HomeMy WebLinkAboutC14002 430 South Tracy Demo_appeal application packet CIT -OF BOZEMAN
13M DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
EM
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT DECISION
An application has been submitted to the Department of Community Development requesting an
appeal of an Administrative Project Decision.
The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an appeal of the Administrative Project Decision for the
430 South Tracy Avenue Certificate of Appropriateness, Application Z14090. The application for appeal
was submitted by the property owner, GHT Investments, LLC, 424 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman,
MT 59715, the project applicant Intrinsik Architecture, In. Attn: Rob Pertzborn, 111 North Tracy
Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 and the appeal representative Gallik Law Firm, Attn: Jecyn Bremer,
421 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
The appeal application, Application C14002, is an Appeal of an Administrative Project Decision, made
pursuant to Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.35 "Appeals." The appeal is for an administrative
project decision to deny Application Z14090,which proposed demolition of the existing residential
structure at 430 South Tracy and landscaping of the vacant parcel. The property is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property in the South Tracy/ South Black
Avenue Historic District.
The subject property is addressed as 430 South Tracy Avenue and is legally described as Lots 14-15
and the south 6' of Lot 16, of Block F, of Hoffman's to the City of Bozeman Gallatin County,
Montana.
PUBLIC HEARING
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
Monday, October 13, 2014
6:00 PM
Commission Meeting Room
City Hall
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
The City invites the public to comment in writing. Interested parties may review the application at the
Department of Community Development offices in the Stiff Professional Building at 20 East Olive
Street in Bozeman or call 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities, please
contact James Goehrung, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD).
Please address comments to the project planner, Courtney Kramer. Written comments may be
directed to Courtney Kramer at the City of Bozeman Department of Community Development, P. O.
Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 or via email at ckramer(a,bozeman.net Please reference the
application as the 430 South Tracy Appeal, Application C14002
Development Review Division Policy and Planning Division Building Division
430 S. Tracy Ave.
INis CLI
Demolition Admin.
�• �_•,1Y•CURTISS, ELCURTISSIS.
�T �= I ' d Pro ect Decision
r�__ .�i r � + 1
' a"" 1 =+' •c i'ii f Appeal - appeal
FIR,, � � of the denial of
.7- =1, proposed
_ ,� r r, r� the
!n7i: -�' demolition and
TILLAR.I�rS w,�ji - >rE/KOCH ST 0
•i 1�: a:« r..�.� _ I landscaping as
; � subsequent
y.
treatment of
ST
—n 1 >t • : *. L � ' +t .� F the site.
C 14002
C TORY.ST -
,� 1_wti; tf....o ,� - SLTBMITTD
�} jIn .Alm _ -
f Y I �� 9-3-14
Ft+�!! 15 �� ate+ ��
11�DIC_KERSON S'P v ._ _ . _. - +� , [=j�
i. 130
a
\\' DER_SON ST
1 i � qr m 11 M
MAR
4
Logend
Parcels q.. I++:z'=!• �a^� ,
Zoning Districts i �',
CttyLimits 3M� —
1•I.RGF.ISTJTrY--+►-s- t�: T11 t rcN q'r °�=zso��
i.
Page 2
CITY F BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
September 8, 2014
GHT Investments, LLC
424 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Appeal of Administrative Project Decision for the 430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition
Certificate of Appropriateness Application,Application Z14090
Dear Mr. Talbot:
Your appeal of the approval of the above-referenced Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application
was received by the City Clerk's office on August 29, 2014, and to the Department of Community
Development on September 2, 2014. It was reviewed in accordance with the appeal submittal checklist
and Chapter 38 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and appears to meet the submittal
requirements.
The City Commission is the review authority for appeals of administrative project decisions. The appeal
has been scheduled for Monday, October 13, 2014. The City Commission will consider the appeal at
their regularly scheduled meeting, which is scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m. and is located at the City
Commission Room, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT. Public notice of the appeal will be issued
on September 10, 2014; you will receive a copy of that notice.
The appeal will be included on the Preservation Advisory Board's September 25, 2014 agenda, in order
to give the Preservation Board members an opportunity to discuss the appeal in a manner consistent with
Montana's Open Meeting Laws. You are welcome to attend the meeting, which will begin at 6:30pm in
the Upstairs Conference Room of the Stiff Professional Building, at 20 East Olive Street. Please let me
know if you would like to attend, in order to ensure the meeting agenda is coordinated appropriately
Please feel free to contact me at 582-2289 (direct line) if you have any questions regarding the appeal
process.
Sincerely
4td[�_
Courtney Kramer
Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Gallik Law Firm, Attn: Jecyn Bremer, 421 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
Intrinsik Architecture, In. Attn: Rob Pertzborn, I I I North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Development Review Division Policy and Planning Division Building Division
„,try OF BOZEMAN
130 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION /y 0d
1.Name of Project/Development: 430 South Trace Avenue Demolition - Administrative Project Decision Appeal
2.Property Owner Information:
Name: GHT Investments, LL.0 E-mail Address: ghtinvestments@gmail,com
Mailing Address: 424 South Tracy Avenue,Bozeman MT 59715 DPhone: 406-556-0237 FAX: ”
SEP G:..
IIJ
3• Representative Information:
p lcomlmuNIT�
Name: Gallik Law Firm (jecyn Bremer,JD,MPI1) E-mail Address: jbrenier(ogalliklawtlrm.com
Mailing Address: 421 West Mendenhall, Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: 406-404-1728 FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: lntrinsik Architecture, Inc. (Rob Pertzborn,AIA) E-mail Address: rpertzbornC intrinsikarchitecture.com
Mailing Address: 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: 406-582-8988 FAX: 406-582-8911
ILL_egal Description: HOFFMAN ADD,S07,T02 S, R06 E,BLOCK F, Lot 14- 15,ACRES 0.215, S C LOT 16
F6Street Address: 430 South Tracy Avenue
7.Project Description: Administrative Project Decision Appeal - original application was to demolish existing
non-conforming triplex/fourplex located at 430 South Tracy Avenue with landscaping as
subsequent treatment of the site
8. Zoning Designation(s): 11-2 9. Current Land Use(s): Residential
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: Residential
11. Gross Area: Acres: 0.2 Square Feet: 8764 12. Net Area: Acres: 0.2 Square Feet: 8764
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted ❑
13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? ❑ Yes,answer question 13a ® No,go to question 14
13a.Which urban renewal district? ❑Downtown ❑ Northeast(NURD) ❑ North 7th Avenue
14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? ® Yes,answer question 14a ❑ No,go to question 15
14a.Which Overlay District? ❑ Casino ® Neighborhood Conservation ❑ Entryway Corridor
15.Will this application require a deviation(s)? ❑ Yes,list UDC section(s): T[@ No
16.Application Type (please check all that apply): ❑O.Planned Unit Development-Concept Plan
❑A.Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands ❑ P.Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan
❑ B.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑ Q. Planned Unit Development—Final Plan
❑C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑R.Planned Unit Development—Master Plan
❑ D.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application
❑ E.Special Temporary Use Permit ❑T.Subdi6sion Preliminary Plat
❑ F.Sketch Plan/COA ❑ U.Subdivision Final Plat
❑ G.Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption
❑14.Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑W. Annexation
❑ 1. Preliminary Site Plan ❑ X.Zoning Map Amendment
❑J.Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y.Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
❑ K.Conditional Use Permit ❑Z. Zoning Variance
❑ L.Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA.Gro-,vth Policy Map Amendment
®M.Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑ BB.Growth Policy Text Amendment
❑N.Administrative Interpretation Appeal ❑ Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8/2-
by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 81/2-by 14-inches. The name of the project must
be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used,they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between
sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property
owner(s) (if different)before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the
Cite of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further,1
agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process
(Section 38.34.050,BMC). I (%X e)hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my(our) knowledge.
Applicant's Signature: Date:
Applicant's Signature: Date:
Property Owner's Signature: Date: 8/28/14
Property Owner's Signature: Date:
Page 2
(Development Review Application—Prepared 11/25/03;Amended 9/17/04,5/1/06;9/18/07,revised 11/14/11)
ZONING VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CHECKLIST
The appropriate checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or "N/A" (not
applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. ❑ Zoning Variances, An application for a variance shall be accompanied by a development plan showing such
information as the Planning Director may reasonably require for purposes of this title. The plans shall contain
sufficient information for the Commission to make a proper decision on the matter. The request shall state
the exceptional physical conditions and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for a variance.
In all cases, the application shall include, and shall not be deemed filed until, all of the following is submitted
Zoning Variance Information Yes No N/A
1. A site plan drawn to scale showing the property dimensions, grading, landscaping and ❑ ❑ ❑
location of utilities,as applicable
2. Location of all existing and proposed buildings ❑ ❑ ❑
3. Drive accesses, driveways, access roads, parking spaces, off-street loading areas and ❑ ❑ ❑
sidewalks as applicable
4. A clear description of the variance requested and the reasons for the request ❑ ❑ ❑
5. Justification, in writing of the following:
a. Will not be contrary to and will serve the public interest ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Is necessary, owing to conditions unique to the property, to avoid an ❑ ❑ ❑
unnecessary hardship which would unavoidably result from the enforcement of
the literal meaning of this title
C. Will observe the spirit of this title, including the adopted growth policy,and do ❑ ❑ ❑
Substantial justice
6. Evidence satisfactory to the City Commission of the ability and intention of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans
within six months after issuance of permit
B. ® Administrative Project Decision Appeals. All appeals of Administrative Project Decisions shall include:
Administrative Project Decision Appeal Information Yes No N/A
1. A description of the project that is the subject of the appeal ® ❑ ❑
2. Evidence that the appellant is an aggrieved person as defined in Chapter 38.42 ® ❑ ❑
(Definitions), BMC
3. The specific grounds and allegations for the appeal,and evidence necessary to support ® ❑ ❑
and justify a decision other than as determined by the Planning Director
Note that this checklist is out of date-the narrative includes this information plus information listed in UDC Section 38.41.150
C. ❑ Administrative Interpretation Appeals. All appeals of administrative interpretations shall include:
Administrative Interpretation Appeal Information Yes No N/A
1. A description of the property,if any,that is the subject of the interpretation appeal including:
a. A site plan drawn to scale showing the property dimensions, grading, ❑ ❑ ❑
landscaping and location of utilities,as applicable
b. Location of all existing and proposed buildings ❑ ❑ ❑
C. Drive accesses, driveways, access roads, parking spaces, off-street loading areas ❑ ❑ ❑
and sidewalks as applicable
2. The names and addresses of the owners of the propetty and any other persons having a ❑ ❑ ❑
legal interest therein
3. Evidence to prove that the decision or action of the official for which an appeal is ❑ ❑ ❑
made was incorrect or in violarion of the terms of this title
Page 3
(Zoning Variance and Appeal Checklist—Prepared 11/26/03;revised 9/22/04,revised 11/14/11)
CERTIFICATE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
I, Robert Pertzborn , hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners (including all individual
condominium owners) within 200 feet of the property located at 430 South Tracy
, is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax
records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project,
(Curb isrofAdipoitrPropertywners List—Prepared 11/20/03;Revised 9/22/06)
PEACE, EARL&JANICE SCHIRMER, SUSAN & PAUL BELL, WILLIAM &CHRISTINE
1201 HIGHLAND BLVD A310 513 S TRACY AVE 1-5-S TRACY
BOZEMAN MT 59715 ,,�BOZEMAN MT 59715 BOZEMAN MT 59715
HORSWILL, RICHARD& BEATRICE YMAN, IAN G OCOCK, LISA M & MATTHEW S
412 S TRACY AVE 1276 NE PLATT ST �407 S TRACY AVE
BOZEMAN MT 59715 HILLSBORO OR 97124 BOZEMAN MT 59715
416 TRACY LLC MAXTED, FREDERICK J, III & /TITUS, STEVEN R
428 N 7TH AVE / / DENISE ALBRECHT 407 1/2 S BLACK AVE
BOZEMAN MT 59715 1 505 S TRACY AVE BOZEMAN MT 59715
BOZEMAN MT 59715
TURRENTINE, MARILOU & HODGSON, MARK&CHRISTINE / BOYD, PATRICK& RHONDA
WILSON, DAVID E /501 S TRACY AVE / 7663 SW ROANOKE DR S
436 S TRACY AVE UNIT 1 / BOZEMAN MT 59715 WILSONVILLE OR 97070
BOZEMAN MT 59715 /
STORM,TAWNYA& "OTT DAVID L&TERI G HYBNER, DANIEL M & LYNN M
MARK BOSSENBROOK % /423 S TRACY AVE /HYBNER,TERRENCE& MARY
502 S TRACY AVE OZEMAN MT 59715 PO BOX 187
BOZEMAN MT 59715 RUDYARD MT 59540
BOZEMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT#7 ETTER, MICHAEL AZER, BARBARA
PO BOX 520 A33610 MILLIGAN RD 98 OLD MILL RD
BOZEMAN MT 59715 / BAYFIELD WI 54814 PARK CITY MT 59063
iCHASE, ROBERT& MARJORIE
MARTELL, RICHARD & MARY ANN /429
OYLE,TINA I/433 S BLACK AVE
425 S BLACK AVE / S BLACK AVE BOZEMAN MT 59715
BOZEMAN MT 59715 / BOZEMAN MT 59715
WAGNER,JOAN & GREGGORY& ,YALBOT, GEORGE HENRY
SANDRA GERCHOW / /424 S TRACY AVE
1701 PARK VIEW PL BOZEMAN MT 59715
BOZEMAN MT 59715
NEIGHBORHOOD KECOGNITION ORDINANCE COMPL,^NNCE CERTIFICATE
On December 10, 2007 the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance as part of the
Bozeman Municipal Code.This new ordinance contains the following requirement:
Section 2.05.1230, Responsibilities of Individuals or Entities Submitting an Application to the Department of Planning and
Community Development,
A. In order for the City Liaison to effectively perform their duties executing the intent and purpose of this chapter, as defined in
2.05.1230,the following shall be performed:
1. As part of any application to the Department of Planning and Community, Development,the applicant shall provide written
notice via certified mail, c-mail, facsimile transmission,and/or personal delivery to the City Liaison if notification guidelines
(BMC 38.40) require that notice be posted"on-site",published in the local newspaper or mailed first class.
2. Such notice shall contain a complete set of application materials as submitted to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
B. Failure to provide proof of such mailing via certified mail, e-mail and/or facsimile transmission report to the most recent City
Liaison address, a-mail address and/or fax number of record, or an affidavit attesting hand delivery, shall result in an incomplete
application.
1, Robert Pertzborn , hereby certify that I have delivered via certified mail, e-
mail, facsimile transmission or hand delivery written notice and a complete set of application materials for the project known
as 430 South Tracy Demolition Admin Project Appeal in compliance with Section 2.05.1230 of
the Bozeman Municipal Code. I further understand that failure to comply will result in this application being deemed
incOlt
d may result in a delay in the review of this project.
8/26/14
Sig Date
(Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance Compliance Certificate—Prepared 1/7/08,revised 11/14/11)
Appeal of Administrative Decision
430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition & Site Treatment
Application for Certificate of Appropriateness #Z-14090
29 August 2014
I. Name and address of the appellant:
Gallik Law Firm Intrinsik Architecture, Inc.
Jecyn Bremer, JD, MPH Rob Pertzborn, AIA
421 West Mendenhall 111 North Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715
On behalf of:
George Talbot
GHT Investments, LLC
424 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59175
II. Legal description and street address of property involved in the appeal:
Legal description: HOFFMAN ADD, S07, T02 S, R06 E, Block F, Lot 14-15, Acres 0.215, S
6' Lot 16
Street address: 430 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
III. Description of the project that is the subject of the appeal:
On behalf of our client George Talbot/GHT Investments, LLC, we respectfully submit this appeal
of the denial of his Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 430 South Tracy
Avenue and two year stay on demolition. Mr. Talbot is the owner of the house at 430 South
Tracy. The house is currently a liability, prohibiting sale of the property. It is Mr. Talbot's intent
and right to demolish that house given its current condition, attendant public health and safety
issues, and based upon the cost of rehabilitation as compared with the cost of redevelopment of the
property.
The project (Z-14090) that is the subject of the appeal is the proposed demolition of existing non-
conforming triplex/fourplex(the structure has been used as both and there is some question as to
the legality of the added rear apartments) located at 430 South Tracy Avenue. Site grading and
landscaping is proposed as the temporary subsequent treatment of the site,until the property
owner can sell the property for further residential development consistent with the Bozeman
Municipal Code (`BMC"). The current property owner, George Talbot, lives in the residence
directly to the north and purchased the property to facilitate the upgrade of this problematic site in
an otherwise model neighborhood. After a structural analysis and consideration of alternatives,
including rehabilitation of the property, it has been determined that removal by demolition is the
logical option.
1
The site is located in the South Tracy/South Black Historic District and is zoned R-2, Residential
Two-Household District. The structure was listed as "contributing" according to the 1986 Historic
Inventory; however, many significant alterations have occurred over the years as described further
in the applicant's updated Historic Record Form as well as the 2007 structural analysis and the
2014 peer review of the structural analysis, attached and incorporated herein by reference.
The home had several significant alterations to the original design since it was constructed in the
early 1900s including an intrusive major rear addition to create several illegal apartments. Also
note that the building has significant foundation and structural concerns and the underlying
unreinforced brick does not lend well to lifting for foundation replacement and retrofitting—nor
for relocation of the structure offsite.
The subsequent treatment of the site will entail removal of the existing structure and internal
walkways, backfill and grading to a level condition, and landscaping of the property. The result
will be a safe, maintained and pleasant yard-like condition which will blend with the traditional
neighborhood pattern of varied distances between houses evident throughout Southside
neighborhoods and shown on the Sanborn Maps. Significant analysis, research and feedback has
indicated that this treatment of the site will be the best way to expedite the sale and redevelopment
of the property. The property has been on the market on and off for several years, and, after the
demolition, will be relisted for sale as an opportunity for future residential construction.
Restrictions will be put in place to ensure that redevelopment is compatible with the site and
neighborhood and will be consistent with the relevant chapters of the Design Guidelines for the
Conservation Overlay District.
Removing the structure will eliminate uncertainty associated with the property in its current
condition, clear the way for active redevelopment and will allow a new owner to proceed with
construction in compliance with the BMC. Quality and thoughtful new construction will add to
the overall character of the neighborhood, not to mention the taxable value of the property.
IV. Evidence that the person is an aggrieved person as defined in article 42:
Section 38.42.080. Aggrieved person. 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.
George Talbot and GHT Investments, LLC, are persons pursuant to Section 38.42.2340, BMC,
and he or both are the owner of the property and structure located at 430 South Tracy, the subject
of this appeal. He and/or it have a specific, personal, and legal interest in the final decision of the
City to deny the application and enact a two-year stay on demolition, which interest has been
specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision of the administrative reviewing authority,
and which prejudice would be relieved by reversal of that decision.
Mr. Talbot has been seeking sell the 430 South Tracy for approximately 3 years, which sale has
been hindered by the condition of the fourplex located on that property. Mr. Talbot currently has
had at least two parties interested in purchasing the property contingent upon the removal of the
2
structure. The decision by the Planning Director has adversely affected Mr. Talbot by preventing
the sale of the property—by which decision Mr. Talbot has been specifically and personally
prejudiced.
Mr. Talbot has a direct stake in the outcome of the appeal. A decision by the City Commission to
reverse the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of 430 South
Tracy would benefit Mr. Talbot by allowing him to sell the property. A decision by the City
Commission to uphold the decision would perpetuate the prejudice caused to Mr. Talbot by
continuing to prevent the sale of the property.
V. List of names and addresses of property owners within 150 feet of the site, using the last
declared county real estate tax records included with this application.
Note the discrepancy between the distance specified in the code language, 150 feet, and the
application requirements checklist which specifies 200 feet. The owner and representatives wanted
to be inclusive of the larger neighborhood and therefore included all owners within 200 feet of the
subject property.
VI. Stamped, unsealed envelopes addressed with names of the property owners referenced in V.
along with the required appeal filing fee are enclosed.
VII. Specific grounds and allegations of the appeal, and evidence necessary to support and justify
a decision other than as determined by the administrative review authority.
The following evidence justifies approval of Application#Z-14090:
A. Subsequent Treatment of the Site
Section 38.16.080.A.1, BMC, states that a "complete submittal for the subsequent
development or treatment of the site" is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition. The proposed application includes demolition and interim
subsequent treatment of the site as a graded and landscaped area to make way for future
compatible residential development. As a similar example, the City purchased 214 East
Lamme for the potential future expansion of City Hall. The home was demolished and the
interim subsequent treatment of the site is currently community gardens.
B. Error(s) in Calculation to Evaluate Demolition; Both the Applicant's and the City's
Estimates Support Demolition
1. Section 38.16.050, MBA provides a calculation to evaluate demolition. The numbers
submitted by a licensed architect essentially reach the same conclusion as the numbers
provided by the City's third party contractor (Shed Horn Designs of Belgrade). Staff
incorrectly assumed that the Architect's Estimates do not include Contractor Fees, Overhead
and Profit; however, these fees are included within each line item rather than as a separate
line item. These fees are also included in the estimated price per square foot calculation.
2. The Staff Report, page 17 states: "Unfortunately, objective and reliable factual data is
unavailable which could give an average per square foot cost for new residential construction
3
in Downtown Bozeman." While the price per square foot cost could certainly vary
significantly depending on individual owner preferences and budgets, the suggested price
per square foot of$110 is based on information from "RS Means Square Foot Costs" (2013
edition) which is an industry standard for estimating building costs. Note that this number
also includes Contractor Fees, Overhead and Profit.
3. Correcting these assumptions decreases the gap between the two estimates and tips the
calculation in both cases to validate demolition. Both estimates support of the lack of viable
economic or useful life remaining in the structure.
4. City's third party contractor expressly states the "project will be expensive and hazardous."
5. Other important corrections from this section include:
a. Page 18 incorrectly indicates that the Architect's Estimate was for three or four
dwellings. The Architect's Estimate is for a single household dwelling.
b. Page 19 implies that the Architect estimated$294,470 to replace a triplex or fourplex.
This number was to replace a 2,477 square foot single household dwelling unit. The
same chart incorrectly indicates that the third party estimated cost of demolition and
replacement to be $294,470; however, the previous table lists N/A under the same
heading. This is confusing.
c. Further, the third party cost estimate likely underestimates the cost of rehabilitation
given that estimate points out that "the Upper East Apartment does not have
sufficient width at the stairs to bring this unit to Code without refraining some of the
structure,"and further notes that"some items are guesstimations [sic],as not all work
can be seen until the walls are opened up." Given this, the estimate to rehabilitate
the fourplex should clearly be seen as a low estimate.
d. Also questionable, the third party estimate was for"restoring to a four unit apartment," and
see discussion of continuing the nonconforming condition in the Staff Report, pages 7-8
and specifically Page 13, which indicate that a multiple household dwelling unit is a viable
and preferred land use for the property. Section 38.32.010 states: "Whenever a lawful
nonconforming use of a building, structure or land is discontinued for a period of 90 days,
any future use of the building, structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions
of this chapter." The building has been vacant for over eight years, therefore the non-
conforming status is no longer valid. This invalidates the City's case for rehabilitating the
building as a triplex or fourplex.
e. Staff Report, page 18 states that "The third party contractor was not provided with the
applicant's cost estimates, in order to prevent undercutting of the estimate." Prior to the
staff report, the applicant's representative was told that the third party received a copy of
the entire application.
4
C. The Staff Report also includes misleading, erroneous and irrelevant findings—which support
the reversal of the decision to deny the COA.
1. Public Comment
The Staff Report at Page 5 indicates that public testimony helps to justify the denial; however, we
aware that one letter in support of demolition was submitted by neighbors, Matt&Lisa Pocock.
2. Application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The Staff Report, pages 6-8 discusses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
(Standards). Rehabilitation is not proposed with this application; therefore, the majority of this
criteria is not applicable. Specifically, Standards #3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not at all relevant to this
application. For example, #7 states that sandblasting historic materials should be avoided. This
standard has nothing to do with the proposed demolition application. Thus, the Staff Report
misapplies the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to this application.
3. Updated Property Record Form
Staff Report, page 16 states: "The updated Property Record Form asserted that modifications to the
property have obliterated the property's historic integrity." The document actually states: "The
physical appearance of the building's exterior is such that it maintains only some elements of its
original architectural design in appearance, and mainly on its western fagade. Based on the absence of
certain elements it loses considerable significance and no longer meets the criteria." The use of the
word"obliterated"unfairly portrays the Updated Property Record as being biased.
4. Parcel Size is Mischaracterized and Irrelevant
Staff Report, at page 8 characterizes the 53.46 foot wide, 8,764 square foot property as a"larger
parcel" and unfairly compares it to the Langhor Flowerland property which is 108,900 SF. The
pattern of the neighborhood is varied sized lots as shown on the varying Sandborn Maps included
with the Staff Report. Furthermore, the proposed landscaped lot would only be a temporary
condition to facilitate future development of a compatible structure, completing and
complimenting the neighborhood patterns and streetscape.
5. Recommendation of Relevant Advisory Boards
The Findings of Fact and Appeal, of the Staff Report, at page 5, paragraph C, suggests that a
recommendation was made by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board ("Board"). It was
the applicant's understanding that the Board declined to make a recommendation as noted at pages 16
and 33 of the Staff Report.
Conclusion:
We request that the decision of the administrative review authority, based on the application and this
appeal be overturned and that a COA for Demolition be granted.
5
Attachment A — COA Application for Demolition
(May 13, 2014)
2
i
430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition & Site Treatment
Sketch Plan/COA Application for Demolition
13 May 2014
inGf milli
F r i l l--C T U F =
. . .. • 7 , - • ,
"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."
- UDC Section 38.16.080A.1
Contents
Section 1...... Project Narrative
Section 2...... Application & Checklists
Section 3...... Existing Conditions (Maps, Site Photographs and Civil Survey)
Section 4...... Structural Analysis
Section 5...... Updated Historic Property Record
Section 6...... Cost Comparison
Section 7...... Site Treatment Plan & Guidelines for Redevelopment
Section 1 : Project Narrative
The existing non-conforming triplex located at 430 South Tracy Avenue has remained vacant for
almost eight years. The current property owner, George Talbot, lives in the residence directly north
and purchased the triplex to facilitate the upgrade of this problematic property in an otherwise
model neighborhood. After a structural analysis and renovation considerations, it has been
determined that removal is the logical option. The building is also not only an eyesore but also a
safety concern. Police reports (copies available) indicate suspicious activity and criminal trespass
with transients entering and attempting to occupy the building. The owner has had to board up the
windows (at the recommendation of the City)to secure the premises.
The site is located in the South Tracy/South Black Historic District and is zoned R-2, Residential
Two-Household District. The property is 53.46 feet wide and 8,764 square feet in area. The
structure was listed as "contributing" according to the 1986 Historic Inventory; however, many
significant alterations have occurred over the years as described further in the attached updated
Historic Record Form (Section 5) as well as the attached structural analysis (Section 4).
The home had several significant alterations to the original design since it was constructed in the
early 1900s including an intrusive major rear addition to create several illegal apartments. Also
note that the building has significant foundation and structural concerns and the underlying
unreinforced brick does not lend well to lifting for foundation replacement and retrofitting.
For the subsequent treatment of the site, the property owner will completely remove the existing
structure and internal walkways, backfill and grade to a level condition and landscape the property.
The result will be a safe, maintained and pleasant yard-like condition which will blend with the
traditional neighborhood pattern of varied distances between houses. The property will be listed
for sale for future residential construction. Significant analysis, research and feedback has
indicated that this treatment of the site will be the best way to expedite the sale and redevelopment
of the property. Restrictions will be put in place to ensure that redevelopment is compatible with
the site and neighborhood and will be consistent with the relevant chapters of the Design
Guidelines for the Conservation Overlay District.
Removing the structure will eliminate uncertainty and allow a new owner to proceed with clear
direction. Having the demolition completed in advance of listing will provide a unique opportunity
for an interested party to build a new home in a desirable neighborhood. Quality and thoughtful
new construction will add to the overall character of the neighborhood, not to mention the taxable
value of the property.
We understand that the Community Development Department typically prefers to see specific
redevelopment plans in advance, but the proposed subsequent treatment of the site as described
in Section 7 will result in a safer interim condition and a construction-ready site. The current
property owner agrees to maintain the proposed lawn until such time the property is sold or
redeveloped. Note that there is precedent for allowing demolition with landscaping as the
subsequent treatment plan.
Project Narrative (continued)
While we find the Unified Development Code section related to demolition somewhat confusing and
contradictory, we have done our best to address the relevant criteria. The language states that the
City Commission 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 residence has already been significantly altered since its construction in 1900. Most notably,
the significant rear addition, stucco over brick and front porch have been significantly changed from
the original design. Please refer to the attached updated Historic Record Form as well as the
structural report for specific information. Note again that the standards of 38.16.050 will need to be
met with any future construction regardless of the timing.
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.
Note that subsection (1) of the UDC differs from (b). The first section calls for a comparison of
repair verses demolition + reconstruction while the second section calls for a comparison of repair
verses value of the structure. In the attached cost analysis (see Section 6), we have included
numbers to support both comparisons.
Overall, the structure has become a safety hazard, as evidenced by previously mentioned police
reports, for the neighborhood. Despite attempts to secure the building, there has been criminal
trespass and suspicious activity. Also, the building has some serious structural issues as described
in more detail in the attached structural analysis from TD&H Engineering (see Section 4).
(2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
Based on the analysis above and in the attached spreadsheet, the structure does not have viable
economic or useful life remaining. In fact, the vast majority of serious potential buyers and realtors
have indicated that they view the structure as a liability to the lot.
Section 2
Application & Checklists
i
U fY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
' P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1.Name of Project/Development: 430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition
2.Property Owner Information:
Name: GHT Investments,LLC E-mail Address: ghtinvestments@gmail.com
Mailing Address: 424 South Tracy Avenue,Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: 406-556-0237 FAX:
3.Applicant Information:
Name: [same as above] E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: Intrinsik Architecture,Inc. E-mail Address: rpertzborn@intrinsikarchitecture.com
Mailing Address: 111 North Tracy Avenue,Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: 406-582-8988 FAX: 406-582-8911
5. Legal Description: HOFFMAN ADD, S07,T02 S,R06 E,BLOCK F,Lot 14- 15,ACRES 0.215,S CLOT 16
6. Street Address: 430 South Tracy Avenue
7.Project Description: Demolition of existing non-conforming triplex located at 430 South Tracy Avenue with landscaping
as subsequent treatment of the site
8. Zoning Designation(s): R-2 9. Current Land Use(s): Residential
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: Residential
11. Gross Area: Acres: 0.2 Square Feet: 8764 12.Net Area: Acres: 0.2 Square Feet: 8764
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted ❑
13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? ❑ Yes, answer question 13a ✓❑ No,go to question 14
13a. Which urban renewal district? ❑ Downtown ❑ Northeast (NURD) ❑ North 71h Avenue
14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? ✓❑ Yes, answer question 14a ❑ No,go to question 15
14a.Which Overlay District? ❑ Casino ✓❑ Neighborhood Conservation ❑ Entryway Corridor
15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? ❑ Yes, list LIDO section(s): ❑✓ No
16. Application Type (please check all that apply): ❑ O, Planned Unit Development—Concept Plan
❑ A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands ❑ P. Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan
❑ B. Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑Q. Planned Unit Development—Final Plan
❑ C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑ R. Planned Unit Development—Master Plan
❑D.Reuse,Change in Use,further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application
❑ E. Special Temporary Use Permit ❑T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
❑✓ F.Sketch Plan/COA ❑ U.Subdivision Final Plat
❑ G.Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption
❑ H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑ W. Annexation
❑ 1.Preliminary Site Plan ❑X. Zoning Map Amendment
❑J,Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
❑K. Conditional Use Permit ❑ Z. Zoning Variance
❑ L.Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment
❑ A4. Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑ BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment
❑N.Administrative Interpretation Appeal ❑Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8'/2-
by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 81/2-by 14-inches. The name of the project must
be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, the),must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between
sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property
owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. 1 acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Progt'am and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further,I
agree to grant Cite personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process
(Section 18,64.050,BMC). 1 (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant's Signature: Date:
Applicant's Signature: Date:
Property Owner's Signature: Date: _
Property Owner's Signature: Date:
Page 2
(Development Review Application—Prepared 11/25/03;Amended 9/17/04,5/1/06;9/18/07)
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS CHECKLIST 1
1 If a project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or the Entryway Corridor Overlay District,and qualifies for review
as a Sketch Plan;Reuse,Change of Use or Further Development of a Site Developed Before 9-3-91;or Amendment/Modification of a Plan
Approved On or After 9-3-91, this checklist shall be used. See Section 38.19.050 (Sketch Plan Review), Section 38.19.150 (Amendments to
Sketch and Site Plans) or Section 38.19.170(Reuse,Change in Use or Further Development of Sites Developed Prior to the Adoption of the
Ordinance Codified in This Title),BMC. These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked"No"
or"N/A"(not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of
appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned
alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination.At a minimum,
the following items shall be included in the submission:
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Information Yes No N/A
1. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such ] ❑ ❑
additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will
clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise
recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be
mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation
direction(N,S,E,Vi)and relevant information
2. Sketch plan, with north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and ® ❑ ❑
building area dimensions, street and alley frontages with names, and location of all structures
with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings to property lines
3. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal 191 ❑ ❑
records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration
4. Materials and color schemes to be used No materials or color schemes are proposAll Ll X❑
5. Plans, sketches,pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant's X❑ ❑ ❑
proposed alterations
6. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations X❑ ❑ ❑
7. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department ® ❑ ❑
8. Description of any applicant-requested deviation(s) and a narrative explanation as to how the ❑ ❑ X❑
requested deviation(s)will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute
to the overall historic character of the community Nod viations are o osed
9. Stormwater Management Permit Application required Decrease in im ervious surfac s.❑ I ❑
B. Entryway Corridor Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District,information
shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The
extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information
reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be
included in the submission:
Entryway Corridor Overlay District Information Ye o N/A
1. Sketch plan, with north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot a ❑ ❑ ❑
building area dimensions, street and alley frontages with names, and location of all ctures
with distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings to rty lines
2. Plans, sketches,pictures, specifications and other data that will cl express the applicant's ❑ ❑ ❑
proposed alterations
3. Such other information as may be suggested by t anning Department ❑ ❑ ❑
4. If the proposal includes an applicati or a deviation as outlined in Section 38.35.050 ❑ El El(Deviations),BMC,the applica' of deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic
material sufficient to ill to the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as
:toenable the C' ommission to make the determination that the deviation will produce an
virom , landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing
ands, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 38.17 (Entryway
Page 3
(Certificate of Appropriateness Checklist 1—Prepared 11/24/03;revised on 9/8/04,revised 11/14/11)
r -
t-�t�,ln-�I
Fodn :
9
Subject
Property
I_ "M M, r j
i y
��-t:afru-st y Subject
} Property 1. •�rll .,—
z
lk
S lr' I �1�di1- `I• �-
l
T 1 -u-tit• c.al -.I - - -
Vicinity Map Source: Bozeman GIS Department
430 South Tracy Avenue
•
MhL
'
11
_�
ra lad
Ira*
1"!M4.
,, �• 1 1"Wor
Subjectrr
Ij �t—s .r Oy Property
'i i ► � o l 111
. r
Aerial Image Source: Bozeman GIS Department
430 South Tracy Avenue
e
1
� r
1
-4�
r
j
sV�
Photographs
U�M
West and South Elevations
r
I
West and North Elevations
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
1 1
I�I
J
1 ,(
Interior(Image A)
i
I
I 1
- � 1
Interior(Image B)
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
w j
Interior(Image C)
I
J �
Interior(Image D)
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
.2u
Iz SOUTH TRACY AVENUE
� R � a• $ � � � � 5 � t O.
Z 7l.9V 70 1 114'OD ME A 1 I 1 71 i
BLOCR CORNER
! I I
m
I
z I I I
L
I ! III I
' I I m
49 pi
' m >:
x � � cc)
gF �F I 4 I I
m � Z I I I I
I I
I
' I
t I t7 a -z I �I
z.
I 6
1&622
A-
I I I
t m
mA
iyc SiREEI ' \
90
'6i A]1.8Y �D \ CRAv[L 1alC
R s £
s a3 g 1
m -
€3. ,_!._.� _._.._
TNROU SO
UTH TH AC d# TDBc
g
BOU ANA
IyI �
SITE TOPOGRAPY OF LOT 15A,IN BLOCK F OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PLAN ^ Enginea�In
u
iR OF HOFFMAN'S ADDITION,IN THE SW 114 OF S.7,745,ME,P.M.M.
Section 4
Structural Analysis
Thomas, Dean & lloskins, Inc. I
T D& HH
Engineering Consultants
Augu$t 22, 2007
George Talbot Re: 430 S. Tracy Residence
430 S. Tracy Ave. Structural Assessment
Bozeman, MT 59715 TD&H Project: B06-069
Dear George,
It is our understanding that the current house at 430 S. Tracy will be renovated, or completely
removed to facilitate the construction of a new home. A new structure would imitate the existing
house that would be removed. To determine the feasibility and cost comparison of the remodel
versus demolition approach, per your request 1 observed & inspected all accessible areas of the
basement foundation, crawl space, exterior walls, and building interior.
The existing house has a combination of partial brick and stone basement with crawl space
foundation, brick exterior walls with stucco shell, ballooned framed stud walls, and wood framed
floors. The house was built about 90 years ago, with several interior and exterior changes made
to the building since its original construction. After inspecting and analyzing the structure, many
issues exist that would require an abundance of reconstruction to improve the structure to it
suitable condition. From inspection and analysis, several factors exist that overwhelmingly
suggest that a full demolition followed by total reconstruction approach is much more
economical, practical, and safer than it renovation. The following report contains specific
findings to support this claim.
Foundation
Based upon the condition and age of the existing stone and brick foundation, in addition to the
proposed renovation to the structure, we recommend that the entire existing basement and
foundation be removed and replaced. Despite the limited amount of access to inspect the
foundation, several issues were discovered that warrant a full basement replacement during the
house renovation.
• Signs of water damage and heavy efflorescence exist on one surface of the stone wall
foundation. Much of the mortar between the individual stones has lost its structural
integrity from efflorescence. Large portions of the basement walls are soft and lose
material with light mechanical scraping.
• The entire load bearing brick wall inside the basement has excessive brick and mortar
loss, and is leaning excessively (Photo 1 ). About half of the brick material is missing
from the base of the wall. This entire wall would need to be replaced to safely support
any floor framing or bearing walls above.
_'IS 11%,rl A9cnc/r�lhull, S�iric [' / 1?o,-v em, A41-5t)71 5 ( 1llh) 580 U?77 Ii1X ( /U0l iN(i 1y51
• Several of the existing crawl space support piers were crumbling, unstable and in need of
replacement. All the piers observed were in significant disrepair. It can be assumed that
additional piers within the crawl space are also in need of replacement (Photo 2 and 3).
• Several existing crawl space collector beams are inadequate for the actual span. Several
members would need to be reinforced or replaced. To do this effectively, large portions
of the main floor would have to be removed for access (Photo 2).
• According to residential code for new construction (IRC2006), headroom of a crawl
space from bottom of beams and joists to the top of the crawl space fill shall be at least
18 inches. This existing crawl space fails to meet this minimum clearance (Photo 2).
• The main floor level is very irregular. There are several excessive high and low points in
the floor, with the finished floor elevation varying several inches. This suggests that the
existing crawl space framing and pier supports are out-of-alignment and structurally
insufficient for the span lengths present.
• Due to the poor condition of the existing foundation, it is rather unlikely that the lateral
loads transferred to the foundation during a significant seismic event can be safely
resisted by the foundation. Large displacements or loss of support above bearing walls
would be very probable. Portions of the structure could experience partial collapse.
• There are several abandoned holes & shafts in the basement that would require filling
(Photo 4).
• There is a severe crack in the exterior wall at the southwest corner of the house. The
elevation of the main floor drops severely towards this same corner where the severe
exterior wall crack is located. This suggests that there is a settlement issue with the
existing foundation at the southwest corner of the house. A large area of the flooring and
a portion of the existing foundation would have to be removed to repair this problem.
Exterior Brickwork-
We have determined that it is in the best interests of the homeowner to have an entire
basement replacement for this existing house. A full renovation of the house structure and
interior above grade would be unsafe and impractical if the entire foundation was not
removed and replaced.
Typically a house underpinning procedure would be the course of action. However, we
found the exterior brick of the building to be in such disrepair that it would make any
underpinning and temporary jacking procedure very difficult, expensive, and dangerous.
• Several exterior walls exhibit a large amount of out-of--plane irregularities including
waviness and substantial leaning (Photos 5a & 5b). It is apparent that the brickwork of
the walls including the north and south walls are in need of extensive repair. There are
areas where the mortar is old and brittle, and has lost its tensile and adhesive properties.
t
1
1 • With a foundation replacement required for the house, the superstructure will need to be
t temporarily lifted and supported. The distressful condition that the exterior brick is in
t would make this procedure very complicated and expensive. The brick masonry in this
poor and irregular condition will most likely not be able to withstand the small amount of
movement, racking and force changes associated with an underpinning procedure. It is
1 very possible that large cracks or partial collapses will occur in the masonry during the
procedure. To prevent this, an expensive shoring and stabilization system will need to be
installed, and it is not guaranteed that it would prevent damage. There is the high
possibility that some of the brick would become dislodged during the underpinning and
l could fall, creating a hazardous condition to workers below.
1
t • There are several large cracks in the exterior stucco in strategic areas that suggest there
may be hidden areas of substantial brick damage behind. (See Photos 7 through 11).
1
• A more likely scenario is that a full removal of all exterior brick will be necessary, due to
the out-of-plunmbness and poor mortar condition. If the exterior stud walls are to remain
1 after removing all time brick, there may be large labor costs associated with brick removal
while maintaining the integrity of the studs.
1
• The option to remove and rebuild the existing brickwork is not a feasible option. None of
the brick can be saved if removed since it is practically impossible to remove stucco from
1 brick. The difficulty to perform a foundation underpinning with brickwork in this
condition, combined with time unfeasibility of removing stucco from the existing brick,
results in requiring a total brick replacement for the house.
1
t • Time chimney is in severe disrepair and should either be repaired or removed (Photo 6).
ti
t Exterior Wall Framing
1
• With its age and its system of balloon-framing, it is doubtful that the existing building has
the correct connections and load transfer mechanisms for sufficient shear resistance.
' Shear loads will not be safely transferred from the roof and floors to the balloon-framed
walls without significant improvements.
I • It is probable that the exterior studs are misaligned and irregular. This could complicate
the construction procedure to install shear walls, holddowns, and shear straps. We
estimate that about 25% to 50% of the existing studs will need to be removed and
replaced.
1
1 �r
1 .
i
"I
k
1
Photos 5a& 5b -- Waviness of exterior stucco walls. Brickwork out-of-Plumb & most likely in disrepair.
h '
Photo 6 -- The brick chimney is in severe disrepair.
Photo 7 -- Severe crack in stucco at southvv'est vN indOvV. This corner area uf'the house has significant
Iloor sag and suspected inundation settlement. Brickwork is suspected to be in disrepair.
i
M � t
Photo 8 -- Severe crack in stucco at northern \\indo\\. This gall is signiticant[N� out-ol-plumb.
, 1
•• - 11
I�
Photos 9a & 9b -- Typical cracks in stucco from window corners to roof overhang.
-7--
Li
Photo 10 -- Crack in stucco at window.
+mok
' t -
Photo I I -- Severe crack in stucco between upper and lower level windows.
Section 5
Updated Historic Property Record
1
�u
''''bt' - _ �� � 'ram- !? •`�, 1 =��.
tP• I
430 SouthBozeman, 1ntana Historic Property Rec1 1 Form Update
DRAFT Updated
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
For the Montana National Register of Historic Places Program and State Antiquities Database
Montana State Historic Preservation Office
Montana Historical Society
PO Box 201202, 1410 8'Ave
Helena,MT 59620-1202
Property Address: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
(An historic district number may also apply.)
Historic Address(if applicable): 430 South Tracy Avenue
County: Gallatin County
City/Town: Bozeman MT 59715
Historic Name: unknown Legal Location
Original Owner(s): James N. Kelley PM: Montana Township: 2S Range: R6 E
Current Ownership ® Private ❑Public of Section: 7
Current Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Lot(s): Lots 14, 15, S 6' Lot 16
Owner(s): GHT Investments LLC Block(s): F
Owner Address:424 S Tracy Avenue, Bozeman MT Addition: Hoffman's Addition Year of Addition: 1880
Phone: 1 406 599 8520 USGS Quad Name: Bozeman, MT Year: 1987
Historic Use: Residence UTM Reference www.nris.mt.gov/topofinder2
Current Use: Vacant ®NAD 27(preferred) ❑NAD 83
Construction Date: Pre-1904(1898- 1904) Zone: Easting: Northing:
®Estimated ❑ Actual
® Original Location ❑Moved Date Moved:
National Register of Historic Places Date of this document: September 2013
NRHP Listing Date: n/a Form Prepared by: Intrinsik Architecture, Inc.
Historic District: South Tracy/South Black Historic Address: 111 North Tracy Avenue
Neighborhood District
Daytime Phone: 406-582-8988
NRHP Eligible: ❑Yes ®No
MT SHPO USE ONLY Comments:
Eligible for NRHP: ❑yes ❑ no
Criteria: ❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
Date:
Evaluator:
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE 2
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ See Additional Information Page
Architectural Style: Queen-Anne (folk interpretation) If Other, specify:
Property Type: Residential Specific Property Type: Single Household Residential
Architect: unknown Architectural Firm/City/State: unknown
Builder/Contractor Company/City/State: unknown
Source of Information
Concisely,accurately,and completely describe the property and alterations with dates. Number the buildings and features to
correlate with the Site Map.
This single-family residence has a simple L-shaped plan consisting of a prominent gable front and
wing/side gable with a front porch that spans the entire west elevation of the house. The setbacks
from South Tracy Street are relatively consistent with the surrounding residences dating back to 1904,
as visible in the 1904 Sanborn Map.The brick and balloon frame construction is finished in stucco,
wood lap siding, and shingles. It rests on a partial brick and stone basement with a crawl space
foundation that supports a wood framed floor. The front gable roof and side gable roof is covered with
asphalt shingles and has two brick chimneys rising from the middle of the house.
There are several features of the house floor plan that are not consistent with any of the Sanborn
Maps dating up to 1943. The east facing facade shows evidence of clearly being altered since its
original construction.There is a large addition to the east side of the building that rises up three
stories and features a shed roof.The location of the existing windows, lack of architectural ornament
(shingles, trim boards) and architectural massing of this addition are uncharacteristic with the historic
architecture of the original structure. There exists another addition to east side of the house that is
only a single level in height and features several large doors that open to the adjacent back yard.
Both the north and south elevations show signs of continued alterations made to the original historic
structure. Unlike the western front facing gable of the house where the brick and shingles have been
entirely covered in stucco, the north and south elevation of the house still maintain their shingle
cladding between the third level trim board and the side gable eaves of the roof. Also evident on both
the north and south exterior elevations is the addition of a 1/1 double hung window at the third level
amidst the shingle cladding. It should be noted that these windows are not evident in the photo used
by James R. McDonald Architects in their Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory survey.
There is a large metal conduit on the exterior of the north elevation that enters the building at the third
level that is suggests that the third level of the building was converted into a separate living unit with
its own separate power supply.
The western elevation facing South Tracy Avenue appears to have maintained much of its historic
appearance.The two-bay facade is asymmetrical in elevation, has an off-center entrance, one fixed
window and a 1/1 double-hung window at the first level of the house. There exist two pairs of 1/1
double-hung windows at the second level of the western elevation. One pair of 1/1 double-hung
windows exists in a front facing shed roof dormer that protrudes from the side wing of the house at
the second level. The front facing shed dormer is clad in shingles. It is noticeable from the Montana
Historical and Architectural Inventory survey completed by James R. McDonald Architects that in
their provided photo the house maintained a small porch roof gable over the entry of the existing
porch. Also evident in this photo is that the porch structure and roof did not extend across the entire
western elevation of the house. This is contradictory with the 1904, 1912, and 1927 Sanborn maps
which show a front porch extending across the entire west elevation of the house.
The 1904-1927 Sanborn maps also show structures along the alley that no longer remain.
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE 3
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
HISTORY OF PROPERTY ❑ See Additional Information Page
This residence is associated with the general residential aspect of the Civic Phase of Bozeman's
historic/architectural development in the early 1900s. This early 1900s home is found in a
grouping of homes built in the middle of Bozeman's "Civic Phase"which experienced steady
growth due to the growth of the Agricultural College fueled by the regional economic prosperity.
The builders of these local homes are likely to have drawn their variations of styles from pattern
books, "Victorian Revival architecture built during the Civic Phase encompassed Victorian Gothic,
Romanesque Revival, Ruskinian Gothic, Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival. Eclecticism and
individualism characterized ...residential architecture, even when house pattern books were the
source of designs" (Bozeman Historic Resource Survey, 2008).
"James n. Kelley, a receiver for the U.S. Land Office and later a real estate salesman,was
probably the original occupant here, listed at this address about 1904 to about 1916. In 1927,
Grace B. Cobler, a "helper" employed by Mrs. Collie Rogers, who ran a cafeteria at 33 S. Black,
was living here." (Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, 1987)
INFORMATION SOURCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
• 1904, 1912, 1927, 1927-1943 Sanborn Maps. Sanborn Map & Publishing Co., Limited. New York:
1904, 1912, 1927, 1927-1943.
• Gallatin County Clerk& Recorder's Office, Deed Records.
• Sewer Permit: Ida M. Kelley, Bozeman Department of Sanitation, August 23'd 1909.
National Register of Historic Places Evaluation: South Tracy- South Black Historic District.
Bozeman MRA. Gallatin County, MT. September 8, 1987.
National Register Bulletin, US Department of the Interior, 2013.
Bozeman Historic Resource Survey, 2008 Revised Edition. Butte, Montana: Renewable
Technologies, Inc., February 2008.
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE
ProE)ert` Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
NRHP Listing Date: n/a
NRHP Eligibility: ®Yes ❑No ❑ Individually ❑ Contributing to Historic District ®Noncontributing to Historic District
NRHP Criteria: ❑A ❑B ❑ C ❑D
Area of Significance: South Tracy/South Black District Period of Significance: 1872-1939
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ❑ See Additional Information Page
The house at 430 South Tracy was considered for eligibility for Criterion (C) of the National
Register as to whether it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master...or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction" (Criterion for
Evaluation 60.4 National Register of Historic Places Program: Federal Program Regulations). The
physical appearance of the building's exterior is such that it maintains only some elements of its
original architectural design in appearance, and mainly on its western fagade. Based on the
absence of certain elements it loses considerable significance and no longer meets the criteria.
INTEGRITY(location,design,setting,materials,workmanship, feeling,association) ❑ See Additional Information Page
Location: The house at 430 South Tracy demonstrates Integrity through LOCATION.The structure
has not been moved from its historical place of construction.
Design: The house at 430 South Tracy does not demonstrate Integrity through DESIGN.The
original design features of the property have been substantially altered, diminished, and replaced
since its historical construction. The original brick has been covered with stucco,the porch form,
length, roof-line, columns and detailing have changed, and an intrusive major rear addition that
was added to create apartments have all compromised the design integrity of the structure.
Setting: The house at 430 South Tracy demonstrates Integrity through SETTING.The
aforementioned property is located in the South Tracy Historic District that contains many unique
historical homes that are characteristic of the time period they were constructed in.
Materials: The house at 430 South Tracy does not demonstrate Integrity through MATERIALS. The
existing materials are a compilation of both historical and contemporary. It is visually apparent
that most of the historical materials used to construct the building have since been covered over
and/or replaced with modern construction materials and techniques including most significantly
the application of stucco over exterior brick walls and trim.
Workmanship: The house at 430 South Tracy does not demonstrate Integrity through
WORKMANSHIP. There isn't visual evidence of the relevant technology and craft of the time
period in which the building was constructed.The original workmanship of the house's
construction is no longer evident due to the many exterior modifications made to the building
since its original construction. Brick work has been obscured,windows and door have been
replaced and porch detailing has changed.
Feeling: The house at 430 South Tracy does not demonstrate Integrity through FEELING.The
architecture of the existing building is devoid of architectural character and does not visually
identify itself with the surrounding historic district in a way that contributes to a historic feeling.
Specifically,the masonry, carpentry and overall workmanship typical of the period have been
compromised overtime.
1 1
Association: The house at 430 South Tracy does not demonstrate Integrity through
ASSOCIATION.The aforementioned property is located in the South Tracy Historic District that
was developed during a significant historic period within the formation of the town of Bozeman.
Through significant changes over time, the house no longer reflects the same character and
presence of other neighboring homes of the period.
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PHOTOGRAPHS
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
^ ! .+ �..�� ,• I:w'fl fps, aJ,�i ! cam•
` 141 rs
West Elevation Streetscape along South Tracy Avenue(white colored house)
j 1
i
i'
/
1
� 4
. ► _ `f�� ��-'+�'�• � .. '-�.. .� s� '- III
NA
West Elevation Streetscape along South Tracy Avenue(white colored house)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PHOTOGRAPHS
Pro ert Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
►i�
r{ �2
II 11
East Elevation (facing alley)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PHOTOGRAPHS
Property Name:430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
r
i I -
r �
A
Northwest Corner(facing street)
J/
RA
1
memo-
Southwest Corner(facing street)
e .
�•„ .mow
i
- '
r� ■
-t III
1
I _
Northeast Corner(facing alley)
� r
r'
f
f
i
Southeast Corner(facing alley)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
SITE MAP
Pry,pci-ty Name:430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
63
•sr —I S.•rs� .Fr,r.
BLAC I( -
-NMNDeNN+4LC - �' la�aal
-0 EMAN .
ID
—
'C Tt'MPLAR AY. ( , MAIN-
I
L
t28
IRS
I
BA BCOIC K
' GEN. RAL AV.
I �
OLIVE -- .. ..
1891 Sanborn Map
12
WFMFM AV'4'-
171
IR
17 4 BLADIC AV 6
h TRACY AV. a.
17
�R-j
rr
CCNTFI-%L AN, S.
23
1904 Sanborn Map
�-�--- c 81 b
jv
1
1
! (I !C J.1 X
'
316
//- s I'
lot
t.7ld
1 SO/ a
.4O d
p u
_ u
25 r � U
J!
i
v " qr
� q
P
i �
864
1 206 t — a
x
x
♦w C
AA'
�h
1912 Sanborn Map
815 - -
/Y y 17
X �C 17 YY''��
i h y W
i
K II
II
/ 0
X �w Y �1 x x -ts Z x :4„�
960.
4/9
/1
X
�
O X" 77 17
i x
x�
{.L
1927-43 Sanborn Map
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Property Name:430 South Traci Avenue Site Number:
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
LVT
PROVISIONAL EI)rriON 1987
17
45111-FI-TF-024
476BAT
jj
M
B
t
.47
1- 4
1757?
A
_j
r sc
98 4" SUBJECT .9 t
Sol
PROPERTY
h. ,
U
90
'6.
7-
I L A-6
4-941 7�
T 1,
ass 7,
SCALE 1:24 000
MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 9000 9000 10000
FEET
1_ D H_[LOMETERS I - 21
1000 0 METERS 1000 2000
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
sosn
SOUTH TRACY AVENUE NOR1 H
so
ti
Q ►
° a n
I NO1'I6'2 E 53.46'
74. 1
95'TD 1 1/4'I PIPE AT 71.45'BLOCK CORNER
1 I
I 1 I ► I ' I
I 1 I I I
I 1 I I I
I ' I
i �
-
1 o a I (
1
I �
' N I
U 1 I i
Z I o I ~
sro
ZTog�o
I 0mzc \I I y
I � rn��z�
X '
\ I m
o
74.68'TO STORY \ o
STREET R/W I y.
72.34'
- 7t7 I - - - - - -'
n \
A11.EY
o GRAVEL ALLEY
1 -E...— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Field Survey.TD&H Engineering.November 12,2012
430 South Tracy Avenue
Cost Comparison
Value of the Structure $ 124,000 (based on Architect's Estimate of current sate)
Cost of Repair $ 323,000 (see breakdown below)
DIFFERENCE $ 199,000
*Note cost of repair exceeds value of structure
Cost of Demo&Redevelopment $ 294,470 (demo$22,000+rebuild 2,477 SF at$110/SF)
Cost of Repair $ 323,000 (see breakdown below)
DIFFERENCE $ 28,530
*Note cost of repair exceeds cost of demo and redevelopment
Repair Breakdown(to bring structure to current standards)
Exterior Partial Demo $ 30,000
Interior Partial Demo $ 25,000
Lift and Reset House $ 20,000
New Foundation $ 35,000
Brick Restoration $ 30,000
Structural Repairs to Building $ 40,000
Replace Windows/Doors $ 30,000
Interior Wall Reconstruction $ 18,000
Electric $ 25,000
Plumbing $ 25,000
Heating $ 25,000
Insulation $ 20,000
Total $ 323,000
Building SF 2477 sq ft
Footprint 1240 sq ft
Section 7
Site Treatment Plan & Guidelines for Redevelopment
m f(D O
�w m
S
N �
I
w mme —
m a C souru rnecv everros �d
w m w �X4
CL v
m
3 wOL
3 ® o
OM 1I.B5'10 1 1/4'00 PPE 11
0 F,w I &OCI(CORNER ' 1
N VI I
c � I
,
3
m w I I
o
ID 5 I ;
a
o I + I
I �
I g I I
I
I I
I 71.m',o sroR.
S1RFEf...
�RR 6 R �
Demolition & Site Treatment Plan
430 South Tracy Avenue
Guidelines for Redevelopment
In order to respect the character and scale of the South Tracy/South Black Historic District,the following
outline principles, along with all applicable city codes and guidelines, shall apply to the future design and
development of 430 South Tracy Avenue.
Site
a. Continue the scale, rhythm of regularly spaced houses along the tree lined street.
b. Continue existing front yard setback as adjacent properties.
c. Provide a walkway from the street to the building.
d. A detached garage with vehicular access from the alley is required. Size and massing must
be clearly subordinate to home.
e. Buildings shall be set back at a similar distance from the street and alley as historical
buildings within the neighborhood.
f. Lot coverage shall be consistent with the neighborhood.
g. Fences in the front yard are prohibited.
h. The site shall be fully landscaped and maintained by the owner.The landscape shall be of
respectable design in consideration to the historical context of the neighborhood.
Building
a. Buildings shall generally have traditional building forms, sloping roof planes, be compatible
with the neighborhood, and have clear order and comprehensive composition.
b. 2 story maximum height.
c. Materials shall be consistent with those typically found in the district, including horizontal lap
siding, brick, and asphalt or wood shingles.
d. Buildings will have front porches oriented toward the street. Front porches will have a
minimum depth of 8 feet and shall be a minimum 50 percent of the fronting elevation width.
e. Main entries are to be composed with the front porch design.
f. All facades of the main building and accessory structures shall be made of similar material
and be similarly detailed.
g. In terms of color schemes, garish colors are not permitted.
h. The design and location of windows should respond to respect the existing condition of
neighboring homes.
L Windows shall be made of painted or stained wood and clad in metal.
j. Windows must match in material, design and be overall proportional to one another on all
elevations of buildings.
k. Sliding glass doors may only be used in walls facing the rear yard.
I. Skylights, if used, shall be flat in profile (no bubbles or domes).
m. Solar panels are to be located away from the view of the historic street corridor. Solar panels
are to be applied parallel and flat to the roof.
n. Dormers shall be proportionate to the overall composition of the building.
o. Soffits shall be constructed of wood.
p. All exterior residential lighting must be dark-sky compliant.
Attachment B — Peer Review of Structural Assessment Report
(June 13, 2014)
i
TD & H,
Engineering''
June 13, 2014
Mr. George Talbot
430 S Tracy
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Peer Review of 8/22/07 Structural Assessment Report
430 S Tracy,Bozeman, MT
TD&H Job#B 14-062
Mr. George Talbot,
Per your request, I have performed a Peer Review of a Structural Assessment Report written by
Brian May, PE, dated August 22, 2007, for the residential house located at 430 S Tracy,
Bozeman, Montana. At the time the initial Structural Assessment Report, Brian May was
employed by TD&H Engineering and was a licensed Professional Engineer with the State of
Montana. My credentials include an active Professional Engineer (PE) license in good standing
with the State of Montana, a Bachelor of Science and Masters of Science Degrees from Montana
State University, and eight years of experience in the Structural Engineering field.
On June 13, 2014, I performed a site inspection of the residence referenced above to verify the
existing condition of the house and to confirm specific items referenced in Mr. May's Structural
Assessment Report. During the site inspection, I was able to confirm that several exterior walls
exhibit out-of-plane irregularities and require extensive repair of the brickwork, there is an
addition onto the rear of the house that is stick framed and in severe disrepair, the chimney is in
sever disrepair, and the floor on the main and upper levels are exhibiting areas of both sag and
uplift. In addition to the items noted in Mr. May's report, it also appeared that the front entry
porch is not original based on the type of construction used and that the supporting structure
(posts and beams) for the roof appears to be inadequate to support the required City of Bozeman
Minimum Snow Load without becoming overstressed. Also, several areas of water damage were
observed throughout the house, but no active leaks were noted as I was inside of the house
immediately following a rain event; however, this does not confirm nor deny the possibility of
active roof leaks. It should be noted that access to the below floor crawlspace to observe the
condition of the foundation could not be made during my site inspection due to the access door
being fastened shut with wood screws; however, I have no reason to believe that its condition is
not as described in Mr. May's Structural Assessment Report.
234 E Babcock#3 9 Bozeman, MT 59715 9 (406) 586-0277 9 tdhengineering.com
Mr. Talbot
June 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
In conclusion, my site inspection of the structure and a review of the August 22, 2007 Structural
Assessment Report has confirmed that the existing conditions remain consistent with those
outlined in the initial report. Furthermore, I am in agreement with all of the items that Mr. May
has outlined in his report and concur with his conclusion that the primary issue with the house at
430 S. Tracy is the need for a complete basement and crawl space foundation replacement. As
Mr. May mentions, the procedure required to lift the house off its foundation is a large and
difficult undertaking, especially for a structure with out-of-plumb exterior brick walls with brittle
mortar. Additionally, a significant level of work will be required to upgrade the lateral system of
the house to meet current residential design requirement, and it is suspected that there may be
structural inadequacies with the floor and front patio gravity framing members. There is also a
high probability that due to the instability and brittleness of the existing brick exterior, a
potentially unsafe working environment would be created if a foundation replacement was
perused.
I would also like to reiterate on the fact that Mr. May laid out, that when the compounding effect
of all construction issues are analyzed, it becomes apparent that the costs to save and rehabilitate
the existing house will be significantly more expensive and labor intensive than if the structure
was demolished and rebuilt.
I appreciate the opportunity to perform this inspection and provide you with this report. Please
review this information and contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, `. ���. T
�'
GARRETT L.
„a DRAKE = a
18154PE
Gerettke, PE SEngineer %o���
1104 L
Attachments: August 22, 2007 Structural Assessment Report by Brian May, PE
JA2014\1314-062 George Talbot-430 S Tracy Structural Consult\STRUCTURAL\430 S Tracy_Structural Peer Review.docx
August 22, 2007
George Talbot Re: 430 S. Tracy Residence
430 S. Tracy Ave. Structural Assessment
Bozeman, MT 59715 TD&H Project: B06-069
Dear George,
It is our understanding that the current house at 430 S. Tracy will be renovated, or completely
removed to facilitate the construction of a new home. A new structure would imitate the existing
house that would be removed. To determine the feasibility and cost comparison of the remodel
versus demolition approach, per your request I observed& inspected all accessible areas of the
basement foundation, crawl space, exterior walls, and building interior.
The existing house has a combination of partial brick and stone basement with crawl space
foundation, brick exterior walls with stucco shell, ballooned framed stud walls, and wood framed
floors. The house was built about 90 years ago, with several interior and exterior changes made
to the building since its original construction. After inspecting and analyzing the structure, many
issues exist that would require an abundance of reconstruction to improve the structure to a
suitable condition. From inspection and analysis, several factors exist that overwhelmingly
suggest that a full demolition followed by total reconstruction approach is much more
economical,practical, and safer than a renovation. The following report contains specific
findings to support this claim.
Foundation
Based upon the condition and age of the existing stone and brick foundation, in addition to the
proposed renovation to the structure, we recommend that the entire existing basement and
foundation be removed and replaced. Despite the limited amount of access to inspect the
foundation, several issues were discovered that warrant a full basement replacement during the
house renovation.
• Signs of water damage and heavy efflorescence exist on one surface of the stone wall
foundation. Much of the mortar between the individual stones has lost its structural
integrity from efflorescence. Large portions of the basement walls are soft and lose
material with light mechanical scraping.
• The entire load bearing brick wall inside the basement has excessive brick and mortar
loss, and is leaning excessively(Photo 1). About half of the brick material is missing
from the base of the wall. This entire wall would need to be replaced to safely support
any floor framing or bearing walls above.
• Several of the existing crawl space support piers were crumbling, unstable and in need of
replacement. All the piers observed were in significant disrepair. It can be assumed that
additional piers within the crawl space are also in need of replacement (Photo 2 and 3).
• Several existing crawl space collector beams are inadequate for the actual span. Several
members would need to be reinforced or replaced. To do this effectively, large portions
of the main floor would have to be removed for access (Photo 2).
• According to residential code for new construction(IRC2006), headroom of a crawl
space from bottom of beams and joists to the top of the crawl space fill shall be at least
18 inches. This existing crawl space fails to meet this minimum clearance (Photo 2).
• The main floor level is very irregular. There are several excessive high and low points in
the floor, with the finished floor elevation varying several inches. This suggests that the
existing crawl space framing and pier supports are out-of-alignment and structurally
insufficient for the span lengths present.
• Due to the poor condition of the existing foundation, it is rather unlikely that the lateral
loads transferred to the foundation during a significant seismic event can be safely
resisted by the foundation. Large displacements or loss of support above bearing walls
would be very probable. Portions of the structure could experience partial collapse.
• There are several abandoned holes & shafts in the basement that would require filling
(Photo 4).
• There is a severe crack in the exterior wall at the southwest corner of the house. The
elevation of the main floor drops severely towards this same corner where the severe
exterior wall crack is located. This suggests that there is a settlement issue with the
existing foundation at the southwest corner of the house. A large area of the flooring and
a portion of the existing foundation would have to be removed to repair this problem.
Exterior Brickwork
We have determined that it is in the best interests of the homeowner to have an entire
basement replacement for this existing house. A full renovation of the house structure and
interior above grade would be unsafe and impractical if the entire foundation was not
removed and replaced.
Typically a house underpinning procedure would be the course of action. However, we
found the exterior brick of the building to be in such disrepair that it would make any
underpinning and temporary jacking procedure very difficult, expensive, and dangerous.
• Several exterior walls exhibit a large amount of out-of-plane irregularities including
waviness and substantial leaning (Photos 5a& 5b). It is apparent that the brickwork of
the walls including the north and south walls are in need of extensive repair. There are
areas where the mortar is old and brittle, and has lost its tensile and adhesive properties.
• With a foundation replacement required for the house, the superstructure will need to be
temporarily lifted and supported. The distressful condition that the exterior brick is in
would make this procedure very complicated and expensive. The brick masonry in this
poor and irregular condition will most likely not be able to withstand the small amount of
movement, racking and force changes associated with an underpinning procedure. It is
very possible that large cracks or partial collapses will occur in the masonry during the
procedure. To prevent this, an expensive shoring and stabilization system will need to be
installed, and it is not guaranteed that it would prevent damage. There is the high
possibility that some of the brick would become dislodged during the underpinning and
could fall, creating a hazardous condition to workers below.
• There are several large cracks in the exterior stucco in strategic areas that suggest there
may be hidden areas of substantial brick damage behind. (See Photos 7 through 11).
• A more likely scenario is that a full removal of all exterior brick will be necessary, due to
the out-of-plumbness and poor mortar condition. If the exterior stud walls are to remain
after removing all the brick, there may be large labor costs associated with brick removal
while maintaining the integrity of the studs.
• The option to remove and rebuild the existing brickwork is not a feasible option. None of
the brick can be saved if removed since it is practically impossible to remove stucco from
brick. The difficulty to perform a foundation underpinning with brickwork in this
condition, combined with the unfeasibility of removing stucco from the existing brick,
results in requiring a total brick replacement for the house.
• The chimney is in severe disrepair and should either be repaired or removed(Photo 6).
Exterior Wall Framing
• With its age and its system of balloon-framing, it is doubtful that the existing building has
the correct connections and load transfer mechanisms for sufficient shear resistance.
Shear loads will not be safely transferred from the roof and floors to the balloon-framed
walls without significant improvements.
• It is probable that the exterior studs are misaligned and irregular. This could complicate
the construction procedure to install shear walls,holddowns, and shear straps. We
estimate that about 25% to 50% of the existing studs will need to be removed and
replaced.
Floor Joist Framing
• There are several areas of both excessive sag and uplift in the floor. It was determined
that several of the collector beams in the crawl space floor system lack the depth and
stiffness to provide a solid floor. Many interior piers are made of unstable piles of stones
or mounds of rubble. Some of the spans in the upstairs floor system are too long for the
depth and stiffness of the joists. We estimate that 75% of the floor framing system will
need substantial reinforcements or complete replacements.
• The finished floor and floor finishes will need to be removed during the replacement or
reinforcement of the floor framing system.
Conclusion
The primary issue with the house at 430 S. Tracy is the need for a complete basement and
crawl space foundation replacement. This procedure is a large and difficult undertaking,
especially for a structure with out-of-plumb exterior brick walls with brittle mortar. A large
amount of shoring materials and labor costs will be dedicated to safely and successfully jack
the house to allow for the foundation removals and reconstruction. In addition, the floor
framing is insufficient in many areas and in need to reinforcements. The balloon-framed
nature of the exterior stud system will make it difficult and costly to develop the shear
resistance that is required by current residential building codes.
When the sum of all construction issues are analyzed, it becomes apparent that the costs to
save and rehabilitate the existing house will be much more expensive and labor intensive
than if the structure was demolished and rebuilt. Also, the instability and brittleness of the
existing brick exterior would create an unsafe working environment during the foundation
replacement.
I trust that this information meets your immediate needs. Please feel free to contact me should
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian D. May, PE
Structural Engineer
G
A..
C
Photo 1 -- Load bearing basement wall,with severe brick loss and leaning out-of-plane. This wall is an
example of the poor condition of the basement. The entire wall requires replacement.
/ t
T
Photo 2 -- Mound of rubble and cobbles serve as an interior bearing point for this crawl space collector
beam. Cobbles and soil have been falling off the pile over time. The shallow depth of this major
supporting beam attributes to its lack of stiffness, contributing to floor sag at the main level.
F
1 -
i
e � -
t
Photo 3 -- Stack of stone acting as intermediate support at midspan. Edges of stones are adjacent to the
edge of supporting soil cut,causing an unstable situation. There is insufficient clearance between the
joists and the crawl space fill.
1
�► xw�r�`
IN
Photo 4 -- Example of one of the shafts and wells in the basement floor that requires filling.
1
t�
i �
I
t
I
Photos 5a& 5b -- Waviness of exterior stucco walls. Brickwork out-of-plumb&most likely in disrepair.
' - i
i
Photo 6 -- The brick chimney is in severe disrepair.
Photo 7 -- Severe crack in stucco at southwest window. This corner area of the house has significant
floor sag and suspected foundation settlement. Brickwork is suspected to be in disrepair.
ti
I�
.I
L
Photo 8 -- Severe crack in stucco at northern window. This wall is significantly out-of-plumb.
I h tir
I
' i
r.
ti
♦� ~' '` �•~""'ti� �• fit+ •`. • •,��~ - - �, ._ ,� 1 �'.
.- - • �'�.,: ��; �►~-� i"�� �� fir.
k
Photos 9a&9b-- Typical cracks in stucco from window corners to roof overhang.
Photo 10-- Crack in stucco at window.
1
-- � �
ark.-
Photo 11 -- Severe crack in stucco between upper and lower level windows.
Attachment C - Shed Horn Designs Estimate
(August 11, 2014)
Shed Horn Designs Estimate
415 McEwen Dr
Belgrade, MT 59714 Date Estimate#
8/11/2014 157
Name/Address
City of Bozeman/Wendy Thomas
For:
430 S.Tracy
Bozeman,MT 59715
Project
Description Qty Rate Total
Items listed below are estimates only.Further inspection and 0.00 0.00
complete assessment will be given if this route of action is to be
taken.
After looking at the structure,it is my assessment that this structure
has failing mortar and brick at some locations and structural
regression throughout the house.This project will be expensive and
hazardous.This estimate is for restoring to a four unit apartment.
However the Upper East Apartment does not have sufficient width
at the stairs to bring this unit to Code without reframing some of the
structure.With that said here is my estimate.Numbers are rounded
up to the nearest$1,000 and some items are guesstimations,as not
all work can be seen until walls are opened up.
Interior Demolition 25,000.00 25,000.00
Lift and Reset House 30,000.00 30,000.00
New Foundation(Cobble stone foundation needs to be removed) 20,000.00 20,000.00
Brick Restoration 37,000.00 37,000.00
Structural Restoration 38,000.00 39,000.00
Replace Windows and Doors 21,000.00 21,000.00
Interior Work 20,000.00 20,000.00
Electrical&Lighting 24,000.00 24,000.00
Plumbing 26,000.00 26,000.00
Heating 25,000.00 25,000.00
Insulation 21,000.00 21,000.00
General Contractor Fees,Overhead and Profit 28,700.00 28,700.00
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you.Stuart Smith 580-3569 Total
$315,700.00
Brian K. Gallik GALLIK LAW FIRM, P.C.
Jecyn N, Bremer Attorneys at Law
The Clark Building
421 West Mendenhall
PO Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070
(406) 404-1729
brian@galliklawfirm.com
ibremer@galliklawfirm.com
August 29, 2014
Bozeman City Commission
City Clerk's office
Suite 201, City Hall BY HAND
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision—430 South Tracy Avenue (Application #Z-14090)
Honorable Members of the Bozeman City Commission:
We represent George Talbot/GHT Investments, LLC, owner of 430 South Tracy Avenue ("S.
Tracy fourplex"), and respectfully submit this information in support of our appeal of the Planning
Director's decision to deny his Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for demolition
and the imposed two year stay on demolition be overturned.' This letter is in addition to the information
provided by Mr. Talbot's representative, Intrinsik Architecture, and includes additional grounds for the
Appeal, as well as evidence to support overturning the administrative decision.'-
In addition to serving as legal counsel for Mr. Talbot, the comments below are based on my
background and experience in historic preservation, including a graduate degree in historic preservation,
over a decade of historic preservation consulting experience, including National Register eligibility
1 See Sec.38.35.030.1, Bozeman Municipal Code('BMC"),which provides"[a]lternative 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."While we believe this is the appropriate criteria to apply,the Appeal also addresses the
errors in the administrative determination and decision. Sec. 38.35.010.D.5, BMC. Hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged there is error in any order,requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the
enforcement of this chapter or of any standards adopted pursuant thereto.An aggrieved person may appeal the final
decision of the planning director in the manner provided in this article. As demonstrated by the Application and Appeal,
there were numerous errors in the Staff Report and rationale, relied upon by the Planning Director in making her
determination to deny the COA and impose a two year stay on demolition. Based on this error,the decision or determination
should be overturned and the COA granted.
2 See Submittal Materials and Requirements at Sec. 38.41.140, BMC. "The specific grounds and allegations for the
appeal,and evidence necessary to support and justify a decision other than as determined by the administrative review
authority."
1
determinations, work for the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and service on the
Tampa Historic Preservation Commission, whose mission it was "to identify, preserve and promote
historically significant buildings, sites, objects and districts for the educational, cultural and economic
benefit of the community, in addition to ensuring responsible new development throughout the city."3
L Introduction
The subject of the appeal is the proposed demolition of the non-conforming S. Tracy fourplex and
temporary subsequent treatment of the site with site grading and landscaping, until property is sold for
further residential development consistent with the BMC. The information provided in the May 13, 2014
Application, additional information provided as requested by Staff, and this Appeal overwhelmingly
support demolition as the less hazardous and expensive option.
The Montana Legislature recognizes the necessity for and desirability of"reasonable certainty,
stability, and fairness in the land use planning and regulatory process."4 The Legislature has further
recognized the necessity and desirability of"stimulat[ing] economic growth," ..secur[ing] the reasonable
investment-backed expectations of a landowner," and "foster[ing] cooperation between the public and
private sectors in land use planning and regulation."5 At a local level, the appeal provisions of the BMC
were adopted and established to "grant[] relief from the requirements of this chapter subject to the
standards of this article in order to preserve equitable implementation of the law, prevent special treatment
to particular parties and preserve the various rights established by the state and United States constitutions
of all persons subject to this chapter."6 The misapplication of the facts to the requirements of the BMC
and errors in the Staff Report relied upon in the determination to deny Mr. Talbot's COA Application do
not reflect fairness in the land use regulatory process, nor they preserve "equitable implementation of the
the law" nor the preservation of property rights.
IL Costs of repair/rehabilitation versus costs of demolition and redevelopment, Section
38.16.080.A.3
The decision on the COA Application for demolition of the S. Tracy fourplex is subject to the
provisions of Sec. 38.16.080, BMC. The Application, additional information provided, and this Appeal,
including structural analysis and cost estimates, demonstrate that the fourplex is "a threat to public health
and safety," that"no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such threat," and the "structure or site
has no viable economic or useful life remaining."7
//
//
s http://www.tampapov.net/historic-preservation/about-us(Accessed August 29,2014).
"Mont.Code Ann.Section 7-21-1001.
s Id.
'See Sec.38.35.010., BMC. Providing the purpose of the Appeals, Deviations,and Variance Procedures code sections.
Sec.38.16.080A.3.b., BMC.
2
A. Threat to Public Health and Safety, Section 38.16.080.A.3.b(l)
The City's third party estimate and the Structural Assessment Report' respectively note that
rehabilitation work would be "expensive and hazardous" and "overwhelmingly" support demolition and
redevelopment as the safer, more practical and economic option.
The S. Tracy fourplex has been significantly altered over the years, including interior alterations and
the large and intrusive rear additions, which allowed the former single family residence to be divided into
several illegal apartments. In its current condition, the fourplex does not meet applicable codes. While
the structure has not been neglected and is weather tight and secure9, the structural issues precluding cost
effective rehabilitation were substantially the same following Mr. Talbot's purchase of the property, as
they are now.10 Furthermore, despite Mr. Talbot's efforts toward maintaining the security of the building,
police reports indicate suspicious activity and criminal trespass with transients entering and attempting to
occupy the building. The owner has had to board up the windows (at the recommendation of the City) to
secure the premises. See Exhibit A attached and incorporated by reference.
The Staff Reports 1 does not acknowledge these public health and safety issues, and the decision
made by the Planning Director failed to recognize the threat to public health and safety resulting
from the structural condition,that rehabilitation would be hazardouslZ,and that no reasonable repairs
or alterations would remove the threat as the costs would far exceed the value of the structure as
demonstrated by the applicant's and the City's cost estimates.
Prohibiting the demolition of this property does not further the protection of public health and safety,
rather prevents it, and further is hindering Mr. Talbot's ability to sell the property so it may be developed
and put to a use that does further the protection of public health and safety.
B. No Viable economic or useful life remaining, Section 38.16.080.A.3.b(2)
1. Cost estimates and Structural Assessment—Lack of Beneficial Use;Practical and Economic
Infeasibility of Non-Demolition Alternatives
The Cost Comparison provided at Section 6 of the COA Application, the City's third party estimate
and the Structural Assessment Reports "overwhelmingly" support demolition and redevelopment as the
most reasonable, economical, safe and practical option.13 Again, the City's third party estimate states that
rehabilitation would be "expensive and hazardous." The cost estimates provided in the Application and
e See August 22,2007 TD&H Structural Assessment Report,included as part of the COA Application,and June 13,2014 TD&H
Peer Review of 8/22/07 Structural Assessment Report,which are part of the record for this Appeal.
9 See also at Staff Report,page 17.This not an example of demolition by neglect,contrary to comments by the Bozeman
Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes. See at page 33 of the Staff Report,
10 See fn.4.
11 See at page 17.
11 See fn.8.
13 Id.
3
I I
by the City's third party are consistent, and the errors in Staff s application of those numbers have been
addressed by this Appeal.14
In its current condition the S. Tracy fourplex cannot be put to beneficial use—it is no longer a legal
nonconforming use and structurally is not up to code. As demonstrated, the costs to rehabilitate the
property outweigh the costs of demolition and redevelopment—thus rehabilitation is not economically
viable. Requiring the structure to remain for a further two years, will, based on previous years and from
the owner's perspective, prevent the sale and future development of his lot, and in no way secures the
reasonable investment backed expectations of the property owner, nor"foster[s] cooperation between the
public and private sectors in land use planning and regulation.15 Denial of Mr. Talbot's request to
demolish the building deprives him of any reasonable beneficial use of the property.
Mr. Talbot has reasonable investment-backed expectations in his property. He should be able to rely
on the plain language of the BMC to have his Application, which clearly meets those requirements,
approved.
2. Nonconforming Use
The Staff Report16 proposes that the nonconformity continue and three dwelling units are lawful,
because substantial modification has not occurred and there has not been a change in use requiring the
structure to come into "complete compliance with modern zoning code requirements." However,based
on Section 38.32.010.1), BMC,17 the nonconforming condition has lapsed as, is our understanding, the
fourplex has not been lived in for years, much less months. Thus, the S. Tracy fourplex must be brought
into conformity with the BMC. Mr. Talbot is attempting to do just this. He cannot, as the City's estimate
proposes "restore [this building] to a four unit condition."
III. Updated Property Record Form —Lack of Historic Significance
The Updated Property Record Form states, "[t]he physical appearance of the building's exterior is
such that it maintains only some elements of its original architectural design in appearance, and mainly on
its western facade. Based on the absence of certain elements it loses considerable significance and no
longer meets the criteria."
Having been an historic preservation consultant for over a decade prior to and during law school, I
have evaluated hundreds of properties for National Register eligibility, including historic districts. I agree
with the above assessment. As evident by a comparison of the photographs in the Staff Report, pages 35-
39, the S. Tracy fourplex is not a particularly good or significant example of its type nor the builders
work. There are other examples in the community, not all included by photograph, representing the work
of the builder that embody more integrity of style and structure. The applicant should not be required to
14 See Intrinsik Architecture,August 29,2014,Appeal letter.
15 Mont.Code Ann.Section 7-21-1001.
16 See at page 13.
11"Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a building,structure or land is discontinued for a period of 90 days,any future
use of the building,structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter."
4
1 l
recreate history by rehabilitating a structure in which it is lacking. That notwithstanding, whether or not
the S. Tracy fourplex is considered contributing, it is still not economically viable to rehabilitate as
demonstrated by the Application and this Appeal, including structural analysis and cost estimates. Again,
the S. Tracy fourplex is "a threat to public health and safety," "no reasonable repairs or alterations will
remove such threat," and "structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining."18
The Staff Report19 states that demolition of this structure "would adversely affect the historic integrity
of the adjoining properties." This is simply not the case. Demolition will have no direct effect on those
properties, much less their integrity, and will in all likelihood, improve the neighborhood and increase the
value of those adjoining properties. Demolition will also eliminate a structure that detracts from the
historic character of the block, and allow for redevelopment in conformance with the BMC. The public
comment received by the City in April and discussed in the next section supports this.
IV. Public comment was ignored.
Public comment was received, contrary to the Staff Report.20 At least one letter was submitted to and
received by the City on April 30, 2014 from Matt and Lisa Pocock, 407 S. Tracy Avenue, Bozeman,
Montana 59715. A copy of the Pocock's letter is incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit B.
That letter expressed support for the demolition, noting in particular "[t]he house has been considered a
teardown for as long as [they] have lived there," that "it has been for sale for quite some time." The letter
further notes, "it was recently boarded up for security reasons, making it even more of an eyesore for the
neighborhood," and "[u]ltimately, [they] feel that demolishing the old house and thus enabling the
construction of a new home on that lot would improve the neighborhood and help increase the value of all
nearby homes."
In response to this public comment, the City sent a letter to the Pocock's on May 6, 2014 stating that
the letter had been added to the most recent application file for the property. A copy of the City's letter is
incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit C. The Application was resubmitted on May 13, 2014,
and no new application fee was required. The Pocock's letter clearly referred to the demolition of 430 S.
Tracy. It is questionable then, why this public comment was ignored by the Staff Report. This fails to
comply with Montanan's Constitutional Right of Participation.''-1 As noted previously, the letter, which is
public comment from neighboring property owners, supports the proposed demolition and redevelopment
of the property.
V. Two Year Stay of Demolition
Section 38.16.080, BMC, provides that a stay of demolition is "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
18 Sec.38.16.080A.3.b., BMC.
19 See at page 10.
20 See at Appendix C of the Staff Report, Noticing and Public Comment, page 22.
21 Section S.Right of participation. The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable
opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.
Constitution of Montana,Article II, Declaration of Rights, Montana Code Annotated (2013).
5
I J
Additionally, the City has recently approved a demolition COA on S Black, submitted with development
plans. The City cannot in this backhanded way—by denying the COA for demolition—require
development plans where none are required by the BMC.
VII. Policy Direction
It is our understanding that Staff may have requested or obtained direction with regard to subsequent
treatment following demolition possibly in response to the subsequent treatment as proposed by Mr.
Talbot's Application (a temporary grass covered lawn), and that this treatment was not what either staff or
the City Commission wanted to see. According to the minutes, discussion of demolition applications
appears to have occurred between the City Commission and Staff on July 14, 2014. While policy making
falls under legislative authority and would not result in ex parte communications''-'-, when quasi-judicial
actions are implicated, such as Mr. Talbot's Application for a COA for demolition and subsequent
treatment of his property, ex parte communications can result. We have not yet reviewed the transcript or
recording of that hearing so the precise exchange is unclear. That notwithstanding, such a discussion, if it
occurred, would have occurred while Mr. Talbot's Application was pending review, would go to the
merits of the COA Application, which had not yet been decided upon by the administrative review
authority. While one of Mr. Talbot's representatives was present, the discussion nonetheless gives the
appearance that the City Commission may have already unknowingly decided this Appeal request prior to
the Appeal being submitted, foreclosing on Mr. Talbot's opportunity for a neutral and impartial decision
based on the Appeal, and at a minimum giving the appearance of unfairness. At the very least, staff,
knowing of Mr. Talbots' Application, should have at least continued the discussion of demolition
applications until after the administrative review authority had made a decision in this matter, and the
time for appeal had passed. Transparency is fundamental to fairness in governance.
VIII. Conclusion
As an historic preservationist, I am an advocate of preservation, rehabilitation and restoration—in
most cases, not all of them. There are simply some buildings that have outlived their useful life and
which are not significant enough or lack the requisite integrity to merit saving.
Historic preservation is important to a community, and a legitimate use of the police powers,
however, it is not reasonable to require a property owner to rehabilitate— and to undertake, in this case, an
extensive, expensive and hazardous rehabilitation at that—merely because a structure is old and therefore
has connections to the past. This perpetuates the general public's alienation from the historic preservation
cause and reinforces the commonly held misconception that if your house is "historic" you lose control
over what you can do with it.
This is simply a case of a building that is past its useful life. The S. Tracy fourplex may, at one
time, have retained sufficient integrity and character defining features to warrant rehabilitation. Today,
however, it does not. Based upon the information in the Application, additional documentation and this
zz htto;//www.avcaptureall.com/Sessions.asox#session.7e8dcOce-12d5-4fd 1-9Oec-56b87f4d7dc8
7
Appeal, S. Tracy fourplex is clearly too expensive and hazardous to rehabilitate. The applicant should not
be required to recreate what does not currently exist—that is historic and structural integrity. The
Application demonstrated that the cost to rehabilitate the S. Tracy fourplex would exceed its value, which,
in concert with public health and safety issues, support the granting of the COA for demolition.
Upholding the decision to deny the demolition would be, arbitrary and capricious, onerous and patently
unreasonable based on the facts in this particular Application.
Thank you for your consideration.
RESPEECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
GALL IK LAW FIRM, P.C.
qaecnremer
t Law
8
Calls For Service Report Call ID: 1403050062 Pr,nted:April 10, 2014
1.Agency 2. Person Received 3.Dale[Time Received 5.Time Arrived 7.Case tt
BPD Complaint 03 052014 12:04 12:14
4.Time Dispatched 6,Time Complete
12:08 1 12:31
8. Nature Of Incident Suspicious Activity
9. Location Of
Incident 430 S TRACY AVE,BOMNIAN MT
10. Victim or Caller
11. Classification 12. How Received 13. Disposition 14. Officer 15. Date Submitted
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 'Pi-IONE' l CAD CALL GONE ON Klundt, William Charles 03 05 2014
ARRIVAL
Notes: RP BELIEVES A HOMELESS PERSON HAS 6IOVED INTO THIS PROPERTY
NOT SURE IF THEY ARE THERE NOW
THE PROPERTY IS SUPPOSED TO BE VACANT
RP IS WAITING ON SCENE FOR AN OFFICER
•• LOI search completed at 03 05'l4 12:04:3 l
** Recommended unit 167 for requirement PATROL_OFFICER_BEAT_PD(>I.I mi)
A RUN CARD WILL NOT BE SENT FOR EVENT B1403050062
167 ADV THE RESIDENCE IS CLEAR
167 Unable to locate anyone, However it was evident someone had been in there, 144 spoke to owner about securing
property.
EXHIBIT
R Ctsvl E
Calls For Service Report Call ID: 1403050076
Printed:April 10, 2014
1.Agency 2,Person Received 3, DatefTime Received 5.Time Arrived 7.Case#
BPD Complaint 03 05 2014 13:29 13:29
4.Time Dispatched 6.Time Complete
13;29 13:29
B. Nature Of Incident Nuisance Property
9. Location Of
Incident 430 S TRACY AVE,DOZENIAN NIT
10.Victim or Caller
11. Classification 12. How Received 13. Disposition 14. Officer 15. Date Submitted
GENERAL POLICE 'OFFICER'I CAD REPORT TAKEN Gappmayer,Churies 03 05 2014
Notes: Field Event
** LOI search completed at 03 05'14 13:29:14
Complaint of transients entering a vacant residence. Residence was searched by officers and someone had been living
there. Property owner was contacted and agreed to secure the residence. Officer did a follow up the next week and the
residence had been secured.
R Cfsv1
Calls For Service Report Call ID: 1403090088 Printed:April 10,2014
I. Agency 2.Person Received 3. DateMme Received 5.Time Arrived 7.Case#
BPD Complaint 03 09 2014 16:13 16:27
4.Time Dispatched 6.Time Complete
16:18 16:35
8. Nature Of Incident Suspicious Person Rpt
9. Location Of
Incident 430 S TRACY AVE,BOZEMAN NIT
10.Victim or Caller
11. Classification 12. How Received 13.Disposition 14. Officer 15. Date Submitted
FOR;<tATION ONLY PhIONE'I`CAD CALL NFORMAT
fN ION Lee,Michael 03,09 2014
ONLY
Notes: ** LOI search completed at 03,09 14 16:13:24
SPECIAL ADDRESS COMMENT:
««<CHECK INFO BUTTON FOR OWNER CONTACTS
LOCN IS ABAND HOUSE
HOUSE WAS RECENTLY CLEARED BY POLICE,HAD SQUATTER INSIDE, HOME WAS BOARDED UP
RP SAYS TODAY NOTICED A MAN WENT TO THE BACK DOOR AND TRIED TO GET IN,
OCCD AN HOUR OR SO AGO
SAW A W`MA/30-40YEARS OLD i SHOULDER LENGTH DARK HAIR MOSS DRK GREEN DENIM STYLE
COAT,BLK BAGGY PANTS
NOT CARRYING ANYTHING
RP WANTS OFFICERS AWARE IN CASE HE TRIES TO BREAK BACK IN
R Cfsv1
i
Calls For Service Report Call ID: 1403270002 Printed April 10, 2014
1.Agency 2. Person Received 3. Daterrime Received 5.Time Arrived .Case V
BPD Complaint 03 27 2014... 00:22 00:26
4. Time Dispatched 6.Time Complete 1403-270001
00:22 00:49
8. Nature Of Incident Criminal Trespass In Progress
9. Location Of
Incident 430 S TRACY AVE,BOZENIAN NIT
10.Victim or Caller
11. Classification 12. How Received 13. Disposition 14, Officer 15. Date Submitted
CRIME 'PHONE' I'CAD... REPORT Steinbrecher.... 03'27 2014...
TAKEN
Notes: SPECIAL ADDRESS COMMENT:
««<CHECK INFO BUTTON FOR OWNER CONTACTS»»>
THERE IS A MALE TRYING TO GET INTO THIS RESIDENCE
IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE VACANT
** LOI search completed at 03127114 00:22:25
** Recommended unit 187 for requirement PATROL_OFFICER(2.3 min)
** Recommended unit 180 for requirement PATROL—OFFICER(>2.7 mi)
A RUN CARD WILL NOT BE SENT FOR EVENT B1403270002
UNK DESCRIPTION
RP JUST HEARD SOMETHING OVER THERE
** LOI search completed at 0312714 00:43:29
187: Police received a report of someone trying to break into a vacant residence. Officers found evidence of
someone attempting entry.
R C/svl
ti Agency Name INCIDENT / INVESTIGATION OCA
Bozeman Police Department Date Time 140J_70001
ORI me Reported
1 p d TH filar 27. 2014 01:51
E Crime Incident UCR 0511 Local Statute 45-6-204 0 An Last Known Secure
N �1 BURGLARY,RESIDENCE ❑ Com TII A Inr 27, 2014 00:15
T
Crime Incident UCR Local Statute 0 An At Found
1 D #2 _ ❑ Com TH Alar 2". 2014 00:26
T #3 Crime Incident UCR Local Statute ❑ An
A ❑ Com
Location of Incident 430 S Tracy Ave,Bozeman, A�IT 59715 Premise Type Retsidence.Home 13Re,�
Haw Attacked or Committed
) CIO
Weapon/Tools Forcible Entry ❑ 1'cs 0 No ❑ N A
k Victims 1 I Type Individual Injury None Residency Status Unl.nown
Victim/Btuiness Name(Last,First,Middle) Victim of Crime R Age DOB IRacelSex
V �'� 1403270001 Unknown 00 I Rclationship to Offenders U
ffenders
T Home Address Home Phone
I
Employer Name'Address Business Phone
WR I Make Model Style Color Lic Lis VN
O CODES; V-Victim Denote V2.V]) O-Owner fif other than victim) R-Reporting Person if other than victim) I-Other Involved
T Code Name(Last,First,Middle) Victim of Age'DOB Race Sca
H RPl Crimea
E
R Home Address Horric Phone
S
Employer Namr'AddrCca Business Phone
I
Cale Name(Last,First,Middle) Victim of Age 1 DOD Race Se
V Cntnc✓:
O
L Home Address Home Phone
V
E Employer Name/Address Business Phone
D
Status L-Lost S-Stolen R=Recovered D-Duniaged Z=Seized 8=Burned C=Counterfeit/Forged F=Found U-Unknown
Codes (Check"Ol"column if recovered for other iurisdiction)
Victim UCR Status-Date Value OJ QTV Properry Description I MalicAlodel Serial Number
0
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
Number of Vehicles Siolen 0 Number Vehicles Recovered 0
[D Officer Officer Signature Supervisor St naturt
N87)STEINBRECHER,ANDREIV U1NN (1451LACROSS,JASONJOHN
Complainant Signature Case Stutus: Case Disposition:
Closed/cleared No Leads
,Harsh 27, 2014 blar 27,2014
Printed at: 4/10/2014 14:12 Page: I
_i
Incident/ Investigation Report
BoZentnn Police Deynrlmen/
oC A: 14032 000!
Status L-Lost S-Stolen R-Recovered D=Damaged Z=Seized B-Burned C=Counterfeit Forged F=Found U=Unhno%%n
Codes
Status Quantity Type Measure Suspected Drug Type
D
R
U
G
S
F Offender(s)Suspected of Using Offender I Orfender 2 Offender J Primary Offender
Age Race Sex- Age Race Sex Age Race Sex. Resident Status
F ❑ Drugs m NIAE g g Resident
N ❑ Alcohol Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6
D Non-Resident
R [IComputer Age Race Sex: Age Race Sex Age: Race Sex. Unkno%%n
Natne(Lost,First,Middle) Horne Address
Also Known As
Occupation Business Addres,
DOB. / Age Race IT
Hgt Wgt Budd Hair Color Eye Color
U
S Hair Style Hair Length Glasses
S Sears,Marks,Tatoos,or other distinguishing features(i a limp,foreign accent,voice characteristics)
P
E
C
T Hat Shirt/Blouse C=a Suit Socks
Jacket Tie/Scarf Pant,'Dress Skirt Shoes
Was Suspect Armed:' Type of Weapon Direction of Travel Mode of Travel
VYR I Make Model Style/Doors Color Lic Lis Vin
Suspect[late/Bias tvlotivated: ❑ Yes (2) No Type:
w Name(Last,First,Middle) D.O,B Age Race Scx
I
T
N -
Home Address Home Phone Employer Phone
S
Assisting Officers
A (146)SCHUMACHER,COLTON E
R (180)SINNESS,CHRISTOPHER PALMER
R
T Police received a call from reporting someone was attempting to enter a vacant
I P g P g
v residence next to hers. She did not see anyone but could hear them. Officers arrived and located
E footprints in the snow showing someone had walked around the residence going to each exterior door.
Officers located snow on a side door in the shape of a boot indicating someone had attempted to
kick in the door. Officers checked all doors on the residence and found it to be secure. The
footprints were photographed,
Printed at:4/10/2014 14:12 Page: 2
Calls For Service Report Call ID: 1308130109 Printed:April 10, 2014
1.Agency 2. Person Received 3. DatelTime Received S.Time Arrived 7.Case
BPD Complaint 08 13 2013 16:29 16:36
4.Time Dispatched 6.Time Complete
16.31 16:56
8. Nature Of Incident Suspicious Activity
9. Location Of
Incident 430 S TRACY AVE,BOZEMAN MT
10. Victim or Caller
11. Classification 12.How Received 13. Disposition 14. Officer 15. Date Submitted
CRIME OTHER GONE ON Anderson,Clint W 08 13 2013
ARRIVAL
Notes: ** LOI search completed at 08,1313 16:29:42
RP ADV THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ABAND HOUSE FOR SEVERAL YEARS
RP JUST PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND SAW A NIALE SITTING ON THE PORCH W A BEER AND THERE
SHOULDNT BE ANYBODY LIVING THERE
HOUSE IS UNLIVABLE
RP SAW THE MALE ABOUT I'2 FIR AGO
DK HAIR 30-40 YOA T SHIRT,POSS KI IAKIS
MALE IS NOW GONE FROM THE RES
NO STRANGE VEHS AROUND
RP WOULD LIKE A CB AFTER OFFICERS RESPOND
** Recommended unit 173 for requirement PATROL_OFFICER_BEAT_PD(0.4 min)
A RUN CARD WILL NOT BE SENT FOR EVENT B 1308130109
173 ADV OPEN DOOR FOR HOUSE
173-Looked for a man that was sitting on a porch of a house that didnt belong to him.
R Cfsv1
Matt and Lisa Pocock
407 S. Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
fro
April 28, 2014 �t 1 l �l '� \ ��
1
City of Bozeman
l APR 3
Department of Community Development -; •; t'
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: 430 S.Tracy Ave. Demolition
To Whom It May Concern:
1t has come to our attention that the owner of a neighboring vacant house (430 S. Tracy
Ave.) wants to tear it down so he can sell the empty land for future home construction.
Our house is located across the street and a couple doors north of the house in question,
which has stood vacant for eight years. The house has been considered a teardown for as
long as we've lived here and has been for sale for quite some time. Recently, it was
boarded up for security reasons, making it even more of an eyesore for the neighborhood.
We support the demolition of the house and clearing of the lot so the vacant land can be
sold all ready for new construction. The lot would look better than it currently does and
probably sell more easily without new owners having to deal with the old, decrepit house.
We understand that the current owner would sell the property with a set of guidelines to
help ensure that the new home built there would fit with the character of our historic
neighborhood. Ultimately,we feel that demolishing the old house and thus enabling the
construction of a new home on that lot would improve the neighborhood and help
increase the value of all nearby houses.
Sincerely,
"7
1 \/o 9
Matt and Lisa Pocock G
EXHIBIT
CITY 0, 13OZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
_ 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
May 6, 2014
Matt & Lisa Pocock
407 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, Mt 59715
RE: 430 South Tracy Avenue
Dear Mr. &Mrs. Pocock,
The Department of Community Development received your letter of April 28, 2014 offering support for the
demolition of the residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue. The property is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places as part of the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District. Your letter has been
added to the most recent application file for the property.
Bozeman Municipal Code prohibits the Department of Community Development from accepting and
processing applications for demolition of historic properties unless the demolition application is included
with a full plan for the redevelopment of the property. This information was communicated to the property
owner in a November 22, 2013 memo, which I have included with this letter.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Courtney Kramer
Historic Preservation Officer
EXHIBIT
Development Review Division Policy and Planning Division Builc ce
CITY OF BOZEMAN
13 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406 582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
November 22, 2013
GT Investments, LLC
424 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: Certificate of Appropriateness application for demolition of the existing residence at 430 South Tracy
Avenue. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the South Tracy/
South Black Historic District.
Dear Mr. Talbot,
The above-referenced Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for 430 South Black Avenue was
received by the Department of Community Development on November 18, 2013. The COA application
was preliminarily reviewed by Department of Community Development Staff in accordance with the
submittal checklist and Section 38.41 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and unfortunately does not
appear to meet all the requirements. Therefore,the application at this time is deemed unacceptable for
further review.
Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.16.080 A 1 directs that "applications for the demolition or movement
of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete subr-)ittal 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 above- referenced application describes the property owner's desire to develop a new residential use
on the site. In order for the application to be acceptable for review, the application should include the full
design of the new residential development, including the following items on the COA Application
Checklist:
2. Sketch plan, with north at the top of the page, including site boundaries, accurate lot and
building area dimensions, street and alley frontages with names, and location of all structures with
distances to the nearest foot between buildings and from buildings to property lines.
4. Materials and color schemes to be used.
5 Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant's
proposed alterations.
The Montana Property Record Form provided with the application is also incomplete. The "Integrity"
section on page four refers to historic integrity, not strur tural integrity. Historic integrity is an evaluation
of the property's relationship to its historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling and
association. More information about historic integrity is available in this bulletin from the National Park
Service: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34 8.htm EXHIBIT
Development Review Division Policy and Planning Division Buildir I
Once the application drawings and materials are revised to depict the items above, please submit a total
of two paper sets and two digital sets. Please be aware that per BMC 38.40"Noticing,"the demolition of
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places receives a notice posted on site for not less
than 15 days.
If you have questions about this memo or the proposed development, please feel free to contact me at
406-582-2289 or ckramer@bozeman.net to schedule a meeting.
Sincerely, f�
Courtney Kramer
Planner I/ Historic P eservation Officer
CC: Intrinsik Architecture, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
2