HomeMy WebLinkAboutC14002 430 S Tracy Ave Demo appeal_Commission memo_Finaloptimized
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer/ Planner I
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: C14002, Appeal of an administrative denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue
(original application Z14090).
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2014 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
CITY COMMISSION DECISION: The City commission’s decision is to uphold, amend, or
overturn the administrative project decision for Application Z14090. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that such final administrative decision was erroneous.
Executive Summary:
This appeal application concerns the Administrative Project Decision to deny approval for Application Z04090, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the
residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue and replace the structure with a vacant parcel landscaped
in “a yard like condition.”
The appellant materials base the appeal on three categories:
- Appellant Category A: Subsequent Treatment of the Site
- Appellant Category B: Error(s) in Calculation to Evaluation Demolition; Both the
Applicant’s and the City’s Estimates Support Demolition
- Appellant Category C: The Staff Report also includes misleading, erroneous and
irrelevant findings- which support the reversal of the decision to deny the COA
Table of Contents:
Executive Summary: ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents: ......................................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND: ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Original Certificate of Appropriateness Application: ............................................................................... 2
COA Public Notice: .............................................................................................................................. 2
2
Preservation Board review of the COA application: ............................................................................. 2
Staff evaluation of the application and Director’s denial of the COA application: .............................. 2
Appeal of the Administrative Decision: ........................................................................................................ 3
Appeal Public Notice ............................................................................................................................ 3
Appeal Public Comment ..................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation of the Appeal: ..................................................................................................................... 3
Appeal from an Aggrieved Person: ....................................................................................................... 4
Basis of the Appeal: .............................................................................................................................. 4
Appellant Category A: Subsequent Treatment of the Site: ................................................. 4
Appellant Category B: Error(s) in Calculation to Evaluation Demolition; Both the Applicant’s and the City’s Estimates Support Demolition ................................................. 7
Appellant Category C: The Staff Report also includes misleading, erroneous and
irrelevant findings- which support the reversal of the decision to deny the COA. ........... 10
BACKGROUND:
Original Certificate of Appropriateness Application:
Property owner GHT Investments, applicants Intrinsik Architecture, Inc., and representative
Gallik Law Firm submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application on May 15,
2014. The application proposed demolition of the residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue, which is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property in the South Tracy/
South Black Avenue Historic District. The application asserted that the existing structure is not historic due to alterations and is damaged to the extent of making rehabilitation of the structure
not economically viable. The application proposed subsequent development of a landscaped
parcel on the site, and described offering the vacant parcel for sale and residential development
after the demolition occurred.
COA Public Notice:
Public notice of the application was completed in conformance with Sec. 38.40 BMC “Noticing,” and a public comment period provided between June 16 and August 1, 2014. Notice
was posted on site, posted on the City’s website and emailed to the Inter Neighborhood Council
for distribution. The Department received no public comment during the comment period.
Please see further discussion of Public Comment received for the project below in this memo.
Preservation Board review of the COA application:
The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board considered the project during their June 19,
2014 public meeting. Citing the absence of a third party cost estimate to rehabilitate the
structure, the BHPAB declined to take action on the item at this meeting. Minutes from the June
BHPAB meeting are included in the original Staff Report and Director Decision, and included as
an attachment to this document.
Staff evaluation of the application and Director’s denial of the COA application:
Staff prepared a report evaluating the application against the criteria for a COA and demolition
of a historic structure. Staff recommended denial of the application because:
3
1. The structure has remaining economic life, as indicated by the data gathered by the
applicant and City; and,
2. The proposed development of a vacant lot does not meet the criteria for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Per Sec. 38.16.080.A.1.a BMC and Sec. 38.16.080.A.3.a BMC, “demolition of a property within a historic district,” an application proposing demolition of all properties within historic districts
must satisfy both the criteria to demolish a historic structure and the subsequent treatment of the
site must be able to satisfy the criteria for COA approval.
The Director of Community Development concurred with Staff’s recommendation. Denial of the COA was issued on August 15, 2014 and the applicant was notified the same day.
Appeal of the Administrative Decision:
On August 29, 2014 an appeal of the Directors decision was received by the City Clerk. The
appeal was made per Sec. 38.35.030 BMC, “Administrative project decision appeals.”
Appeal Public Notice
Notice of the appeal hearing was completed in conformance with Article 38.40 BMC,
“Noticing.” Notice was posted on site, mailed to property owners within 200 feet, published in
the newspaper, posted on the City of Bozeman’s website and emailed to the Inter Neighborhood
Council for distribution.
Appeal Public Comment
No items of Public Comment were received by the Department of Community Development at the time of this Staff Report. Any Public Comment received by the Department will be
forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for Commission consideration.
The appeal application requests the Commission overturn denial of demolition of a historic
structure, the appeal application was provided to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB) for their information. The BHPAB has the powers and duties to review applications pertaining to historic resources under Sec. 2.05.930 BMC. The appeal application
appeared on the BHPAB’s September 25, 2014 agenda, for which the BHPAB did not have a
quorum. The BHPAB called a Special Meeting in a manner consistent with their bylaws, invited
the applicant, and held the meeting on October 2, 2014. A quorum not being present the BHPAB did not provide a recommendation.
Evaluation of the Appeal:
Per Sec. 38.35.030.A.1 BMC, “Administrative Project Decision Appeals,”
“An aggrieved person may appeal the final decision of the administrative review
authority in the manner provided in this section. Any appeal of a final
administrative decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application shall be an appeal on the basis of the information available to the
administrative review authority including this chapter [38, BMC], all submitted
application materials, review and recommendations by administrative staff or
advisory bodies, public comment and such other materials as were available.
Denial of requests for waiver or alteration of applicable regulations is not a decision subject to appeal of an administrative decision. This section shall also
apply to decisions by the administrative review authority regarding evasion of the
Subdivision and Platting Act per 38.05.070 BMC.”
4
Appeal from an Aggrieved Person:
For an appeal to be made the appellant, per Section 38.35.030.A.1 BMC, must show that they are
an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person is defined in Sec. 38.42.080 BMC as: “A person, as defined in this article, who has a specific, personal and legal interest in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of
all members of the community, and which interest would be specifically and personally
prejudiced by the decision or benefited by its reversal.”
As indicated in the appeal application, the appellant owns 430 South Tracy Avenue and thus has a personal and legal interest in the final decision of the Director of Community Development.
Basis of the Appeal:
The appeal application divides the basis for this appeal into three categories:
- Appellant Category A: Subsequent Treatment of the Site
o The applicant is appealing the findings that a vacant parcel, landscaped in “a yard
like condition,” is inappropriate within the context of the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District, on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Appellant Category B: Error(s) in Calculation to Evaluation Demolition; Both the
Applicant’s and the City’s Estimates Support Demolition
o The applicant is appealing the findings that the historic structure does have
economic life remaining.
- Appellant Category C: The Staff Report also includes misleading, erroneous and irrelevant findings- which support the reversal of the decision to deny the COA
o The applicant is appealing the manner in which the Department of Community
Development processed the Certificate of Appropriateness application.
Categories B and C include a number of items, as included below. As the appeal is on the basis and record of the original action, Staff has not reanalyzed the COA application. The original staff report has been attached.
Instead, Staff has included each of the items from the appeal in italics and provided a note after
each of the points of the appeal to where the subject is discussed in the original application
materials, original action by the Director, or noted the applicability of the point as shown in italics.
Appellant Category A: Subsequent Treatment of the Site:
1. 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.
The application was deemed acceptable and adequate for review with the above-described plan
for subsequent treatment of the site. Such a determination does not imply approval. The
application was denied because the above-described site treatment plan did not satisfy the
5
Criteria for a COA, as described in Sec. 38.16.050.B BMC, and evaluated on page six of the
COA Staff Report.
The example provided by the appellant is not an equal comparison. The residence at 214 East Lamme was not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) either individually or as part of a historic district. The 214 East Lamme Street residence contributed to a potential
historic district, however, Staff analysis of the neighborhood found that surrounding properties
lacked sufficient historic integrity to create a historic district.
The residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue is listed on the NRHP as part of the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District. The Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District applies different chapters and criteria depending on
if the property is inside of or outside of an established historic district. A chart found on page 13
of the Design Guidelines instructs users on when to utilize different chapters of the Design
Guidelines in evaluating a Certificate of Appropriateness application. The chart is included on the next page of this memo.
Per this chart, Chapter 5 “District Specific Descriptions and Guidelines” of the Design
Guidelines was used to evaluate the proposed subsequent development of 430 South Tracy. Per
the footnote in the chart, Chapter 2, 3, and 4 guidelines were applied more rigorously in
reviewing the proposed subsequent development in the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District.
6
7
Appellant Category B: Error(s) in Calculation to Evaluation Demolition; Both the
Applicant’s and the City’s Estimates Support Demolition
1. Section 38.16.050 MBA [sic] 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.
The Department of Community Development sought a third party verification of the costs to
rehabilitate the existing structure. The Director of Community Development has this authority under Sec. 38.34.020.B (BMC):
The planning director may in the administration of this chapter consult with other persons
having expertise in relevant subject areas as in the planning director's opinion is necessary
for the review of the proposed development or administration of the chapter. When an authority other than the planning director is assigned responsibility for a particular standard that authority shall coordinate with the planning director in administration of that standard.
Staff utilized the data provided by the applicant, and by a third party contractor, to evaluate the
economic life remaining of the existing structure on page 17 of the COA Staff Report. This
evaluation is based on data provided by the applicant. The applicant now asserts this information
did not address all of the available options for further development on the site. Lack of clear information from the applicant is not sufficient reason to overturn the Administrative Project
Decision for the project.
The appeal materials do not include a revised applicant estimate of the cost to rehabilitate the
structure. If such a revised estimate were to remove the Contractor Fees, Overhead and Profit,
the applicant’s estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure would logically be less than the $323,000.00 indicated in the original COA application. Removal of these fees from the bid may
actually create a cost estimate to rehabilitate the structure less than the $294,470.00 estimated by
the applicant to demolish and replace the structure. As the appeal materials do not include a
revised cost estimate, Staff cannot evaluate this item.
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 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 $100 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.
Staff’s finding of cost to rehabilitate vs. demolition and replacement can be found beginning on
page 18 of the Staff Report. As found on page 19 of the Staff Report, Staff used the $110 per
square foot figure in evaluating the economic life remaining in the existing structure.
The above phrase was included in the Staff Report for Application Z14090 because Staff believes the $110/ square foot Means Cost Estimate may not be an accurate reflection of the cost
to construct a new residential structure in Downtown Bozeman. The issue came up during the
June 2014 BHPAB meeting, in which a BHPAB member indicated that her experience was more
like $150-160 dollars per square foot, before interior finishes. Given the proximity to other
8
existing structures and related expenses to protect adjacent properties, the Means estimate of
$110 dollars/ square foot for new construction in a suburban subdivision seems to not take fully
into account the practical issues of new construction in downtown Bozeman. Other data, however, is not available; which is why Staff utilized the $110/ square foot statistic in the economic analysis.
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 [sic]of viable economic or useful life remaining in the structure.
Denial of the COA was issued based on the cost estimate information provided by the applicant. The applicants have not provided the City with a revised cost estimate, which removes the
contractor profit and fees from the bid, to rehabilitate the residence into a single household
dwelling.
The property’s legally non-conforming status enables rehabilitation of the structure into multiple dwelling units, which could further subsidize preservation of the structure. This approach is contemplated on page 19 of the Staff Report. Applicant has not addressed this alternative either
with the original application or as part of their appeal. Therefore, the appellant has no basis to
assert that the required showing of ‘no economic life remaining’ has been satisfied.
4. City’s third party contractor expressly states the “project will be expensive and hazardous.”
This is an accurate statement. Demolition of a structure, and new construction, is also expensive
and hazardous. Neither of these are criteria for considering approval of the requested demolition
or issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
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.
The cost analysis provided by the applicants with the initial COA application did not
contemplate the cost to rehabilitate the three or four apartments in the existing structure. In lieu
of that information, Staff used the figure of $323,000 to rehabilitate the structure provided by the applicant. The applicant has not provided their own estimate of the cost to rehabilitate the structure into three or four dwelling units.
Staff arranged the cost evaluation in this manner in order to clarify formatting differences
between the applicant’s cost estimate and that provided by the third party contractor, which
deducted $10,000 in cost to rehabilitate the property to 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.
The COA application materials did not provide a cost estimate to replace a triplex or fourplex. In lieu of this information, Staff used the estimate available from the applicant. The appeal
materials do not provide additional information about the cost to rehabilitate the structure into a
triplex or fourplex.
9
The third party contractor was not asked to provide an estimate of the cost to demolish and
rebuild a structure, which is why “N/A” is shown in the far right column on page 19. The
applicants estimate for demolition and replacement was used throughout the economic analysis.
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 reframing
some of the structure,” and further notes that “some items are guesstimates [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.
The third party contractor’s estimate to rehabilitate the structure into a triplex or a single family
household still provides viable data indicating that the structure retains economic viability.
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 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 nonconforming status is no longer valid. This invalidates the City’s case for rehabilitating the building
as a triplex or fourplex.
It is appropriate to consider the range of alternatives available when determining whether a
property has economic life remaining. The existing structure has been used for an existing lawful non-conforming use. The long-standing application of Section 38.32.010 by the City has been that mere non-use alone is not adequate to establish abandonment but there must also be intent to
abandon. No statement of abandonment of the non-conforming use has been submitted nor has
an alternative conforming use yet been approved for the property. Therefore, intent to abandon
has not been established. The determination was based on the economics of rehabilitating the structure into either single or multiple household dwelling units, in which case the available evidence indicated the structure retained economic viability.
In the original staff report, page 13, it is stated that the existing zoning allows development of the
site, including the existing structure, into more than a single detached dwelling. Therefore, the
structure could still be rehabilitated into either one or two-dwelling units in a manner more economically viable than demolition and replacement.
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.
HPO Kramer communicated with project applicant Rob Pertzborn and the appeal applicant Jecyn Bremer, of Gallik Law Firm, via email on Tuesday, August 12, 2014. In that email, Mr.
Pertzborn inquired, “Out of curiosity – did he [the third party contractor] get the structural
report? Also, for my education, can you let me know how much he was paid to do the estimate?
This would give me insight into how much time he was able to put into the exercise.”
HPO Kramer responded, “Yes, he received the structural report. In all projects like this, the consultant is provided all of the information provided by the applicant in order to similarly
10
inform their review of the property.” Subsequent to this email exchange, HPO Kramer clarified
with Director of Community Development Wendy Thomas the information provided to the third
party contractor. The contractor was provided with the structural report and the categories of work to provide an estimate on, but not the applicant’s estimates, as explained on page 18 of the Staff Report.
Appellant Category 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 [sic] that one letter in support of demolition was
submitted by neighbors, Matt & Lisa Pocock.
The letter from neighbors Matt & Lisa Pocock was received by the Department of Community Development on April 30, 2014, before the revised application was received on May 15, 2014
and outside of the Public Comment period between June 17 and August 1, 2014. As the
communication was received outside of the public comment period, the Pocock’s letter was not
included in analysis of the project. HPO Kramer responded in writing to the Pococks on May 6,
2014, informing them that the application was incomplete at the time. No further communication was received by the Department of Community Development. This communication is included
in the paper file for the project and included as an attachment to this staff report.
HPO Kramer made the determination to set aside the Pocock’s letter due to the language in the
Administrative Project Review findings (underlined emphasis added), as found on page five of
the Staff Report:
B) It appeared to the Director of Community Development that all parties and the public
wishing to examine the proposed site plan and offer comment were given the
opportunity to do so. After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory
bodies established by Section Chapter 38, Article 33, BMC, and considering all matters of record presented with the application and during the public comment period defined by Chapter 38, BMC, the Director of Community Development has
found that the proposed sketch plan does not comply with the requirements of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. Therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come
before her regarding this application, the Director of Community Development makes the following decision.
In deference to the Public Comment Period published with the Public Notice, the Department of
Community Development similarly set aside an email received from Preservation Board member
Steve Keuch, which is also included as an attachment to this staff report. As outlined above, the
Preservation Board did not take formal action on the COA application because the third party cost estimate to rehabilitate the structure was not available during their June 2014 meeting.
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 & 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.
Sec. 38.16.050.A BMC, “Standards for certificates of appropriateness,” states that:
11
“All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness
shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation
Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the planning department).”
There are four Standards:
Restoration (high level, exacting restoration of original materials, features,
spaces, etc.)
Preservation (medium level, arresting further decay, keeping structure as-is)
Reconstruction (high level, an exacting reconstruction of a non-extant structure based on archival and physical evidence)
Rehabilitation (lowest level, which allows modifications to a structure to meet
continuing or changing uses without damaging a building’s historic character).
HPO Kramer explained the suitability for using the Rehabilitation Standards on page six of the Staff Report. HPO Kramer directly quoted all ten of the Rehabilitation Standards
into the Staff Report, beginning at the bottom of page six.
The Standards do not contemplate demolition of historic structures. The fact that the
COA application cannot satisfy seven of the ten Rehabilitation Standards substantiates
the Department’s denial of the COA request.
Further, the appeal does not fully quote Standard #7. As seen on page seven of the Staff Report,
Rehabilitation Standard #7 states:
Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Demolition causes damage to historic materials.
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 façade. 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.”
The Updated Property Record Form was prepared by the applicant. HPO Kramer, who has a
Master’s Degree in Historic Preservation, disputed the finding in the Updated Property Record
Form that the modifications to the building were so extensive as to make the property “non-
contributing” within the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District.
As explained on page 16 of the Staff Report, HPO Kramer “asked the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review the updated Property Record Form and concur or object to
the findings in the updated Property Record Form. The SHPO provided comment on August 7,
2014, and agreed with the Bozeman HPO by saying that the modifications were made during the
12
period of significance for the S. Tracy/ S. Black Historic District, and thus do not adversely
affect the property’s historic integrity.” The SHPO’s letter was included as an attachment to the
staff report.
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 108,900SF. 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.
As previously discussed, an application proposing demolition of a historic structure must
propose a subsequent development that can receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. The COA
application pointed to the varying lot sizes found historically in the neighborhood as a reason that the proposed vacant and landscaped parcel could satisfy the COA criteria.
In recognizing that larger parcels existed, HPO Kramer evaluated why the larger parcels existed
and where. The archival research indicated that a vacant space of any substantial size did not
exist at 430 South Tracy Avenue.
In evaluating the neighborhood’s pattern of development on page eight of the Staff Report, HPO Kramer found that larger parcels were present in the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District. Archival research indicates that these vacant spaces were present in two specific cases:
1) in association with the former Langhor Flowerland site, and 2) due to the proximity to a
watercourse. The Staff Report states:
“As evidenced by the history of the properties at 424, 430 and 436 South Tracy Avenue, a large yard area did not historically exist between 424 and 436 South Tracy Avenue. This development would not restore a historic setting condition for
the east side of the 400 block of South Tracy Avenue, as shown in the Sanborn
Fire Insurance Maps of the area included with this Staff Report in Appendix F (link).”
The scale of the “large yard area” or “larger parcel” is irrelevant. A yard of any size larger than the traditional side yard setbacks did not exist historically between the residences at 424 and 430
South Tracy Avenue. In terms of the specific site of 430 South Tracy Avenue, development of
the property into a landscaped parcel would not reconstruct a historic landscape feature in the
South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District.
The City also has no guarantee that the parcel will be developed in the future.
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 applicants
understanding that the Board declined to make a recommendation as noted at pages 16 and 33 of the Staff Report.
The applicant’s understanding of the Board’s action is correct; the Board did not make a formal
recommendation for the COA application. The Board did, however, review the COA application,
pose questions and consider the matter during their June 19, 2014 meeting. The Board’s minutes
were included in the Staff Report for the Review Authority’s consideration while evaluating the
COA application.
13
The aforementioned section of the Staff Report is:
C) The sketch plan and Certificate of Appropriateness have been found to not meet the criteria of Chapter 38, BMC, and is therefore denied. The evidence contained in the submittal materials, advisory body review, public testimony, and this report, justify the denial of the application in light of the application’s failure to
satisfy all applicable criteria of Chapter 38, BMC.
On this ______ day of ____________, 2014, Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development, deny this site plan for and on behalf of the City of Bozeman as authorized by Section 38.34.010, BMC.
As a result of the denial, a stay of demolition or moving permit shall be enacted in
conformance with Sec. 38.16.080.A.4 BMC.
The phrase “The evidence contained in the submittal materials, advisory body review, public testimony, and this report…” leaves open the option for the Review Authority to consider the minutes from the Board meeting without requiring a formal recommendation from the Board.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The appeal asserts that the Director acted incorrectly in reviewing
and denying the application. The unresolved issue is whether the Director correctly applied the
applicable standards.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available:
1. Uphold the original denial of application Z14090, including conditions and code requirements
as established by the Director’s August 15, 2014 decision;
2. Grant the appeal after making findings as to which of the criteria are not met which would
overturn the Director’s original action and approve application Z14090; or
3. Find that the Director’s original action was incorrect in some element, make alternative findings, and approve application Z14090 with alternative conditions.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No budgeted expenditures will be affected by this application. In general,
vacant land is less valuable that with structures which means demolition reduces revenues.
Report compiled on: October 6, 2014
Attachments: Appeal application and justification
Staff Report and decision by Director
Printed:April10,2014CallsForServiceReportCallID:14030500621.Agency2.PersonReceived3.Date/TimeReceived5.TimeArrived7.Case#Complaint03052Q1412:04I12:144.TimeDispatched6.TimeCompleteIBPDIIjl2:0812:318.NatureOfIncidentSuspiciousActivity9.LocationOfIncident430STRACYAyE,BOZEMANMT10.VictimorCaller11.ClassificationI12.HowReceived13.DispositionI14.Officer15.DateSubmittedPUBLICASSISTANCEPHONE’ICADCALLGONEONKlundt,WilliamCharlesI03052014ARRIVALfNotes:REBELIEVESAHOMELESSPERSONHASMOVEDINTOTHISPROPERTYNOTSUREIfTHEYARETHERE NOWTHEPROPERTYISSUPPOSEDTOBEVACANTRPISWAITINGONSCENEFORANOFFICER**LOlsearchcompletedat03051412:04:31Recommendedunit167forrequirementPATROL_OFFICERBEATPD(>1.1mi)ARUNCARDWILLNOTBESENTFOREVENTB1403050062167ADVTHERESIDENCEISCLEAR167Unabletolocate anyone.I-loweveritwasevidentsomeonehadbeeninthere.144spoketoowner about securingproperty.EXHIBITR_CfsvlI
1CallsForServiceReportCallID:1403050076Pnnted:Apnl10,20141.Agency2.PersonReceived3.DatelTimeReceived5.TimeArrived7.Case#BPDComplaint03 05201413:2913:294.TimeDispatched6.TimeComplete13:2913:298.NatureOfIncidentNuisanceProperty9.LocationOfIncident430STRACYAyE,BOZEMANMT10.VictimorCaller11.Classification12.HowReceived13.Disposition14.Officer15.DateSubmittedGENERALPOLICEOFFICER’ICADREPORTTAKENGappmayer,Charles03052014Notes:Field EventLOTsearchcompletedat03051413:29:14Complaintoftransients enteringavacantresidence.Residencewassearchedbyofficersandsomeonehadbeenlivingthere.Propertyownerwascontactedandagreedtosecuretheresidence.Officerdidafollowupthenextweekandtheresidencehadbeensecured.RC(svl
Printed:April10,2014CallsForServiceReportCallID:1403090088I.Agency2.PersonReceivedI3.DateiTimeReceived5.TimeArrivedI7.Case#Complaint0309201416:13I16:274.TimeDispatchedI6.TimeCompleteIBPDII16:1816:358.NatureOfIncidentSuspiciousPersonRpt9.LocationOfIncident430STRACYAyE,BOZEMANMT10.VictimorCaller11.Classification12.HowReceived13.Disposition14.OfticerI15.DateSubmitted1NfOR.lATIONONLYPHONE’ICADCALLFO\lAT1ONLee,MichaelI03092014ONLYINotes:LOIsearchcompletedat03091416:13:24SPECIALADDRESSCOMMENT:<<<<<CHECKfNFOBUTTONFOROWNERCONTACTS‘>‘>LOCNISABANDHOUSEHOUSEWASRECENTLYCLEAREDBYPOLICE,HADSQUATTERINSIDE,HOMEWASBOARDEDUPRPSAYSTODAYNOTICEDAMANWENTTOTHEBACKDOORANDTRIEDTOGETIN,OCCDANHOURORSOAGOSAWAWMAJ3O-4OYEARSOLDISHOULDERLENGTHDARKHAIR /POSSDRKGREENDENIMSTYLECOAT,BLKBAGGYPANTSNOTCARRYINGANYTIIINCRPWANTSOFFICERSAWAREINCASEHETRIESTOBREAKBACKINR_Cfsvf
PrintedApril10,2014CallsForServiceReportCallID:14032700021.AgencyI2.PersonReceivedI3.DatelTimeReceivedI5.TimeArrived7.Case#ComplaintI03272014...00:21I00:26I4.TimeDispatched6.TimeCompleteII4o3’7OOoIBPDI00:2200:498.NatureOfIncidentCriminalTrespassInProgress9.LocationOfIncident430STRACYAyE,BOZEt’vIANMT10.VictimorCaller11.Classification12.HowReceivedI13.Disposition14.Officer15.DateSubmittedCRIME‘PHONE’ICAD...REPORTjSteinbrecher,...03272014...TAKENNotes:SPECIALADDRESSCOMMENT:<<<<<CHECKINFOBUTTONFOROWNERCONTACTS>>>>>THEREISAMALETRYINGTOGETINTOTHISRESIDENCEIT ISSUPPOSEDTOBEVACANTLOfsearch completedat0327.1400:22:25**Recommendedunit187forrequirementPATROL_OFFiCER(2.3mm)Recommendedunit180forrequirementPATROL_OFFICER(>2.7mi)ARUNCARDWILLNOTBESENTFOREVENTB1403270002UNKDESCRIPTIONRPJUSTHEARDSOMETHINGOVERTHERELOlsearchcompletedat03271400:43:29187:Policereceivedareportofsomeonetryingtobreakintoavacant residence.Officersfoundevidenceofsomeoneattemptingentry.R_Cfsvl
NCDENIDATAtIuVCTMAgencyNameBozemcinPoliceDepartmentOR.1LocationofIIent430STracyAye,Bozentan,MT59715itVictims1IType IndividualInjuryNoneHomeAddrasVictim’UCRStatus-DatePrintedat:4/10/201414:12INCIDENTIINVESTIGATIONOCAREPORT1403270001DatelimeReportedIt!Mar27,2014Crimeincident12CR0511Local Statute 45-5-204MtLastKnosnSecureBURGLARY,RES[DE.VCEQCornT!titat2’,201400.15CrimeIncident12CRLocalStatuteAnAtFoundCCon,TFti’hv’2’201400:26CnmeIntident12CRLocalStimiaAnCCom01:51HowAtackedorCommittedPremiseTypeResidence,HomeWeaponIToolsForcibleEntryCYesNo0N AOtTenneTm:’Victim/BusinessNamefLast,First,Middle)VictimofCrimeAgeDODRaceSeVi140327000!,Uiknow,,.--00Relat:onshtpioOttendersuuIResidencySiaw%UnknownEmployerName‘AddressBusinessPhoneMakeModelStyleColorLieLieVINHomePhoneoCODES:V.Victim(DenoteV2.V30Owner(itotherthanvictimRReportingPerson(ifotherthanvictimtIOtherInvolvedTCodeName(Last.First,Middle)VictimofAeBOBRaceScCrime#HRPIERHomeAddressHomePhoneS.__
__—-—EmploycrNme’AddressBusiness PhoneNV0LVEDCodeName(Last,First,Middle)VictimofCrimeHomeAddressEmployerName/AddressStatusLLostS=StolenR=RcovercdB=DamagedZ=SeizedB=BurnedCCounterfeitIForgedF=FoundUUnknownCodes(Check“OJ”columni’recoveredforotherjurisdictionAge!D0RaceScHomePhoneBusinessPhoneValue0]QTYPropertyDescriptionMake/ModelSerialNumberPRO—PERTYNumberofVehiclesStolen0NumberVehiclesRecovered0OfficerOffkerSignatureSuperviaorSianantreID(187.)STEINBRECHER,ANDREWQUINN(1457LACROSS,JASONJOHVComplainantSignatureCase Status:CaseDisposition:Closed/clearedNoLeadsi’.turclt 27,20)4Mar27,2014Page:1
Bo:o,nanPoticeDepcss’trneittIncidentIInvestigationReportOCA:1403270001IStatus
L=LostS=Stolen
RRecoveredD=DornacedZ=Seized
B=Burned
CCounterfeit
ForgedFFjord
UUn,noonCodes—StatusQuantityTypeMeasure
SopcctedDrugTypeDRUCSIOffender(s)SuspectedofUsin’OffenderIOffender2Offender3Pt-ima.yOffenderFResident
StatusFDDi-ugsNAAgeRaceSex.AgeRacSex AgeRace Sex.ResidentNAlcoholOffender4Offender5Offender6Non-Resident0ComputerAgeRaceSexAgeRaceSeAge:RaceSen.UnknossnName(Last.First,Middle)HomeAddressAlsoKnownAsOccupation
BusinessAddresDOB./AgeRaceSexHgtWgtBuildHairColorEyeColorHairStyleHairLengthGlassesScars,Marks,Tstoos,orotherdis
t
inguish
ing
features
(ielimp,foreignaccent,voice
charactenstte)PECTCostSuitSocksPantsrDressSkinShoesDirectionofiravelModeofTravelLieLisVinSuspectHate/BiasMotivated:0Yes No‘Name(Last, First,Middle)TNBHomeAddressPhoneSSAssistingOfficers,(146)SCIIUMACHER,COLTONER(180)SINNESS,CHRISTOPHERPALMERIPolicereceivedacallfrom-reponingsomeonewasattemptingtoenteravacantvresidencenexttohers.Shedidnot seeanyonebutcotitdhearthem.OfficersarrivedandlocatedBfootprintsinthesnowshowingsomeonehadwalkedaroundtheresidencegoingtoeachexteriordoor.Officerslocatedsnowonasidedoorintheshapeofabootindicatingsomeonehadattemptedtokickinthedoor.Officerscheckedalldoorsontheresidenceandfoundittobesecure. Thefootprints werephotographed.SexPrintedat:4/10/201414:12Page:2
Printed:April10,2014CallsForServiceReportCallID:13087301091.Agency2.PersonReceived3.DateiTimeReceived5.TimeArrived7.Case#IComplaintI13201316:19I16:364.TimeDispatchedt6.TimeCompleteIBPDI16:3116:568.NatureOfIncidentSuspiciousActivity9.LocationOfIncident430STRACYAVE,BOZEMANMT10.VictimorCaller11.ClassificationI12.HowReceivedI13.Disposition14.Officer15,DateSubmittedCRIMEOTHERGONEONIAnderson,ClintWI08132013ARRIVALINotes:LOIsearchcompletedat08l31316:29:42PSADVTHATTHISHAS BEENANABANDHOUSEFORSEVERALYEARSRPJUSTPASSEDBYTHEHOUSEANDSAWAMALESITTINGONTHEPORCItWABEERANDTHERESHOULDNTBEAW’BODYLIVINGTHEREHOUSEISUNLIVABLEPSSAWTHEMALEABOUTI2KRAGODKHAIR30-40YOATSHIRT,POSSK!IAKISMALEISNOWGONEFROMTHERESNOSTRANGEVEHS AROUNDRPWOULDLIKEACBAFTEROFFICERSRESPOND**Recommendedunit173forrequirementPATROLOFFICERBEAT_PD(0.4mm)ARUNCARDWILLNOTBESENTFOREVENTB1308130109173ADVOPENDOORFOR HOUSE173-Lookedforamanthat wassittingonaporchofahousethatd!dntbelongtohim.R_Cfsvl
MattandLisaPocock407S.TracyAvenueBozernan,MT59715April28,2014CityofBozemanDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentP.O.Box1230Bozeman,MT59771RE:430S.TracyAve.DemolitionToWhomItMayConcern:Ithascometoourattentionthattheownerofaneighboringvacanthouse(430S.TracyAve.)wantstotearitdownsohecanselltheemptylandforfuturehomeconstruction.Ourhouseislocatedacrossthestreetandacoupledoorsnorthofthehouseinquestion,whichhasstoodvacantforeightyears.Thehotisehasbeenconsideredateardownforaslongaswe’velivedhereandhasbeenforsaleforquitesometime.Recently,itwasboardedupforsecurityreasons,makingitevenmoreofaneyesorefortheneighborhood.Wesupportthedemolitionofthehouseandclearingofthelotsothevacantlandcanbesoldallreadyfornewconstruction.Theloiwouldlookbetterthanitcurrentlydoesandprobablysellmoreeasilywithoutnewownershavingtodealwiththeold,decrepithouse.Weunderstandthatthecurrent ownerwouldsellthepropertywithasetofguidelinestohelpensurethatthe newhomebuilttherewouldfitwiththecharacterofourhistoricneighborhood.Ultimately,wefeelthatdemolishingtheoldhouseandthusenablingtheconstructionofanewhomeonthatlotwouldimprovetheneighborhoodandhelpincreasethevalueofallnearbyhouses.Sincerely,MattandLisaPocockEXHIBITIs
CITYOFBOZEMANDEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTAlfredM.StiffProfessionalBuildingphone406-582-2260vV20EastOliveStreetfax406-582-2263P.O.Box1230planning@bozeman.netBozeman,Montana59771-1230www.bozeman.netMay6,2014Matt&Lisa Pocock407SouthTracyAvenueBozeman,Mt59715RE:430SouthTracyAvenueDearMr.&Mrs.Pocock,TheDepartmentofCommunity DevelopmentreceivedyourletterofApril28,2014offeringsupportforthedemolitionoftheresidenceat430SouthTracyAvenue.ThepropertyislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesaspart oftheSouth Tracy!SouthBlackAvenueHistoricDistrict. Yourletterhasbeenaddedtothemostrecentapplicationfilefortheproperty.BozemanMunicipalCodeprohibitstheDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentfromacceptingandprocessingapplicationsfordemolition ofhistoricpropertiesunless thedemolitionapplicationisincludedwithafullplanfortheredevelopmentoftheproperty.ThisinformationwascommunicatedtothepropertyownerinaNovember22,2013memo,whichIhaveincludedwiththisletter.Thankyouforyourinterestinthis matter.Sincerely,CourtneyKramerHistoricPreservationOfficerIEXHIBITDevelopmentReviewDivision PolicyandPlanningDivisionBuilJ—C
CITYOFBOZEMANDEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTAlfredM.StiffProfessionalBuildingphone406-582-226020EastOliveStreetfax406-582-2263P.O.Box1230planning@bozeman.netBozeman,Montana59771-1230www.bozeman.netNovember22,2013GTInvestments,LLC424SouthTracyAvenueBozeman,MI59715RE:CertificateofAppropriatenessapplicationfordemolitionoftheexistingresidenceat430SouthTracyAvenue.ThepropertyislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesaspartoftheSouthTracy!SouthBlackHistoricDistrict.DearMr.Talbot,Theabove-referencedCertificateofAppropriateness(COA)applicationfor430SouthBlackAvenuewasreceivedbytheDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentonNovember18,2013.TheCOAapplicationwaspreliminarilyreviewedbyDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentStaffinaccordancewiththesubmittalchecklistandSection38.41oftheUnifiedDevelopmentCodefUDC)andunfortunatelydoesnotappeartomeetalltherequirements.Therefore,theapplicationatthistimeisdeemedunacceptableforfurtherreview.BozemanMunicipalCode(BMC)38.16.080A1directsthat“applicationsforthedemolitionormovementofstructureswithintheconservationdistrictwillnotbeacceptedwithoutacompletesubnittalforthesubsequentdevelopmentortreatmentofthesiteafterthedemolitionormovementhasoccurred.Thesubsequentdevelopmentortreatmentmustbeapprovedbeforeademolitionormovingpermitmaybeissued.”Theabove-referencedapplicationdescribesthepropertyowner’sdesiretodevelopanewresidentialuseonthesite.Inorderfortheapplicationtobeacceptableforreview,theapplicationshouldincludethefulldesignofthenewresidentialdevelopment,includingthefollowingitemsontheCOAApplicationChecklist:2.Sketchplan,withnorthatthetopofthepage,includingsiteboundaries,accuratelotandbuildingareadimensions,streetandalleyfrontageswithnames,andlocationofallstructureswithdistancestothenearestfootbetweenbuildingsandfrombuildingstopropertylines.4.Materialsandcolorschemestobeused.5Plans,sketches,pictures,specificationsandotherdatathatwillclearlyexpresstheapplicant’sproposedalterations.TheMontanaPropertyRecordFormprovidedwiththeapplicationisalsoincomplete.The“Integrity”sectiononpagefourreferstohistoricintegrity,notstructuralintegrity.Historicintegrityisanevaluationoftheproperty’srelationshiptoitshistoriclocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feelingandassociation.MoreinformationabouthistoricintegrityisavailableinthisbulletinfromtheNationalParkService:http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb348.htmHIBITDevelopmentReviewDivisionPolicyandPlanningDivisionBuildi___
_
_
_
___
_
_
_
_
Oncetheapplicationdrawingsandmaterialsarerevisedtodepicttheitemsabove,pleasesubmitatotaloftwopapersetsandtwodigitalsets.PleasebeawarethatperBMC38.40“Noticing,”thedemolitionofstructureslistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesreceivesanoticepostedonsite fornotlessthan15days.Ifyouhavequestionsaboutthismemoortheproposeddevelopment,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeat406-582-2289orckramer@bozeman.nettoscheduleameeting.Sincerely,-CourtneyKramerjPlannerI!HistoricP/eservationOfficerCC:IntrinsikArchitecture,111NorthTracyAvenue,Bozeman,MT597152
1
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.
2
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
3
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
4
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 reframing 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.
5
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 façade. 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.
430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition & Site Treatment
Sketch Plan/COA Application for Demolition 13 May 2014
“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 8## Neighborhood Examples
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
Section 3
Existing Conditions
(Maps, Site Photographs and Civil Survey)
Vicinity Map
430 South Tracy Avenue
Source: Bozeman GIS Department
Subject Property
Zoning: R-2
Subject Property
Aerial Image
430 South Tracy Avenue
Source: Bozeman GIS Department
Subject Property
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
West Elevation
East Elevation
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
West and South Elevations
West and North Elevations
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
Interior (Image A)
Interior (Image B)
Photographs
430 South Tracy Avenue
Interior (Image C)
Interior (Image D)
Section 4
Structural Analysis
Section 5
Updated Historic Property Record
430 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, Montana | Historic Property Record Form Update
DRAFT Updated 5/13/14 by
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 8th Ave Helena, MT 59620-1202
Property Address: 430 South Tracy Avenue
Historic Address (if applicable): 430 South Tracy Avenue
City/Town: Bozeman MT 59715
Site Number: (An historic district number may also apply.)
County: Gallatin County
Historic Name: unknown
Original Owner(s): James N. Kelley
Current Ownership Private Public
Current Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue
Owner(s): GHT Investments LLC
Owner Address: 424 S Tracy Avenue, Bozeman MT
Phone: 1 406 599 8520
Legal Location
PM: Montana Township: 2S Range: R6 E
of Section: 7
Lot(s): Lots 14, 15, S 6’ Lot 16
Block(s): F
Addition: Hoffman’s Addition Year of Addition: 1880
USGS Quad Name: Bozeman, MT Year: 1987
Historic Use: Residence
Current Use: Vacant
Construction Date: Pre-1904 (1898- 1904)
Estimated Actual
Original Location Moved Date Moved:
UTM Reference www.nris.mt.gov/topofinder2
NAD 27 (preferred) NAD 83
Zone: Easting: Northing:
National Register of Historic Places
NRHP Listing Date: n/a
Historic District: South Tracy/ South Black Historic Neighborhood District
NRHP Eligible: Yes No
Date of this document: September 2013
Form Prepared by: Intrinsik Architecture, Inc.
Address: 111 North Tracy Avenue
Daytime Phone: 406-582-8988
MT SHPO USE ONLY Eligible for NRHP: □ yes □ no
Criteria: □ A □ B □ C □ D Date: Evaluator:
Comments:
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 façade 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 façade 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 23rd 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 4
Property 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 façade. 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 over time.
e: n
A
e: n
A
e: n
A
X
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:
West Elevation Streetscape along South Tracy Avenue (white colored house)
West Elevation Streetscape along South Tracy Avenue (white colored house)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PHOTOGRAPHS
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
West Elevation (facing South Tracy Avenue)
East Elevation (facing alley)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
Northwest Corner (facing street)
Southwest Corner (facing street)
Northeast Corner (facing alley)
Southeast Corner (facing alley)
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
SITE MAP
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
1891 Sanborn Map
1904 Sanborn Map
1912 Sanborn Map
1927-43 Sanborn Map
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Property Name: 430 South Tracy Avenue Site Number:
Field Survey. TD&H Engineering. November 12, 2012
Section 6
Cost Comparison
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
430 South Tracy Avenue Demolition & Site Treatment Plan
1. Demolish existing residence and remove all on-site concrete
2. Grade site 3. Seed
4. Maintain lawn (irrigate and mow) until such time redevelopment occurs
GRASS
Demolition & Site Treatment Plan430 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.
i. 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.
l. 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.
234 E Babcock #3 Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 586-0277 tdhengineering.com
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 # B14-062
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.
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,
Garrett Drake, PE Structural Engineer
Attachments: August 22, 2007 Structural Assessment Report by Brian May, PE
J:\2014\B14-062 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
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.
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.
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.
Photo 4 -- Example of one of the shafts and wells in the basement floor that requires filling.
Photos 5a & 5b -- Waviness of exterior stucco walls. Brickwork out-of-plumb & most likely in disrepair.
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.
Photo 8 -- Severe crack in stucco at northern window. This wall is significantly out-of-plumb.
Photos 9a & 9b -- Typical cracks in stucco from window corners to roof overhang.
Photo 10 -- Crack in stucco at window.
Photo 11 -- Severe crack in stucco between upper and lower level windows.
Estimate
Date
8/11/2014
Estimate #
157
Name / Address
City of Bozeman/Wendy Thomas
For:
430 S. Tracy
Bozeman, MT 59715
Shed Horn Designs
415 McEwen Dr
Belgrade, MT 59714
Project
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Stuart Smith 580-3569 Total
Description Qty Rate Total
Items listed below are estimates only. Further inspection and
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.
0.00 0.00
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 38,000.00
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
$315,700.00
BrianK.GallikGALLIKLAWFIRM,P.C.JecynN.BremerAttorneysatLawTheClarkBuilding421West MendenhallP0Box70Bozeman,Montana59771-0070(406)404-1728brian@galliklawfirm.comjbremer@galliklawfirm.comAugust29,2014BozemanCityCommissionCityClerk’sofficeSuite201,CityHallBYHAND121NorthRouseAvenueBozeman,MT59715Re:AppealofAdministrativeDecision—430SouthTracyAvenue(Application #Z-14090)HonorableMembersoftheBozemanCityCommission:WerepresentGeorgeTalbot/GHTInvestments,LLC,ownerof430SouthTracyAvenue(“S.Tracy fourplex”),andrespectfullysubmitthisinformationinsupportofourappealofthePlanningDirector’sdecisiontodenyhisApplicationforaCertificateofAppropriateness(COA)fordemolitionandtheimposedtwoyearstayondemolitionbeoverturned.1ThisletterisinadditiontotheinformationprovidedbyMr.Talbot’srepresentative,Intrinsik Architecture,andincludesadditional groundsfortheAppeal,aswellasevidencetosupport overturningtheadministrativedecision.2Inadditiontoservingaslegalcounselfor Mr.Talbot,thecommentsbelowarebasedonmybackgroundandexperienceinhistoricpreservation,includingagraduatedegreeinhistoricpreservation,overadecadeofhistoricpreservationconsultingexperience,includingNationalRegistereligibility1SeeSec.38.35.030.1,BozemanMunicipalCode(‘BMC”),whichprovides“[a]lternativeactionsavailabletotheappellatebody.Attheconclusionoftheconsiderationoftheappeal,thereviewauthoritymayuphold,amend,oroverturn theadministrativeprojectdecision.”Whilewebelieve thisistheappropriatecriteria toapply,theAppealalsoaddressestheerrorsintheadministrativedeterminationanddecision.Sec.38.35.010.D.5,BMC.Hearanddecide appealswhereitisallegedthereiserrorinanyorder,requirement,decisionordeterminationmadebyanadministrativeofficialintheenforcementofthischapteror ofanystandards adoptedpursuantthereto.Anaggrievedpersonmayappealthefinaldecisionoftheplanningdirectorinthemannerprovidedinthisarticle.AsdemonstratedbytheApplicationandAppeal,therewerenumerouserrorsintheStaffReport andrationale,relieduponbythePlanningDirectorinmakingherdeterminationtodenytheCOAandimposeatwoyearstayondemolition.Basedonthiserror,thedecisionordeterminationshouldbeoverturnedandtheCOAgranted.2SeeSubmittalMaterialsandRequirementsatSec.38.41.140,BMC.“Thespecificgroundsandallegationsfortheappeal,andevidencenecessarytosupportandjustifyadecisionotherthanasdeterminedbytheadministrativereviewauthority.”1
determinations,workfortheGeorgiaStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO),andserviceontheTampaHistoricPreservationCommission,whosemissionitwas“toidentify,preserveandpromotehistoricallysignificantbuildings,sites,objectsanddistrictsfortheeducational,culturalandeconomicbenefitofthecommunity,inadditiontoensuringresponsiblenewdevelopmentthroughoutthecity.”3I.IittroductionThesubjectoftheappealistheproposeddemolitionofthenon-conformingS.Tracyfourplexandtemporarysubsequenttreatment ofthesitewithsitegradingandlandscaping,untilpropertyissoldforfurtherresidentialdevelopmentconsistentwiththeBMC. TheinformationprovidedintheMay13,2014Application,additionalinformationprovidedasrequestedbyStaff, and thisAppealoverwhelminglysupportdemolitionasthe lesshazardousandexpensiveoption.TheMontanaLegislaturerecognizesthenecessityfor anddesirabilityof“reasonablecertainty,stability,andfairnessinthelanduseplanningandregulatoryprocess.”4TheLegislaturehasfurtherrecognizedthenecessityanddesirabilityof“stimulat[ing]economicgrowth,”“secur[ingJthereasonableinvestment-backedexpectationsofalandowner,”and“foster[ing]cooperationbetweenthepublic andprivatesectorsinlanduseplanningandregulation.”5Atalocal level,theappealprovisionsoftheBMCwereadoptedandestablishedto“grant[Jrelieffromtherequirementsofthischaptersubjecttothestandardsofthisarticleinordertopreserve equitableimplementationofthelaw,preventspecialtreatmenttoparticularpartiesandpreservethevariousrightsestablishedbythe stateandUnitedStatesconstitutionsofallpersonssubjecttothischapter.”6ThemisapplicationofthefactstotherequirementsoftheBMCanderrorsintheStaffReport relieduponinthedeterminationtodenyMr.Talbot’sCOAApplicationdonotreflectfairnessinthe land useregulatoryprocess,northeypreserve“equitableimplementationofthethelaw”northepreservationofpropertyrights.II.Costsofrepair/rehabilitationversuscostsofdemolitionandredevelopment,Section38.16.080.A.3ThedecisionontheCOAApplicationfordemolitionoftheS.TracyfourplexissubjecttotheprovisionsofSec.38.16.080,BMC.TheApplication,additionalinformationprovided,andthisAppeal,includingstructuralanalysisandcostestimates,demonstratethatthefourplexis“athreattopublichealthandsafety,”that“noreasonablerepairsoralterationswillremovesuchthreat,”andthe“structureorsitehasnoviableeconomicorusefulliferemaining.”7IIIhttp://www.tampagov.net/historic-preservation/about-us(AccessedAugust29,2014).‘Mont.CodeAnn.Section7-21-1001.Id.6SeeSec.38.35.010.,BMC.ProvidingthepurposeoftheAppeals,Deviations,and VarianceProcedurescode sections.Sec.38.16.080A.3.b.,BMC.2
A.ThreattoPublicHealtitandSafety,Section38.16.080.A.3.b(1)TheCity’sthirdpartyestimateandtheStructuralAssessmentReport8respectivelynotethatrehabilitationworkwouldbe“expensiveandhazardous”and“overwhelmingly”supportdemolitionandredevelopmentasthesafer,morepracticalandeconomicoption.TheS.TracyfourplexhasbeensignificantLyalteredovertheyears,includinginterioralterationsandthelargeandintrusiverearadditions,whichallowedtheformersinglefamilyresidencetobedividedintoseveralillegalapartments.Initscurrentcondition,thefourplexdoesnotmeetapplicablecodes.Whilethestructurehasnotbeenneglectedandisweathertightandsecure9,thestructuralissuesprecludingcosteffectiverehabilitationweresubstantiallythesamefollowingMr.Talbot’spurchaseoftheproperty,astheyarenow.10Furthermore,despiteMr.Talbot’seffortstowardmaintainingthesecurityofthebuilding,policereportsindicatesuspiciousactivityandcriminaltrespasswithtransientsenteringandattemptingtooccupythebuilding.Theownerhashadtoboardupthewindows(attherecommendationoftheCity)tosecurethepremises.SeeExhibitAattachedandincorporatedbyreference.TheStaffReport11doesnotacknowledgethesepublichealthandsafetyissues,andthedecisionmadebythePlanningDirectorfailedtorecognizethethreattopublichealthandsafetyresultingfromthestructuralcondition,thatrehabilitationwouldbehazardous’2,andthatnoreasonablerepairsoralterationswouldremovethethreatasthecostswouldfarexceedthevalueofthestructureasdemonstratedbytheapplicant’sandtheCity’scostestimates.Prohibitingthedemolitionofthispropertydoesnotfurthertheprotectionofpublichealthandsafety,ratherpreventsit,andfurtherishinderingMr.Talbot’sabilitytosellthepropertysoitmaybedevelopedandputtoausethatdoesfurthertheprotectionofpublichealthandsafety.B.NoViableeconomicorusefulliferemaining,Section38.16.080.A.3.bt’2)1.CostestimatesandStrztctttralAssessment—LackofBeneficialUse,PracticalandEconomicInfeasibilityofNon-DemolitionAlternativesTheCostComparisonprovidedatSection6oftheCOAApplication,theCity’sthirdpartyestimateandtheStructuralAssessmentReports“overwhelmingly”supportdemolitionandredevelopmentasthemostreasonable,economical,safeandpracticaloption.’3Again,theCity’sthirdpartyestimatestatesthatrehabilitationwouldbe“expensiveandhazardous.”Thecostestimates providedintheApplicationand8August22,2007TD&HStructuralAssessmentReport,includedaspartoftheCOAApplication,andJune13,2014TD&HPeerReviewof8/22/07StructuralAssessmentReport,whicharepartoftherecordforthisAppeal.SeealsoatStaffReport,page17.Thisnotanexampleofdemolitionbyneglect,contrarytocommentsbytheBozemanHistoricPreservationAdvisoryBoardminutes.Seeatpage33oftheStaffReport.10Seefn.4.‘Seeatpage17.12Seefn.8.133
bytheCity’sthirdpartyareconsistent,andtheerrorsinStaff’sapplicationofthosenumbershavebeenaddressedbythisAppeal.14Initscurrent conditiontheS.Tracyfourplexcannotbeputtobeneficialuse—itisnolongeralegalnonconforminguseandstructurallyisnotuptocode.Asdemonstrated,thecoststorehabilitatethepropertyoutweighthecostsofdemolitionandredevelopment—thusrehabilitationisnoteconomicallyviable.Requiringthestructuretoremainforafurthertwoyears,will,basedonpreviousyearsandfromtheowner’sperspective,preventthesaleandfuturedevelopmentofhislot,andinnowaysecuresthereasonableinvestmentbackedexpectationsofthepropertyowner,nor“foster[s]cooperationbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsinlanduseplanningandregulation.1DenialofMr.Talbot’srequesttodemolishthebuilding depriveshimofanyreasonablebeneficialuseoftheproperty.Mr.Talbothasreasonableinvestment-backedexpectationsinhisproperty.HeshouldbeabletorelyontheplainlanguageoftheBMCtohavehisApplication,whichclearlymeetsthoserequirements,approved.2.Nonconforini,zgUseTheStaffReport16proposesthatthenonconformitycontinueandthreedwellingunitsarelawful,becausesubstantialmodificationhasnotoccurredandtherehasnotbeenachangeinuserequiringthestructuretocomeinto“completecompliancewith modernzoningcoderequirements.”However,basedonSection38.32.OlO.D,BMC,’7thenonconformingconditionhaslapsedas,isourunderstanding,thefourplexhasnot beenlivedinforyears,muchlessmonths.Thus,theS.TracyfourplexmustbebroughtintoconformitywiththeBMC.Mr.Talbotisattemptingto dojustthis.Hecannot,astheCity’sestimateproposes“restore[thisbuilding]toafourunitcondition.”III.UpdatedPropertyRecordForm—LackofHistoric SigntjIcanceTheUpdatedProperty Record Formstates,“[t]hephysicalappearanceofthebuilding’sexteriorissuchthatitmaintainsonlysomeelementsofitsoriginalarchitecturaldesigninappearance,andmainlyonitswesternfaçade.Basedontheabsenceofcertainelementsitlosesconsiderablesignificanceandnolongermeetsthecriteria.”Havingbeenanhistoricpreservationconsultantforoveradecadepriortoandduringlawschool,Ihaveevaluatedhundredsof propertiesforNationalRegistereligibility,includinghistoricdistricts.Iagreewiththeaboveassessment.AsevidentbyacomparisonofthephotographsintheStaffReport,pages35-39,theS.Tracyfourplexisnotaparticularlygoodorsignificantexampleofitstypenorthebuilderswork.Thereareotherexamplesin thecommunity,notallincludedbyphotograph,representingtheworkofthebuilderthatembodymoreintegrityofstyleandstructure.Theapplicantshouldnotberequiredto14SeeIntrinsikArchitecture,August29,2014,Appealletter.15Mont.CodeAnn.Section7-21-1001.‘Seeatpage13.17“Wheneveralawfulnonconforminguseofabuilding,structureorlandisdiscontinuedforaperiodof90days, anyfutureuseofthebuilding,structureor landshallbeinconformitywiththeprovisionsofthischapter.”4
recreatehistorybyrehabilitatingastructureinwhichitislacking.Thatnotwithstanding,whetherornottheS.Tracyfourplexisconsideredcontributing,itisstillnoteconomicallyviabletorehabilitateasdemonstratedbytheApplicationandthisAppeal,includingstructuralanalysisandcostestimates.Again,theS.Tracyfourplexis“athreattopublichealthandsafety,”“noreasonablerepairsoralterationswillremovesuchthreat,”and“structureorsitehas noviableeconomicorusefulliferemaining.”18TheStaffReport’9statesthatdemolitionofthisstructure“wouldadverselyaffectthehistoricintegrityoftheadjoiningproperties.”Thisissimplynotthecase.Demolitionwillhavenodirect effectonthoseproperties,muchlesstheirintegrity,andwillinalllikelihood,improvetheneighborhoodandincreasethevalueofthoseadjoiningproperties.Demolitionwillalsoeliminateastructurethatdetractsfromthehistoriccharacteroftheblock,andallowforredevelopmentinconformancewiththeBMC.ThepubliccommentreceivedbytheCityinAprilanddiscussedinthenextsectionsupportsthis.IV.Pitbliccommentwasignored.Publiccommentwasreceived,contrarytotheStaffReport.2°AtleastoneletterwassubmittedtoandreceivedbytheCityonApril30,2014fromMattandLisaPocock,407S.Tracy Avenue,Bozeman,Montana59715.AcopyofthePocock’sletterisincorporatedbyreferenceandattachedasExhibitB.Thatletter expressedsupportforthedemolition,notinginparticular“[t]hehousehasbeenconsideredateardownforaslongas[they]have livedthere,”that“ithasbeenforsaleforquitesometime.”Theletterfurthernotes,“itwasrecentlyboardedupforsecurityreasons,makingitevenmoreofaneyesorefortheneighborhood,”and“[u]ltimately,[they]feelthatdemolishingtheoldhouseandthusenablingtheconstructionofanewhomeonthatlotwouldimprovetheneighborhoodandhelpincreasethevalueofallnearbyhomes.”Inresponsetothispubliccomment,theCitysentalettertothePocock’sonMay6,2014statingthattheletterhadbeenaddedtothemostrecentapplicationfilefortheproperty.AcopyoftheCity’sletterisincorporatedbyreferenceandattachedasExhibitC.TheApplicationwasresubmittedonMay13,2014,andnonewapplicationfeewasrequired.ThePocock’sletterclearlyreferredtothedemolitionof430S.Tracy.Itisquestionablethen,whythispubliccommentwasignoredbytheStaffReport. ThisfailstocomplywithMontanan’sConstitutionalRightofParticipation.2’Asnotedpreviously,theletter,whichispubliccommentfromneighboringpropertyowners,supportstheproposeddemolitionandredevelopmentoftheproperty.V.TwoYearStayofDemolitionSection38.16.080,BMC,providesthatastayofdemolitionis“inordertoallowtheapplicantandcitytoexplorealternativestothedemolitionormove, including,butnotlimitedto,theuseoftaxcreditsor18Sec.38.16.080A.3.b.,BMC.19Seeatpage10.20SeeatAppendixCoftheStaffReport,NoticingandPublicComment, page22.21Section8.Rightofparticipation.Thepublichastherighttoexpectgovernmentalagenciestoaffordsuchreasonableopportunityforcitizenparticipationintheoperationoftheagenciespriortothefinaldecisionasmaybeprovidedbylaw.ConstitutionofMontana,ArticleII,DeclarationofRights,MontanaCodeAnnotated(2013).5
adaptivereuse,and“thetwo-yearstaymaybeterminatedatanypointintimeifanalternateproposalisapprovedorifsufficientadditionalevidenceispresentedtootherwisesatisfytherequirementsofsubsection2or3ofthissection.”Adaptiveuseisnotaneconomicallyviableoptiongiventhestructuralconditionofthebuildingasreflectedinboththeapplicant’sandtheCity’s costestimates,andtheStructuralAssessmentReportsin2007and2014.TheApplication,additionalinformationandtheAppeal,satisfytherequirementsofSection38.16.080.,subsection3,BMC,andtherearenoeconomicallyviableandreasonablealternativestodemolition.Giventhis,thereisnolegitimatereasontoimposeastayofthedemolition.VI.ArbitraryandCapriciousSection38.16.080.A.l,BMC,statesthata“completesubmittalforthesubsequentdevelopmentortreatmentofthesite”isrequiredpriortoissuanceofaCertificateofAppropriatenessfordemolition.TheproposedApplicationincludesdemolitionandinterimsubsequenttreatmentofthesiteasagradedandlandscapedareatomakeway forfuturecompatibleresidentialdevelopment.InitiallytheCityrejectedtheApplicationandrequiredtheMr.Talbottoprovide“thefulldesignofthenewresidentialdevelopment.”SeeNovember22,2013letterfromtheCitytotheapplicant,attachedasExhibitD,andincorporatedbyreference.The CityagainreferredtothisrequirementintheresponselettertothepubliccommentsubmittedinApril,referencedaboveandattachedasExhibitC.Thatletterstates“BozemanMunicipalCodeprohibitstheDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentfrom acceptingandprocessingapplicationsfordemolitionofhistoricpropertiesunlessthedemolitionapplicationisincludedwithafullplanfortheredevelopmentoftheproperty.”Thisissimplynot true.TheplainlanguageofBozemanMunicipalCode(BMC)Section38.16.020.A.1.allowsapplicationsfordemolitionofstructureswithintheconservationdistrictwithacompletesubmittalforthesubsequentdevelopmenttreatmentofthesiteafterthe demolitionhasoccurred(emphasisadded).TheNovember2013COAApplicationprovidedacompletesubmittalforthedemolitionoftheS.Tracyfourplexandsubsequenttreatmentofthesiteafterthedemolition.ThatApplicationwaslateraugmentedbyaletterfrommyoffice statingasmuch,andtheApplicationwasresubmitted.TheStaffReport,page9,states that“[s]tafffindsthattheproposeddevelopmentofa“yard-likearea”isnotappropriateorcompatibleinthecontextoftheneighboringstructuresandadjoiningproperties.”TheBMCprovidesnostandardsforsubsequenttreatment,anddenyingtheCOA applicationmerelybecauseitdoesnotlikethetemporaryconditionofagrassylotinthisparticularlocationisunreasonable,arbitraryandcapricious—especiallywhentheCityhasdonethisverythingwhenitpurchased214EastLammeforthepotentialfutureexpansionofCityHall,andthehomewasdemolishedandtheinterimsubsequenttreatmentofthesiteiscurrentlycommunitygardens.TheCityapprovedthedemolitionoftheadjacentpropertyin2006,constructedbythesamebuilder,whichappearsfromthephotographsatpages37and39oftheStaffReporttohaveatthetimeretainedmoreinthewayofcharacterdefiningfeaturesthantheS.Tracyfourplex.Inthatcase,uponinformationandbelief, developmentplansweresubmittedforasinglefamilydwellingwithaccessorystructure.6
Additionally,theCityhasrecentlyapprovedademolitionCOAonSBlack,submittedwithdevelopmentplans.TheCitycannotinthisbackhandedway—bydenyingtheCOAfordemolition—requiredevelopmentplanswherenonearerequiredbytheBMC.VII.PolicyDirectionItisourunderstandingthatStaffmayhaverequestedorobtaineddirectionwithregardtosubsequenttreatmentfollowingdemolitionpossiblyinresponsetothesubsequenttreatmentasproposedbyMr.Talbot’sApplication(atemporarygrasscoveredlawn),andthatthistreatmentwas notwhateitherstaffortheCityCommissionwantedtosee.Accordingtotheminutes,discussionofdemolitionapplicationsappearstohaveoccurredbetweentheCityCommissionandStaffonJuly14,2014.Whilepolicymakingfallsunderlegislativeauthorityandwouldnotresultinexpartecommunications22,whenquasi-judicialactionsareimplicated,suchasMr.Talbot’sApplicationforaCOAfordemolitionandsubsequenttreatmentofhisproperty,expartecommunicationscanresult.Wehavenotyetreviewedthetranscriptorrecordingofthathearingsothepreciseexchangeisunclear.Thatnotwithstanding,suchadiscussion,ifitoccurred,wouldhaveoccurredwhileMr.Talbot’s Applicationwaspendingreview,wouldgotothemeritsoftheCOAApplication,whichhad notyetbeendecideduponbytheadministrativereviewauthority.WhileoneofMr.Talbot’srepresentativeswaspresent,thediscussionnonethelessgivestheappearancethattheCityCommissionmayhavealreadyunknowinglydecidedthisAppeal requestpriortotheAppealbeingsubmitted,foreclosingonMr.Talbot’sopportunityforaneutralandimpartialdecisionbasedontheAppeal,andataminimumgivingtheappearanceofunfairness.Attheveryleast,staff,knowingofMr.Talbots’Application,shouldhaveatleastcontinuedthediscussionofdemolitionapplicationsuntilaftertheadministrativereviewauthorityhadmadeadecisioninthismatter,andthetimeforappealhadpassed.Transparencyisfundamentaltofairnessingovernance.VIII.ConclusionAsanhistoricpreservationist,Iamanadvocateofpreservation,rehabilitationandrestoration—inmostcases,notallofthem.Therearesimplysomebuildingsthathaveoutlivedtheirusefullifeandwhicharenotsignificantenoughor lacktherequisiteintegritytomeritsaving.Historicpreservationisimportanttoacommunity,andalegitimateuseofthepolice powers,however,itisnotreasonabletorequireapropertyownertorehabilitate—andtoundertake,inthiscase,anextensive,expensiveandhazardousrehabilitationatthat—merelybecauseastructureisoldandthereforehasconnectionstothepast.Thisperpetuatesthegeneralpublic’salienationfromthehistoricpreservationcauseandreinforcesthecommonlyheldmisconceptionthatifyour houseis“historic”youlosecontroloverwhatyoucandowithit.Thisissimplyacaseofabuildingthatispastitsusefullife.TheS.Tracyfourplexmay,atonetime,haveretainedsufficientintegrityandcharacterdefiningfeaturestowarrant rehabilitation.Today,however,itdoesnot.BasedupontheinformationintheApplication,additionaldocumentationandthis22http://www.avcapturealI.com/Sessions.aspx#session.7e8dcOce-12d5-4fd1-9Oec-56b87f4d7dc87
Appeal,S.Tracyfourplexisclearlytooexpensiveandhazardoustorehabilitate.Theapplicantshouldnotberequiredtorecreatewhatdoesnotcurrentlyexist—thatishistoricandstructuralintegrity.TheApplicationdemonstratedthatthecosttorehabilitatetheS.Tracyfourplexwouldexceeditsvalue,which,inconcertwithpublichealthandsafetyissues,supportthegrantingoftheCOAfordemolition.Upholdingthedecisiontodenythedemolitionwouldbe,arbitraryandcapricious,onerousandpatentlyunreasonablebasedonthefactsinthisparticularApplication.Thankyouforyourconsideration.RESPCTFULLYSUBMITTED,GAL1KLAWFRM,P.C.Jecn.atLaw8
Page 1 of 48
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Project Description: A Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness requesting approval for
demolition of the residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue. The application proposes
further development of the site as a vacant lot with landscaping, to be offered for sale
for future residential construction. The property is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places as part of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District.
Project Location: 430 South Tracy Avenue
Recommendation: Denial
Report Date: August 13, 2014
Staff Contact: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer & Planner I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
There are no unresolved issues for this application.
Project Summary
This application proposes demolition of the historic residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue,
and to subsequently landscape the lot and offer the parcel for sale. The demolition of historic
residences is considered under Sec. 38.16.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. This Section
requires that in order to approve demolition of a historic property all sections of the criteria
for approval are satisfied.
Alternatives
The Review Authority could:
1) Deny the application as recommended by Staff; or
2) Make alternate findings based on the application materials and data within the Staff Report
to approve the sketch plan Certificate of Appropriateness.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 2 of 48
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2 - STIPULATIONS ............................................................................................... 3
SECTION 3 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ................. 4
SECTION 4 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPEAL PROVISIONS ..................................... 5
SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 6
Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness, Section 38.16.050, BMC .......................... 6
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Review Criteria ........................................ 13
Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District -
Section 38.16.080.............................................................................................................. 14
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 20
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY............................... 21
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 21
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 22
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 22
APPENDIX E- SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS FOR 430 SOUTH TRACY
AVENUE ................................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX F- SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS FOR THE S. TRACY/ S. BLACK
HISTORIC DISTRICT ........................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX G- HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES FOR
JUNE 2014 .............................................................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX H- HISTORY OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVENUE .......................................... 34
Homes built by Andrew J. Svorkmoe ............................................................................... 34
Construction of 424 and 430 South Tracy Avenue ........................................................... 36
First owners of 430 South Tracy Avenue ......................................................................... 39
Residential Multiple Dwelling Unit zoning ...................................................................... 43
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places .......................................................... 44
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 3 of 48
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
Vicinity Map showing adjacent zoning
SECTION 2 - STIPULATIONS
Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in
this report. These conditions are specific to the sketch plan Certificate of Appropriateness.
STIPULATIONS:
1. Prior to any demolition of the building, whether independently or in association with a
redevelopment of the site, documentation of the property shall be completed prior to
issuance of a Demolition Permit. The City’s established practice for documentation is to
acquire any available drawing sets produced in relation to considering rehabilitation of the structure as well as photographs consistent with a Historic American Buildings
Survey, Level II. One digital copy of the large format photography required with HABS
II documentation shall be provided to Bozeman’s Historic Preservation Officer for
review prior to approval of the demolition permit. The final packet of HABS II
recordation, including three paper copies and two digital copies, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. One
copy will remain with the City of Bozeman and the two remaining paper copies
distributed to public repositories of information which may include the Montana
Historical Society and Montana State University’s Special Collections and Archives.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 4 of 48
SECTION 3 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS
A. None have been identified at this time.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 5 of 48
SECTION 4 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPEAL PROVISIONS
Project Name: Demolition of 430 South Tracy Avenue
File: Z-14090
A) PURSUANT to Chapter 38, Article 19, BMC, and other applicable sections of Chapter 38,
BMC, public notice was given, opportunity to submit comment was provided to affected
parties, and a review of the sketch plan and Certificate of Appropriateness described in this
report was conducted. The applicant presented to the City a proposed sketch plan and
Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing residence at 430 South Tracy Avenue
and develop the property with landscaping, and then list the property for sale as a residential
building site. The purposes of the site plan review were to consider all relevant evidence
relating to public health, safety, welfare, and the other purposes of Chapter 38, BMC; to
evaluate the proposal against the criteria of Section 38.19.100 BMC, and the standards of
Chapter 38, BMC; and to determine whether the plan should be approved, conditionally
approved, or denied.
B) It appeared to the Director of Community Development that all parties and the public wishing
to examine the proposed site plan and offer comment were given the opportunity to do so.
After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory bodies established by Section
Chapter 38, Article 33, BMC, and considering all matters of record presented with the
application and during the public comment period defined by Chapter 38, BMC, the Director
of Community Development has found that the proposed sketch plan does not comply with
the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code. Therefore, being fully advised of all
matters having come before her regarding this application, the Director of Community
Development makes the following decision.
C) The sketch plan and Certificate of Appropriateness have been found to not meet the criteria of
Chapter 38, BMC, and is therefore denied. The evidence contained in the submittal materials,
advisory body review, public testimony, and this report, justify the denial of the application
in light of the application’s failure to satisfy all applicable criteria of Chapter 38, BMC.
On this ______ day of ____________, 2014, Wendy Thomas, Director of Community
Development, deny this site plan for and on behalf of the City of Bozeman as authorized by
Section 38.34.010, BMC.
As a result of the denial, a stay of demolition or moving permit shall be enacted in
conformance with Sec. 38.16.080.A.4 BMC.
D) This Director of Community Development project decision may be appealed filing a
notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Commission for the City of Bozeman, within 10
working days after the date of approval as evidenced by the Director’s signature, by
following the procedures of Section 38.35.030, BMC.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 6 of 48
_________________________________________________
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application
materials, municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other materials
available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review.
The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review.
Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness, Section 38.16.050, BMC
Section 38.16.050 specifies the required standards for granting Certificate of Appropriateness
approval for proposed alterations.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published
1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington,
D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning).
This application proposes demolition of a structure which contributes to the South Tracy/
South Black Avenue Historic District in order to develop the lot in a “yard like condition,”
while the parcel is listed for sale as a developable residential lot.
The Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation, codified as 36 CFR 67, are
the appropriate criteria through which to consider the project. The Rehabilitation Standards
acknowledge “the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing
uses while retaining the property's historic character.” A link to the National Park Service’s
website for the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation is available here:
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm The Standards also encompass related
landscape features and the building’s site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or
related new construction.
The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation are:
Rehabilitation Standard #1: A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in
a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its
site and environment.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 7 of 48
Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
Rehabilitation Standard #3: Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its
time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard #4: Most properties change over time; those changes that have
acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,
where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that
cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Rehabilitation Standard #8: Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall
be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall
be undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall
be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
A rehabilitation of this historic structure would likely utilize the remaining materials and
division of space to rehabilitate the structure in a manner consistent with its transformation
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 8 of 48
into a multiple dwelling unit structure in the late 1930’s. This would retain the most historic
fabric, while also keeping the structure consistent with the South Tracy/ South Black Historic
District’s period of significance (1872-1939).
Larger parcels did historically exist in the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, though
not in association with a residence. The 1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map indicates that the
Langhor Flowerland business owned a large parcel on the west side of the 200-300 block of
South Tracy Avenue. This large parcel provided space for the business’ extensive
greenhouses. Other larger parcels are in reflection of the presence of a watercourse, as shown
on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Once these physical impediments were removed or ameliorated,
regularly spaced residential development occurred.
A lengthy history of 430 South Tracy is available in Appendix H (link). As evidenced by the
history of the properties at 424, 430 and 436 South Tracy Avenue, a large yard area did not
historically exist between 424 and 436 South Tracy Avenue. This development would not
restore a historic setting condition for the east side of the 400 block of South Tracy Avenue,
as shown in the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the area included with this Staff Report in
Appendix F (link).
The described subsequent development and treatment of the property is inconsistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed
treatment of the site into a “yard like setting” is in direct contradiction with SOI
Rehabilitation Standard 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9.
Staff finds that the application does not satisfy this criteria.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness
and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject
structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus
upon the following:
The application materials propose grading and landscaping of the property to create a “yard-
like” condition subsequent to the demolition of the residence.
1. Height;
Not applicable.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
Not applicable.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 9 of 48
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
Please see additional commends below, under Criteria 38.16.050.C.
4. Roof shape;
Not applicable.
5. Scale;
Not applicable.
6. Directional expression;
Not applicable.
7. Architectural details;
Not applicable.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and
Not applicable.
9. Materials and color scheme.
Not applicable.
Staff finds that the proposed development of a “yard-like area” is not appropriate or
compatible in the context of the neighboring structures and adjoining properties. Please see
additional comments below, under Criteria 38.16.050.C.
C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and
additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or
additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or
their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of
the structure and the surrounding structures.
This application proposes demolition of the structure at 430 South Tracy Avenue. The
property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing element of the
South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District, which has a period of significance from
1872-1939. The nomination form for the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District
is available here: http://www.preservebozeman.org/pdf/BozemanSouthTracy-
SouthBlackHD.pdf . The property’s 1984/86 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory
Form is attached to this Staff Report. An expanded history of 430 South Tracy Avenue is
available in Appendix H of this document.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 10 of 48
Staff finds that the application proposes the destruction of a historically significant structure.
The nomination form for the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District describes
the district character as, “The South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District consists of
93 diverse, vernacular houses lining S. Tracy and S. Black Avenues between Olive and
Alderson Streets, as well as a large school building, and a neighborhood grocery store. It is
distinct from the two large, adjacent residential historic districts in Bozeman due to its
greater building density and its high concentration of significant architecture of generally
more modest scale and ornamentation…”
The historic district boundary description and justification speak to the district’s pattern of
development. It says, “Bordering the entire western boundary of the modest scale, middle
class South Tracy- South Black Historic District is the Bon Ton Historic District, with its
affluent spatial arrangement and larger houses. The alley between S. Willson and S. Tracy
Avenues marks a clear visual break between the two districts, which are distinctly different in
character. To the east is S. Bozeman Avenue, a street that is similar in scale to this district
but is not included within the boundaries of the South Tracy- South Black Historic District
due to loss of overall integrity.”
The introduction of a large vacant parcel would adversely affect the historic integrity of
adjoining properties, including the integrity of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic
district’s setting of an “Overall, a continuous rhythm of regularly spaced houses along tree-
lined streets acts as a strong unifying element in the district.”1
The alley between South Willson and South Tracy is an important demarcation of the change
in neighborhood and Historic District. The residences lining South Tracy, South Black and
South Bozeman Avenues were developed in a modest manner, and with higher residential
density, than those on South Willson, South Grand and South Third Avenues (now in the
Bon Ton Historic District).
1 (United States Department of the Interior: National Park Service 1987)
Page 11 of 48
1943 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District (highlighted in orange), and the Bon Ton
Historic District (highlighted in green). Please note that lines indicate ownership boundaries, not underlying lot lines.
Page 12 of 48
This district also has a strong pattern of substantial structures at the “terminus” of an east-
west street. South Tracy Avenue is the dividing line between Alderson’s Addition, to the
west, and Black’s Addition, to the east. Due to the alignment of these additions, West Story,
West Koch and West Dickerson Streets “jog” about 100 feet to the south in Black’s Addition.
The demolition of one of these terminus houses would leave a visually jarring hole in the
neighborhood’s character as one entered from West Story Street.
Staff finds that the proposed development is not compatible with the foregoing elements of
the surrounding structures. The proposed development would adversely affect the setting,
feeling and character defining features of the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall
be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a
contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to
existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 13 of 48
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is
compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
The Design Guidelines have been incorporated into the comments on the previous page
addressing the architectural appearance design guidelines.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Property is presently zoned R-2, “Residential, Medium Density.” Given the parcel’s size and
the presence of an alley to the west, the parcel could be developed with multiple dwelling
units in a manner consistent with the current City of Bozeman Municipal Code. If the parcel
were totally vacant, and if all vehicular access were taken from the alley to the rear, a two-
dwelling structure could be developed as the principal use. An accessory structure with a
second floor Accessory Dwelling Unit could be developed in addition to the two units in the
principal building, bringing the potential number of legal dwelling units on the property to
three.
As outlined in the property history in Appendix H, the principal building has been used as at
least three dwelling units since 1937. The property, therefore, falls under Sec. 38.32.010
“Non Conforming Uses” of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which allows “Any use lawfully
existing upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter or any predecessor
title or code is derived may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing
upon such date except as hereinafter specified, or in the case of signage as specified
in article 28 of this chapter.”
Given that a substantial modification to the building has not occurred, there has not been a
change of use sufficient to require the property to come into complete conformance with
modern zoning code requirements. Three of dwelling units in the residence are lawfully
conforming to zoning code.
F. Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed
with the procedures and standards established in chapter 2, article 6, division 2.
The application does not request tax abatement.
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Review Criteria
Given the property’s location and listing on the National Register of Historic Places, Chapter
1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 should be used in reviewing any Certificate of
Appropriateness for this property.
The Design Guidelines generally anticipate new construction and do not provide an extensive
list of guidelines for landscaping. The applicable guidelines have been included below.
Chapter 2. Design Guidelines for All Properties
A. Topography
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 14 of 48
1. Minimize cut and fill on a site.
3. Minimize the visual impacts of cut and fill on a site.
B. Street Patterns
1. Respect historic settlement patterns.
D. Streetscape
1. Maintain the variety of street paving designs.
2. Maintain the variety of sidewalk designs.
3. Continue the use of planting strips.
4. Continue the pattern of street trees in a block. Because street trees serve various aesthetic
and practical functions, they should be maintained.
E. Landscape Design
1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation within all corridors.
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Residential Character Areas
A. Hierarchy of Public and Private Space
1. Provide a front yard similar in character to its neighbors when possible.
2. Provide a walkway from the street to the building.
3. Orient the front porch to the street.
4. Clearly define the primary entrance by using a front porch.
F. Fences and Retaining Walls
1. A new fence should be in character with those seen traditionally.
2. A new retaining wall should be in character with those seen traditionally.
Chapter 5. District-Specific Descriptions
H. South Tracy/South Black Historic District
1. Reflect the district character when building within the district.
Staff finds that the proposed modifications are inconsistent with the applicable Design
Guidelines.
Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District - Section
38.16.080.
Given the property’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the property is
subject to review under item 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 listed below.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 15 of 48
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall
be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for
the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as
follows:
1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the
conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the
subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has
occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved before a
demolition or moving permit may be issued.
The application includes a written description of the subsequent treatment of the site, “to be
landscaped in a residential fashion.” As described in the review above, the proposed
subsequent development does not satisfy the criteria for issuing a COA as found in Sec.
38.16.050 BMC
Staff finds that the application does not satisfy this criteria.
2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory
structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state
historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic
districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be
subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in
38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and,
if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic
preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the
demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or
movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with
the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a
deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application.
The application proposes demolition of a structure classified as “contributing” to the South
Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District, which is reviewed under Sec. 38.16.080.A.3
below. Therefore, this criteria is not applicable to review of this application.
3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory
structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical
and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all
landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance
with article 40 of this chapter.
The Department of Community Development issued the appropriate public notice for this
project, as described in Appendix C.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 16 of 48
4. Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive
a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not
conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation
advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed
and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic
preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the
demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or
movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with
the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a
deviation, variance, site plan, conditional use permit or planned unit development
application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following:
This Staff Report serves as a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO).
The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board reviewed the item on June 19, 2014.
The BHPAB’s minutes are included in Appendix G of this Staff Report. The BHPAB
declined to make a formal recommendation for this application during their June meeting
because the third party cost estimates were unavailable for consideration. The Department of
Community Development received the needed cost estimate on August 12, 2014 and
forwarded the information to the BHPAB on August 14, 2014 with an invitation to further
comment on the information.
The applicant updated the Montana Property Record Form to reflect current conditions on the
site prior to the review of the proposal. The updated Property Record Form asserted that
modifications to the property have obliterated the property’s historic integrity. The Bozeman
HPO asked the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review the updated
Property Record Form and concur or object to the findings in the updated Property Record
Form. The SHPO provided comment on August 7, 2014, and agreed with the Bozeman HPO
by saying that the modifications were made during the period of significance for the S.
Tracy/ S. Black Historic District, and thus do not adversely affect the property’s historic
integrity. The SHPO’s letter is included as an attachment to this staff report.
The Director of Community Development is the review authority for this project, per Sec.
38.34.010.B.
a. The standards in 38.16.050 (Criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness) 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.
As identified in the review above, the proposed development of the property does not satisfy
the standards for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness found in Sec. 38.16.050 BMC.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 17 of 48
As outlined in Appendix H, and verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office
and the Department of Community Development, the property conveys historic significance
for its association with the residential development of South Tracy Avenue. The property’s
historic integrity conveys an association with the closing years of the period of significance
for the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The property is also historically significant for its association with Bozeman
builder Andrew J. Svorkmoe.
b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before
approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find that at least
one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,
including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or
rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment:
1. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs
or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or
safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
The property has not been identified by the City of Bozeman as a “public nuisance,” as
defined in Sec. 16.02.040.A.4 BMC. The structure at 430 South Tracy has not been identified
by the Chief Building Official as an unsafe building as provided in section 116 of the
International Building Code. The structure remains weather tight and secure.
2. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
The application materials include an assessment of the value of the existing structure, which
is placed at $124,000. The application materials include a cost comparison to rehabilitate the
existing structure, which the applicants estimate to be $323,000.
The application materials include an estimate of $22,000 to demolish the existing residence.
The application materials estimate construction of a new residence with the exact same
square footage as $272,470 (2,477 square feet X $110 per square foot). The application
estimates the total cost of demolition and replacement to be $294,470.
A member of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, who recently rehabbed
another Svorkmoe house at 702 South Grand Avenue, questioned the $110/ square foot
estimate for construction in downtown Bozeman. Unfortunately, objective and reliable
factual data is unavailable which could give an average per square foot cost for new
residential construction in downtown Bozeman.
The Department of Community Development commissioned a third party verification of the
costs to rehabilitate the existing structure, which is included as an attachment to this report.
The Director of Community Development has this authority under Sec. 38.34.020.B (BMC):
The planning director may in the administration of this chapter consult with other persons
having expertise in relevant subject areas as in the planning director's opinion is necessary
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 18 of 48
for the review of the proposed development or administration of the chapter. When an
authority other than the planning director is assigned responsibility for a particular standard
that authority shall coordinate with the planning director in administration of that standard.
The third party contractor was provided the categories in which to provide an estimate, as
well as the structural engineering reports for the residence included in the application
materials. The third party contractor was not provided with the applicant’s cost estimates, in
order to prevent undercutting of the estimate. The contractor visited the site with the City’s
Chief Building Official, and was asked to provide two cost estimates. First, the contractor
was asked to estimate the cost to rehabilitate the existing structure into three or four dwelling
units. Second, the contractor was asked to estimate the cost to rehabilitate the structure into a
Single Household Dwelling. The contractor’s estimate included a category for contracting
fees, which is not included in the application materials. Staff has removed this number from
the following cost comparisons in order to ensure consistency in evaluation.
The third party cost estimate revealed a substantial difference in estimated costs to
rehabilitate the structure into a single household residence:
Difference between estimates to rehabilitate into a single household dwelling
Applicant's estimate $ 323,000.00
Third party contractor's estimate $ 277,000.00
Difference in estimates: $ 46,000.00
A full breakdown of the estimated cost is as follows:
Estimated costs to rehabilitate 430 South Tracy and bring the property fully up to code
Item Applicant estimate Third party estimate
Exterior partial demolition $ 30,000.00 $ -
Interior demolition $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
Lift and reset house $ 20,000.00 $ 30,000.00
New foundation $ 35,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Brick restoration $ 30,000.00 $ 37,000.00
Structural restoration $ 40,000.00 $ 38,000.00
Replace windows and doors $ 30,000.00 $ 21,000.00
Interior work $ 18,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Electrical and lighting $ 25,000.00 $ 24,000.00
Plumbing $ 25,000.00 $ 26,000.00
Heating $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
Insulation $ 20,000.00 $ 21,000.00
Estimated cost to rehabilitate into three or four
dwellings $ 323,000.00 $ 287,000.00
Less cost to rehabilitate into a Single Household
Dwelling $ - $ (10,000.00)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 19 of 48
Estimated cost to rehabilitate into a Single Household
Dwelling $ 323,000.00 $ 277,000.00
Estimated cost of demolition $ 22,000.00 N/A
Est. cost of new construction (2,477 square feet
X$110/ squ') $ 272,470.00 N/A
Total estimated cost of demolition and replacement $ 294,470.00 N/A
Cost to rehabilitate into three or four dwellings N/ A $ 287,000.00
Cost of demolition and replacement $ 294,470.00 $ 294,470.00
Costs difference to rehab. Into three or four dwellings $ (7,470.00)
Cost to rehabilitate into a single household $ 323,000.00 $ 277,000.00
Cost of demolition and replacement $ 294,470.00 $ 294,470.00
Cost difference for rehabilitation into a single
household $ 28,530.00 $ (17,470.00)
This data indicates a cost savings of $17,470 to rehabilitate the structure into a single
household dwelling that is fully compliant with modern Building Code.
Given the property’s legally nonconforming status, it is possible to rehabilitate the existing
multi-dwelling unit structure in a manner consistent with Municipal Code. The data indicates
a smaller cost savings of $7,470 to rehabilitate the structure as a multi-unit dwelling. This
cost could be offset by the additional rental income from multiple dwelling units.
Staff has not calculated the potential additional savings to a property owner who used the
City’s Tax Abatement for Historic Preservation, which is available to property owners who
rehabilitate a property in an established historic district.
The cost estimates included in review of this application are to fully rehabilitate the structure.
Much less work may be necessary in order to rehabilitate the structure to the point of
receiving an occupancy permit. Neither the applicant nor the contractor’s estimates
contemplate the cost associated with the removal of public health or safety threats.
Because the data shows the economic viability of fully rehabilitating the structure to a single
household dwelling, we conclude that the lesser extent of rehabilitation necessary to receive
an occupancy permit would also be viable.
Staff finds this criteria is not met. Staff finds that the cost of repair is less than the cost of
demolition and reconstruction on the site. Staff finds that multiple avenues remain available
to economically rehabilitate this historic structure.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 20 of 48
5. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition
or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final
decision in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition
or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-
year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or
if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of
subsection 2 or 3 of this section.
Staff recommends denial of the requested demolition and subsequent implementation of a
two year stay of demolition. During the stay period, a number of alternate proposals could be
submitted which satisfy the criteria, including rehabilitation of the residence as a single or
multi-household dwelling. Approval of any application found to meet the standards of the
Municipal Code would end the stay of demolition.
6. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully
documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and
administrative design review staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving
permits.
Under any circumstance which would lead to the demolition of the structure, documentation
shall be created prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit. The City’s established practice for
documentation is to acquire any available drawing sets produced in relation to considering
rehabilitation of the structure as well as photographs consistent with a Historic American
Buildings Survey, Level II. Please see Section 2 for additional information.
Should demolition of the structure occur, Staff recommends that the residence be
documented in a manner consistent with level II of the Historic American Buildings Survey.
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by
this Sketch Plan Certificate of Appropriateness.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
The applicant’s submittal materials and a digital copy of related documents are available
in the City’s Laserfische record management, by following this link:
1. http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?startid=64405&dbid=0
2. 1984/86 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory for 430 South Tracy Avenue
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 21 of 48
3. Correspondence between HPO Kramer and the Montana State Historic Preservation
Office regarding the updated Montana Property Record Form
4. Third party estimate of costs to rehabilitate the structure
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The subject property is zoned R-2. The intent of the R-2 residential two-household medium
density district is to provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban
densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints, and for
community facilities to serve such development while respecting the residential quality and
nature of the area.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The property is designated as “Residential” in the adopted growth policy. This category
designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which
complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based
occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be
established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services
and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile.
Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate
intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation
indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which
may require annexation prior to development.
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32
dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and
circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density.
Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence
of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for
development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential
housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development,
natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the
overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to
provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Description: The application proposes demolition of an existing residential structure
to enable the installation of landscaping on the lot and eventual sale of the parcel.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 22 of 48
Project Background: An application requesting demolition of the structure was received in
November 2013 and found to be unacceptable for review because the application materials
were incomplete. Specifically, the application materials lacked a full design for the
subsequent development on the site, and the updated Montana Property Record Form needed
revision. The revised application materials were received on May 15, 2014.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Public notice of the application was completed in conformance with Sec. 38.40 BMC. A notice
was posted on site, posted on the City’s website and emailed to the Inter Neighborhood Council.
The Department of Community Development received no public comment on the application at
the time this Staff Report was drafted.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner: GHT Investments, LLC, 424 South Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Intrinsik Architecture, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Report By: Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer/ Planner I
Page 23 of 48
APPENDIX E- SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS FOR 430 SOUTH
TRACY AVENUE
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate the evolution of a building’s footprint over time.
Colorized versions of the map indicated materials used in construction which would arrest or
feed a fire.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 24 of 48
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 25 of 48
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 26 of 48
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 27 of 48
Page 28 of 48
APPENDIX F- SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS FOR THE S. TRACY/ S. BLACK HISTORIC
DISTRICT
The 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the footprint of strucutres along South Tracy Avenue. It also indicates the change in
neighborhood character that occoured in the alley between South Tracy and South Willson Avenues. Residences along South Willson
Avenue developed at a lower density than those along South Tracy and South Black Avenues.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 29 of 48
The 1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the increase in residential construction along South Tracy Avenue between 1904 and
1912, especially between the West Koch Street terminus and the West Story Street terminus. Residences along South Willson Avenue
continued to be developed at a lower density than those along South Tracy and South Black Avenues.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 30 of 48
The 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the continued residential construction along South Black, South Tracy and South
Willson Avenues.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 31 of 48
The 1943 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the footprint of strucutres in what is now the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Histoirc
District four years after the end of the district’s period of significance (1872-1939). Homes along Willson Avenue are now part of the
Bon Ton Historic District, which has a similar period of significance, but is a distinct district due to the scale of residences and their yards constructed in the Bon Ton District.
Page 32 of 48
APPENDIX G- HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
FOR JUNE 2014
Minutes of the June 19, 2014 meeting
Members Present: Lora Dalton, Lisa Verwys, Jessie Nunn, Steven Keuch, Jillian Bowers,
Mark Hufstetler, Ryan Olson, Matthew Kennedy, Courtney Kramer (Staff Liaison)
Members Absent: Bryce Ledbetter
I. Call to order- meeting was called to order at 6:33 pm
II. Approval of prior minutes- Minutes from April were unanimously approved as
presented
III. Public comment- none
IV. Ex parte communication- none
V. Invited Guests
a. Board applicants Merri Ketterer and Michelle Morgan attended
b. Rob Pertzborn representing demolition project at 430 S. Tracy
c. Rachel Theising- recently purchased home at corner of Willson & Koch
VI. Action Items- board discussion of Application Z14090, COA proposing demolition of
residence at 430 S. Tracy
a. Staff Liaison (CK) introduction
i. residence is in S. Tracy/S. Black Historic District
ii. has been unoccupied for 7-8 years
iii. unclear when the home was divided in to apartments
b. Comments from project representative (RP)
i. Residence is a brick home with poorly done addition, carved into
apartments
ii. Owner (George Talbot) would like to see a new home constructed that fits
the character & rhythm of neighborhood and is willing to put restrictions
on sale to that effect
c. Board discussion
i. JB- $110/square foot is not representative of costs of historic detailing,
increase in cost would affect demolition calculations
ii. LV- request for clarity regarding historic significance of structure. CK-
residence is a contributing structure listed in National Register. Applicant
provided updated inventory form determining that the structure is no
longer contributing, but city opinion does not agree with this
determination.
iii. MH- residence would still qualify as contributing home. Concerned that
owner purchased residence and left it unoccupied, allowing it to continue
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 33 of 48
deteriorating Engineering report not quantifiable and based on a walk
through; engineer or builder with more historic experience would likely
come to a significantly different conclusion. Economic conclusions are not
specific which is problematic. City should develop a mitigation policy for
contributing properties.
iv. JN- concurs that structure is contributing. An open lot can’t replicate the
character of the residence.
v. JB and LD question why owner would purchase property and allow it to
fall into neglect. LD- some neglect comes from lack of city policy
protecting historic structures. MK- demo by neglect not necessarily
malicious and may have happened regardless of occupancy.
vi. Board requests to see third party cost analysis. No recommendations from
the board at this time.
VII. Committee Reports
a. Preservation awards (May 2015) will need new chair/new committee. RO will
email LD the current plans for the awards.
VIII. Chair’s Report
a. Board membership
i. JN and RO will not be returning to the board, the board thanks them for
serving.
ii. New appointments and reappointments will go before the city commission
on July 7. The board should continue thinking about leadership and
governance.
IX. Staff Liaison Report
a. Working with city web developer on preservation website, planning on August
completion
b. Walking tours (Extreme History Project) are going well
c. B3 survey going well
d. Emerson Cultural Center has declined SAT funding. The Masonic organization is
interested in rehabilitating their building, may be able to take advantage of SAT
funding and tax credits for historic preservation. They are working with Lesley
Gilmore and with the city.
X. Meeting adjourned at 7:50.
End of Minutes
Secretary: Lisa Verwys
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 34 of 48
APPENDIX H- HISTORY OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVENUE
This application proposes demolition of the structure at 430 South Tracy Avenue. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing element of the
South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District, which has a period of significance from
1872-1939. The nomination form for the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District
is available here: http://www.preservebozeman.org/pdf/BozemanSouthTracy-
SouthBlackHD.pdf . The district’s National Register nomination lists the property as a vernacular residence constructed sometime between 1898 and 1904.
Deed records indicate that Bozeman contractor Andrew J. Svorkmoe built 430 South Tracy
Avenue in 1902-1903.
Homes built by Andrew J. Svorkmoe
Census records indicate Svorkmoe was born in Norway on July 17, 1851 and immigrated to the United States sometime between 1878 and 1881. He married fellow Norwegian
immigrant Mary in 1893.2 A mason by trade, Svorkmoe acted as the general contractor for a
number of Bozeman residences. An obituary published after Svorkmoe’s death in 1925
noted, “He had built a great many houses in Bozeman during his residence here and was a hard working man. He remarked to one of his neighbors recently that he had built more than 60 houses in Bozeman. A man who has known him many years says he built nearly 80 houses
here.”3
In addition to acting as the general contractor, deed records indicate that Svorkmoe built a
number of residences as speculative investments. On November 11, 1898, Svorkmoe paid
$150 for lots 17 & 18 of block 8 of the Fairview Addition to Bozeman, otherwise addressed as 608 South Grand Avenue.4 Svorkmoe constructed a brick residence which he sold to W. S.
Davidson on January 21, 1899 for $1,500. This residence was listed on the National Register
of Historic Places as a contrib5uting element in the Bon Ton Historic District.6 The residence
was dismantled in 2008 following a lengthy demolition process which began in 2007.
Deed records indicate that Svorkmoe owned three other properties on the east side of South Grand Avenue, on which he constructed residences between 1899 and 1901.
2 (United States Census Bureau 1900) 3 (Bozeman Daily Chronicle 1925) 4 (Warranty Deed 1898) 5 (Warranty Deed 1899) 6 (Service 1986)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 35 of 48
608 Souyth
608 South Grand Avenue, constructed by A.J. Svorkmoe in 1898-99. Dismantled 2008. The
porch was removed prior to this photograph.
702 South Grand Avenue, constructed by A.J. Svorkmoe in 1900, prior to extensive remodel
in 2013. This house retained the original porch’s footprint, though is missing some
components.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 36 of 48
622 South Grand Avenue, built by A.J. Svorkmoe in 1900. The residence retains its original porch, which Svorkmoe likely repeated on other residential projects.
All of the homes thus far attributed to Svorkmoe during this time period fit within the
Colonial Revival style. According to A Field Guide to American Houses, the asymmetrical
roof form was particularly popular between 1880 and 1910. McAllester wrote, “About 10 percent of Colonial Revival houses have asymmetrical facades, a feature rarely seen on their Colonial prototypes. These asymmetrical examples range from rambling free-form houses
resembling the free classic Queen Anne style to simple boxes with asymmetrical window or
porch arrangements. Prior to 1900 this subtype accounted for about one-third of all Colonial
Revival houses.”7
Most of Svorkmoe’s residences were built of brick, and generally built in pairs or within a few lots of each other. It appears the Svorkmoe built variations of the same floorplan, with
small modifications to suit the site, such as mirroring the floor plan to address a street corner.
Those that retained their original porch design have a full width front porch, with a hipped
porch roof and gablet above the porch entrance to shed water away from the walkway. This
porch design is so ubiquitous on Svorkmoe’s homes of the era, it’s logical to conclude that this is the original porch design for 430 South Tracy Avenue.
Construction of 424 and 430 South Tracy Avenue
Walter Cooper, an influential entrepreneur and real estate developer, owned Lots 14, 15, 16,
17 and 18 of Block F of Hoffman’s Addition in the spring of 1902. On April 10, 1902,
7 (McAlester 2014)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 37 of 48
Cooper sold Lots 17 & 18 to Bozeman builder Andrew J. “A.J.” Svorkmoe for a price of
$200.8
On May 23, 1902, Cooper sold Svorkmoe lot 16 of Block F of Hoffmans for $100.9 The same day, Svorkmoe turned around and sold the property to J.V. Bogert for $1,70010. Bogert
was elected as Bozeman’s first Mayor, and served a number of terms, including from 1897-
1899, 1891-1892, 1887-1890 and 1883-1885.11
The increase in cost for the property likely reflects some kind of arrangement between
Cooper and Svorkmoe, whereby Svorkmoe had constructed a residence on the parcels. Bogert presumably wanted lot 16 in order to increase his yard area, and for some reason
chose to route the purchase through Svorkmoe rather than buy directly from Cooper.
424 South Tracy Avenue. Built by A.J. Svorkmoe in 1902 and sold to first owner J.V. Bogert
in 1902. Demolished 2006.
In 2006 the Department of Planning issued approval George Talbot, who also owns 430 South Tracy, to demolish the structure at 424 South Tracy Avenue, which had been turned
into a two-dwelling unit property. The COA approval enabled demolition of the the two-
dwelling unit property and construction a single household dwelling with accessory structure
and accessory dwelling unit on May 1, 2006. 12
On September 22, 1902, Cooper sold Svorkmoe the property immediately to the south of 424 South Tracy Avenue. Svorkmoe again paid $200 for the two lots.13 Svorkmoe must have
8 (Warranty Deed 1902) 9 (Warranty Deed 1902) 10 (Warranty Deed 1902) 11 (Clerk 2014) 12 (Bozeman Department of Community Development 2006) 13 (Warranty Deed 1902)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 38 of 48
constructed the present structure at 430 South Tracy Avenue between September 1902 and
July 1903, as he sold the property to Ida Kelly for $2,600 (with a mortgage of $1,700) on
August 1, 1903.14
The residence at 430 South Tracy is larger than Svorkmoe’s similarly-designed homes built
on South Grand Avenue at this time. Where the South Grand homes had living space to only
one side of the entry, the South Tracy home has living space to either side of the entry. The
house’s footprint is consistently of this size, which indicates that 430 South Tracy was among Svorkmoe’s larger construction projects of this era. This may explain why the Kellys
paid more for the residence than other Svorkmoe buyers.
14 (Warranty Deed 1903)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 39 of 48
Svorkmoe is also accredited as the builder of four residences in the Cooper Park Historic District, including 221 and 224 South 6th Avenue, both of which were built of brick the Colonial Revival and Queen Anne styles, respectively.15 A complete survey of buildings
constructed by Svorkmoe has not been completed at this time.
First owners of 430 South Tracy Avenue
James N. Kelly was born in Wisconsin in March 1844. Ida Kelly was born in Wisconsin in April 1855. The date and place of their marriage is unclear, however, the 1885 Minnesota State Census finds them in Owatonna Township, Steele Minnesota, with their daughter Grace
(age 9), son James Clifford (age 6), and daughter Lucy (age 1 month). A third daughter,
Helen, was born in Minnesota in 1886. It’s unclear when the Kellys arrived in Montana.
The 1904 Polk Directory gives James Kelly, a receiver for the US Land Office, as the
occupant of 430 South Tracy Avenue.16 By 1908, the Polk Directory listed JN Kelly & Son as sheep ranchers with 709 acres with an assessed value of $8,560 located along the Gallatin
River west of Bozeman.17
15 (Service, National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet: Cooper Park Historic District 1986) 16 (R. H. Polk 1904) 17 (R. H. Polk, 1908 Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County 1908)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 40 of 48
In addition to ranching and working on behalf of the Land Office, James N. Kelly filed a patent in 1909 for a combined step ladder and ironing board. He was awarded patent number 967,198, serial No. 517,927 for the device by the United States Patent office. 18
18 (Kelly 1910)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 41 of 48
The 1910 census found Ida and James Kelly living in Bozeman’s 4th Ward, with their
daughter Helen Kelly Wright, son in law Clark Wright and granddaughter Eloise Wright.19
The 1910 Polk directory identified Kelly as a rancher but by 1912 he was working as a real
estate agent.
The 1920 Census recorded Ida Kelly, age 64, and James Kelly, age 75, living in Ward 4 of Bozeman with their granddaughter Jessie Webster. The census also noted that they owned the
property.20 The Kelly family lived in the residence through at least 1922. The 1925 Polk
directory notes that James Kelly died on June 24, 1924.21 It’s unclear when or where Ida
Kelly died. The Kelly heirs included son James Clifford Kelly, who lived in San Francisco,
and daughters Grace K. Webster and Hellen K. Wright, who lived in Seattle.
19 (United States Census Bureau 1910) 20 (United States Census Bureau 1920) 21 (R.H. Polk 1925)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 42 of 48
Conversion of 430 South Tracy to multiple dwelling units
The Polk directories indicate the use of the property as a rental with at least two units by
1929,22 when Beecher and Ocea Huffine, as well as Gray and Stella Keene lived in the house. The Huffines may have rented or otherwise gained control of the property during this time
period. A 1931 warranty deed transfers claim to 430 South Tracy, as well as land in the City
of Livingston, from Beecher to Ocea.23 This document may have been part of a divorce
settlement, as Ocea moved into the property in 1937 and by which time Beecher was
remarried and living on East Mendenhall Street.24
Ocea Huffine formally purchased the property from the heirs of James N. and Ida M. Kelly
sold on July 10, 1934. The selling price was $1, though the deed notes “This conveyance is
made subject to any unpaid taxes or installments of assessments levied or which have become
due since the year 1925, and subject to any encumbrances or liens which second party many have suffered or permitted to attach to the said real estate and premises.”25
Polk Directories indicate that Ocea Huffine lived at 430 South Tracy between 1937 and
1940. Given the listing of Ocea and two other sets of tenants, it’s likely when the house was
renovated into three units at this time. Sanborn Maps indicate modification of the front porch
between 1927 and 1943, a change which likely coincided with the application of stucco over
the brick, as reported on the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory.
Deed records indicate that Ocea Huffine sold the property to Rae and May Whitmore on
September 22, 1941.26 Deed indexes indicate that the Whitmores owned a number of
residential properties in downtown Bozeman, likely as rental investments.
A number of houses in the neighborhood were converted to multiple dwelling units at this
time, as indicated on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. These modifications reflected the community’s changing economy during Bozeman’s Nationalization phase of development, as
outlined in the Bozeman Historic and Architectural Context (2008). 27 Owners capitalized on
a housing shortage cause by Bozeman’s steady economy by constructing new dwelling units
and remodeling existing larger homes to offer multiple apartments. The adjacent property, at
436 South Tracy, is identified as “4 Apts” on the 1943 Sanborn Map.28 In some cases, new multiple dwelling unit structures were added on vacant parcels in existing neighborhoods, as
at 305/ 307 South Tracy Avenue.
The modification of 430 South Tracy from a single dwelling unit into a two dwelling unit
occurred sometime between 1922 and 1927, and a third dwelling was added before 1937.
These modifications all occurred within the South Tracy/ South Black Historic District’s period of significance, and thus do not impinge upon the property’s historic integrity.
22 (R.H. Polk 1929) 23 (Warranty Deed 1931) 24 (R.H. Polk 1937-38) 25 (Warranty Deed 1934) 26 (Warranty Deed 1941) 27 (Renewable Technologies 2008) 28 (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1943)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 43 of 48
Residential Multiple Dwelling Unit zoning
In response to the tensions associated with increased density, the City of Bozeman adopted
the community’s first zoning code in August of 1934, with Ordinance 661. The property at 430 South Tracy was zoned an “Residential- A District,” which allowed single family
residences and multiple family residences, with the caveat that each dwelling unit offer at
least 1,000 square feet of living area. Ordinance 661 also included a definition for a “Two
Family Dwelling: A detached building having accommodations for and occupied by not more than two families.”29
The City continued to refine the zoning laws through the 1930’s. Ordinance 664, passed in
December 1935, expanded the allowable uses in the “Residential- A District,” but maintained
a requirement for 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Ordinance 665 introduced a definition
for “Multiple Family Dwelling: A building designed for, or occupied as the home of, two or more families living independently of each other.” This ordinance also listed “Apartment Houses” listed as an allowable use in “Residential- B District,” but the ordinance failed to
define Apartment House.
Ordinance 682, passed in July 1938, further clarified allowable densities in Residential
districts. It included a definition for Multiple Family Dwellings and Apartment Houses in A
and B Districts. They were defined as, “A building designed for, or occupied as the home of two or more families living independently of each other.”30
Ordinance 682 also refined the definition of Multiple Family Dwellings in the R-A district. It
introduced a sliding scale for the square footage requirement. Less square feet per dwelling
unit were required as the zoning moved from R-A to R-B to R-C and R-D.31
Ordinance 699, passed in June 1940, was intended to clarify and distinguish between “Apartment Houses” and “Multiple Family Dwellings.” This legislation included a definition
for “Apartment House” as, “A building under one roof but divided into separated living
accommodations of one or more rooms for human occupation; access to any such apartment
being from a hall or corridor for the common use of two or more tenants, and the building having one or more entrances from the street or grounds for the common use of two or more, or all, tenants of the apartments, each apartment to be complete in itself and each with
cooking equipment and bathroom and toilet facilities.”32
Ordinance 199 also included a definition for Multiple Family Dwelling: “A building of not
more than four units under one roof, having two or more separate single rooms or sets of rooms or apartments for human occupation, each set having a separate entrance from the street or from the grounds on which the building is erected; and each separate living unit to
be complete in itself, with separate cooking equipment, bathroom and toilet facilities.” 33
In this manner, the property at 430 South Tracy Avenue was in legal use as a three-household
dwelling by 1940. It’s unclear when the fourth dwelling, in the third floor on the rear of the
building, was added. The walls in the stairway are a combination of lathe and plaster
29 (Bozeman 1934) 30 (Bozeman, Ordinance 664 1935) 31 (Bozeman, Ordinance 682 1938) 32 (Bozeman, Ordinance 699 1940) 33 (Bozeman, Ordinance 699 1940)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 44 of 48
construction and Masonite wallboard. Lathe and plaster generally went out of use in the late
1940’s. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of 430 S. Tracy, included in Appendix E of this
document, indicate a different footprint at the rear of this structure in almost each intervening map.
The property at 430 South Tracy changed ownership a number of times through the middle
20th century. Multiple tenants are listed in Polk Directories of the era, indicating a continuous
use of the property as three or four rental until its purchase by GHT Investments in 2006.
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places
In 1984 the City of Bozeman partnered with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office
to conduct a cultural resource survey of about 2,000 properties in Bozeman. The initial
survey used the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Forms to record each
property’s historic significance, date of construction and create an architectural description of
the primary structure on each property. Accessory structures were sometimes mentioned but not recorded in detail.
The 1984 Inventory describes the structure at 430 South Tracy Avenue as a “detached two-
story single family residence” with “an ell-shaped plan with an open, shed roofed front
porch supported by wooden posts and with a gablet. The two-bay façade is asymmetrical and consists of an off-center front entrance with fixed and 1/1 double-hung windows. Two pair of 1/1 double-hung windows are featured in the upper level, one pair in each bay. The frame
construction is finished in brick veneer and wood shingles. The cross-gable roof is covered
with asphalt shingles and features a front-facing shed-roofed dormer with overhanging
eaves. There are two brick chimneys on the ridgeline.”34
Each Inventory included a small photograph taken on film. The film archives, unfortunately, are not extant.
34 (MacDonald 1984)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 45 of 48
The 1984 Inventory must have recorded the property in the early spring of 1984, before
modifications to the front porch were completed. A Building Permit was issued on May 30,
1984 to “remodel present 4-plex, new porch and steps, minor work as needed.”35 This is likely when the current front porch, which matches the footprint shown on Sanborn Maps
between 1904 and 1927, but not the 1943 Sanborn Map, was “reconstructed.” This porch
remains on the structure’s west (front) façade.
Beginning in 1986, the 1984 Inventory data was used to develop new historic district
nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Using the Federal standards created
in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, an architectural historian expanded the
1984 data by creating a historic context for the area’s history, identifying the geographical boundary of a historic district and by researching the history of each property in a potential
historic district. In most cases, the additional data was typed directly on the 1984 Inventory
forms, as evident by the change in type face.
As part of the South Tracy/ South Black Avenue Historic District nomination, the contract
architectural historian Matthew Cohen wrote, “This well-preserved vernacular house is an important element in this contiguous historic streetscape. The stucco was probably applied
around 1930.”
Cohen further recorded, James N. Kelley, a receiver for the US Land Office and later a real
estate salesman, was probably the original occupant here, listed at this address from about 1904 to 1916. In 1927, Grace B. Cobler, a “helper” employed by Mrs. Collie Rogers, who ran a cafeteria at 33 South Black, was living here.” 36
The City of Bozeman’s Building Department issued a Building Permit for 430 South Tracy
to James Cowan, for electrical work, in 1997.37 A permit was issued to the Olson Family
Limited Partnership in 2005 for a new roof. The last permit was issued in 2006 to Stuart
35 (Building Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue 1984) 36 (MacDonald 1984) 37 (Buliding Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue 1997)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 46 of 48
Mitchell, on behalf of the current owner George Talbot, for the demolition of a shed at the
rear of the property.38
In 2013, the Department of Community Development approved a Subdivision Exemption for Boundary Line Adjustment which moved the property line between 424 and 430 South Tracy
Avenue six feet to the south.39 This modification had no impact on the residence’s historic
integrity; the original setting, design and location for the residence were not adversely
affected.
WORKS CITED
Bozeman Daily Chronicle. "Andrew J. Svorkmoe Building Contractor Died at Hospital."
Bozeman Daily Chronicle, January 27, 1925: 4.
Bozeman Department of Community Development, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT.
"Certificate of Appropriateness Application Z06038." Bozeman, May 1, 2006.
Bozeman, City of. "Ordinance 661." Zoning ordinance. 1934.
—. "Ordinance 664." Zoning Ordinance. December 1935.
—. "Ordinance 682." Zoning Ordinance . July 1938.
—. "Ordinance 699." Zoning ordinance. July 1940.
"Building Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue." Bozeman, Montana: City of Bozeman, 1984.
"Buliding Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue." Bozeman: City of Bozeman, 1997.
Clerk, City of Bozeman. "Mayors, Commissioners and Council Members of the City of
Bozeman." 2014.
"Demolition Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue." Bozeman: City of Bozeman, 2007.
Kelly, James N. Combined Ironing-Board and Step Ladder. United States Patent 517,927.
August 16, 1910.
MacDonald, James. "Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory: 430 South Tracy
AVenue." Cultural Resource survey, Bozeman, 1984.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses, Secon Edition. New York:
Knopf, 2014.
Polk. "1900 Polk Directory for Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana." 1900.
Polk, R. H. "1904 Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County." 1904.
—. "1908 Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County." 1908.
R.H. Polk. "1925 Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County." 1925.
38 (Demolition Permit: 430 South Tracy Avenue 2007) 39 (Subdivision Exemption for Boundary Line Adjustment, Application E13006 2013)
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 47 of 48
—. "1929 Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County." 1929.
R.H. Polk. Bozeman [Montana] City Directory; Including Gallatin County. City Directory,
Bozeman, Montana: R. H. Polk, 1937-38.
Renewable Technologies, Inc. "Bozeman, Montana: A Historic and Architectural Context."
2008. http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=35443&dbid=0 (accessed
August 14, 2014).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. "Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Montana." New York: Sanborn Map Company, January 1904.
—. "Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana." New York: Sanborn Fire
Insurance, 1912.
—. "Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana." New York: Sanborn Fire
Insurance Company, 1943.
Sanborn Map Company. "Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana."
New York City: Sanborn Map Company, September 1927.
—. "Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana." New York: Sanborn Map
Company, 1957.
Service, United States Department of the Interior: National Park. "National Register of
Historic Places Continuation Sheed." Bozeman Historic Preservation . 1986.
http://www.preservebozeman.org/pdf/BozemanBonTonHD.pdf (accessed August 14, 2014).
—. "National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet: Cooper Park Historic District."
Bozeman Historic Preservation. 1986.
http://www.preservebozeman.org/pdf/BozemanCooperParkHD.pdf (accessed August 14,
2014).
"Subdivision Exemption for Boundary Line Adjustment, Application E13006." City of
Bozeman, Department of Community Development, 2013.
United States Census Bureau. "United State Census, 1910." Andrew Svorkmoe, Bozeman,
Ward 1-4, Gallatin, Montana, United States. 1910.
—. "United States Census, 1900." Andrew Soorkmoe, Bozeman, Ward 1-4, Gallatin,
Montana, United States. 1900.
—. "United States Census, 1920." Andrew Soorkmoe, Bozeman, Ward 1-4, Gallatin,
Montana, United States. 1920.
United States Department of the Interior: National Park Service. "National Register of
Historic Places Evaluation/ Return Sheet: South Tracy-South Black Historic District
(Bozeman MRA)." Bozeman Historic Preservation . September 8, 1987.
Z-14090, Staff Report for the DEMOLITION OF 430 SOUTH TRACY AVE.
Page 48 of 48
http://www.preservebozeman.org/pdf/BozemanSouthTracy-SouthBlackHD.pdf (accessed
August 14, 2014).
"Warranty Deed." Lots 17 & 8, Block 8, Fairview Addition to Bozeman. Vol. Deed Book 23.
Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, November 11, 1898. Page 505.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 17 & 18, Block 8, Fairview Addition to Bozeman. Vol. Deed Book
23. Bozeman, MT: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, January 21, 1899. Page 586.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 17 & 18, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman. Vol.
Deed Book 29. Bozeman, MT: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, April 10, 1902. Page 43.
"Warranty Deed." Lot 16, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman. Vol. Deed
Book 29. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin Clerk and Recorder, May 23, 1902. Page 53.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 16, 17 & 18, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman.
Bozeman: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, May 23, 1902.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 14 & 15, Block F, Hoffman's Addiion to the City of Bozeman. Vol.
Deed book 29. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, September 22,
1902. Page 291.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 14 & 15, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman. Vol.
Deed book 34. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, August 1, 1903.
Page 149.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 14 & 15, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman. Vol.
Deed Book 78. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, May 21, 1931.
Page 470.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 14 & 15. Vol. Deed Book 78. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County
Clerk and Recorder, July 10, 1934. Page 25.
"Warranty Deed." Lots 14 & 15, Block F, Hoffman's Addition to the City of Bozeman. Vol.
Deed Book 88. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, September 22,
1941. Page 470.
Development Review Division Policy and Planning Division Building Division
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
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
From:Steve
To:Courtney Kramer
Subject:Re: Updated information for Application Z14090, Demolition of 430 South Tracy
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:58:41 PM
Hi Courtney,Niki and I are at Elkhorn Hotsprings, so I'll be brief. 430 Tracy is classified ascontributing because there is no vision to replace the structure with a comparablehome. I feel the application should be denied because an empty lot cannot replace acontributing home. Also, the city building inspector should ensure the two brickchimneys are in compliance with Bozeman's nuisance code (public safety).
Sincerely,Steve Keuch
Niki Keuch
On Aug 14, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Courtney Kramer <ckramer@BOZEMAN.NET> wrote:
Dear Preservation Board members,
I hope this email finds all of you well as the summer begins to wind down towards
Labor Day.
I wanted to bring you up to speed on the demolition application that the Board
reviewed during the June 2014 meeting. A link to the application’s digital file is
available here. This digital file includes all of the relevant factual data used to make a
recommendation.
The Board declined to take formal action on the item during the June meeting because
the Department of Community Development had not yet received a third party
estimate of the cost associated with rehabilitating the structure. We received that cost
estimate this week, on Tuesday, August 12. I have attached the cost estimate included
in the application materials and the cost estimate provided by the third party
contractor to this email.
The information in the cost estimates was the last piece of information we needed in
order to finalize our Staff Report. I have attached the Staff Report to this email.
The Department of Community Development has to make a decision on this
application by the end of the day on Friday, August 15, 2014. Wendy Thomas, Director
of Community Development, is the review authority for this application. We realize
with this schedule it is not possible for the Preservation Board to offer public comment
on this matter as a group. In lieu of that, we would welcome public comment from
board members as individuals.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. I think you may enjoy reading the
property history included in the appendix of the staff report. The home of former
Preservation Board Jillian Bertelli, at 702 South Grand, was built by the same
contractor who built 430 South Tracy in 1900. The house at 608 South Grand was also
built by the same builder in 1899. 608 South Grand was sold to W.S. Davidson, who is
the grandfather of former Board member Jane Davidson Klockman. Jane’s father was
born in this house. It’s demolition in 2008 started the whole demolition by neglect
public policy discussion.
And that, friends, is why I love history.
Sincerely,
Courtney KramerHistoric Preservation OfficerCity of BozemanDirect line: 406-582-2289Front desk: 406-582-2260ckramer@bozeman.netwww.bozeman.netwww.preservebozeman.org "Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streetsand districts to grow without them." - Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities
All City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions ofMontana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record”per Sect. 2-6-202and Sect. 2-6-401, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, itssender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will beretained pursuant to theCity’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidentialinformation related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
<City Of Bozeman Estimate for 430 S. Tracy.pdf>
<Z14090 Talbot demolition 430 Se SkCOA_ Structural Analysis and CostEstimates.pdf>
<Z14090_430 South Tracy Demolition SkCOA_StaffReport.docx>