HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCOD draft 1 oct 23 2018 smaller file size1
DRAFT NCOD POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
INITIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVIEW OCTOBER 29, 2018
Unless otherwise specified, all documentation contained within this report has been aggregated and recorded through
materials received during outreach initiatives. Direct quotes and transcriptions are emphasized in italics. Data includes
all comments recorded by facilitators and participants during noted outreach activities.
While the majority of data was captured digitally, it is possible that errors may have occurred in the transcription of
hand-written comments. This would have principally occurred due to interpretation and the nature of the notes cap-
tured in the engagement activities.
The Consultant has taken all care during the transcription process, but unfortunately, we cannot guarantee the accu-
racy of all notes.
We are however confident that the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during the engagement activities
have been captured in this report. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed herein represent those of the engage-
ment participants.
BendonAdams is committed to protecting the privacy of all participants who participated in the engagement process
and has published comments anonymously unless otherwise presented as formal public comment to the City.
BendonAdams LLC
www.bendonadams.com
Quality Assurance
№Author Reviewer Approver Signature Date
DISCLAIMER
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT TIMELINE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 OUTREACH FINDINGS TO DATE
CHAPTER 2 NCOD
2.1 PURPOSE OF NCOD
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
CHAPTER 3 STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS
3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
CHAPTER 4 RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
CHAPTER 5 STREAMLINE PROCESS
5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC)
CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
CHAPTER 6 PROJECT INFORMATION
5
7
8
9
12
14
18
19
20
24
25
26
28
29
30
33
37
39
40
43
44
45
3
CHAPTER 1PROJECT TIMELINE + INTRODUCTION
5
The contents of this report summarize the development of draft policy recommendations and alternatives which have been
informed by Bozeman community members, the Bozeman Strategic Plan (2018), the Bozeman Community Plan (2009), and the
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (2009) also informed the development of alternatives to the recommendations. The
project is currently half-way complete with Trip #2 scheduled for Novbember 7-9th. It is at this time that the draft policy recom-
mendations and alternatives will be discussed and workshopped with stakeholders, community members, Staff, Board members,
and the City Commission. Project information and scheduling details can be found at www.bozeman.net/city-projects/ncod-re-
view.
1 PROJECT TIMELINE
2018 Strategic Plan
Policy 1.1.b Dramatically increase transparency and create access to all city documents. (P.2)
Policy 1.2 Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input
from the community and stakeholders (P.2)
BACKGROUND
Research on existing
conditions within the
NCOD and develop-
ment of outreach pro-
gramming.
Community wide sur-
vey on status of NCOD.
TRIP #1
12 community events
soliciting feedback in-
cluding historic tours,
Staff and Board meet-
ings, small group meet-
ings, listening booths, an
architectural survey, and
a public open house.
SUMMARY #1
Outreach summary of
all meetings and feed-
back received to date
and publication of raw
data and analyses on-
line.
DRAFT #1
Initial draft recom-
mendations based
upon analysis of ex-
isting conditions and
community feedback
published for public
review.
TRIP #2
Feedback from four
large format commu-
nity events, and Staff
and Board meetings,
will provide further
clarification on policy
direction.
SUMMARY #2
Outreach summary of
all feedback received
during Trip #2 will be
pubished online in
conjunction with the
raw data public com-
ment submissions.
TRIP #3
Present outreach re-
sults and request
policy direction from
City Commission to
inform a final work
program. Hold a pub-
lic open house to
inform the public.
FINAL DRAFT
Finalize recommenda-
tions and alternatives
based on input from
Trip #3. Outreach sum-
mary of all feedback
received from Trip #3
Final document is
provided to the City
of Bozeman including
complete outreach
summary and results
from all events, and a
work program outlin-
ing next steps.
WORK PROGRAM
5
X
6
Bozeman’s decision to adopt a Conservation Overlay District that includes the areas between designated Historic Dis-
tricts was a gutsy solution in 1991 that made Bozeman a pioneer in preservation of neighborhood character, scale and con-
text. The result 27 years later is well preserved historic districts and neighborhood character that supports a sense of place
and a sense of pride for the community. Interwoven within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is the ma-
jority of Bozeman’s designated historic districts, with two historic districts located just outside the overlay boundary.
Recent projects have residents, city staff, and review boards questioning the effectiveness of the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD) and whether other planning tools exist to better reflect community sentiment. The Bozeman Commu-
nity may have differing opinions on the means and methods, but goal is the same: Bozeman is a special place worth protecting.
The NCOD has been in place since 1991 to protect neighborhood character, historic districts, and historic landmarks. The
historic preservation program goes beyond the NCOD to foster the knowledge of the city’s heritage, and cultivate civ-
ic pride in the historic built environment. The 2015 NCOD Audit recommended removal of the NCOD by 2020 and re-
placement with a series of design overlay areas and design guidelines to promote contextual and compatible develop-
ment outside Historic Districts. The recommendations from the audit have been reviewed and taken into consideration
as part of this project. Based on current community sentiment, it was felt that an objective review that focused on a com-
prehensive understanding of the NCOD and the historic districts was the best approach. This report begins with a mac-
ro-level discussion about the boundary of the NCOD and systematically focuses on more detailed recommendations.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
6
7
1.1 INTRODUCTION
During our trip in November, we have a series of community check-ins planned to present the initial policy recommendations and
to allow the community to weigh in on the recommendations. The attached draft is a working document that we expect to update
and edit based on community feedback from the outreach sessions. Multiple long range plans including the Bozeman Community
Plan and the Downtown Master Plan are currently being updated simultaneously with the NCOD recommendations.
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan
compared to the draft NCOD recommendations contained herein. Correlations between the documents are noted throughout
the document. The entire report reflects many of the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 Strategic Master Plan and the
2009 Bozeman Community Plan, as noted below.
2018 Strategic Master Plan
Policy 4.1.b Develop and Align Infill Policies. (P.6)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. This
report is part of the infill conversation.
Policy 7.3.e High Level Policy Conversations. (P.11)
Develop a structure to foster regular, ongoing dialogue on innovative ideas and information to assist the Commission with
high level policy deliberation and decisions.
2009 Community Plan
Chapter 1.3, Goal g-2 implementation. (P.13)
Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and ob-
jectives of this plan are effective, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
Chapter 4.3, Goal c-4 Design Guidelines. (P.50)
Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direction in design and review of residential and non-residential neighbor-
hoods without unduly constraining architectural style and innovation.
Chapter 5.3, Goal HP-1 Historic Preservation. (P.57)
Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community’s identity, history, and quality of
life.
7
CHAPTER 21.1 OUTREACH FINDINGS TO DATE
In the spring of 2018, the City of Bozeman released a request for proposal in search of a consultant team to conduct a compre-
hensive review of the NCOD - specifically looking at the district, its boundaries, the City’s historic preservation program, and the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board - to make recommendations that reflect the current and future needs of the Bozeman com-
munity.
The consultant team (consisting of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducting extensive public en-
gagement to best understand the community’s needs and preferences regarding historic preservation, the NCOD, historic district
boundaries, and future development. The findings directly inform a series of recommendations and alternatives to the current
regulations.
In July 2018, the project team spent two weeks in Bozeman engaging with the public at 12 different events. The events included
small group meetings, a historic tour, board and staff meetings, listening posts, an open house, and a windshield architectural sur-
vey. A project page hosted by the City of Bozeman was also launched containing project information, upcoming dates, feedback
summaries, feedback data, and opportunities for public comment.
Over 150 participants joined small group meetings, listening posts, attended the community meeting, participated in online sur-
veys, or graciously donated their time assisting the project team in conducting a windshield survey.
Concern Many participants expressed a concern over recent development projects, specifically the size, scale, and design of particular buildings within the NCOD. This generally pertained to the areas directly adjacent to Main Street that are seeing new higher density development. Some participants expressed an interest in creating transitional
‘buffer areas’.
Regulations
While there were mixed opinions on whether the current
regulations are ‘too stringent’ or ‘too liberal’ on development
- participants felt that Historic Districts should remain
‘strictly regulated’ while areas outside the Districts but still
within the NCOD should be treated ‘with moderation.’
Pace of Development The majority of participants felt that the pace of recent development in Bozeman has been ‘too fast’ - and would like to see the project review process slowed down to allow for a more robust public participation process. Many felt that slowing down the process would ensure a focus on historic
preservation and thoughtful, compatible development.
54 % Female 46 % Male
34%
Aged 65+
90 % are Bozeman
Residents
150+
participants
2%
33%
11%
21%
Aged <24
Aged 25-34
Aged 35-54
Aged 55-64
Strategic Plan Policies 1.1.b, 1.2
8
CHAPTER 2NCOD: PURPOSE AND BOUNDARY
2 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
2.1 PURPOSE OF NCOD (P.12)
Recommendation: Create two programs within the NCOD
boundary to distinguish the two separate goals within the
NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Histor-
ic Preservation Program will also apply to landmarks and
historic districts outside the boundary of the NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman’s sig-
nificant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
Alternative policy recommendation: Replace the NCOD.
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY (P.14)
Recommendation: Do not significantly change the NCOD
boundary.
Alternative policy recommendations:1) North 7th Street is all in or all out of NCOD.
2) Minor adjustment to the north end of the NCOD.
3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for poten-tial boundary adjustment.
4) Prioritize areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potential boundary adjustment.
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDE-
LINES (P.18)
Recommendation: Create design standards and guide-
lines for each neighborhood within the NCOD.
Alternative policy recommendation: Create 2 sets of
design standards and guidelines that are divided into a
character area north of Main Street and a character area
south of Main Street.
NOTES
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
2 NCOD
The NCOD was adopted in 1991 in an effort to preserve historic districts by protecting the surrounding areas between the dis-
tricts. While the City of Bozeman is preparing for future growth, the effectiveness of the district has been questioned. Based
on community input and current neighborhood character, the NCOD has successfully protected the unique character of Boze-
man’s neighborhoods; however, recent developments and changing community priorities highlighted the need for a tune up.
The stated purpose of the NCOD in the Bozeman Municipal Code is to “stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures and
all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial ar-
eas.” The concept of the overlay is to influence development between the historic districts and to protect the neighborhood char-
acter that defines Bozeman. New construction is encouraged to relate to surrounding historic buildings and neighborhood context,
and demolition review is required for buildings within the overlay. While adjustments are recommended to differentiate between
historic preservation and neighborhood character, the purpose and intent of the NCOD remains very relevant and important.
The NCOD requires a design review process for all properties that propose alterations, demolition, relocation, or new construction
within the overlay district. The NCOD has evolved since its inception to include design regulations and zoning changes; however
the original purpose of the NCOD remains unchanged and perhaps more important today in light of Bozeman’s expected popu-
lation growth.
An overlay district is a local zoning
tool that places specific regulations
over an existing base
zone district.
A property located within an overlay
district is typically required to meet
both the base (underlying) zone dis-
trict requirements in addition to the
specifics of the
overlay district.
Overlay districts are commonly used
to influence the design of new build-
ings or to define an
historic district.
11
Strategic Plan Policy 4.1.b
Community Plan Goals 3.3, 4.3
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE NCOD
What we heard:
When participants were forced to choose the most important
aspect of the NCOD, most voted that it is to protect Bozeman’s
historic buildings. Regulating the size and scale of new buildings
was a close second. When asked what the NCOD does well, par-
ticipants responded that the NCOD brings awareness to neigh-
borhood context and character, and historic preservation.
The overwhelming response from participants was to create
different regulations for historic and non-historic districts with-
in the NCOD. Neighborhood character and context would be
the focus of the non-historic districts. The community indicated
support for treating historic districts with ‘strict regulations’ and
non-historic districts within the NCOD with ‘moderate regula-
tions’.
Recommendation:
Retain the NCOD.
Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to dis-
tinguish the two separate goals within the NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman’s sig-
nificant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
Both programs will work together, while a Historic Pres-
ervation Program will also apply to landmarks and his-
toric districts outside the boundary of the NCOD.
1) Historic Preservation Program. A Historic Preservation
Program needs to stand on its own outside the umbrella
of the NCOD. Historic preservation is a City-wide initiative.
Disassociating the program from the NCOD enables preser-
vation of historic building and historic districts outside the
NCOD. The historic preservation program will have its own
purpose, regulations, guidelines, and review process. As part
of this program, the current Historic Preservation Advisory
Board will shift from advisory to quasi-judicial which autho-
rizes the Board to review and approve certain historic pres-
ervation projects.
2) Neighborhood Conservation (or Character) Program.
The Neighborhood Conservation program will apply to the
non-historic neighborhoods within the NCOD. This program
will also have its own purpose, regulations, guidelines, and
review process, and will be implemented by the Design Re-
view Board.
Alternative:
Replace the NCOD.
Follow the 2015 NCOD audit recommendations and replace
the NCOD with transition and design overlays.
“The NCOD is flexible, protects neighborhood quality of life
and block character/streetscape, thus supports economic
engine of community.”
“I am very much in favor of maintaining the current NCOD
until a proper historic assessment can be
completed.”
“There are areas in the NCOD that should not be restricted
per the NCOD and areas where the NCOD or something simi-
lar should be implemented.”
“[The NCOD] preserves Bozeman’s sense of place and char-acter so it doesn’t become “Everywhere, USA.”
12
The most important aspect of the NCOD is to:
Regulate the style of new buildings.
Protect Bozeman’s Historic buildings.
Regulate the size/scale of new buildings.
Discourage new development.
I don’t think the District is all that important.5%
5%
37%
51%
2%
The NCOD boundary:
59%
26%
Is accurate, do not change it.
Needs to include more of Bozeman.
Is too big, make it smaller.
Needs to be refined for specific neighborhoods.
6%
9%
Bozeman should regulate development in historic districts:
Strict regulations.
Moderation.
A light approach.4%
42%
54%
Development in defined neighborhoods but outside of historic dis-
tricts should be treated with:
24%
16%Strict regulations.
Moderation.
A light approach.
60%
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARY
13
The NCOD boundary was originally based on a census tract and does not
follow a clearly defined geographic or physical feature other than the rail-
road tracks at the northeast corner of the NCOD. Zone districts, the Story
Mill Historic District, and established neighborhood boundaries straddle the
NCOD edge as it jogs in and out of neighborhoods. The decision to adjust the
boundary must be defensible and based on an analysis of existing conditions.
An architectural inventory would provide this basis.
As noted in the 2015 NCOD audit, a comprehensive architectural inventory
of the NCOD has not occurred since the 1980s. Because there is no current
historic inventory, the City of Bozeman requires applicants to submit an ar-
chitectural inventory form as part of an application to redevelop or demolish
their property. After documentation, a building may be approved for dem-
olition and replacement regardless of historic significance. In addition, over
the past decade various groups, including Montana State University students
and a City of Bozeman intern, have completed preliminary inventories of the
NCOD. While very helpful, the dataset is not consistent and does not replace
the need for a comprehensive architectural inventory.
A complete architectural inventory of all buildings within the NCOD (approxi-
mately 3,100 properties) would most likely take a year to complete and could
cost well over $300K. A historian who specializes in architectural inventories
is recommended to garner data that is accurate, consistent and complies
with Montana Historic Property Record forms.
We completed a cursory evaluation of the un-surveyed properties located on
the northside of Main Street. The goal of this exercise was to record archi-
tectural details on each building, and to identify patterns that define neigh-
borhood character. This information can be tied to existing parcel data and
used to establish neighborhood patterns and characteristics that may iden-
tify areas for future consideration as a historic district or identify prevalent
characteristics important to a neighborhood. For example, in the surveyed
area 80% of the homes have a gable roof as the primary roof form and about
50% of the homes have an open front porch.
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
Montana State Historic Preservation Of-
fice requires Certified Local Governments
like Bozeman to maintain and to continue
to identify historic and prehistoric prop-
erties within its jurisdiction. The Bozeman
Municipal Code states that the district
boundary may be revised as additional cul-
tural resource survey work is completed.
An architectural inventory is a database
that specifies information about the histo-
ry, use, exterior features and architecture
of an individual property. The database
identifies eligibility for national, state or
local historic landmark designation, and
identifies eligibility for inclusion within a
national, state or local historic district.
An architectural inventory can also be
used to define neighborhood boundaries
based on different features such as archi-
tectural style or building construction
date.
A windshield survey is a quick objective
overview of a large area that provides
general data. It is called a windshield
survey because it is usually completed
from a moving vehicle. This type of survey
is used to provide a general assessment of
a community and to collect data on char-
acteristics that identify areas for more
detailed study.
14
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
The purpose and value of an architectural inventory is three-fold: it would inform the NCOD boundary; it would
be the basis of the local historic preservation program; and it would be the foundation for neighborhood design
standards and guidelines.
What we heard:
Most respondents feel that the current NCOD boundary is
accurate or needs to be expanded. Participants overwhelm-
ing voted to refine the NCOD for specific neighborhoods.
Many respondents recognize and support the need for a
complete architectural inventory of the NCOD and surround-
ing areas before adjusting the boundary.
Strategic Plan Policy 7.4.d
Recommendation:
Retain the majority of the NCOD area.
There is no compelling reason to significantly change the
NCOD boundary at this time. Determinations to modify the
NCOD boundary should be made with factual information
obtained through architectural surveys. The City may also
choose to focus energy and funds on completing a compre-
hensive architectural inventory of the entire NCOD prior to
implementing design standards and guidelines (discussed be-
low). An updated architectural inventory is paramount to the
function and success of the NCOD, and the preservation of
historic properties and neighborhood character. An architec-
tural inventory distinguishes between historic and non-his-
toric properties and districts, and sets clear expectations for
property owners, neighbors, staff and review boards.
As noted in Alternative 4 on the following page, incrementally
surveying the NCOD may be the most feasible approach to
creating a comprehensive architectural inventory.
“NCOD was designed and created to protect historic areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that
defines the character of the Bozeman community.”
“[NCOD] strives to consider the historic value of Bozeman
neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the planning process.”
“Revisions to the regulations may be helpful to
address noncontributing buildings, however, the survey of
historic resources within the City should be updated to en-sure the continued preservation of historic resources that
may not have been considered historic at the time of the
previous survey.”
“I am very much in favor of maintaining the current NCOD until a proper historic assessment can be complet-
ed. Given that many of the structures within the bound-
ary were not eligible as historic properties at the time of
the last inventory, it is imperative that the inventory be
complete andupdated before the NCOD boundaries are changed or reduced.”
15
16
Alternatives:
1) North 7th Street is all in or all out of NCOD.
The North 7th Street corridor should be either all in, or all out,
of the NCOD. Regardless of the NCOD, both sides of the street
should have the same design regulations.
Historic eligibility of mid-century buildings along the North 7th
Street corridor has been raised by some community members.
However, this is not a reason to include North 7th Street in the
NCOD - the primary purpose of the revised NCOD is not to pro-
tect historic buildings, but rather to protect neighborhood char-
acter. The implementation of a historic preservation program
that extends beyond the boundary of the NCOD would provide
protection for eligible buildings if requested by the property
owner and approved by the Bozeman Commission.
2) Minor adjustment to the north end of the NCOD
The gap area at the north end of the NCOD cuts through a field/
parking area as the terminus of the district. A minor adjustment
to the boundary in this area that follows North Rouse Street to
the intersection with Front Street clearly delineates the NCOD
boundary and avoids future confusion about review process and
jurisdiction.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will have a significant impact on the un-
derstanding of the NCOD boundary and the implementation of
new regulations recommended in this document. These two rec-
ommended adjustments can be made prior to a comprehensive
architectural inventory.
The ‘all in or all out’ decision needs community and
landowner input to weigh the pros and cons of includ-
ing or excluding the North 7th corridor from the NCOD.
An example question could be, is there community con-
fidence that the current form and intensity standards in
the Bozeman Code and the new B2-M zone district cre-
ate adequate transitions between North 7th Street and
the surrounding small scale residential neighborhoods
to the west?
3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potential
boundary adjustment.
In the event that a comprehensive architectural inventory is
not supported, a windshield survey could be a useful tool to
narrow the scope of an architectural inventory and to high-
light significant neighborhood patterns such as open front
porches.
4) Prioritize areas to incrementally inventory to provide
basis for potential boundary adjustment.
One approach to an architectural inventory is to prioritize
sections within the NCOD. For example:
• Historic Districts.
• Areas between Historic Districts.
• North 7th Corridor.
• Areas along the edges of the NCOD boundary.
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
17
LEGEND
Neighborhood Con-servation Overlay
District Boundary
Alternatives 1 and 2
to the neighborhood
conservation overlay
district
alternative 2
alternative 1
2.2 NCOD BOUNDAYRY ALTERNATIVES
18
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
The NCOD has design guidelines, updated in 2015, that are organized by use (residential or commercial) and treat the NCOD
homogeneously without much differentiation between neighborhood character areas. More recently, sub-chapter 4B was cre-
ated to specifically address development character, style and form in the B-3 Commercial Character Area. Design standards and
guidelines encourage contextual development and work in concert with zone district regulations. A healthy mix of requirements
and more flexible recommendations typically results in creative solutions that support and highlight important character defining
features of each neighborhood.
What we heard:
Community feedback provided clear direction that the NCOD
can do a better job defining and differentiating neighborhood
character and encouraging more appropriate mass and scale
adjacent to historic districts. Participants also responded that
diversity of architecture and flexibility of design are areas for
improvement within the NCOD.
In speaking with community members and an assessment of
existing conditions, there appears to be support for a more
flexible, innovative, and design-oriented approach to new
buildings north of Main Street, and a more conservative, tra-
ditional approach to new buildings south of Main Street. The
majority of Bozeman’s historic districts are located south of
Main Street, and Bozeman’s historic industrial areas are north
of Main Street which may explain this preference.
Recommendation:
Create design standards and guidelines for each neigh-
borhood within the NCOD.
Dividing the design standards and guidelines into specific
neighborhoods is strongly recommended, but after an archi-
tectural inventory is completed and zone districts are evalu-
ated. A comprehensive architectural inventory highlights pat-
terns, architectural characteristics, and overall neighborhood
character that direct neighborhood boundaries and inform an
appropriate mix of requirements and recommendations for
each neighborhood.
There is an opportunity to incorporate the outcomes of the
Downtown Plan and the Community Plan as they relate to
neighborhood character and future vision into a new design
standards and guidelines document that balances new devel-
opment and growth policy initiatives with existing neighbor-
hood context.
Alternative:
Create two sets of design standards and guidelines that are di-
vided into a character area north of Main Street and a charac-
ter area south of Main Street.
Within each area, special standards are developed for blocks
adjacent to historic districts or historic structures. Appropri-
ate uses should be addressed within each chapter. Dividing the
design guidelines and standards into north and south of Main
Street recognizes differences between architectural styles, the
history of industrial development in the neighborhoods north
of Main Street, and differing sentiment toward ‘appropriate’
new development.
Strategic Plan policies 4.1.b, 4.4
Community Plan Goals 1.3, 3.3, 4.3
19
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
2018 Strategic Plan
Policy 4.1.b Develop and Align Infill Policies. (P.6)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Policy 4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers. (P.7)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including
higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas.
Policy 7.4.d Strategic Municipal Service Delivery Expectations. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 Community Plan
Goal 1.3, Objective g-1 Growth Management. (P.13)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of
life within the planning area.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-1 Land Use. (P.32)
Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities
in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-3 Land Use. (P.33)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical con-
nection represented by this area.
CHAPTER 2 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic
Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found
below.
CHAPTER 3STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (P.24)
Recommendation: Create a local historic preservation
program that is locally implemented, controlled, and
enforced. The program would apply to all local histor-
ic districts and local landmarks regardless of the NCOD
boundary.
Alternative policy recommendation: Phase-in a local
historic preservation program.
3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES (P.25)
Recommendation: Expand incentives for historic proper-
ties owners.
NOTES
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS (P.26)
Recommendation: Elevate the Historic Preservation (Ad-
visory) Board to be a decision making body for develop-
ments on historic properties or within historic districts,
and to implement a historic preservation program.
Alternative policy recommendation: Require HPAB recom-
mendations for historic projects and for projects within a
historic district.
3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES(P.28)
Recommendation: Create historic preservation (HP) stan-
dards and guidelines.
Alternative policy recommendations:
1) Incrementally create historic district HP standards and
guidelines.
2) Only create guidelines (recommendations) and do not
create standards (requirements) for historic properties
and properties within a historic district.
22
3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Historic preservation is not a one-size-fits all practice. There are guiding principles established by the Federal government, but it
is up to communities to determine the appropriate preservation approach locally. Communities with a strong inventory of historic
buildings oftentimes implement a customized local program that protects the vernacular historic buildings that do not always
qualify for the National Register of Historic Places.
Vernacular buildings are a style of architecture that is specific to a local area. While na-
tionally significant properties represent broader historic importance, Bozeman’s local ver-
nacular creates a sense of place and pride for the community. Locally significant buildings
that represent the evolution and development of Bozeman, important local people, or im-
portant community events, may not qualify for State or National Register listing but can be
equally important to defining unique local character. It is up to the Bozeman community
to determine what is important through a local preservation program that focuses on local
history, addresses development pressures, and recognizes a sense of place for current and
future generations. Buildings are authentic, tangible pieces of history that are irreplaceable
once they are lost.
Bozeman has a voluntary historic preservation program with an advisory Historic Preservation Board. According to the Municipal
Code, a property is considered historic if it “is listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places, designated as a historic
property under local or state designation law or survey, considered a contributing structure within a National Register Historic
District or local historic district, or is deemed eligible by the City of Bozeman to be listed on the National or State Register of His-
toric Places individually or as a contributing building within an adopted or eligible historic district”. Currently, there are parts of the
Bozeman municipal code, such as local designation or local historic district status, which do not have specified review processes
or criteria to be implemented which can a barrier to a local historic preservation program.
Bozeman has 46 historic
buildings individually listed
on the National Register and
10 National Register Histor-
ic Districts. The National
Register of Historic Places is
administered by the National
Park Service.
23
3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
There are 46 nationally listed historic properties and eight his-
toric districts within the NCOD (two historic districts are out-
side the NCOD). These districts and historic properties were
designated based on 1987 architectural surveys.
Bozeman also has significant post-World War II architecture
that is eligible for National Register listing, as identified by Di-
ana J. Painter in a Montana State Historic Preservation Office
architectural context paper. In addition, the Marwyn Addition
has been identified by local groups as a cohesive neighborhood
of ranch style mid-century residential buildings. It is highly like-
ly that the actual number of eligible historic properties both
pre- and post-World War II, will increase with a new architec-
tural inventory. Regardless of eligibility, the creation of a new
National Register Historic District or an individual National Reg-
ister listing requires consent from the landowner(s).
Since Bozeman does not have a current architectural invento-
ry, a property owner is required to submit a historic inventory
form to the City of Bozeman as part of an application for rede-
velopment within the NCOD to document any potential histor-
ic importance before alterations or demolition is undertaken.
The onus is on the property owner and on Bozeman staff to
document and evaluate the building either just before or at
the same time that a development or demolition application
is considered. This places the immediate aspirations of a prop-
erty owner in potential conflict with the community’s desire to
preserve its history. First Baptist Church. Photograph courtesy Bozeman Public Library, https://
cdm15018.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16013coll45/id/86/rec/15.
What is the National Register of Historic Places?
The National Register is a list of individual sites,
buildings, objects, or districts that have demonstrat-
ed significance to the history of a community, state
or the nation and are worthy of preservation.
The National Register of Historic Places is an honor-
ary designation that does not prevent demolition or
significant alterations. Properties on the Register
may be eligible for certain tax credits.
Bozeman Downtown, courtesy of City of Bozeman.
24
3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
“[The] NCOD was designed and created to protect historic
areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that
defines the character of the Bozeman community.”
“[The NCOD] strives to consider the historic value of Boze-
man neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the
planning process.”
What we heard:
Historic preservation is the most important aspect of the NCOD.
Historic properties should be protected against demolition,
and development regulations within historic districts should
be strict. Support for an updated inventory is important to the
community, not just to define the NCOD, but to also identify and
to protect significant buildings.
Alternatives:
1) Phase-in a local historic preservation program.
• Develop a preservation plan that articulates communi-
ty preservation goals with an implementation agenda.
Up-skill HPAB members with historic preservation train-
ings focused on reviewing projects against criteria and
improving recommendations. The National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions offers trainings specific to
historic boards.
• Adopt local designation criteria and incentives that only
apply to National Register listed properties, with owner
consent. Test out a local landmark program on nation-
ally designated properties to determine whether a local
program is attractive to property owners and the com-
munity.
• After completing an architectural inventory, write con-
text papers on Bozeman’s local vernacular buildings
identified in the survey that are not eligible for National
Register status, but are important to Bozeman’s history.
• Develop handouts for historic property owners that of-
fer quick reference guides to repairs based on national
standards for historic preservation. Offer free consul-
tations for historic properties to promote and inform
maintenance and upkeep.
• Explore a conservation easement program or building
rehabilitation fund to help maintain significant historic
properties and prevent deferred maintenance.
Strategic Plan Policy 1.2, 7.4.d
Community Plan Goal 8.3
Recommendation:
Create a local historic preservation program that is local-
ly implemented, controlled, and enforced. The program
would apply to all local historic districts and local land-
marks regardless of the NCOD boundary.
Clear standards, objective criteria for landmark designation,
and protections for designated buildings are integral to a lo-
cal historic preservation program. Demolition criteria could
be weighted depending on location. For example, stricter re-
quirements would apply to eligible properties within a historic
district as opposed to moderate requirements for eligible or
historic properties outside a historic district.
Decide as a community what is important to protect and then
ensure that historic resources are protected through stricter
demolition criteria and specific maintenance standards for his-
toric properties.
The Bozeman Municipal Code does not include criteria to designate local historic landmarks or local historic districts, and does not
protect a historic building or potentially historic building from demolition. Maintenance standards are included in the Bozeman
Code; however the standards are universal and not specific to historic properties. Standards for upkeep and maintenance are inte-
gral to a successful historic preservation program and should outline specific requirements to protect the longevity of a building and
avoid demolition by neglect. For example, a historic building may be required to patch holes in a roof to slow structural deterioration.
25
3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES
A voluntary landmark designation program can be very successful when there are reasons to designate a property. Incentives for
historic structures encourage designation by balancing the additional layer of design review and required maintenance associated
with historic status. Incentives can also compensate a property owner’s sense of responsibility and outright additional costs of pre-
serving an historic resource. Finding an appropriate balance takes time and finesse to determine appropriate incentives that benefit
property owners and do not negatively impact the community, neighborhood or other citywide goals.
What we heard:
Historic preservation is indisputably supported by the com-
munity. The community’s connection and dedication to pro-
tecting their local history through buildings were a common
thread in the outreach feedback.
Recommendation:
Expand incentives for historic properties owners.
The Municipal Code already allows deviations for historic
properties which may be a meaningful incentive for some
property owners. Each project has a different set of param-
eters and a different bottom line that can tip the scales to-
ward voluntary designation or demolition. A list of incentives
that provides a variety of options for different projects and a
merit-based program to earn the benefits is recommended.
Finding an appropriate balance between carrots and sticks,
regulations and incentives, is the key to a successful voluntary
historic preservation program that relies on property owners
being willing participants.
Examples of Incentives offered in other communities include:
1) Ability to consolidate all required reviews at HPAB for expedited review process.
2) Potential for the City to pay a portion of the City fees associated with the project.
3) a transferable development right program to transfer floor area off-site.
4) a conservation easement program or building rehabilitation fund.
“Our historic neighborhoods are a treasure. Only Disney
builds places like this anymore. Growth is happening, but
take care not to ruin something so unique.”
“The NCOD and especially the historic neighborhoods need
to be preserved and not overwhelmed by new, large scale,
unattractive development.”
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve
and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets
is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic
properties and districts.
sample incentive program:
Strategic Plan policy 4.1.b
Community Plan Goal 8.3
26
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS
Under the current review process the Planning Director approves the majority of historic projects, while the Historic Preservation
Advisory Board (HPAB) may provide recommendations. Currently there are about 100 Certificate of Appropriateness applications
a year which are reviewed by staff planners – the Historic Preservation Officer acts as an internal referral agency. It is important to
relate the scope of a project to the level of review. It is equally important to not over-regulate new development. Over-regulation
can be a barrier to historic preservation projects and to voluntary landmark designation. One way to tackle this issue is to create
a clear set of review criteria with thresholds for different levels of review by either Staff or the HPAB.
What we heard:
The review process is seen as ambiguous and inconsistently
applied. The small groups expressed a desire for clarity and
consistency in the review criteria, and for a better opportunity
to comment on projects.
Recommendation:
Elevate the Historic Preservation (Advisory) Board to be
a decision making body for developments on historic
properties or within historic districts, and to implement
a historic preservation program.
A key component to the historic review process is to authorize
the Historic Preservation Advisory Board to have final author-
ity on certain projects, rather than just a recommendation.
This creates a venue for formal review of a project during a
public hearing. Board trainings are available to help HPAB dif-
ferentiate its role as project advocate vs. board reviewer. This
approach allows the Historic Preservation Officer to focus on
long term goals such as the development of a local historic
preservation program.
“Separate historic preservation from neighborhood preser-
vation since they address different issues and needs.”
“Give clearer direction and quantitative review parameters
for decision makers.”
“Review criteria more geographically based with reason-able quantitative evaluation criteria”
Strategic Plan Policy 7.4.d
Alternative:
Require HPAB recommendations for historic projects and for
projects within a historic district.
HPAB is a required referral agency for historic projects and any
projects within a historic district. HPAB could also have the abil-
ity through a majority vote to require a project be reviewed
by the Bozeman Commission rather than the Planning Director.
The HPAB recommendations occur at a public hearing where
notice is posted on the property to allow the public a venue to
comment and learn about the project. Other avenues to com-
munitcate with the public that could be considered as part of
this alternative are listed in Chapter 6.
A noticed public hearing and formal review process with clear
design guidelines and review criteria that is evaluated by the
Historic Preservation Board with a recommendation by the His-
toric Preservation Officer is a more inclusionary, predictable,
and oftentimes participatory process.
Definitive thresholds need to be developed to determine the
appropriate review body. Minor development of non-contrib-
uting properties within historic districts, single family home,
and/or small additions (i.e. less than 250 sf) to landmarks are
examples of thresholds for a lesser review process than a new
large mixed use building within a historic district or a large ad-
dition to a landmark.
27
state Common Board
Title
Scope of Au-
thority
Sample Approval Authorities
Statue/ExampleRecommend
only COAs
Appeals
to Staff
Decisions
NC Historic preservation or
district commission Broad X X Statute
SC Board of architectural
review
Broad—set by
zoning ordinance X X Statute
ME Historic district com-
mission Broad X Ellsworth, ME
IN Historic preservation
commission Broad X South Bend,IN
SD Historic preservation
commission Broad X Statute
ID Historic preservation
commission Broad X Statute
WY Historic preservation
commission
Narrow—did not
find any city with
HPC approval
authority
X Casper Code
Cheyenne
WA Historic preservation
commission Broad X Spokane Code
UT Historic preservation
commission Broad X
Overview of state and
local districts
Statue
CO Historic preservation
commission Broad X X Mantiou Springs Denver
Code
OR
Historic preserva-
tion/ resources com-
mission
Broad X Admin Rules
Independence
NV Historic resources
commission Broad X Carson City Code
Reno Code
Historic District Commissions—A Summary of Authority
Many states grant cities the authority to establish commissions with broad authority to make recommendations, spend funds,
hire professionals as needed, and approve exterior modifications and new construction in established historic districts. The fol-
lowing is a summary of such commissions in select states indicating their authority to grant certificates of authority. Two states
included in the summary specifically authorize staff to grant minor Certificate of Appropriateness (COAs) with appeals to those
decisions heard by the commission, although other states, especially those with home rule, may not prohibit such authority.
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS - CASE STUDIES
28
3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
The existing Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District document, adopt-
ed in 2006 and amended in 2015, address both historic preservation and new development throughout the entire overlay concur-
rently. A chapter is devoted to rehabilitation guidelines for historic properties and each historic district is allotted a few specific
design guidelines. There are general design guidelines for the entire NCOD, and general suggestions for residential development
versus commercial development. This document has served as a good foundation for the NCOD; however, an update to create a
stronger distinction between historic preservation and neighborhood character is overdue. The existing guidelines and any future
standards and guidelines must be based on the recently updated Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
What we heard:
Neighborhood character and historic districts should be ad-
dressed separately within the NCOD with special care given
to transition areas between historic districts. Historic preser-
vation of all designated historic districts is important to the
community.
The Main Street, Story Mill, and the Bon Ton historic districts
have the greatest mass and scale challenges with new devel-
opment. Based on this feedback, updated design standards
and guidelines need to specifically address mass and scale
within these identified historic districts in addition to poten-
tial zone district boundary changes.
Recommendation:
Create historic preservation (HP) standards and guide-
lines.
The HP standards and guidelines should specify appropriate
contextual alterations, remodels, and new buildings for each
historic district. Standards will be requirements (with the abil-
ity to request a deviation) and guidelines will be recommen-
dations. The HP standards and guidelines will build upon the
principles of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which
will still apply, and will provide more detailed direction for each
historic district to specifically address the historic significance.
“The NCOD and corresponding regulations are the reason
we have the charming Bozeman of today, and are neces-sary to retain this charm.”
Strategic Plan policy 4.2
Community Plan Goals 1.3, 3.3, 4.3
The HP standards and guidelines will be separate from the de-
sign standards and guidelines for non-historic properties and
non-historic districts within the NCOD (discussed in Chapter
2). Creating the HP standards and guidelines is recommend-
ed after an updated architectural inventory is completed. The
architectural inventory may result in the expansion of existing
historic districts and will likely highlight character defining fea-
tures and massing concerns specific to each historic district
which should be addressed in the hp standards and guidelines.
The hp standards and guidelines need to be relevant to exist-
ing conditions, reflect good historic preservation practice and
encourage appropriate future development.
Alternatives:
1) Incrementally create historic district HP standards and
guidelines.
If an updated architectural inventory is not feasible at this
time, the recommendation to create HP standards and guide-
lines is still strongly recommended. Prioritize the historic dis-
tricts with the most development pressure and create design
standards and guidelines for those neighborhoods first.
2) Only create guidelines (recommendations) and do not cre-
ate standards (requirements) for historic properties and prop-
erties within a historic district.
Guidelines are flexible and provide suggestions to property
owners that guide architectural decisions, rather than clear,
definitive standards on appropriate design.
29
2018 Strategic Plan
Policy 1.2 (P.2)
Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the commu-
nity and stakeholders.
Policy 4.1.b Develop and Align Infill Policies. (P.6)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Policy 4.2.d Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. (P.6)
Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservation in downtown and other com-
mercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote continued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures relative to
ongoing infill and redevelopment.
Policy 7.4.d Strategic Municipal Service Delivery Expectations. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 Community Plan
Goal 1.3, Objective g-1 Growth Management. (P.13)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within
the planning area.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-1 Land Use. (P.32)
Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close
proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-3 Land Use. (P.33)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connection
represented by this area.
Goal 4.3, Objective c-1.2 Community Quality. (P.47)
Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development
Goal 4.3, Objective c-1.4 Design Guidelines. (P.47)
Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualities within neighborhood, com-
munity and regional commercial areas.
Goal 8.3, Objective ed-3 Economic Development. (P.76)
Recognize the importance of quality of life elements in attracting and developing economic activity.
CHAPTER 3 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan
compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below.
CHAPTER 4RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT
31
4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS (P.35)
Recommendation: Adjust the B-3 boundary near histor-
ic districts to encourage better transitions. Use streets to
delineate the boundary.
Alternative policy recommendations:
1) Create a B-3 transitional zone (B-3T) for areas located
beyond the core downtown district.
2) Incorporate additional site design standards within
the existing zone edge transition requirements.
3) Incentivize redevelopment along North 7th through
TDRs.
NOTES
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT (P.38)
Recommendation (historic districts): Align zone district
boundaries and dimensional allowances with historic dis-
tricts.
Alternative policy recommendations (historic districts):
1) Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to
relate to the existing zone districts.
2) Develop an historic preservation overlay zone in place
of amending zone district boundaries.
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT (P.38)
Recommendation (non-historic districts): Consider align-
ing zone district allowances with neighborhood character.
Alternative policy recommendations (non- historic dis-
tricts):
1) Update the form and intensity standards to better
address concerns about mass and scale.
2) Update current design guidelines and add design stan-
dards to better address concerns about mass and scale.
32
4 RELATE ZONING TO LOCAL CONTEXT
The Bozeman community places a very high value on neighbor-
hood character within the NCOD. The purpose of the NCOD,
as a design overlay for both historic districts and non-historic
districts, is only part of the story. The NCOD discussion is not
binary – there are many other factors at play. Recent discon-
tent around tall projects adjacent to small scale residential
neighborhoods highlights a potential disconnect between the
dimensional allowances such as height, setbacks, and floor
area of the zone districts and appropriate contextual develop-
ment within the NCOD.
The NCOD uses the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preserva-
tion and The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to
inform new construction, and the 2015 NCOD audit suggests a
mix of design overlay and buffer overlay districts to promote
and to support neighborhood context. However, it is virtually
impossible to create design guidelines that make a new, tall,
multi-story building relate to a single story bungalow.
The abrupt height and mass transitions between historic and
non-historic districts has influenced negative community
sentiment toward the NCOD and an overall feeling that the
NCOD needs to be improved.
LEGEND
NCOD Boundary
North tracey
Lindley place
Bon Ton
Main Street
MSU
South Tracey /
South Black
Strategic Plan policy 7.4.d
Community Plan Goals 3.3 and 4.3
33
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
The historic districts, residential neighborhoods and mixed-use downtown core found within the Neighborhood Conser-
vation Overlay District represent some of the most desirable real estate in the city, elevating redevelopment potential
and prompting serious consideration – and concern – surrounding infill development in the area. Some of the existing
zoning districts located in the NCOD have allowed for development over time that is not always characteristic of adopt-
ed historic districts or non-historic neighborhoods and lack appropriate design standards that support the intent of the
NCOD. This disconnect between traditional zoning practice and neighborhood character results in projects that may meet
the code (and the existing form and intensity standards) but are not always responsive to the surrounding neighborhood,
prompting frustration and distrust toward infill development, especially within the NCOD.
Within the scope of the NCOD project, the focus is to address community concern over mass, scale and density issues
that impact neighborhood character within the district. In order to do so, an evaluation of the zone districts present
within the NCOD boundary was necessary to understand how existing standards influence development within the district
and pinpoint opportunities for greater compatibility and stronger implementation. The B-3 Downtown Business District
and its relationship to the established historic districts and overall NCOD boundary became an important part of this
evaluation, based on input from stakeholders and community members.
34
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
The intent of the B-3 zone is ‘to provide a central area for
the community’s business, government service and cultural
activities with urban residential development as an essen-
tial supporting use.’ Encouraging mixed use development
with a healthy balance of business, civic, cultural and res-
idential uses are central to a healthy downtown district.
In other communities, allowing urban residential uses as
part of a high density downtown district has unintention-
ally created situations where the highest and best use
of a property is top-shelf residential developments. The
Downtown Bozeman Partnership is currently working on an
updated Downtown Bozeman Improvement plan that will
address the B-3 zone district and areas for infill and higher
density development. In addition, the Bozeman Community
Plan is being updated which will also pinpoint areas for
growth and development and will reflect long term vision
of the community.
The B-3 ‘downtown district’ zone highlights an opportunity
for a softer, context-appropriate transition between higher
density and taller buildings and small low density neighbor-
hoods. A sensitive solution is required to meet the goals
and intent of the zone district while balancing historic and
neighborhood preservation of the areas that abut the B-3
boundary. To further complicate this balance, the Main
Street historic district is located in the middle of the B-3
zone. Allowable building heights along Main Street are
lower than height allowances outside the historic district
and within the B-3 zone. Different height requirements
within the zone district recognize historic context along
Main Street; however, this pushes taller buildings toward
low scale residential neighborhoods located to the north
and south. Setback and height restrictions established by
the application of zone edge transition areas address this
issue within B-3 and properties immediately adjacent to
R-2 districts, but may not go far enough to address neigh-
borhood character beyond mass and scale, and do so in
a holistic manner that looks beyond that immediate edge.
The B-2M ‘community business district-mixed’ zone district
is a new district adopted in 2017 that is a hybrid between
B-3 and the more suburban B-2 zone district. The stated
intent of B-2M is to function as a vibrant mixed-use dis-
trict that accommodates substantial growth and enhances
the character of the city. B-2M zoning is presently located
along the western boundary of the NCOD, between Main
and Peach Streets, and may serve as an opportunity zone
to capture future infill development within the district.
Excerpt from Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 38.320.060. - Zone edge
transitions (within Division 38.320 Form and Intensity Standards).
35
What we heard:
Locating new infill development anywhere within the NCOD
received moderate community support; however majority
support was for outside the NCOD or along the 7th Street
corridor. This is consistent with the City’s recent up-zoning of
the 7th Street corridor to accommodate additional density and
intensity of development.
It is important to note the different perceptions around
what constitutes infill. For some people infill is large high
density development, and for others infill is all new de-
velopment regardless of density or size. High density devel-
opment can also take on different meanings among residents.
For some, high-density means an intense concentration of uses,
both vertically and horizontally, reflective of larger urban areas
like Denver, Seattle or Portland. For others, high-density could
be any use or development more intense than single-family res-
idential; in a city the size of Bozeman sometimes any new or
additional development feels higher in intensity than what cur-
rently exists.
“Lack of buffer zone between new development and exist-
ing neighborhoods is hurting the community of the neigh-borhoods which is difficult to see unless you are living in the
neighborhood. Our neighborhoods are not just brick and
mortar we are people. The hard line between commercial
and residential zoning needs a buffer.”
Recommendation:
Adjust the B-3 boundary near historic districts to en-
courage better transitions. Use streets to delineate the
boundary.
There is some acceptance by the community that new
development is going to happen in the NCOD. Results
from pointed questions on where developments should
occur, as well as our assessment of the massing and char-
acter of existing development within the NCOD boundary,
informed our recommendation to rethink the B-3 District
boundary within the NCOD. How this boundary is re-
considered could be approached from multiple directions:
from modifying the boundary of the B-3 district to better
align with existing historic districts, to creating a new mixed
use district that serves as a transitional zone between B-3
and the residential neighborhoods, or expanding upon
the existing zone edge transition requirements to better
address form and character in these transitional areas.
The established neighborhoods and historic districts locat-
ed to the south of downtown dictate a very clear bound-
ary between traditional neighborhood development and
the B-3 zone; our recommendation, regardless of any of
the options presented, is for the City to consider aligning
the southern B-3 district boundary with the existing his-
toric districts ot the south of Babcock Street. To balance an
adjusted B-3 zone, incentivizing redevelopment within ar-
eas zoned for B-2M along the North 7th corridor should
be considered to take advantage of recent upzoning in this
area and the desire to see additional infill along this corridor.
Alternatives are provided on the following pages as options
to address the delicate balance between incentivizing infill
and supporting historic preservation and neighborhood char-
acter.
Strategic Plan policies 4.1.b and 4.4
Community Plan Goal 1.3
The Downtown Master Plan and the Bozeman Community
Plan are currently being revised. Both updated final docu-
ments will provide context and future vision for this decades
old discussion around increasing density downtown and
protecting the essence of the Bozeman community.
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
36
Alternatives:
1) Create a B-3 transitional zone (B-3T) for areas located beyond
the core downtown district.
This could be an overlay district or separate zone district (B-3T) that
would apply to properties located between Babcock and the existing B-3
boundary to the south, and Mendenhall and the existing B-3 boundary to
the north. The intent of the existing B-3 zone would remain in place, with
massing, scale, site design and other dimensional requirements adjusted
to better align with a transitioning commercial, mixed use to residential,
mixed use neighborhood. Design standards and guidelines developed to
maintain the character of the area would further refine where and how
infill development would occur within this zone.
B-3T?
B-3T?
2) Incorporate additional site design standards within the existing
zone edge transition requirements.
Similar to the recommendation above, but working within the existing
municipal code framework, additional site design standards could be in-
corporated within Section 38.320.060 of the City’s municipal code ad-
dressing compatible transitions between high density and low density
districts. Façade articulation, transparency, construction materials, roof
type, landscaping and other design requirements could be incorporated
– in addition to existing height and setback requirements – to further
define the character of the transition zone and extend it beyond imme-
diately adjacent properties.
3) Incentivize redevelopment along North 7th through TDRs.
Using a combination of the above options establishing a transitional zone
along the B-3 “edge”, encourage infill development within the expanded
NCOD district along North 7th Avenue by allowing developers to shift
density from the transitional zone into the B-2M zone. This may be ac-
complished in concert with a slight expansion to the B-2M district’s east-
ern boundary, depending on the guidance and direction resulting from
the City’s community plan update, landowner input, and the adopted
downtown plan update.
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
37
Zone district analysis is not exactly within the scope of the NCOD
project; however, there are definite areas of overlap in terms of
mass, scale, and neighborhood character. Bozeman is current-
ly working on a community plan update and a downtown plan
update that will most likely address changes to the zoning map.
Disconnect between zone district boundaries and neighbor-
hood character occur throughout the NCOD, most notably with-
in designated historic districts that have a defined and cohesive
architectural style. Approved projects within the B-3 zone dis-
trict directly adjacent to designated historic districts, highlight
incompatibility between neighborhood character and dimen-
sional allowances within a zone district.
The Bon Ton, Story Mill, and Cooper Park Historic Districts have
more than one zone district within the historic district boundary
- for example, the Bon Ton Historic District has R-1, R-4 and B-3
zoning. Allowed heights in the R-1 Zone District (36 ft. max) are
lower than the R-4 Zone District (44 ft. max), and significantly
lower than the B-3 Zone District (70 ft. max outside the core).
The historic buildings within the Bon Ton Historic District range
from 1 story to 2 1/2 stories in height on average, which is sig-
nificantly lower than a 44 ft. building allowed in R-4.
Numerous zone districts within one cohesive historic district
can be frustrating for residents, property owners and Bozeman
staff/review boards when a project meets zoning allowances
but does not relate to the historic context of the neighborhood.
This places a strain on the review process and can result in new
development that degrades and erodes the cohesion of the his-
toric district.
Changes to the zone district map should be considered in con-
cert with the community plan and the downtown plan updates.
Zoning amendments should also be informed by other commu-
nity wide goals such as infrastructure updates for new construc-
tion, on-street and off-street parking needs, affordable housing
needs, and many other growth and development topics.
What we heard:
Through our analysis and discussion with participants the
Main Street Historic District and surrounds was identified as
having the greatest mass and scale challenges with new de-
velopment.
Many participants reference recent tall developments in the
B-3 zone adjacent to residential neighborhoods, as evidence
that the NCOD needs to better protect neighborhood char-
acter. Rather than design, the review process, or neutral op-
tions, participants selected the size of building and the scale
of new development as the biggest issues with new develop-
ment in the NCOD.
Based on community input, we found that there is overall
community concern with the pace and size of new growth and
development throughout Bozeman. Specific concerns within
the NCOD ended up relating largely to projects approved un-
der the B-3 zone district and Design Guideline Subchapter 4B
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
The National Register of Historic Places describes the Bon
Ton Historic District as “Bozeman’s finest examples of histor-
ic residential architecture, spanning from the early 1880s to
the mid-1930s, constitute the bulk of the 228 buildings in
the Bon Ton Historic District.”
38
Recommendation (non-historic neighborhoods):
Consider aligning zone district allowances with neigh-
borhood character.
New design overlay districts and neighborhood specific
design guidelines are not the singular answer to the mass,
scale and incompatibility issues voiced by the community.
To successfully address the concerns in non-historic neigh-
borhoods we recommend a multi-pronged approach that
starts with aligning dimensional requirements and allowed
uses in the NCOD zone districts to neighborhood charac-
ter and the future vision for each neighborhood. Design
guidelines should be considered after a comprehensive ar-
chitectural inventory of the NCOD and after zone districts
are amended.
Alternatives:
1) Update the form and intensity standards to better ad-
dress concerns about mass and scale.
The form and intensity standards are form based code that
were recently adopted by the Bozeman Commission. Note:
it may be premature to update the form and intensity stan-
dards that have not been adequately tested. Sample case
studies could shed light on the applicability of the form and
intensity standards and whether Alternative 1 is an appro-
priate option.
2) Update current design guidelines and add design stan-
dards to better address concerns about mass and scale.
New design standards can encourage thoughtful design el-
ements that reduce the perception of mass and scale and
can require architectural elements, such as front porches or
large street facing windows, that relate new development
to surrounding character. New design standards and guide-
lines for neighborhoods are addressed in Chapter 2 of this
document.
Strategic Plan policy 4.4
Community Plan Goal 1.3
Recommendation (historic districts):
Align zone district boundaries and dimensional allow-
ances with historic districts.
Complete an updated architectural inventory of the NCOD to
determine whether existing historic district boundaries need
adjustment and to identify eligible future historic districts
within the NCOD. Consider historic preservation incentives
that off-set any “down zoning” that may occur when zone dis-
trict boundaries and dimensions are adjusted.
Alternatives:
1) Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to relate
to the existing zone districts.
If an architectural inventory is not feasible at this time, bound-
ary adjustments can be made based on current information
and a windshield survey. However, adjustments to the historic
district boundary must not jeopardize the integrity of the his-
toric district by including areas that do not have a high level of
significance and do not contribute to the historic district. On
the other hand, historic districts should not exclude important
historic properties in order to align zone districts with historic
districts as this would be counter-productive. This alternative
may involve amending the National Register of Historic Places
historic district designation unless local historic districts are
adopted.
2) Develop an historic preservation overlay zone in place of
amending zone district boundaries.
This approach applies cohesive design standards and dimen-
sional requirements within a historic district, and is similar to
the Main Street historic district which is located within the B-3
zone district. Within the B-3 boundary, different dimensional
standards apply to properties inside the Main Street historic
district as opposed to outside the district.
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
39
2018 Strategic Plan
Policy 4.1.b Develop and Align Infill Policies. (P.6)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Policy 4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers. (P.7)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including high-
er densities and intensification of use in these key areas.
Policy 7.4.d Strategic Municipal Service Delivery Expectations. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 Community Plan
Goal 1.3, Objective g-1 Growth Management. (P.13)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life
within the planning area.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-3 Land Use. (P.33)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connec-
tion represented by this area.
Goal 4.3, Objective c-1.2 Community Quality. (P.47)
Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development.
CHAPTER 4 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic
Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below.
CHAPTER 5STREAMLINE PROCESS
41
5 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC) (P.43)
Recommendation: Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined.
Alternative policy recommendation: Require a binding design review process with the Design Review Board
(non-historic properties).
NOTES
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
42
5 STREAMLINE PROCESS
There are numerous requirements and reviews that may apply to projects within the NCOD including: a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness, Sketch Plan Review, Form and Intensity Standards within each zone district, and Project Design Review to name a few.
These multiple layers can create confusion for neighbors. The City of Bozeman developed handouts that simplify application
requirements to be accessible and understandable to a wide range of users.
The number of differing reviews increases the potential for conflicting standards that need to be rectified throughout the review
process. In our experience, this can cause applicants to feel that the process is arbitrary. The Municipal Code has thresholds to
determine when a recommendation is required from the Design Review Board (DRB). These thresholds are specific to large de-
velopments with 45 or more dwelling units or are a minimum of four stories, and provide a good foundation to build on. Based
on community input, there is a desire to address the review process and provide a more concise framework that is easy to follow.
43
5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC)
What we heard:
Clear review criteria, an understandable process, and a
streamlined review are areas that need improvement accord-
ing to the small group meeting participants. Placing more
weight on public comment and Design Review Board (DRB)
recommendations is desired; and, relating scope to level of
review process is recommended by the small group meeting
participants.
Overall, participants felt that the review process for new de-
velopment is slightly tilted to developers with some partici-
pants agreeing that the review process is balanced.
Recommendation:
Ensure the review process is understandable and stream-
lined.
Map out the different review processes to determine overlap
and areas to simplify and consolidate. For example, explore
the advantages and disadvantages to exempting the NCOD
from form and intensity standards in zone districts (and pos-
sibly other review processes) and instead use context derived
design guidelines (recommendations) and standards (require-
ments).
Develop review criteria that is objective and allows some flex-
ibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulations, de-
sign standards and design guidelines.
Alternative:
1) Require a binding design review process with the Design
Review Board (non-historic properties).
The DRB would be authorized to make the final decision on
design review, while still enabling the Bozeman Commission
to consider a large project for review when certain thresholds
or requirements are met. At the same time, lower the thresh-
olds that triggers DRB review to include smaller projects to
balance the recommendation requiring a design review pro-
cess for large projects.
This is a significant change to the Bozeman Municipal Code
and requires a commitment to training the DRB to apply re-
view criteria. A large majority of established communities im-
plement a similar review structure with design review boards,
historic preservation boards, planning boards, and/or zoning
boards conducting quasi-judicial procedures to review proj-
ects that fall between a staff level review and a comprehen-
sive review by elected officials. Under this process, planning
staff continues to approve minor projects and provides exper-
tise and recommendations to the review body during a proj-
ect review.
“Let’s have developers collaborate with the neighborhood they seek to develop within so that we can get projects
that truly meet the needs and fit the character of the par-
ticular neighborhood.”
“There should be room for deviation from existing com-munity character, if the proposed building’s architecture is
world-class, contemporary.”
Strategic Plan policies 4.2.d, 4.4, 7.4.d
Community Plan Goals 1.3, 3.3, 4.3
CHAPTER 5 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
2018 Strategic Plan
Policy 4.2.d Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. (P.6)
Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservation in downtown and other
commercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote continued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures
relative to ongoing infill and redevelopment.
Policy 4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers. (P.7)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher
densities and intensification of use in these key areas.
Policy 7.4.d Strategic Municipal Service Delivery Expectations. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 Community Plan
Goal 1.3, Objective g-1 Growth Management. (p.13)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within
the planning area.
Goal 3.3, Objective lu-3 Land Use. (P.33)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connection
represented by this area.
Goal 4.3, Objective c-1.2 Community Quality. (P.47)
Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development.
Goal 4.3, Objective c-1.4 Community Quality. (P.47)
Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualities within neighborhood,
community and regional commercial areas.
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic
Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. CHAPTER 644
CHAPTER 6PROJECT INFORMATION
6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
6 PROJECT INFORMATION (P.45)
Recommendation: Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined.
Recommendation: Increase opportunity for community awareness through noticed public hearings.
NOTES
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
46
The City of Bozeman requires mailed and posted notices that include information about the project, contact number, and the date
of a public hearing for specific types of projects. In addition, the City of Bozeman is currently working on expanding web access
to development project information and advisory board agendas with links to packet material. A Certificate of Appropriateness
in the NCOD does not require posting of notice prior to approval; rather, the Municipal Code may require notice be posted on the
property that describes the scope of the already approved project. Administrative reviews at the staff level do not have required
public noticing prior to the decision. By their very nature, staff reviews are for projects that comply with code requirements and
a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued quickly without slowing down development momentum.
What we heard:
Project information is mostly found in the newspaper, on the
city website, and through word of mouth. Most participants
feel that available information provides enough detail to un-
derstand the main points of a project.
Recommendation:
Strengthen existing project information channels.
Go beyond the standard posting, mailing, and publishing, and
provide information to the area surrounding the project prior
to the first hearing or staff determination. The City of Boze-
man has a robust award-winning GIS Department and web-
page. The information that is available online includes layers
that illustrate projects that are under initial review, on hold,
are within a public noticing, under final review, and approved.
In speaking with the community and reviewing the website,
there is an opportunity to work within the existing GIS layers
to add additional information. Examples from other cities in-
clude a summary of the project proposal, more detailed appli-
cation status, and associated permits.
Options to explore:
• Working with GIS Department and web administrators on
how to integrate additional information into the existing
GIS layers and website to make detailed project informa-
tion more readily available to the public.
• Educational campaign through City social media channels
discussing where to find planning project information.
“ALL of these sources and several times IN ADVANCE- you
can’t advertise too much”
“Send out texts with development/proposal info to folks
within a five block radius.”
“Continue to utilize GIS in a useable format so the public can see proposed projects early in the process and have a
chance to comment.”
“Neighbors directly affected deserve a direct communica-
tion.”
City of Boulder, GIS, Development Review Cases.City of Fort Collins, GIS, Citizen Portal.
6 PROJECT INFORMATION
47
which source do you use most to gain information about city projects*:
Social Media.
Newspaper.
City Website.
Word of mouth.
Neighborhood Association.10%
16%
19%
26%
11%
*Top five results
Recommendation:
Increase opportunity for community awareness through
noticed public hearings.
Pushing more projects and review authority to the DRB or
HPAB will automatically generate a forum to gather informa-
tion during project review and may result in more community
awareness of ongoing projects.
Options to explore:
• A required meeting prior to application review with the
neighborhoods impacted by the project.
• To take it a step further, required input from the neigh-
borhood association on large scale projects could be ex-
plored. For example, in Pitkin County Colorado, specific
areas within the County have formed caucuses that are
required to provide a recommendation to the reviewing
body on large projects within their area.
6 PROJECT INFORMATION
it is easy to get information about new projects and stay informed:
Strongly Agree.
Agree.
Depends on the project.
Disagree.
Strongly Disagree.15%
23%
32%
10%
4%
48