HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-17 CC Mtg - A1. Ordinance 1920 Provisional, Maintenance & Demolition of Historic StructuresPage 1 of 18
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of
Historic Structures Text Amendment 2nd Hearing
Public Hearing Date: City Commission January 30, 2017 at 6 pm.
Project Description: Adoption of Ordinance 1920. These amendments create and clarify
obligations of property owners to maintain their property and address the process for
when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a structure is
classed as a historic structure or located within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD).
Project Location: Generally applicable throughout the City with special applicability
within those areas documented as historically significant including the NCOD.
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended City Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application 14623 and move to provisionally
adopt Ordinance 1920.
Report Date: January 20, 2017
Staff Contact: Chris Saunders
Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
1) Whether or not to apply the process for demolition of historic structure or site apply
outside of the boundaries of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District after
preparation of required documentation and consultation with owners. See Section 6
Section 8, Paragraph B and Section 13 of the draft text. See alternative motion 1 on page
6.
2) Whether or not to require performance bonds for completion of construction of
replacement buildings. See Alternative motion 2 on page 6.
Project Summary
One of the distinguishing characteristics for Bozeman is its well-kept established
neighborhoods. Many of these areas are located within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD) where there are protections in place for historic buildings. The City
has had regulations in place to protect historic buildings for about 24 years.
57
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 2 of 18
For the past several years, there has been considerable discussion on how to balance historic
preservation with community goals for infill development and redevelopment of under-
utilized or obsolete properties. Overly restrictive regulations may inhibit desired
redevelopment or removal of unsafe structures. Overly permissive regulations may allow the
loss of important elements of Bozeman’s unique character. On July 14, 2014, the City
Commission conducted a work session with staff to discuss these issues. Agenda item G.6
has the staff memo linked. A copy of the memo and meeting minutes is attached. The draft
regulations incorporate the Commission direction given that day with some modifications
determined appropriate during the code drafting process. The text amendment seeks a
balance of these two issues by creating a clear definition of what is historic and
distinguishing how historic, non-historic, and unsafe buildings are addressed.
An associated concern is how to provide protection to adjacent residents from unmaintained
properties. The concern is not limited to defined historic districts. Areas throughout the
community need to ensure that properties remain safe and are not a detriment to the vicinity.
The City has some standards in place under its nuisance code but they are administratively
intensive and are subjective. These amendments provide additional clarity.
In summary, the amendments propose the following changes.
1. Clean up text in Chapter 10, Building Codes, of the municipal code to fix references and
assign correct staff responsibilities for certain duties.
2. Coordinate Chapter 10, Building Codes with Chapter 38, Unified Development Code
that all zoning review needed prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of a
building is complete.
3. Coordination with Chapter 16, Environment and Health to clarify that structures must be
kept safe.
4. Define what safe means for item 3 above.
5. Amend article 38.16, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay to establish the protection of
historic structures as one of its purposes and coordinating with procedures for demolition.
6. Replace the procedures for demolition of buildings in 38.16.080. This section currently
puts buildings of all historic status into the same section. The proposed language separates
them for clarity and adds cross-references as needed. The section also creates a
consultation process where an owner of property can get a preliminary determination of
whether a building can be removed. This early indication enables lower risk as private
parties don’t have to provide full applications for subsequent development before finding
out if the building can be removed.
7. Establish procedures to demolish a historic structure. Retains same review criteria as
presently in place. Provides a clearer path through the review and greater explanation of
how the existing stay of demolition is applied. This section codifies existing City
58
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 3 of 18
Commission direction regarding timing of demolition. Before demolition can begin, the
permit for the replacement structure must be issued. This would apply to all historic
structures in the community.
8. Addresses how to demolish a non-historic structure within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. Retains same review criteria as presently in place. This has
a lesser standard of review than for a historic building. Provides a clearer path through the
review process. This section codifies the most recent City Commission direction from
September 2016. Before demolition can begin, the zoning approval for the subsequent
treatment/redevelopment of the site must be issued. This section does not apply outside of
the NCOD.
9. Gives specific procedures for demolition of unsafe structures. This is new text not
currently existing. An expedited process is provided and criteria are simpler. Coordinates
with the nuisance provisions in Chapter 16, Environment and Health, BMC. This section
does not apply outside of the NCOD.
10. Establish procedure for clarity of what level of documentation may be required in
association with demolition of a historic building. The required matrix has not yet been
created. It is expected to be created when the City hires its new historic preservation
specialist later this year.
11. Specifically addresses duty to protect historic structures. Cross links with the general
maintenance obligations of all property owners. Clarifies that standard maintenance and
interior renovations are excluded from this standard.
12. Amends the zoning plan review article 38.19 to address when a COA is required to
demolish a historic building. This expands the scope of the COA process to include
historic buildings outside of the NCOD. This is authorizing language. The required
documentation to execute this are not in place at this time.
13. Clarify noticing language for applications to demolish historic structures.
14. Expand application materials for demolitions to make clear the scope of the proposed
work and supporting material to evaluate whether the criteria for demolition have been
met.
15. Creates and amends specific definitions of what property is to be considered historic.
Age alone is not enough. There are well defined national professional standards for
evaluation of properties to determine if historic integrity still is intact. The City uses these
standards. This definition requires a substantial process of fact collection and evaluation
prior to determining a property to be historic. The National Park Service publishes the
standards. The process can be found
at https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. A copy is attached to this report.
59
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 4 of 18
The federal law can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm. This is discussed
further in Appendix C.
This set of amendments is being processed concurrently with the larger update to the Unified
Development Code. If approved, the changes will take effect earlier but will be renumbered
and incorporated with the overall adoption of the updated and reformatted code in early
2017. Minor adjustments may be made to harmonize with other amendments during that
process. It is suggested that this item be adopted independently from the overall UDC update
as this set of amendments also revised two other chapters of the municipal code.
Initial public hearing results from September 26, 2016.
A public hearing was held on these amendments by the City Commission on September 26,
2016. Several public comments were received, including from the State Historic Preservation
Office, on the draft. The Commission identified some desired revisions. The item was
continued to a date uncertain while the items were researched and revised. These items and
where they are addressed in the text follow. A notation is provided in the comments adjacent
to the ordinance text indicating where these are addressed. The staff will remove the
comments from the final adoption draft of Ordinance 1920.
1. City needs to be a gatekeeper for application of historic review processes. See the
definitions of historic properties in Sections 16 and 17. The revised text requires City
concurrence with any historic evaluation before the related zoning review process will
occur. The City will ensure that property owners are advised of the development of
historic documentation and given an opportunity to comment on that documentation
before that documentation is determined to be adequate for application of zoning
processes. The Commission could direct that a formal public hearing occur before
completing such a process.
2. Do non-historic properties require the same level of progress in development review
before demolition as historic properties? The Commission directed a lesser standard
apply to non-historic properties. See Sections 8 and 9 of the ordinance for the contrast
between the two categories. Non-historic properties require less progress through the
development review process as they require only approval of zoning review before
demolition may occur. Historic properties must complete all review and have an issued
building permit for the replacement structure before demolition may occur.
3. Should the COA review process apply outside of the NCOD? The present draft
authorizes this but is contingent on completion of other actions. See Sections 6, 8, and 13.
The revised text authorizes the extension of COA as there is no restriction on the
formation of historic districts outside of the NCOD. The Story Mill district already
extends beyond the bounds of the NCOD. Before such authorizing language would take
effect, historic documentation would have to be prepared, reviewed, and accepted by the
City. As noted in item 1 above, the City will engage with the property owners prior to
60
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 5 of 18
completing the documentation of historic eligibility process. See Alternative motion 1 for
alternate language to restrict application of the COA process.
4. Duration of the stay of demolition. Staff has not found a longer term of stay in other
communities, many are considerably shorter. No changes are recommended. See Section
9.
5. Does demolition of historic properties outside of the NCOD or a historic district require
the same procedures as inside? This interacts with items 1 and 3 above. See Sections 6, 8,
and 13. As written, the requirement does apply; but not until the City has completed and
accepted adequate documentation of historic significance for a property. Alternate
language 1 below would remove this requirement.
6. Definition of viable economic life. A single standard is applied in Sections 7 and 8 with
required submittal materials to enable the analysis being required in Section 15. The
definition used ensures that the proposed regulation meets legal standards to prevent
excessive impact.
7. Require bonding for completion of projects where a historic structure is removed. Staff
has carefully examined this issue and recommends strongly against this requirement. It
adds significant cost with questionable additional benefit beyond what will be provided
by the revised text. An alternative motion is provided below for the Commission’s
consideration.
8. Clarifying the application of what site or structures are considered historic. Revised
definitions are included in Sections 16 and 17. The revised definitions address the
comments from the State Historic Preservation Office.
9. During evaluation of the revisions Staff identified an additional paragraph to be added to
Section 8. This additional paragraph clarifies that the review authority may exercise their
discretion to not impose a stay of demolition for projects requiring site plan review.
Alternatives
1. Adopt the draft text as written.
2. Adopt Alternative motion 1 to address unresolved issue #1 below that would require a
certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a historic structure only in the NCOD as
opposed to throughout the city.
3. Adopt alternative motion 2 below which would authorize the city in the NCOD and for
historic structures to require the owner seeking demolition of a historic structure to enter
into a development agreement and provide a surety bond with the city named as
beneficiary for 10% of the project budget. The Commission may consider further limiting
this requirement to only commercial structures.
4. Require revisions prior to adopting the ordinance.
5. Do not adopt the revisions.
61
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 6 of 18
Alternative motion 1 to address unresolved issue one: I move to revise Section 8,
Paragraph 38.16.090.A of the draft text to read “COA for demolition and subsequent
development. For historic structures or sites within the NCOD or a historic district, approval
of the proposed subsequent development is required prior to the demolition or movement of
any building or structure or site.
Alternative motion 2 requiring a development agreement and surety bond for
reconstruction of a demolished historic structure: I move to add the following to section 8
of Ordinance 1920 adding new subsection 38.16.090.D.4.c to the Bozeman Municipal Code
as follows: “The review authority may require a developer to enter into a development
agreement with the city at the time of issuance of a certificate of appropriateness authorizing
demolition of all or part of a historic structure in the neighborhood conservation overlay
zoning district or in a designated historic district. The development agreement may provide
for conditions of demolition, timing of reconstruction, and may require the developer to post
a surety bond naming the city as a beneficiary for not less than 10% of the costs of the
overall reconstruction budget as a guarantee that construction of the replacement structure
will commence promptly upon completion of the demolition. This requirement is in addition
to any other requirement of this code.”
Advisory Board Actions
The Zoning Commission, Planning Board, and Historic Preservation Advisory Board have
considered these amendments and recommend approval. The Planning Board recommended
non-historic buildings in the NCOD not have to wait until issuance of building permit before
removal of the building can occur. The video record of the Planning Board and Zoning
Commission meeting is available
at http://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=c06b26de-f556-4b02-8496-
b1ecb5a4893b. No video of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is available. Minutes
are attached from all boards.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Initial public hearing results from September 26, 2016 ...................................................... 4
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 5
Advisory Board Actions ..................................................................................................... 6
62
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 7 of 18
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 7
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 7
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 8
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 11
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 12
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 12
APPENDIX C – BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 13
1) International Property Maintenance Code. ................................................................... 13
2) Demolition review process: .......................................................................................... 13
3) Need to establish a clear standard for what is considered historic ............................... 14
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 16
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for a text amendment, the Staff recommends
approval as submitted.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on August 31,
2016. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would
impede the approval of the application.
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on this text
amendment on September 6, 2016 and recommend approval to the Commission.
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board held a public meeting on September 13, 2016, and
recommends approval.
The City Commission held a public hearing on the text amendment on September 26, 2016.
A second public hearing will be held on January 30, 2017. The meeting will be held at 121
N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action,
the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that
the application should be approved lies with the applicant.
63
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 8 of 18
In considering the following criteria, the analysis must show that the amendment
accomplishes criteria A-D. Criteria E-K must be considered and may be found to be
affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find
that the application meets all of criteria A-D and that the positive outcomes of the
amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K.
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not
exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of
the growth policy. The broad range of support for this factor across three separate chapters of
the growth policy emphasizes its importance. No conflicts with the growth policy have been
identified.
5.3 Land Use Goals and Objectives
“Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which
provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing
development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit
difference in scale or design.”
The proposed amendments will support infill by creating a clearer and more predictable path
for development review in historic areas. Future, the context of existing areas is protected by
avoiding speculative tear-downs which leave holes in the built environment of the
neighborhood.
Chapter 5 Historic Preservation
“Bozeman residents value their community’s heritage: historic neighborhoods, buildings
and landscapes are reminders of this heritage. The City envisions a community with a
rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all
citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The City’s mission: carry out a historic
preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic resources so they
remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.”
“The surviving historic fabric is an incentive for tourism by providing an attractive and
unique experience for tourists. Both actions support the local community’s economy.”
This introductory statement and selection from the intent statement of the chapter sets out the
importance of historic preservation in Bozeman’s identity and character. It makes it clear
than specific action to protect historic character and structures is expected.
“Goal HP-1: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the
community’s identity, history, and quality of life.
64
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 9 of 18
Rationale: Protection of historically and culturally significant resources ensures the
survival of Bozeman’s historic buildings, structures, landscapes, streetscapes and
archeological sites to ensure a dynamic historic legacy for present and future generations.
It also is a driver for economic development and activity in Bozeman, and supports the
goal of sustainability. Therefore, historic preservation efforts support economic vitality
and the environmental health of the community.”
“Objective HP-1.1: Continue implementation and further develop historic preservation
planning tools and research efforts that provide protection of historic resources.”
“Objective HP-1.3: Provide clear and concise City standards and requirements to ensure
protection of historic resources.”
Chapter 5, Historic Preservation, is the source of the selections above. A clear link between
community character, the health of the local economy, and action to support historic
preservation is called for. The proposed regulations require very basic maintenance of all
structures in the City whether designated historic or not. History is constantly in the making
and new buildings become potentially qualified for historic recognition. Therefore, it is
appropriate to maintain all structures.
5.4 Future Historic Preservation Needs
“Affirmative Maintenance/Demolition by Neglect:
Some property owners treat their properties with such negligence that they become likely
candidates for demolition. Several of these properties are historically significant and if
lost, damage the community’s collective past. A City ordinance should be drafted that
establishes minimum maintenance and upkeep requirements for property owners, so the
security and basic structural integrity of properties are preserved and structures remain
safe for use.”
The growth policy specifically identified the type of amendments presently proposed as an
implementing action for the growth policy.
“6.3 Housing Goals and Objectives
Objective 1.2 – Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing
stock to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Bozeman residents.”
Maintaining housing and other buildings in a weather tight and secure condition will advance
this objective. Further, it directly supports public health, safety, and welfare by lessening
opportunities for vandalism, buildup of vermin, and the detrimental effects than an
unmaintained building has on the surrounding properties.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Yes. The revisions to require buildings to be secure will reduce fire hazard and trespassing.
Earlier this year, at Main Street and Tracy Avenue persons entered an unsecured closet and
65
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 10 of 18
started a fire. See the attached incident report. Police had to respond to trespassing calls to
unoccupied homes on Peach and Rouse and Peach and N 3rd
Ave. Arson is a particular
problem for vacant and abandoned properties. The U.S. Fire Administration estimates that
there were 28,000 fires annually in vacant residences between 2006 and 2008, with half of
these spreading to the rest of the building and 11 percent spreading to a nearby building
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. As described in criterion B above public safety will be improved. Further, the
encouragement to maintain buildings which retain functional value improves the historic
character of areas. The requirement to place new buildings in conjunction with removal of
buildings prevents speculative demolition, vacant parcels, and loss of participation in the
community by residents.
Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address
properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public
health and safety. This code as written does not take effect until substantial damage to a
building occurs with associated hazards to the public. Establishing a simple and clear
preventative maintenance standard avoids the creation of nuisances which addresses all
elements of this criterion. The proposed amendments also simplify the removal of buildings
which truly are beyond salvage which expedites the clearance of potential hazards to safety.
See the attached report on vacant properties
D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public requirements.
Neutral. Generally, the maintenance of buildings supports the health and economic vitality of
the community. In turn, this enables ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure. However,
the effects of the proposed revisions are expected to be minor in the overall context of the
community.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue.
F. Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue.
H. Character of the district.
Yes. The architectural heritage of an area is an essential element in determining the character
of a district. Many areas where historic buildings have been identified are included within
National Register Historic Districts (NRHD). These are honorary designations where a
66
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 11 of 18
commonality of building design and historic features have been documented. An NRHD can
span multiple zoning districts.
Some buildings are not consistent with the character of a historic district either because they
have been so substantially altered as to loose historic integrity, or they do not correspond to
the character defining features of the historic district. Not all historic buildings are included
within a historic district.
Where the required documentation has been created to verify that buildings have historic
integrity, the proposed amendments act to preserve that integrity. Buildings not having
historic integrity may be removed to allow placement of new buildings which are consistent
with the character of the district.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address uses for specific properties.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. When buildings are open to weather and not secure they can quickly receive cosmetic
and more substantial damage. This can occur through vandalism, by water infiltration,
infestation of rodents, growth of mold, and other undesirable occurrences. The requirement
for buildings to be kept weather tight and secure will limit damage and retain building value.
Buildings where demolition has been approved often exhibit signs of water and other weather
damage on the interior. The proposed revisions to the process for demolition of buildings will
require verification that a building is not economically viable before it is demolished.
Removal of unsafe buildings will remove a detriment to a neighborhood which can depress
the value of adjacent buildings.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The proposed revisions help ensure that historically developed areas remain in active
use by requiring approved development plans and permits before demolition of existing
buildings.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT
AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A
PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT
BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
67
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 12 of 18
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
Historic structures may be located in all zoning districts and be all types of land uses. The
majority of designated historic structures are located within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD). There are also many non-historic structures within the NCOD.
The maintenance and nuisance prevention amendments will apply to the entire city and all
structures both residential and non-residential.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
See discussion under Criterion A.
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
A public notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle legal ads on August 21st
and
September 4, 2016. As the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain a second public
notice was published on January 15th
and 22nd
, 2017. This is the legally required notice for
amending the text of the municipal code.
In addition, the City has convened an advisory committee representing many stakeholder groups
within the community. Proposed edits were discussed with the committee for dispersal to
interested parties. The City has also maintained a web site for the Unified Development Code
update process which provides information on meetings and proposed edits.
The Commission has discussed this issue and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board has
commented several times during development of the text. The Historic Preservation Advisory
Board met on September 13, 2016 to consider the amendments. Due to a computer software
failure no recording of the meeting was made. This was not known until after conclusion of the
meeting. No formal minutes were kept due to reliance upon the recording system. Staff has
prepared summary minutes.
A copy of the Planning Board resolution summarizing their meeting and recommendation is
attached to this report.
No comments were given at the Planning Board public hearing or Historic Preservation Advisory
Board public meeting. Two written public comments were received just prior to the September
26, 2016 public hearing. Copies have been appended to this report. The questions and related
revisions identified on September 26th
have largely addressed the public comments.
68
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 13 of 18
APPENDIX C – BACKGROUND
1) International Property Maintenance Code. The City has considered a wide variety of
alternatives to address maintenance of buildings. The City considered the possible adoption of
the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). This is a publication of the International
Code Council. The State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) has control of the
adoption of building codes for the state. A recent case of Svee v Helena was decided by the
Montana Supreme Court which confirmed that cities, even with self-government powers may not
adopt building construction standards different than those approved by the DLI. The IPMC is
considered a building code and the DLI has chosen to not adopt it. Therefore, the City may not
adopt the IPMC.
As the IPMC is not available the City sought other alternatives to address maintenance of
properties. After extensive internal discussion with staff from Community Development, Legal,
Fire, and Building it was determined to take the very direct approach proposed. The City does
have authority to avoid and abate nuisances to protect the public health and safety. A simple
definition and standard incorporated in the nuisance component of the municipal code meets the
essential need. As issues of health and safety are not limited to historic properties the
requirement for property maintenance is applied generally throughout the city.
Community Development has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the nuisance code.
The various enforcement processes and penalties are described in Sections 16.02.060 through
16.02.140, BMC.
2) Demolition review process: Bozeman does not provide the same level of scrutiny to removal
of non-historic buildings as to historic buildings. Bozeman recognizes that some buildings have
passed their useful life or are hazardous. However, many buildings can with appropriate care
continue functioning well either to their original purpose or new purposes.
There has been less clarity of process in determining removal of buildings than is desirable. The
proposal strives to provide clarity depending on historic or safety status. Safety is prioritized
over historic preservation in the draft text.
The Commission previously gave direction that no buildings were to be removed in the NCOD
until their replacement has been reviewed and is ready for issuance of a building permit. This
applied to historic and non-historic buildings alike. The intent was to increase the likelihood of
follow through on projects and avoid demolition without the subsequent building being
constructed. The draft text reflects this direction.
The process of demolishing a building can take several weeks or longer depending on the type of
construction and whether materials are to be salvaged from the building being removed. The
same impact to historic character does not occur with removal of non-historic buildings as occurs
with demolition of historic buildings. However, there are still impacts to continuity of the
building pattern, maintenance of sidewalks and landscaping, and similar issues. Removal of
some buildings earlier may make site investigations for replacement buildings easier such as
69
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 14 of 18
checking for soil load bearing characteristics needed for designing an adequate foundation.
Therefore, there is less, but still some, community benefit in delaying building removal until the
new structure is ready for construction. This greater balance of benefits to the community
compared to the developer between alternatives is why this is an unresolved issue.
The alternative motion provided still requires considerable investment by a developer prior to
removing a non-historic building. It does not allow demolition in advance of preparation of a
zoning application and building permit and therefore may create difficulties in evaluating a site
for redevelopment.
A second alternative is to allow removal of a non-historic building with a plan to complete the
regrading of the site to removal all materials, fill any holes, control storm water, and revegetate
the site. This is essentially the standard provided for unsafe buildings. This alternative may allow
demolition of buildings in anticipation of but not assurance of replacement buildings resulting in
unoccupied lots which are not in keeping with neighborhood character.
3) Need to establish a clear standard for what is considered historic: Demolition of structures
within historically designated areas has been controversial. It is important to know what is truly
historical. No local definition presently is included in the zoning regulations.
Not every old building has historic integrity or significance. Historic preservation is based upon
factual determinations of compliance with specific criteria. The National Park Service publishes
the standards and determines required professional qualifications. The process can be found
at https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. A copy is attached to this report and a
summary of key issues is provided below.
It is necessary to define what is historic before regulation and education can be effectively
deployed. A historic structure or area may be designated due to:
1. Criterion A: Event
2. Criterion B: Person (persons of substantial influence and historical significance in a
particular time and place)
3. Criterion C: Design/ Construction (building focused, often the basis for historic
districts)
4. Criterion D: Information Potential (usually things like archeological sites)
After consideration of the four criteria for potential historic eligibility the significance of the
structure/area must be evaluated. Consideration of these criteria is heavily affected by the context
of the thing being evaluated. Historical buildings and sites tell stories and communicate
important information about their origins and circumstances in which they were important. The
significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within
its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific
occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance)
within history or prehistory is made clear. This may occur on a local, regional, or national level.
70
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 15 of 18
If a structure/site has been found to be significant it must also be evaluated for integrity. Integrity
is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be
significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. Integrity is based
on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully
established can you proceed to the issue of integrity.
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven
aspects of integrity.
•Location
•Design
•Setting
•Materials
•Workmanship
•Feeling (expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time)
•Association
The steps in assessing integrity are:
Define the essential physical features that must be present for a property to represent its
significance.
Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their
significance.
Determine whether the property needs to be compared with similar properties. And,
Determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which aspects of
integrity are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if they are present.
Ultimately, the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains
the identity for which it is significant.
This is an information intensive process and requires professional skills to be completed
accurately and thoroughly. Only after completion of this process can a structure or district be
truly designated as historic. Therefore, the definition proposed for “historic” establishes a high
standard that is not applied lightly.
A question that has arisen during review of the draft text by the Historic Preservation Advisory
Board is who may initiate the required documentation to establish a building as historic.
According to the State Historic Preservation Office on September 19th
, any person may prepare
and submit historic inventory forms for their consideration. Planning staff was not aware of this
open submittal option and had understood that a local government sponsorship of form
71
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 16 of 18
preparation was required. That understanding was not correct. Therefore, the assumed procedural
steps of community outreach in advance of inventorying new areas are not assured.
No consultation with the property owner is required to create inventory forms. SHPO does
review them for certain qualitative elements so that they are reliable. The form itself has no
regulatory affect, it is simply information. If a formal historic district is to be created, then owner
consultation is required and if objected to by 50% or more of the owners does not move forward.
With this change to the zoning regulations and the new definition of “historic property/structure”
the consequence of completing an inventory form is the application of land use regulations that
alter the process for redeveloping property. At this point, the community has not completed the
comprehensive discussion to expand the procedural requirements of the NCOD for demolition
although there has been notice given of this text amendment. Staff is of opinion that it is better to
retain the comprehensive definition of “historic property/structure” and limit its application to
the NCOD at this time rather than revise the definition. As shown on Figure 12, page 49, in the
report from December 2015 on the evaluation of the NCOD there are several areas in the City
which are outside of the NCOD which could potentially meet the criteria for historic
property/structures. Staff believes additional outreach to those areas is needed before applying
the demolition procedures to those areas.
Nothing in this draft prevents a group of property owners from pursuing classification of their
property as historic or from seeking designation as a historic district.
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by
this text amendment. The ordinance also includes direction for staff to help provide education
and outreach to the community on building protection and maintenance. It is anticipated that this
work will be incorporated into the standard budget and work plan for the Historic Preservation
Specialist (once the position is filled) and the building division.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Graphic illustrating summary steps to identify and document historic properties
Ordinance 1920
Minutes from September 26, 2016 City Commission meeting
Link to the packet materials from September 26, 2016 which includes:
Staff report
Recommended amendment language
72
14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic
Structures Text Amendment Page 17 of 18
Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes
Planning Board resolution
Planning Board minutes
Minutes from July 14, 2014 City Commission meeting
Staff memo from July 14, 2016 Commission meeting
Map of Historic Districts
Map of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
National Register Bulletin – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation
73
Page 18 of 18
The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases
74
Ord XXX
Page 1 of 18
ORDINANCE NO. 1920
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA AMENDING SECTIONS OF 10.03.110, 10.04.050, CHAPTER 10,
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS REGARDING REMOVAL OF
BUILDINGS, ARTICLE 16.02, PUBLIC NUISANCES REGARDING PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, AND SECTION 38.16.080, AMENDING SECTIONS 38.19.080,
38.40.030, 38.41.090, CREATING NEW SECTIONS 38.16.100-120 AND RENUMBERING
THE EXISTING SECTION 38.16.090, CREATING SECTION 38.42.1365, AMENDING
SECTION 38.42.1370, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, BMC REGARDING
HISTORIC PROPERTY/STRUCTURES INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION,
MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and
Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and
welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to preserve the fabric of the City and character
of City neighborhoods; to have well maintained historic properties; and to prevent intentional and
unintentional damage to historic properties through neglect; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan identifies historic preservation
as an important element of community character and heritage, and the Bozeman Community Plan
encourages the protection of historically and culturally significant resources.
WHEREAS, the “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD), Chapter 38.16,
was established in 1991 to conserve and protect neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS, the NCOD uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to review
development of properties in the NCOD applying general guidelines for the protection of
neighborhood character and targeted recommendations for historic properties; and
75
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 2 of 18
WHEREAS, historic properties are not necessarily limited to the geographical boundaries
of the NCOD; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman Municipal Code definition of historic site is not adequately
clear, lessening certainty in identifying which properties are subject to the historic preservation
provisions of Chapter 38; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a definition based on a property’s eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places is consistent with the best management practices adopted by
other state and federal government agencies such as the Montana Department of Transportation
and the Army Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, the City’s nuisance code, Chapter 16, and adopted technical codes (Building
Codes), Chapter 10, are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such
disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
1. The City’s experience with historic preservation shows that the adoption of specific
definitions of “historic site” and “historic structure” will create a knowable and predictable
classification of properties.
2. A specific definition of “historic” provides the opportunity to protect properties eligible for
listing throughout the City (not limited to the NCOD).
3. A specific definition of “historic” enables the historic preservation program to more readily
keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions.
4. A specific definition of “historic” creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving,
growing community to recognize properties which are eligible for designation as historic.
5. The historic preservation goals in the City’s Community Plan will be promoted by
maintaining historic properties in safe condition and good repair, preventing intentional
and unintentional neglect of historic properties, and ensuring that historic properties be
maintained as weather tight and secure.
6. The City Commission intends to be proactive and to discourage properties reaching the
point that triggers action through either the nuisance code or adopted technical codes
(Building Codes) by being neglected to the point of being unsafe.
76
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 3 of 18
7. The City’s involvement with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and
facilitate, and encourage collaborative approaches involving individuals, government, and
the private sector to address neglected properties will promote the historic preservation
goals in the Community Plan.
8. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest for the City to deter speculative demolition
of structures, which creates gaps in the neighborhood fabric, and diminishes the tax revenue
stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure
improvements to the area. In addition, vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining
residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and
deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished
9. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest to reduce the use of City resources by
coordinating the provisions of the City’s nuisance code, adopted building codes, and
zoning code.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising the Building Moving Code,
Section 10.03.110.A as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered:
Sec. 10.03.110. - Same—Issuance restrictions and moving conditions.
A. The following restrictions and conditions shall must be observed before the issuance of a
permit as required by this article:
1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move or relocate any
building or structure upon another building site unless such use, building or proposed
conversion thereof conforms to Chapter 38, (Zoning) to include when applicable the final
approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a Certificate Of
Appropriateness, 10.02.030, (the International Building Code), 10.02.040, (the
International Residential Code), 10.02.050 (the International Existing Building code) and
all other pertinent portions of this Code.
2. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move, remove or relocate
any building or structure which is:
a. So constructed or in such condition as to be dangerous or unsafe;
b. Infested with pests or is otherwise unsanitary;
c. Or, if a dwelling or habitation, is unfit for human habitation;
d. Or is so dilapidated, defective or in such a condition of deterioration or disrepair
that its relocation at the proposed site would create a safety or health hazard, or
would cause substantial damage or material detriment to the property in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed site.
3. Every application shall must be accompanied by the written consent of the deputy police
chief and deputy fire chief – operations fire department, who shall must be notified as to
the route to be taken and the date of the move.
77
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 4 of 18
4. The department of public works building division shall specify in the permit the route to
be taken in the moving of a building or structure, such means to be used to prevent the
street pavement from being subjected to abnormal stresses as may be deemed necessary
by the city engineer, and the limit of time which such building or structure shall be upon
the streets or alleys.
5. No circuit or box of the city fire alarm shall be disturbed in any manner except with the
permission of the deputy fire department chief - operations.
6. No building or structure which is being moved upon or over any street, alley or property
of the city shall be occupied as living quarters while such building or structure is in
transit.
7. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that
the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances and equipment to safely complete the
proposed move.
Section 3
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 10.04.050.A.3 to the
Demolition Code to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered:
Sec. 10.04.050. - Same—Issuance restrictions.
A. The following restrictions and conditions shall must be observed before the issuance of a
permit as required by this article:
1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or
structure while any part thereof is occupied.
2. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that
the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances, and equipment to safely complete the
proposed demolition and disposal.
3. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or
structure unless such demolition thereof conforms to chapter 38 to include when
applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the provisions of this article, and this code.
Section 4
That Section 16.02.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Article 2. – NUISANCES
Sec. 16.02.030. - Responsibility for maintenance.
A. Every owner, occupant, lessee or holder of any possessory interest of real property within the
city is required to maintain such property so as not to violate the provisions of this article.
The owner of the property shall remain liable for violations hereof regardless of any contract
78
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 5 of 18
or agreement with any third party regarding such property or the occupation of the property
by any third party.
B. Every owner of property within the city must maintain such property to ensure the safe
condition of the property, in a weather tight condition, and secure from unauthorized entry.
Section 5
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding new definitions in Section 16.02.040
as follows:
Sec. 16.02.040. - Definitions.
A. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
1. "Abatement" means the removal, stoppage, prostration, or destruction of that which causes
or constitutes a nuisance, whether by breaking or pulling it down, or otherwise destroying,
or effacing it.
2. "Owner" means the owner of record or any person with legal, financial or equitable interest
in the property on which the alleged public nuisance exists at the time of the violation.
3. "Property" means any real property, premises, structure or location on which a public
nuisance is alleged to exist.
4. "Public nuisance" means any fence, wall, shed, deck, house, garage, building, structure or
any part of any of the aforesaid; or any tree, pole, smokestack; or any excavation, hole, pit,
basement, cellar, sidewalk subspace, dock; or any lot, land, yard, premises or location
which in its entirety, or in any part thereof, by reason of the condition in which the same is
found or permitted to be or remain, shall or may endanger the health, safety, life, limb or
property, or cause any hurt, harm, inconvenience, discomfort, damage or injury to any one
or more individuals in the city, in any one or more of the following particulars:
a. By reason of being a menace, threat and/or hazard to the general health and safety of
the community.
b. By reason of being a fire hazard.
c. By reason of being unsafe for occupancy, or use on, in, upon, about or around the
aforesaid property.
d. By reason of lack of sufficient or adequate maintenance of the property, and/or being
vacant, any of which depreciates the enjoyment and use of the property in the
immediate vicinity to such an extent that it is harmful to the community in which such
property is situated or such condition exists.
The term "public nuisance" shall mean any nuisance designated in section 16.02.050.
79
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 6 of 18
5. “Safe condition” means a condition not involving or likely to involve danger, harm or loss
from fire and other hazards.
6. "Summary abatement" means abatement of the nuisance by the city, or a contractor employed
by the city, by removal, repair, or other acts without notice to the owner, agent, or occupant of
the property except for the notice required by this article.
Section 6
That Chapter 38, Article 16 the Bozeman Municipal Code, Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, be amended by adding Section 38.16.010.G to read as follows with the remainder
of the section to remain as written:
G. It is further the purpose of this article to protect historic structures and sites as defined in
38.42.1365 and 38.42.1370 by requiring any person seeking to demolish or move a historic
structure or site to comply with 38.19.080 whether or not the structure is located within the NCOD.
Section 7
That Section 38.16.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.16.080. - Review of demolition or movement of historic structures or sites within the
conservation district.
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be
subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the
demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district
will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or
treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent
development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may
be issued.
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.
80
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 7 of 18
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. 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:
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.
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.
(2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving
permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order
to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move,
including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay
may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient
additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or
3 of this section.
5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a
manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review
staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site
that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor
performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design
and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in
conformance with all applicable codes and regulations
81
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 8 of 18
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site shall be subject to the provisions of this
article. This process applies to:
1. Historic properties and sites, as defined in 38.42.1365 and 38.42.1370, per 38.16.090.
2. Non-historic properties per 38.16.100.
3. Unsafe structures whether historic or non-historic per 38.16.110. The provisions for unsafe
structures take priority over other provisions for demolition.
B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable
review procedures.
C. Optional provisional review of demolition. A property owner may request provisional review
of the proposed demolition of a structure subject to this article prior to submittal of a certificate
of appropriateness application for seeking demolition of the structure. The director of
community development may establish criteria for the application for provisional review of
demolition. Provisional review is advisory only and does not constitute approval to demolish
a structure. Provisional review must consider:
a. The property’s historic significance.
b. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life
remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a
habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02,
exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a
building of the same type and scale.
Future graphic
Section 8
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.16.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site.
A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent
development is required for all historic structures proposed for demolition and for the
proposed movement of any structure or site.
B. Public Notice. Proposals for demolition of historic properties within the city limits require
public notice. Notice of application(s) must be provided in accordance with article 40 of this
chapter.
C. Criteria. The reviewing authority must consider the following factors in evaluating
applications for demolition or movement of a historic structure or site and subsequent
redevelopment:
1. The property’s historic significance.
Commented [CS1]: Illustrative summary graphic will be
developed and inserted appropriately – Not regulatory, provide
visual cross reference comparing different processes between
historic status. We will create the graphic after the text is finalized
and integrate it with the overall UDC reformatting.
Commented [c2]: A.COA for demolition and subsequent
development. For historic buildings, structures, or sites within
the NCOD or a historic district, approval of the proposed
subsequent development is required prior to the demolition or
movement of any building or structure or site.
If commission adopts alternative language the section title will be
reworded accordingly. Issue 3.
82
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 9 of 18
2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life
remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a
habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02,
exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building
of the same type and scale.
3. Whether the subsequent development complies with 38.16.050.
4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the
existing character of the area does not include buildings.
5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which
leave the site without building(s) or structure(s).
Notwithstanding the above, for projects proposing the removal of a historic structure, which do
not qualify for sketch plan review pursuant to 38.19.070 the review authority, may determine the
proposed subsequent site development is more appropriate for the site based on the criteria in
38.19.100.
D. Review process.
1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review
authority may:
a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies
and/or project specific conditions.
b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application.
2. COA approval.
a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or
conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval
and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of
contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority must
approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development.
b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance
with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including
documentation, the Review Authority must approve the COA for demolition and
subsequent development.
3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet 38.16.090.C
issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from
the date of the denial 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 this section.
a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this
section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively
Commented [CS3]: Issue 6 – This description applied uniformly
in edits.
Commented [CS4]: Issue 5
Commented [CS5]: Clarify existing condition of the stay being
a discretionary tool. If there is overriding public benefit that benefit
may justify removal of a historic structure.
Issue 9
Commented [CS6]: Issue 4 – Staff suggests no changes to stay
language
83
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 10 of 18
and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but
are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking
input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; explored alternative funding
sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation.
b. If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been
approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise terminate the stay,
an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the city pursuant to Chapter
10, article 3 or 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied,
including documentation of the structure to be moved or demolished and the review
authority has approved the subsequent development and a building permit issued for
the subsequent development, a demolition permit pursuant to Chpt. 10 article 3 or 4
must be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required.
c. The two-year stay does not begin to run if denial of a COA to demolish a historic
structure or site is based on the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate
submittal or to propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of
this chapter.
4. Standard Requirements.
a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit
approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
b. Documentation of the structure must be completed and submitted to the historic
preservation officer and deemed complete and adequate prior to issuance of a
demolition permit per paragraph 38.16.120.
Section 9
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new section to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.16.100. - Demolition or movement of a non-historic structure or site in the NCOD
A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Required for all properties proposed for
demolition or movement of any structure or site. Subsequent development does not include
proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s).
B. Public Notice. Notice must be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter.
C. Criteria.
1.The applicable criteria are the COA criteria of 38.16.050.
2. The subsequent development must include construction of new building(s) unless the
immediately prior character of the area did not include buildings.
D. Review process.
1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review
authority may:
84
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 11 of 18
a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies
and/or project specific conditions.
b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application.
2. COA approval.
a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or
conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval
and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of
contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority must
approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development.
b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance
with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including
documentation, the Review Authority must approve the COA for demolition and
subsequent development.
3. Standard Requirement. Subsequent treatment of the site must receive zoning approval prior
to issuance of a demolition permit. Subsequent treatment may include replacement with a
new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future
development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm water
runoff and weeds are controlled and landscaping is reestablished.
Section 10
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.16.110. - Demolition or movement of an unsafe structure whether historic or non-
historic
A COA for demolition and subsequent development. Upon application and the chief building
official’s determination that the property is unsafe the review authority may approve
demolition and subsequent development. Subsequent development for an unsafe structure may
be its replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will
support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm
water runoff and weeds are controlled.
B. Public Notice. Notice must be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter.
C. The demolition of unsafe properties / structures may be subject to the public nuisance
abatement provisions of Chapter 16, article 2 of this Code. Upon the chief building official’s
determination that the property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property
owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority must give final approval on
a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city
may abate a nuisance.
D. The provisions of this section may be initiated by a land owner; or by the city in accordance
with article 16.02.
Commented [c7]: Resolve Issue 2 by distinguishing process
required for historic and non-historic buildings. Non-historic
removals do not require building permit approval and payment of all
related fees for a replacement building prior to beginning
demolition.
85
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 12 of 18
Section 11
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.16.120. - Documentation and administrative procedures.
A. Documentation. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving must be fully
documented.
1. The director of community development must establish by administrative order rules for
documentation of non-historic and historic properties. This documentation must be created
by a professional who satisfies professional qualification standards for History,
Archeology or Architectural History, as established by the National Park Service and
published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.
2. Documentation may be submitted as early in the process as the property owner desires to
support the requested action, and to further the consideration and review of the request, but
not later than prior to issuance of a building permit.
B. A building permit application, in accordance with applicable codes and requirements, must be
submitted and approved before any demolition or construction is allowed.
C. All fees and charges applicable to review of the request for demolition and construction of the
subsequent development (e.g. park land, water rights, impact fees) must be paid prior to
issuance of a building or demolition permit.
1. When required by the city, this must include a financial security in a form approved by the
city attorney ensuring completion of the demolition and reclamation of the site to a safe
condition.
D. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that
is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor
performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and
manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance
with all applicable codes and regulations.
Section 12
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.16.130 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.16.130. - Safe condition and good repair. Each property or structure located in the NCOD
must be maintained in safe condition and good repair as required in 16.02.030 and 16.02.040.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior
feature of any historic structure which does not involve a building permit. Interior arrangements
or alterations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement.
Commented [CS8]: The matrix will recognize the varying levels
of documentation, from new Property Record Forms to HABS II
documentation.
86
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 13 of 18
Section 13
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.19.080.C as
follows:
Sec. 38.19.080. Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review
criteria.
A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter.
Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not
specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans.
Additional site design information, in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the
design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall must be provided.
B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness.
1. Certificates of appropriateness shall must be issued according to procedures and criteria
specified in articles 16, 17, 20 and 33, in addition to this chapter.
2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall must
be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in article 28 of this chapter.
C. Demolition or movement of historic structures or sites located outside of the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District.
1. Demolition or movement of historic structures or sites located outside of the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District must be reviewed according to procedures
and criteria outlined in 38.16.080.
2. Certificates of appropriateness must be issued according to procedures and criteria
specified in articles 16, 17, 20, 34 and 41 as applicable, in addition to this article.
Section 14
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Sections 38.40.030, Table
38.40.030, footnote 4 to read as follows:
4Sketch plans for adding dwellings in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, demolition
of historic structures as defined in 38.42.1365, contributing structures in the neighborhood
conservation overlay district, or modification of wetlands.
Section 15
That Section 38.41.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.41.090. - Certificates of appropriateness; additional application requirements, review
procedures and review criteria.
A. Submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness. All development proposals requiring
certificates of appropriateness (i.e.e.g., located in a neighborhood conservation or entryway
corridor overlay districts or historic property/structure) shall must submit the following
87
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 14 of 18
information in addition to any sketch plan, site plan or special development submittal requirements
for the proposal:
1. Neighborhood conservation overlay district and historic property/structures. Certain
information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting
or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted
on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information
reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a
minimum, the following items shall must be included in the submission:
a. Completed application on form provided by the planning department;
b. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such
additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that
will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise
recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall
be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address,
elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information;
c. Sketch plan or site plan information, as per 38.19.050 or 38.19.060
d. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated
verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned
alteration;
e. Materials and color schemes to be used;
f. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the
applicant's proposed alterations;
g. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations;
h. Such other information as may be suggested by the planning department;
i. It is further suggested that the applicant seek comments from the neighborhood or
area; and
j. Description of any applicant-requested deviation and a narrative explanation as to how
the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will
contribute to the overall historic character of the community;.
k. An illustration showing all internal and external elements of a structure to be removed
or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, must
be clearly identified and must include those elements to be removed and reinstalled;
l. If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in 38.42.1365, is proposed a structural
analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring
the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes
in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Analysis must
include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost
comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets
the building code standard for occupancy and demolition and construction of a new
structure of the same type and scale to building code standards.
m. If a building is claimed to be unsafe evidence to support that claim; and
n. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the
threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per 38.32.040.B has been met or
surpassed.
2. Entryway overlay district.
88
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 15 of 18
a. Depending on the complexity of development, either sketch plans or site plans will be
required as specified in this article.
b. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in 38.35.050, the
application for deviation shall must be accompanied by written and graphic material
sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to
enable the review authority to make the determination that the deviation will produce
an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the
existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of article 17 of
this chapter.
Section 16
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new definition, Section
38.42.1365 to read as follows:
Historic structure.
Any site, building or structure that is:
1) listed in the State or National Register of Historic Places; or
2) designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey; or
3) certified as a contributing resource within a National Register listed or locally designated
historic district; or
4) eligible, as determined by the City of Bozeman, to be listed on the National or State
Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to an existing
or potential historic district.
The most recent National Register Criteria for Evaluation as published by the U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service are the basis for determining whether a property is eligible for
historical significance when a new or updated evaluation is prepared.
Section 17
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.42.1370 to read
as follows:
Historic site.
The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or
structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses significant
historic, cultural or archaeological value. The value of a site shall must be based on the ability of
the site to meet the eligibility requirements for historical significance as described by the National
Register of Historic Places and as approved by the City of Bozeman. The most recent National
Register Criteria for Evaluation as published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service are the basis for determining whether a property is eligible for historical significance when
a new or updated evaluation is prepared.
Commented [CS9]: Issues 9 and 10 are addressed by having two
definitions in Sections 16 and 17 of the draft
Commented [CS10]: Resolve Issue 1. Allows multiple sources
to provide documentation but the City remains a gate keeper for
process of application of standards to individual properties.
Commented [CS11]: Resolve Issue 1
89
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 16 of 18
Section 18
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising the caption for Article 38.16
to read: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and Historic Preservation.
Section 19
The city manager must work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer
maintained in safe condition and good repair. The city, enlisting the assistance of applicable
departments, must work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about
assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the
attempt to ensure properties are maintained in safe condition and good repair pursuant to this
section.
Section 20
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 21
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 22
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
90
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 17 of 18
Section 23
Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as indicated in Section 2 – 18.
Section 24
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on first reading at a regular session held on the _____ day of ________________, 2017.
____________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
ROBIN CROUGH
City Clerk
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ___ of
____________________, 2017. The effective date of this ordinance is __________, __, 2017.
_________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
91
UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition
Page 18 of 18
_______________________________
ROBIN CROUGH
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
92
93
94
95
96
97