appropriately reflect the
character of window openings and pattern of division found elsewhere in the neighborhood (see evaluation under COA criteria on page two of this report).
2. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a completed Montana Property Record Form (available
through the Montana State Historic Preservation Office) shall be submitted as documentation of
the historically significant structure to be demolished.
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Section 38.16.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
Section 38.16.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness approval for proposed alterations. 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
214
Page 2
Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
The application proposes demolition of a historically significant, but badly damaged, structure. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties do not pertain to new
construction.
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 existing neighborhood includes single story and two or two
and one half story residential dwellings. The proposed building’s maximum height of 25 feet 10 inches at the roof ridge
is stepped down to 19 feet 10 inches and shorter with the porch
roof near the street.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter Three, Guidelines for
Residential Character Areas:
2. On larger structures, step down a building's height toward
the street, neighboring structures and the rear of the lot. • 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.
Given the narrow lot width, it the proposed design is not able to step down the building’s height toward neighboring structures.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following for height:
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.
The proposed design includes front porches and single-story components facing the street, which helps break the plane of the two-story building mass.
Given the variation in building heights within the neighborhood and efforts to minimize the
perceived height of the proposed building from the public right of way, Staff finds the height of
the proposed design appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
2. Proportions of doors and windows; The proposed design uses larger window openings than seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
Larger window openings and expanses of glass are proposed on the front (east-facing) façade as
well as the side and rear facades.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter
215
Page 3
Three, Guidelines for Residential Character Areas:
6. The proportions of window and door openings should be similar to those used traditionally in
the neighborhood.
• This will help maintain the established ratio of wall-to-window and reinforce the traditional scale of the building.
• Large expanses of glass are discouraged.
• Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows to reduce their perceived scale.
Given the recommendations in the Design Guidelines, Staff finds the proposed windows inappropriate for the neighborhood because the large expanses of glass are not divided into
smaller, more proportional components and recommends modification with Final Site Plan
application.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; The application proposes construction of two townhouses on a parcel 50 feet in width. Though
the townhouses are connected at the staircase in order to satisfy City of Bozeman requirements
for townhouses, the buildings will “read” as two individual residences on individual 25 foot wide
lots. The neighborhood character is of a single structure centered on a 50 foot wide parcel.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation recommends the following in Chapter
Three, Guidelines for Residential Character Areas:
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.
The proposed structures do provide a one story porch and the use of white clapboard siding with a four inch reveal; a traditional dimension found in this neighborhood.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following with relation to mass and spaces:
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.
The proposed structure is divided into muddles at the front, street-facing east façade as presented
to the public right of way. This modulation is not present toward the side or rear of the building.
The Design Guidelines also recommend the following with relation to mass and spaces:
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.
The proposed design includes front façade widths of 15 feet, well within the recommendation
made in the Design Guidelines.
With exception of the neighborhood pattern of a single structure on a 50 foot wide parcel, the
proposed design satisfies most of the recommendations for Mass and Spaces found in the Design Guidelines. Staff finds the proposed design appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
216
Page 4
4. Roof shape; The application proposes a simple front-gable as a primary roof form. Other modules of the
design include a flat-roof form.
The Design Guidelines recommend the following with relation to roof form:
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.
Staff finds the proposed roof shape appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
5. Scale;
Please see discussion under “Masses and Spaces.”
6. Directional expression; The proposed structures include front porches and walkways from the public sidewalk to the
residential units. Front porches along the side of the structure rather than across the front are
commonly found in historic structures in the neighborhood. All vehicular access is proposed from the alley.
The Design Guidelines recommend the following with relation to directional expression:
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.
Staff finds the proposed direction expression appropriate within the context of the neighborhood. 7. Architectural details; The proposed structure includes minimal architectural detailing, thus making the exterior
cladding an important component of the building’s architectural character. The four-inch reveal
lap siding and natural wood rain screen detailing are reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Staff finds the lack of architectural detailing appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and Mechanical equipment is not shown on the application, but is subject to Municipal Code
requirements to keep mechanical equipment out of the front or side yard, and be screened from
view in the public rights of way.
217
Page 5
9. Materials and color scheme. The application proposes a four inch-reveal wood clapboard siding in white, asphalt shingles and
a natural wood rain screen as exterior materials.
Bozeman’s Design Guidelines recommends the following for materials:
7. Brick, stone and painted wood are preferred primary building materials.
• A much wider range of secondary and trim materials (including wood, metal, glass and
synthetics) occurs.
Staff finds the proposed materials and colors appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
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.
This application proposes contemporary, non-historic period design of new structures in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The 800 block of South 7th Avenue is not within one of the City of Bozeman’s many historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places but is within two blocks of the Cooper Park Historic District. The area is a potential historic district,
but the community is not pursuing nomination of the district to the National Register at this time.
Administrative Design Review Staff is primarily concerned with the ways in which the application is or is not compatible with the foregoing elements of the surrounding structures and the character of the existing neighborhood. The 800 block of South 7th Avenue is a transition point from the
Montana State University campus to the adjacent residential district. The properties across the alley
to the west on this block, which face South 8th Avenue, are entirely multi-unit dwellings. Also on
this block is a historic-era duplex fronting West Harrison Street which is similar in design and likely construction era to other multi-unit structures found in the neighborhood south of College Street.
All of the structures fronting the 800 block of South 7th Avenue appear to have been constructed as
single household dwellings. Many of them have been converted to multi-unit residential, as indicated
in the City of Bozeman’s Land Use Inventory (See Figure 1). Of the ten properties which have a front or corner-side front yard on the 800 block of South 8th Avenue, the City’s Land Use Inventory
classifies four as Single Household Residential. This classification includes the Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Fraternity on the east side of the block, for which the City of Bozeman issued a Special Temporary
Use Permit enabling the building to house more than four non-related tenants.
In short, the character of this neighborhood in terms of use within the buildings is multi-unit
structures. Additional dwelling units are accessed from a side entry or a shared entryway. Awnings
covering entrances to basement apartments are seen in the neighborhood as well. The structures
themselves, however, retain the massing and form of one single-household dwelling.
Though the use within the buildings has been modified, the buildings within the neighborhood
generally retain their original location and design as seen from the public rights of way on the street.
As with most of the historic core of Bozeman, ownership parcels are actually two twenty-five foot
wide lots, with a dwelling constructed in the center of the parcel over the internal property line. This
pattern is consistent throughout the majority of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, with multiple lots held in one ownership to create a parcel over which one structure was built.
218
Page 6
ADR Staff’s primary objection to the application is the disruption in neighborhood character and
building and yard pattern proposed with the application. The rhythm of a single structure on a 50
foot wide parcel would be disrupted by a structure that “reads” as two structures on individual 25
foot wide lots. Approval of the application would set a precedent for other such demolitions and insertions of townhomes which change the pattern of structures on 50 foot wide parcels within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
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 Design Guidelines have been incorporated into the comments on the previous page addressing the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
A Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application for the remodel of an existing detached
garage, including the addition of a new second story and shed roof, at the property addressed as 715
South Grand Avenue. Two deviations from the Bozeman Municipal Code are required for the
Subject Property: 815 South 7th Avenue
Figure 1: City of Bozeman Land Use Inventory, January 2012
219
Page 7
proposed project. The first is requested from Section 38.08.050 “Yards” to allow the second-story
portion of the remodeled garage encroach into the required 20-foot rear yard setback and the second
is from Section 38.21.050.E.2 “Accessory buildings, uses and equipment” to allow the second-story
of the remodeled garage to have sides wall greater than 3 feet tall.
The required criteria for granting deviations are examined in the following section.
F. Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the
procedures and standards established in chapter 2, article 6, division 2. Not applicable.
Sec. 38.16.080 “Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district.”
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
1. 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 application includes a complete submittal for the subsequent development after demolition
has occurred.
2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state
historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by
a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is
proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit
development application. The application includes the information necessary to consider the property’s historic
significance and historic integrity with evaluation of the application.
3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article
Notice was posted on site, as well as in the paper and mailed to adjoining property owners,
of this
chapter.
220
Page 8
Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not
conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory
board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal.
The application included sufficient information about the property’s historic significance and integrity to enable the Department of Planning to make an educated decision on the future
development of the property. The Historic Preservation Officer is satisfied that the information
provided in the application provides definitive evidence that the existing structure is a threat to
the public health and welfare and has no economic life remaining. Thus, the application was not
reviewed by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or
movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, conditional use
permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following: a. The standards in 38.16.050
and the architectural, social, cultural and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined
by the state historic preservation office and the planning department.
The application materials include information regarding the historic significance of the Zilka
residence. The historic importance has been considered in light of the extent of deterioration
of the structure.
b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority 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: 1. 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.
The application includes information detailing the extensive deterioration of the structure.
Staff finds the information supplied convincing.
2. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
4. 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
221
Page 9
additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3 of this section.
Not applicable. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review
staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
Given the historic significance of the structure, Historic Preservation Staff recommends documentation of the structure prior to demolition. Staff recommends using the Montana
Property Record Form, available from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, as an
appropriate method of documentation.
6. In addition to the remedies in article 34
of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design
and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in
conformance with all applicable codes and regulations
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
RE: townhome proposal at 815 South 7th.
Brian Caldwell
To:Cyndy Andrus, Jeff Krauss, Sean Becker, Brian Caldwell, Chris Mehl (chris_mehl@tws.org),
CTaylor587 (CTaylor587@aol.com), Chris Mehl (mehlchris@hotmail.com)
Cc:Chris Saunders, Tara L. Hastie, Erik Nelson
Date:3/22/2013 4:20:45 PM
Attachments:image004.jpg, image003.jpg
Greetings,
As always, we are committed to building community and a better Bozeman. Thinktank Design Group would like to clarify for the public record what our intentions are in the event that we are unable to come to an agreement with the adjoining property owner to the north of the subject property.Should our townhome proposal not suit the interests of the adjoining property, we will submit amodified application without any deviations, to construct a duplex rental property as allowed by zoning code.
We have the opportunity to meet with the neighboring property owners this afternoon to discuss further and explain our design intent for this project.
Sincerely,
Brian Caldwell
33 North Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
(w)406-587-3628
(c)406-580-9750
(f) 406-587-4659
The information contained in this e-mail transmittal is confidential, may be subject to the
thinktank-client privilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the
reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
information to the intended recipient, you are notified that this is not a waiver of privilege and any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmittal in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return this
transmittal to the sender, by U. S. Postal Service, at the address above. Thank you.
From: Brian Caldwell
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:09 AM
To: Sean Becker (sbecker@bozeman.net); (jkrauss@bozeman.net); CTaylor587
(CTaylor587@aol.com); Chris Mehl (mehlchris@hotmail.com); Chris Mehl (chris_mehl@tws.org);
Cynthia Andrus (candrus@bozeman.net)
Cc: Chris Saunders (csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET); INC. Thinktank Design Group
(erik@thinktankaia.com); 'Tara L. Hastie'
Subject: townhome proposal at 815 South 7th.
Greetings,
I would like to acknowledge the concerns of Kelly and Ben in regard to our offices application for
Page 1 of 2Preview
5/13/2013http://haystack/search/Preview.aspx?EntryId=52CF20BAEA7DDB41A46BF0D4F52432A...
229
redevelopment at 815 South 7th.
We have a meeting with the property owners at 811 S. 7th this coming Friday. If we can come to
a mutual understanding in regard to our proposal, we will continue with our application.
Should we fail in this effort, we will respectfully withdraw our application.
It is always Thinktank’s believe that our effort in redevelopment in Bozeman is to make positive
changes to our neighborhoods and community as a whole.
Respectfully,
Brian T. Caldwell
P.S. I would like to forward this message to any of the addressed persons in the letter received as
of this date. Perhaps Tara could help in this regard?
33 North Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
(w)406-587-3628
(c)406-580-9750
(f) 406-587-4659
The information contained in this e-mail transmittal is confidential, may be subject to the
thinktank-client privilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the
reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
information to the intended recipient, you are notified that this is not a waiver of privilege and any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmittal in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return this
transmittal to the sender, by U. S. Postal Service, at the address above. Thank you.
Page 2 of 2Preview
5/13/2013http://haystack/search/Preview.aspx?EntryId=52CF20BAEA7DDB41A46BF0D4F52432A...
230
RE: townhome proposal at 815 South 7th.
Tara L. Hastie
To:'Brian Caldwell'
Cc:Chris Saunders
Date:3/21/2013 11:51:16 AM
Attachments:image001.jpg
Sorry Brian, but I didn’t keep their e-mail addresses, just forwarded them to Chris S. Chris, can
you provide with the e-mail addresses of the other folks that sent public comment via e-mail?
Tara Hastie, Planning TechnicianCity of Bozeman Planning Department20 E. Olive St., P.O. Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59715ph. (406)582-2260 fx. (406)582-2263
From: Brian Caldwell [mailto:brian@thinktankaia.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:09 AMTo: Sean Becker; Jeff Krauss; CTaylor587 (CTaylor587@aol.com); Chris Mehl(mehlchris@hotmail.com); Chris Mehl (chris_mehl@tws.org); Cyndy Andrus
Cc: Chris Saunders; Erik Nelson; Tara L. Hastie
Subject: townhome proposal at 815 South 7th.
Greetings,
I would like to acknowledge the concerns of Kelly and Ben in regard to our offices application for
redevelopment at 815 South 7th.
We have a meeting with the property owners at 811 S. 7th this coming Friday. If we can come to
a mutual understanding in regard to our proposal, we will continue with our application.
Should we fail in this effort, we will respectfully withdraw our application.
It is always Thinktank’s believe that our effort in redevelopment in Bozeman is to make positive
changes to our neighborhoods and community as a whole.
Respectfully,
Brian T. Caldwell
P.S. I would like to forward this message to any of the addressed persons in the letter received as
of this date. Perhaps Tara could help in this regard?
33 North Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
(w)406-587-3628
(c)406-580-9750
(f) 406-587-4659
The information contained in this e-mail transmittal is confidential, may be subject to the
thinktank-client privilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the
reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
information to the intended recipient, you are notified that this is not a waiver of privilege and any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
Page 1 of 2Preview
5/13/2013http://haystack/search/Preview.aspx?EntryId=52CD9014526BDBF36449F9352CECDE1B...
231
this transmittal in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return this
transmittal to the sender, by U. S. Postal Service, at the address above. Thank you.
Page 2 of 2Preview
5/13/2013http://haystack/search/Preview.aspx?EntryId=52CD9014526BDBF36449F9352CECDE1B...
232
townhome proposal at 815 South 7th.
Brian Caldwell
To:Cyndy Andrus, Jeff Krauss, Sean Becker, Chris Mehl (chris_mehl@tws.org), CTaylor587
(CTaylor587@aol.com), Chris Mehl (mehlchris@hotmail.com)
Cc:Chris Saunders, Tara L. Hastie, Erik Nelson
Date:3/21/2013 11:08:34 AM
Attachments:image002.jpg
Greetings,
I would like to acknowledge the concerns of Kelly and Ben in regard to our offices application for redevelopment at 815 South 7th. We have a meeting with the property owners at 811 S. 7th this coming Friday. If we can come to a mutual understanding in regard to our proposal, we will continue with our application.Should we fail in this effort, we will respectfully withdraw our application. It is always Thinktank’s believe that our effort in redevelopment in Bozeman is to make positive changes to our neighborhoods and community as a whole.
Respectfully,
Brian T. Caldwell
P.S. I would like to forward this message to any of the addressed persons in the letter received as
of this date. Perhaps Tara could help in this regard?
33 North Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
(w)406-587-3628
(c)406-580-9750
(f) 406-587-4659
The information contained in this e-mail transmittal is confidential, may be subject to the
thinktank-client privilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the
reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
information to the intended recipient, you are notified that this is not a waiver of privilege and any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmittal in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return this
transmittal to the sender, by U. S. Postal Service, at the address above. Thank you.
Page 1 of 1Preview
5/13/2013http://haystack/search/Preview.aspx?EntryId=52CD86109C32BE6EFBF8DCA24B5661D...
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
33 N Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-587-3628
thinktankdesign.net
.
Date: 2/15/2013
SUBJECT: Sketch Plan COA with deviation
PROJECT: Zilka Townhomes
815 South 7th Ave
Sketch Plan Narrative:
Overview and Scope:
The project proposed at 815 South 7th is to construct two new single family townhome
dwellings and a detached garage for each. The existing structures were evaluated by an
Architect and determined to be beyond their useful life and structurally unsound, they will
need to be removed prior to construction. Further information and images have been
provided substantiating the existing condition of the house.
Design Intent:
The proposed design takes its cue from the existing neighborhood by maintaining the width
on the front façade as minimal as possible. Each of the townhomes is designed to read as
individual homes rather than one large block. This is done by breaking up the massing of the
house to resemble two separate structures while keeping them connected for the purposes
of a townhome. The street elevation and massing is compatible with the neighborhood and
special care was taken to not impinge upon the solar access of the neighbors to the South.
The massing of the structures is stepped down in front to further emphasize the small scale
of each home. Each townhouse is approximately 1700 SF and has three bedrooms. Parking
has been provided on street in front of the homes as well as in a two stall garage for each.
Given the neighborhoods proximity to campus the townhomes will make a welcome addition
to the housing needs in the area.
We have provided detail data below as well as historical information to further explain the
intent of the project as well as the existing condition of the house on the property. The
project will require the demolition of the existing house to be replaced with two townhomes.
We have provided plans and elevations as well as three dimensional rendering of the
proposed townhomes. Each of the townhomes will sit on an existing deeded track of record
Lots 8 and 9 Block 5 of the Capital Hill Addition
We thank you for your time in reviewing this proposal. Please let us know if you require more
information during your review.
243
815 S 7th Ave – Sketch Plan COA- with deviation
2
Project Data:
Zoning – R-2
Overlay – Conservation Overlay District
Address- 815 South 7th Ave
Legal Description – Capitol Hill Lots 8 & 9 / Block 5 – Plat C-37
Townhouse 1 Lot 8 Townhouse 2 Lot 9
Lot Area – TH 1 TH 2
6,400 SF 3,200 SF 3,200 SF
Lot Width – TH 1 TH 2
50 ‘ 25’ 25’ Deviation of 5’ to meet 30’ min = 16%
Building Foot Prints TH 1 TH 2
House- 930 SF 930 SF
Garage – 443 SF 443 SF
Total – 1,373 SF 1,373 SF
Lot coverage: TH 1 TH 2
Code = 50% 50%
Proposed = 43% 43%
Building Setbacks:
Code TH 1 TH 2 Garages
Front 15’ 15’ 15’ NA
Rear 20’ 51’ 51’ 12’
Side(N) 5’ 5’ 2’ 5’
Side(S) 5’ 5’ 8’ 5’
Setback provisions:
UDO 18.38.060 Yard & Height Encroachments
A.1 Architectural features encroach 5’ in the front yard
A.2 Architectural features encroach 2’ in the side yard
Building Height:
Code Proposed House Proposed Garage
Roof pitch 10:12 36’ 26’ 14’0”
Parking:
3 spaces required per townhome total of 6
4 off Street in Garage Stall provided (2 per townhome)
2 on Street Provided
6 Spaces Provided
244
815 S 7th Ave – Sketch Plan COA- with deviation
3
Historic data
The historic inventory of the City conducted in 1984 evaluated the property located at 815
South 7th Ave the findings were as follows:
Physical Description:
This detached one-story single family residence has a rectangular plan with an
enclosed entrance with a gable roof on the side of the house. The two-bay façade is
asymmetrical and consists of an off-set front entrance with casement windows. The frame
construction is finished in shingles and rests on a concrete foundation. The gable roof is
covered with green asphalt shingles and features overhanging eaves protecting the sidewalk
to the entrance. There is one exterior brick chimney. Outbuildings include a shed.
Historical Significance:
Research in the sources consulted in this survey has not yielded any significant
historical information concerning persons or events associated with this property
Significance:
This structure is an intrusive element within a potential historic district.
Integrity:
This historic integrity of this property has not been retained due to changes in the
original design materials.
Information value:
None
The above survey was completed by James R McDonald Architects P.C. of Missoula Montana
in 1984
Further information was gathered after 1984 that has indicated that notable local architect
Fred Willson designed the structure for the original owner Thomas J Zilka. The structure was
designed in 1946. Project number 4619 The Polk directory of 1947 indicates Thomas J Zilka
as the owner and the next Polk entry that shows a changes of ownership is in 1950 with
ownership transferring to Lois Callahan widow of Duane Callahan.
There are no substantial records following the ownership of Lois Callahan although at some
point in time it came under the ownership of John and Dorothy Frankovich. John Frankovich
died in 1999 and it became the sole ownership of Dorothy Franovich. Dorothy lived in the
house until 2005 the time of her death. During that period or prior the property suffered from
substantial neglect and destruction.
The property has sat vacant since 2005 when it came under the ownership of Catherine and
Gary Zimmer and was conveyed to Catherine Zimmer in 2010. The neglect and destruction
that had occurred from the period of 1999 to 2005 is irreversible. The property currently has
significant mold and structural damage. We have attached photos for reference to the
current state of the property. The intent of the proposed project is to remove the structure
from the site and during the demolition document any significant information found if any.
Requested deviation
The requested deviation is from the minimum lot width required for a townhome lot. The
standard is to have a minimum of 30’ frontage for each townhome lot. The proposed project
is requesting a deviation of 5 feet for the lot width to allow for 25’ wide lots. The designs of
each of the townhomes are minimized in width so that the reductions in width will not impede
upon the adjacent properties anymore than a single family residence would otherwise.
Additionally the character of the proposed structures are befitting of the neighborhood in
material and massing. The designs were sensitive in their relationship to abutting properties.
This deviation request is less than 25% as allowed for by the code.
245
815 S 7th Ave – Sketch Plan COA- with deviation
4
COA information:
Attachments:
o Historic inventory and existing site photos
o Drawing set
o Neighborhood Certificate
o Adjoiners Certificate
246
EXISTING CONDITIONS
@ 815 SOUTH 7TH.
Neighborhood
Stabilization
Project
12-26-2012 - VERSION 1
ARCHITECTS:
BRIAN T. CALDWELL
STATE OF MONTANA - AIA 3135
ERIK R. NELSON
STATE OF MONTANA -AIA 3949
247
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
1
Shot #1
Dialogue:front elevation-
Dialogue:South east corner
overgrown vegetation
Shot #3
Subject property
Subject Property
Shot #2
Subject property
Dialogue:North east perspective
248
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
2
Dialogue
Shot #4
Description
Dialogue
Description
Shot #5
Dialogue
Description
Shot #6
water damage and black mold
black mold
gross
249
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
250
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
251
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
252
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
Fred F. WillsonFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fred Fielding Willson
Born November 11, 1877
Bozeman, Montana
Died August 13, 1956 (aged 78)
Bozeman, Montana
Alma mater Columbia University
Club Moderne, Anaconda, MT, built 1937
Fred Fielding Willson (November 11, 1877 - August 13, 1956), most commonly known as Fred F. Willson, was an
architect in Bozeman, Montana who designed many buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.[1][2]Contents
1 Early life
2 Early career
3 Bozeman architecture
4 Family and civic life
5 Works
5.1 NRHP listed works[1]
5.2 Other notable works
6 Notes
Early life
He was born in Bozeman, Montana on November 11, 1877, the son of American Civil War general Lester S. Willson
and Emma Weeks Willson.[3] After attending Bozeman public schools and the Bozeman Academy, he studied at
Montana State College, for which he later designed buildings. He left Montana State as a junior to attend Columbia
University where he received his Bachelor of Arts in architecture in 1902.[2]
Early career
After graduating from Columbia, Willson worked in Helena, Montana for architect C.S. Haire for two years. In November 1904, to broaden his architectural experiences, Willson started an extended tour of Europe, including
France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. He documented his impressions of European architecture and daily
life in Europe during the early 20th century in his personal diairies. While in France, he studied at the Ecole des
Beaux Arts in Paris.[3] Willson returned to New York in 1906 to work for the architecture firm Visscher & Burley. In
late 1906, took charge of the offices of architects Link & Haire in Butte, Montana where he worked until returning to
Bozeman in 1910.[2]
Bozeman architecture
Fred Willson played a significant role in the architectural face of downtown Bozeman and surrounding residential
areas. His European experience significantly influences his designs which include representatives of multiple
architectural styles--Georgian, Mission Revival, Art Deco and Craftsman.[3] In 1927 Willson designed a new, three-
story structure for Eagle's Store on the site of the original store built in West Yellowstone, Montana, in 1908.
Willson donated his expertise in order to promote the National Park Service rustic architectural style.[4]
Between January 1910 and 1928 Willson worked as an architect under his own name. Between 1928-1932 he was
in the partnership of Shanley, Willson & Hugenin. From 1932 until his death in 1956, Willson again was an
independent architect. Many of his buildings are landmarks in downtown Bozeman-the Gallatin County Court House,
the Baxter Hotel, the Hamill and Blackmore Apartments.[2] The Willson Middle School, originally the Gallatin County
High School, was his design and now bears his name. An early design was the Gallatin County Jail (1911), which
still remains today housing the Gallatin Historical Society and Pioneer Museum on Main Street.
In a 1954 address at Montana State University, Willson expressed his architectural philosophy:
253
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
Since no two problems are the same, the architect must visit the site, become intimately acquainted with the
family or owner who is to occupy the structure. He must try to get himself into their way of thinking, living or
operating. He must study their personality, mode of living, individual family requirements and provide a structure
suitable for their needs. Few people realize the care and thought necessary to secure the maximum of useable
space and still have an attractive interior and exterior. He must have knowledge of balance, proportion, scale and
harmony. There is a fundamental reason for every feature embodied in a structure. It must have refinement,
simplicity, beauty and good taste. Thus an architect's business is to make the things of daily life beautiful.
- Fred F. Willson, MSU Knowledge Quest, 1954[3]
Family and civic life
Willson was active in the Bozeman community and in professional organizations. He served as a member of the city
council and the city commission. He was a member of the Montana State Board of Architectural Examiners for Licensing, a Masonic Lodge and local Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks member. He also served as the
Regional Director of the American Institute of Architects.[2] Fred Willson married Helen Fisher on October 15, 1913.
They had three children Lester, Virginia and Beverly. Willson died in Bozeman, Montana on August 13, 1956. He is
buried in the Willson family plot, Sunset Hills Cemetery, Bozeman.
Works
Between 1910 and his death in 1956, Willson was responsible for at least 330 architectural projects in Bozeman and
other cities of Montana.[2] Many of his projects are now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
NRHP listed works[1]
Barrett Hospital, Chapman and S. Atlantic Streets, Dillon, Montana
Jack Bartlett House, 8 W. Harrison, Bozeman, Montana
Belgrade City Hall and Jail, Broadway at Northern Pacific Blvd., Belgrade, Montana, (1912) Blackmore Apartments, 120 S. Black St., Bozeman, Montana
Bozeman Armory, 24 W. Mendenhall, Bozeman, Montana
Coca-Cola bottling plant that is part of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District, 700-800 N. Wallace St.,
Bozeman, Montana[5]
Bozeman Sheet Metal Works, 26 S. Grand, Bozeman, Montana
Bozeman YMCA, 6 W. Babcock, Bozeman, Montana
Club Moderne, 811 E. Park Anaconda, Montana, (1937) Dokken-Nelson Funeral Home, 113 S. Willson, Bozeman, Montana
Eagle's Store, 3 Canyon St., West Yellowstone, Montana
Emerson School, 111 S. Grand Ave., Bozeman, Montana
First Baptist Church, 120 S. Grand, Bozeman, Montana
Gallatin County Courthouse, 301 W. Main, Bozeman, Montana
Gallatin County High School, 404 W. Main, Bozeman, Montana Gallatin County Jail, 317 W. Main St., Bozeman, Montana (1911)
Graf Building, 219-221 W. Arthur, Bozeman, Montana
Hamill Apartments, 427 E. Main, Bozeman, Montana
Hotel Baxter, 105 W. Main St., Bozeman, Montana
One or more works in Main Street Historic District, 100 block. W. Main-300 block. E. Main, Bozeman, Montana
One or more works in Northern Pacific-Story Mill Historic District, roughly bounded by the Northern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way and the Story Mill spur line from Wye to Bridger Canyon Rd., Bozeman, Montana Sacajawea Hotel, Three Forks, Montana
One or more works in South Tracy-South Black Historic District, 200-600 blocks. of S. Tracy & S. Black Aves.,
Bozeman, Montana
One or more works in South Willson Historic District, Willson Ave. between Curtiss and Arthur Streets., Bozeman,
Montana
Story Motor Company, 202 W. Main, Bozeman, Montana
Other notable works
Lehrkind Brewery Building, Bozeman, Montana
254
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
Collection 2143 - Fred F. Willson Papers, 1889-1956
Creator: Willson, Fred Fielding (1877-1956)
Provenance Note: The Fred F. Willson papers were donated to Montana State University in several different
accessions from 1979 to 2008. William E. Grabow of Bozeman, Montana donated the bulk of Willson's
architectural drawings in 1983, 1986, and 1997. John and Bernice DeHaas of Bozeman, Montana, donated
selected drawings and the bulk of Willson's diaires in 2004. Gurtrude Olson of Great Falls, Montana donated one
of the diaries in 2002, another was purchased from the Phoenix Book Shop in San Luis Obispo, California in
2001, and another diary was donated by Anne Butterfield of Bozeman, Montana in 2008. This collection
incorporates the following accession numbers: 6, 1376, 2152, 2192, 2420, 2467. The National Union Catalog of
Manuscript Collections assigned the control number 79-717 to a portion of the present collection in 1979. Four
additional diaries, dated 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1953 were donated by John and Bernice DeHaas on January 7,
2011 and added to the collection.
Historical Note: Fred Fielding Willson was born to General Lester S. Willson and Emma Weeks Willson in
Bozeman, Montana on November 11, 1877. He had two brothers: George, who died as an infant and Lester
Eugene, who died in 1893 at the age of 14. Willson was raised in Bozeman and lived the majority of his life in
the town of his birth. He attended Bozeman public schools, the Bozeman Academy and Montana State College of
Agriculture and Mechanical Arts. After his junior year at Montana State he left to attend Columbia University in
NYC where graduated with a B.A. in Architecture in 1902. Upon graduation Willson returned to Montana and
accepted a position with architect C.S. Haire in Helena, Montana. He worked in Helena for two years. In
November 1904 Willson went on an extended tour of Europe to further his architectural education. He visited
several countries including France, Germany, Italy and Britain. His diaries during this period document his
impressions of European architecture and daily life in Europe during the early 20th century. While in France
Willson was introduced to a French clergyman named L. Didice who would become a lifelong friend and
correspond with Willson and his family for over twenty-five years. After returning to the U.S. in 1906 Willson
worked briefly for the architecture firm Visscher & Burley in NYC. Willson moved back to Montana in late 1906
and went to work for Link & Haire in Butte. He was in charge of their office there for four years. Willson returned
to Bozeman for good in January of 1910 and began to work as an architect under his own name. In 1928 he
helped form the partnership of Shanley, Willson & Hugenin and remained in the partnership until 1932 when he
again went to work for himself and remained working in this way until his death on August 13, 1956. Willson
established a name for himself as a skilled architect and is credited by many in the profession for influencing the
look of Bozeman. He designed several buildings in town including the Gallatin County Court House, the Baxter
Hotel and Hamilton Hall on the MSU campus. Willson married Helen Fisher on October 15, 1913. They had three
children Lester, Virginia and Beverly. Willson was active in the local community and in professional
organizations. He served as a member of the city council and later the city commission, was a member of the
Montana State Board of Architectural Examiners for Licensing, a Masonic Lodge member, member of the local
Elks club and served as the Regional Director of the American Institute of Architects.
Content Description Note: The Fred Willson papers consist of diaires, postcards, letters, printed materials, and
architectural drawings which document his long career as a building designer in Montana. The collection has
been arranged in six series. Series 1 contains thirty of Willson's diaries which represent select years between
1889 and 1947 and discuss both personal and business matters. Series 2 is a collection of postcards dating
1905-1933 written to Willson and his family or from Willson to others. Many of the postcards are from a French
cleric, L`affi Didice, and bear images of significant architectural examples in Europe. Series 3 contains printed
material collected by Willson including newspaper clippings pertaining to his work and his 1902 Columbian
yearbook. Series 4 contains correspondence and unpublished material including several personal & business
letters and his 1912 address book. Series 5 contains photographs, a majority of which date from Willson's 1904-
1906 tour of Europe. Series 6 contains architectural drawings from projects Willson either designed or oversaw
during his career dating from 1910-1956.
255
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
list of Fred Willson projects: job number 4619
256
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
257
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
258
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
259
12-27-2012
Brian T Caldwell -Architect -3135
Erik R. Nelson - Architect - 3949
Neighborhood Stabilization Project 815 South 7th
existing conditions
819 SOUTH 7TH. 815 SOUTH 7TH
260
ARCHITECT:Thinktank Design Group Inc.33 North Black AveBozeman, MT 59715DRAWN BYISSUE DATECLIENTPROJECT NO.A-000COVER2-15-13ENttZILKA TOWNHOMES- 815 S 7thTT 101-13 3/32" = 1'-0"1NE STREET261
ARCHITECT:Thinktank Design Group Inc.33 North Black AveBozeman, MT 59715DRAWN BYISSUE DATECLIENTPROJECT NO.A-01CONCEPT VIEWS2-15-13ENttZILKA TOWNHOMES- 815 S 7thTT 101-13 1" = 20'-0"1SW VIEW 1" = 20'-0"3SE VIEW 1" = 30'-0"2Drafting 1262
COVERED ENTRYCOVERED ENTRYYARDYARD2 CAR GARAGE2 CAR GARAGE14' - 0"12' - 0"128' - 0"50' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"5' - 0"2' - 0"5' - 0"8' - 0"15' - 0"22' - 0"17' - 0"48' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"FRONTPORCHSOUTH 7TH AVE.ALLEYTOWNHOUSE LOT 1TOWNHOUSE LOT 2SS SSSSSS SSSSEXISTING H20NEW H20WATER MAINSEWER MAINelec. boxfor each unitlandscape note: all disturnbed areas will be reseeded and irrigatedARCHITECT:Thinktank Design Group Inc.33 North Black AveBozeman, MT 59715DRAWN BYISSUE DATECLIENTPROJECT NO.A-100SITE PLAN2-15-13ENttZILKA TOWNHOMES- 815 S 7thTT 101-13 1/16" = 1'-0"1COA site plan 1" = 40'-0"2PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" = 40'-0"3EXISTING SITE PLAN 1" = 40'-0"4SE VIEW STREET263
ARCHITECT:Thinktank Design Group Inc.33 North Black AveBozeman, MT 59715DRAWN BYISSUE DATECLIENTPROJECT NO.A-201S & EELEVATIONS2-15-13ENttZILKA TOWNHOMES- 815 S 7thTT 101-13 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATIONWHITE CLAPBOARD SIDING4" REVEALNATURAL WOODRAIN SCREENASPHALT SHINGLE- SLATEBRONZE WINDOW TRIM 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION264
ARCHITECT:Thinktank Design Group Inc.33 North Black AveBozeman, MT 59715DRAWN BYISSUE DATECLIENTPROJECT NO.A-202N & WELEVATIONS2-15-13ENttZILKA TOWNHOMES- 815 S 7thTT 101-13WHITE CLAPBOARD SIDING4" REVEALSTEEL BEAMNATRUAL WOODRAIN SCREEN 1/8" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATIONWHITE CLAPBOARD SIDING4" REVEALASPHALT SHINGLE- SLATEASPHALT SHINGLE - SLATE265
A.1.
2.
B.
1.
2.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
a.
b.
c.
Sec. 38.35.030. - Administrative project decision appeals.
An aggrieved person may appeal the final decision of the administrative review authority in
the manner provided in this section. Any appeal of a final administrative decision to approve,
approve with conditions or deny an application shall be an appeal on the basis of the
information available to the administrative review authority including this chapter, all submitted
application materials, review and recommendations by administrative staff or advisory bodies,
public comment and such other materials as were available. Denial of requests for waiver or
alteration of applicable regulations is not a decision subject to appeal of an administrative
decision. This section shall also apply to decisions by the administrative review authority
regarding evasion of the Subdivision and Platting Act per 38.05.070
Failure to raise an issue during the provided public comment opportunity, in person or in
writing, or the failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the administrative
review authority an opportunity to respond to an issue, precludes an appeal based on that
issue, unless the issue could not have been reasonably known by any party during the time of
the public comment opportunity.
Appeal procedures. Appeals from administrative review authority to the appellate review authority or
the courts are set forth in the various sections of this article. Appeals are permitted under the
provisions of this section in the manner set forth herein.
These appeal procedures shall apply to a decisions by an administrative review authority in
their actions to administer this chapter.
Appeals shall be from the administrative review authority to the appellate review authority
according to 38.35.010
Filing of appeal. An appeal shall be taken by filing with the city clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the tenth
working day following the final decision of the administrative review authority a documented appeal
and appeal fee. Upon receipt of the completed appeal the city clerk shall inform the administrative
review authority from whom the appeal is being made of the submission of the appeal.
Appeal contents. In all cases, the complete appeal application shall include, and shall not be
deemed filed until, all of the materials required by 38.41.140 is are submitted.
Notice of appeal. Once a complete appeal has been filed and date for consideration of the appeal is
set per subsection F below, notice of the appeal shall be provided in the same manner as was
required for notice of the initial application. The date, time and location for the consideration of the
appeal before the appellate review authority shall be included in the required notice of the appeal.
Scheduling. Upon receipt of a complete appeal application the city clerk shall place the appeal on
the regularly scheduled appellate review authority agenda. The appeal shall be scheduled for
consideration not later than 45 working days of the receipt of a complete appeal.
Material. The material to be considered by the review authority shall be the record of the project
review, including the administrative review authority's decision, in addition to materials that may be
submitted during the processing and review of the appeal.
Procedure of the appeal. At the consideration of the appeal, the following procedure shall be
followed:
Only arguments and evidence relevant to the application shall be presented. The presentation
shall be made in the following order, subject to such limitations, in time and scope as may be
imposed at the discretion of the presiding officer:
Explanation of the application and nature of the appeal and presentation by
administrative staff;
Presentation of position by the appellant and/or representative;
If requested, presentation by landowner if landowner is different than the appellant;
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14755&HTMRequ...
1 of 2 5/9/2013 10:07 AM
266
d.
e.
2.
I.
J.
Presentation by any person who is a proponent or an opponent of the application; and
Motion, discussion and vote by the review authority.
No person making a presentation shall be subject to cross-examination except that members
of the appellate review authority and the city attorney may inquire of such person for the
purpose of eliciting information and for the purpose of clarifying information presented.
Alternative actions available to the appellate body. At the conclusion of the consideration of the
appeal, the review authority may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision.
Construction hold. During the time of the appeal all construction shall cease and shall not commence
unless notified in writing to do so by the by the appellate review authority.
(Ord. No. 1645, § 18.66.030, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1670, § 18.66.030, 8-28-2006; Ord. No. 1693, § 24(18.66.030), 2-20-2007;
Ord. No. 1769, exh. L(18.66.030), 12-28-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 14, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 102, 9-10-2012)
Municode http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=14755&HTMRequ...
2 of 2 5/9/2013 10:07 AM
267