HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-19 City Commission Packet Materials - A4. NCOD and Historic Preservation Program Review and Recommendations
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission FROM: Phillipe Gonzalez, Historic Preservation Specialist
Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development
Andrea Surratt, City Manager SUBJECT: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) and Historic Preservation Program Review and Recommendations
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission formally receive the report, consider
recommendations, and select alternative actions to be implemented. SUGGESTED MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report recommendations 1-13, public comment and all other information presented, I hereby move to recommend
recommendations 1-13 as presented in Table-1.
BACKGROUND: This presentation to the City Commission is to consider and make recommendations on the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Review presentation recommendations. The attached presentation contains 13 broad policy based recommendations
related to the NCOD to be considered and acted upon.
Regardless of any commission action on recommendations, future changes to city code, zone or boundary map changes would be considered and reviewed in-depth at a later point. Additional opportunities will be given to the public to comment on any proposed changes, the City
Commission will make all final decisions on any proposed changes. Based on direction provided
by the City Commission the consultants will produce a summary of the commission’s direction and a detailed work plan to be presented to the City Commission in the next couple of months.
Process to Date: On June 4, 2018, the Bozeman City Commission approved a professional
services agreement with the consulting firm BendonAdams to complete a project to evaluate
potential alternatives to the existing Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) and a
restructuring of the Historic Preservation Program. The NCOD was originally adopted in 1991
and is a zoning overlay district shown on the City’s zoning map. The boundaries of the district
are based on the City’s 1957 census boundary. The overlay’s purpose is established in Section
38.340.010 and includes, but is not limited to, the protection and rehabilitation of historic
structures, stabilization of neighborhoods, and increasing economic and financial benefits to the
City and inhabitants. The NCOD is a tool in the City’s historic preservation program.
601
The current project builds upon previous work in 2015, by consulting firms KLJ &
ARCHitecture Trio to evaluate the effects of the NCOD on historic preservation, affordable
housing and infill developments within the NCOD. These findings were produced in the 2015
NCOD Report.
The Bozeman Community Plan includes a stated goal to periodically review all regulatory tools
to determine they are effective, fair and reviewed for consistency: Goal G-2 on page 1-3. The
NCOD Review project is the second phase and continuation of the 2015 NCOD study to achieve
this stated goal.
BendonAdams was tasked with proposing actionable and specific potential alternatives to the
Historic Preservation Program as well as the current laws, regulations, boundaries and
procedures of the NCOD. The resulting recommendations from this project are policy based and
intended to generate follow-up work directives, funding discussions and metrics of success.
BendonAdams has hosted several public outreach opportunities during the project. These include
online surveys, stakeholder group meetings, comments and public events at the Bozeman
Library, Element Hotel, Map Brewery and Bogart Farmers Market. In addition, numerous
written public comments have been submitted regarding the NCOD Review project. Public
comment is accepted until the final action by the City Commission. More public comment and
engagement will apply to each follow-up action from the report.
Document Review: A draft of the report was released for public review in October 2018. There
have been several opportunities for the public to comment on the draft. The report has been
continuously available online at https://www.bozeman.net/home/showdocument?id=8845; as
well as in hard copy at the Department of Community Development, 20 E. Olive Street. There
are 13 recommendations made in the report organized in six chapters. Each recommendation also
identifies one or more alternatives to that recommendation.
The following Final Recommendations made by the consultants are provided below in Table-1
and are available in the consultant’s recommendation presentation. These recommendations
reflect the consultant’s project public outreach and professional expertise. Additionally, within
the table are the recommendations provided by three advisory boards: HPAB, Zoning
Commission and Planning Board. The advisory board’s recommendations are further detailed in
Table-2 and attached advisory board meeting minutes.
HPAB Meeting Minutes
Zoning Commission & Planning Board Minutes
602
Table 1: Final Recommendations & Advisory Board Summary A: Amended
: Recommended as is
Initial Policy Direction Final Recommendation H.P.A.B. Rec. Z.C. Rec P.B. Rec. Future C.C.
Retain the NCOD 2.1 Retain the NCOD
and focus on two programs to distinguish two separate goals: promote historic preservation through local designation and establish neighborhood character areas.
Don’t Change the NCOD Area 2.2 Adjust NCOD boundary based upon results of building survey: 1) North 7th all in or out, 2) Use frontage Street as northern edge, 3) Conduct building survey to provide basis for boundary
adjustments, 4) Complete an architectural survey.
A
Create standards and guidelines specific to areas/neighborhoods within the NCOD.
2.3 Create Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines.
A
Create local historic preservation program applicable to districts and landmarks regardless of NCOD boundary.
3.1 Alternative: Phase in a stronger historic preservation program.
Develop incentives for historic properties. 3.2 Expand incentives for historic property
owners.
A
Elevate Historic Preservation Board to a decision-making body.
3.3 Alternative: Require HPAB recommendations for
historic projects and projects within a historic district.
A
603
Initial Policy Direction Final Recommendation H.P.A.B. Rec. Z.C. Rec P.B. Rec. Future C.C.
Create historic preservation standards
and guidelines.
3.4 Create historic design standards and
guidelines for historic districts and landmarks that align with updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards.
Adjust B-3 Boundary near historic districts to
encourage better transition. Use streets to delineate boundary.
4.1 Create a B-3 transitional zone for
areas located beyond the core Incorporate additional transition
standards within the existing zone edge transition requirements.
A
Align zone district boundaries and dimensional allowances
with historic districts.
4.2 Alternative: Explore adjusting the historic district
boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts.
A
Consider aligning zone districts allowances with neighborhood character.
4.3 Align zone districts with neighbor character. Update form and intensity
standards to better address concerns about mass and scale.
Update current design guidelines and add standards to better
address concerns about mass and scale.
Ensure the review process is understandable
and streamlined.
5.1 Map out different review processes to
determine overlap and areas to simplify and consolidate.
Develop review criteria that is objective and allows
some flexibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulations, design standards and design guidelines.
Strengthen existing
project information channels.
6.1 Explore working
with the GIS Department and web administrators on how to integrate additional information into the
604
Strategic Plan/Growth Policy correlation: The draft report identifies those elements of the
strategic plan and the growth policy where the issues discussed intersection with those
documents. See the text of the report for specific citations. The strategic plan is available online
at http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/154660/Electronic.aspx. The growth policy is
available online at https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=1074.
Citizen Advisory Boards: The 13 recommendations included in the report for the NCOD and
Historic Preservation by BendonAdams are policy recommendations that have a broad range of
impacts. As a result of these broad policy recommendations and the intersection of advisory
boards purview, the recommendations were brought for evaluation to three advisory boards.
These are: Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB), Planning Board (PB), and Zoning
Commission (ZC), the goal being to allow individual boards to advise the City Commission.
As the subject matter is most directly associated with their responsibilities the Historic
Preservation Advisory Board hosted a separate public meeting on February 26, 2019, at 5 P.M.;
with a joint Zoning Board and Planning Commission following after at 7 P.M.
The members of the three boards were presented with the 13 policy recommendations, reviewed
public comment, facilitated a discussion and offered recommendations.
The boards have the following responsibilities relating to the report’s subjects:
Historic Preservation Advisory Board. Section 2.05.850, BMC charges the HPAB with: “The
purpose and intent of this division is to provide for an appointed citizen board for the city
charged with establishing a local historic preservation program, integrating historic preservation
into local, state and federal planning and decision-making processes, identifying, evaluating and
protecting historic resources within Bozeman, and educating the general public about historic
existing GIS layers and website to make detailed project information more readily available to the public. Look into educational campaign through
City social media channels discussing where to find planning
project information.
Increase opportunity for community awareness through noticed public hearings.
6.2 Explore meetings prior to application review (with impacted neighbors). Explore collecting input from neighborhood
associations on large scale projects.
605
preservation.” With this both specific and broad charge, the HPAB is the lead advisory body for
this work.
Planning Board. Section 2.05.500, BMC establishes the Planning Board with the duties outlined
in state law. Section 76-1-2, MCA states: “It is the object of this chapter to encourage local units
of government to improve the present health, safety, convenience, and welfare of their citizens
and to plan for the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be
carefully planned; that new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational, and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be
recognized in future growth; that residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life;
and that the growth of the community be commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and
economical use of public funds.”
The PB primarily accomplishes this charge through the preparation of a growth policy as
outlined in state law. The Bozeman Community Plan, adopted in 2009, is the current version of
Bozeman’s growth policy. The growth policy addresses historic preservation and related issues
in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. The growth policy is being updated. The PB is charged to make
recommendations relating to those elements of the report implementing the goals and objectives
of the growth policy.
Zoning Commission. Section 2.05.2700, BMC establishes the Zoning Commission with the
duties outlined in state law. Section 76-2-307, MCA states: “In order to avail itself of the powers
conferred by this part, except 76-2-306, the city or town council or other legislative body shall
appoint a commission, to be known as the zoning commission, to recommend the boundaries of
the various original districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein.” The report
recommends consideration of changes to the boundaries of the NCOD and possible changes to
the regulations applied within the NCOD. The ZC is charged to make recommendations relating
to those elements of the report associated with zoning boundaries and regulations.
All three boards reviewed the NCOD Review recommendations on February 26th, 2019 and gave
the following recommendations reflected in Table-2.
Table-2: Advisory Board Recommendations
Historic Preservation Advisory Board: Recommended approval of the recommendations 1-
13 as presented.
Zoning Commission: Recommended approval of the recommendations 1-13 as presented.
606
Planning Board: Recommended approval of the recommendations with modifications to
individual recommendations:
2.1: Recommended as is.
2.2: Amended to state that N. 7th be completely removed from the NCOD boundary.
2.3: Amended to state Downtown be acknowledged as a distinct neighborhood.
3.1: Recommended as is.
3.2: Amended to state the city should explore developing incentives for historic properties.
3.3: Amended to state that the input of the HPAB should be sought for historic projects within
historic districts through a process that will be determined later.
3.4: Recommended as is.
4.1: Amended to remove the recommendation.
4.2: Amended recommendation to state delay the exploration of adjusting the historic district
boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts until a completion of architectural survey.
4.3: Recommended as is.
5.1: Recommended as is.
6.1: Recommended as is.
6.2: Recommended as is.
What comes next: Based on feedback by City Commission, the consultants BendonAdams will
produce a final draft outlining a work plan to advance the direction selected by the City
Commission. Each work plan item will be scheduled and must follow whatever public process is
applicable to that task prior to a final decision on that task. There will be opportunities for public
comment at public meetings for each implementation task and in writing any time prior to any
future public meeting.
Public Comment: As noted, there has been substantial opportunity for public comment
throughout the NCOD Review project process. Multiple opportunity have been afforded to
comment on the current recommendations which were first provided to the advisory boards on
February 26th, 2019.
As of the completion of this memo, 35 public comment letters have been received from the start
of the NCOD Review project. All written comments received prior to the public hearing will be
607
provided to the City Commission. All public comment has been organized by relation to
individual consultant recommendations.
608
Table-3: Public Comment Summary # Date Name Rec. 2.1 Rec. 2.2 Rec. 2.3 Rec. 3.1 Rec. 3.2 Rec. 3.3 Rec. 3.4 Rec. 4.1 Rec. 4.2 Rec. 4.3 Rec. 5.1 Rec. 6.1 Rec. 6.2 Other 1 07-06-18 B. Buckingham
2 07-09-18 T. Wells
3 07-15-18 J. Jelinski
4 07-16-18 B. Sulam
5 07-16-18 E. Smeets
6 07-16-18 J. Klockman
7 07-18-18 K. Powell- University
Neighbors Association
8 07-20-18 S. Hinkins
9 07-23-18 M. & B. Hunter
10 07-31-18 J. Dubitzky
11 08-06-18 D. Littlepage
12 08-06-18 G. Rupp
13 08-08-18 R. Canfield-South Central
Neighbors Association
14 08-10-18 R. Canfield
15 08-10-18 Z. Osman
16 08-11-18 C. Naumann-Downtown
Partnership
17 08-13-18 E. Darrow
18 08-13-18 P. Spinelli
19 08-17-18 C. & L. Hops
20 08-17-18 Z. Osman
609
# Date Name Rec. 2.1 Rec. 2.2 Rec. 2.3 Rec. 3.1 Rec. 3.2 Rec. 3.3 Rec. 3.4 Rec. 4.1 Rec. 4.2 Rec. 4.3 Rec. 5.1 Rec. 6.1 Rec. 6.2 Other 21 09-27-18 S. Hedglin
22 10-04-18 J. Jelinski
23 11-19-18 A. Cetraro
24 11-29-18 A. Hoitsma- NENA
25 12-10-18 C. Naumann-DURB
26 01-08-19 J. Wirth
27 02-22-19 C. Naumann
28 02-26-19 Z. Osman
29 03-01-19 L. Semonese
30 03-16-19 A. Hoitsma-NENA &
Vision NE
31 03-28-19 J. Dunn-HPAB
32 03-31-19 D. Strahn
33 04-02-19 M. Osman
34 04-02-19 R. Canfield
35 04-02-19 S. Mercer
610
Public comments sent to the City’s agenda@bozeman.net email have been archived and are
available for public review. There are two folders as the information is organized by year. Any
persons wishing to submit public comment can do so up until the public city commission
meeting. Comments submitted at the meeting will be added to the folders or incorporated into the
minutes.
2018 public comments
2019 public comments
BendonAdams conducted several outreach efforts during the review process. Summaries and
detail of the information provided by surveys and other tools is available at
https://www.bozeman.net/city-projects/ncod-review.
Outreach 1 occurred before the present draft was prepared. Outreach 2 is based on the current
draft.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: City Commission to determine which alternative to pursue for each
element of the report.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve consultant recommendations as presented;
2. Approve consultant recommendations as presented with modifications to individual
recommendations;
3. Deny consultant recommendations.
4. As determined by the Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS: The recommendations set up a substantial work plan for implementation.
Completion of each action will be individually scheduled and budgeted through the standard budget and departmental work processes. The City charges fees with Certificate of Appropriateness which, in part, will provide funding for the work plan item of an update to the architectural inventory forms. The first phase of the architectural inventory update was budgeted
for 2019 and consultant selection is underway for that work.
Attachments: Map of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and Historic Districts
NCOD Review Recommendation Presentation
NCOD Review Draft Public Comment to Date HPAB Meeting Minutes Zoning Commission & Planning Board Minutes
611
612
1
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
613
AGENDA
2
Scope
Schedule
NCOD History
Project Team
Engagement Methods
Themes
Recommendations
Work Program
614
PROJECT SCOPE
“Re-evaluate the use of the NCOD and where
and how it is applied.”
615
Review existing conditions
and recommend possible
alternatives to NCOD.
1
Recommend improvements
to historic preservation
program and Advisory Board.
2
Conduct innovative and
effective community
outreach.
3
PROJECT SCOPE
616
SCHEDULE
Project and Scope
Finalization
Project Kick-Off
Stakeholder Mapping
Staff Survey
Outreach Plan
Windshield Survey
Community Survey
Media Release #1
NCOD Review
BPAG Luncheon
Public Historic Tour
HPAB Meeting
Small Group Meetings
Stakeholder Meetings
Neighborhood Survey
Open House Meeting #1
Listening Post Bogerts
Listening Post Library
Data Conversion
Outreach Summary #1
Draft #1March April May June July AugustMap Brewing Event
HPAB Meeting
Baxter Hotel Polling #1
Baxter Hotel Polling #2
Board Member Meeting
Story Mansion Event
Data ConversionSeptember OctoberOutreach Summary #2
Cumulative Data Analysis
Joint Board Meeting
Final Recommendations
Draft Work Plan
Media Release #2NovemberDecember Commission Meeting
Work Plan Adoption
Final ReportJanuaryFebruaryMarchApril20182019
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
We are here
617
NCOD HISTORY
1978
South Willson
Avenue His-
toric District
nomination to
National Reg-
ister
City of Boze-
man and SHPO
conduct large
scale architec-
tural survey
1984
1986-7
Nomination
of 8 historic
districts and
50 individual
properties
Implementation
of large-scale
zoning overlay
to encompass
historic districts
(NCOD)
1991
2004
City updated
zoning stan-
dards for re-
quired setbacks
and lot sizes to
be more compli-
ant with historic
patterns
City of Bozeman
updated NCOD
Design Guidelines
to create more
flexibility
2006
2015
Introduction of
subchapter 4B
Second update
to Design Guide-
lines and NCOD
Audit
NCOD Review
Project completion
and final work plan
adoption
2019
618
OUR TEAM
Sara Adams, AICP
Historic Preservation
BendonAdams Orion Planning + Design
Chris Bendon, AICP
Process Analysis
Reilly Thimons, IAP2
Public Engagement
Allison Mouch, AICP
Policy Analysis
Carol Rhea, AICP
Process and Policy
619
EXPERTISELand Use Moratorium Devel-
opment Scenarios, Aspen Re-
sponding to changes to Aspen
Land Use Code in 2016, Ben-
donAdams analyzed develop-
ment scenarios based upon
changes to zoning, mitigation,
and site planning requirements
to recommend Code changes.
Commercial Design Guidelines
and Standards, Aspen In 2016,
BendonAdams rewrote the City
of Aspen Commercial, Lodg-
ing and Historic District Design
Guidelines including updates to
neighborhood boundaries, pub-
lic amenity, and Board Reviews.
Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, Aspen Sara worked
to revise the City of Aspen His-
toric Preservation Design Guide-
lines including a new chapter
on site planning and innovative
language for new development
on historic properties.
Aspen Area Community Plan, Aspen. Chris facilitated the
development, adoption and
successful implementation of the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan, which
facilitated discussions with
thousands of citizens through
multiple techniques ranging
from personal interviews to
“clicker sessions” to web-based
venues.
Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, Rochester NH Ben-
donAdams is currently writing
the City of Rochester’s new His-
toric Preservation Design Guide-
lines and working on Land Use
Code amendments to allow for
increased density and infill in
the historic district.
Development Department In-
ternal Processes Audit, City of Anchorage Chris and Sara con-
ducted an internal processes
audit of the building & plan-
ning departments to identify
gaps. Chris and Sara facilitated
discussions with Staff to em-
power them to solve each issue
with attainable solutions.
Moratorium Land Use
Code Amendments City of
Aspen Reilly developed and
managed 30+ events and 20+
Board meetings across six City
of Aspen Code rewrite projects
as part of a year-long devel-
opment moratorium covering
growth management, off-street
parking, use mix, mitigation, and
view planes.
Aspen Modern Program, As-pen. Chris and Sara developed
an AspenModern program that
preserves mid-century histor-
ic resources. This program in-
volved a 2-year process with a
citizen task force that resulted in
changing community sentiment
through education and the
implementation of a voluntary
landmark program.
2014 nati
o
n
al
a
w
a
r
d
winner
2017 CO
A
P
A
A
w
a
r
d
Laramie Downtown Project,
Laramie WY. Orion teamed with
Arnett Muldrow & Associates,
Mahan Rykiel Associates and
Community Design Solutions to
update the Downtown Devel-
opment Plan for Laramie, Wy-
oming. The planning area was
comprised of approximately 50
square blocks of historic down-
town Laramie.
Sheridan Land Use Plan, Sheri-dan WY. Orion is working on the
Sheridan, Wyoming Land Use
Plan consists of three phases:
Existing Conditions, Land Use
Analysis and Community Vision,
and Land Use Policy and Com-
munity Master Plan. The proj-
ect schedule encompasses 14
months with heavy engagement
opportunities.
Oxford Comp Plan, Oxford, MS. Orion was selected to lead
this effort based on Orion’s
outstanding ability to diagnose
community development dy-
namics and facilitate the cre-
ation of effective, workable
solutions that are sensitive to
the preservation of Oxford’s his-
toric neighborhoods.
Maui County Title 19 Zoning Code Audit, Maui, HI. Orion
was hired by Maui County to
conduct a comprehensive au-
dit of their county-wide zoning
code. Prior to the initiation of
the audit, Title 19 had not been
through a comprehensive re-
view or rewrite since the 1950’s.
620
ENGAGEMENT
METHODS
Stakeholder Mapping
Outreach + Communications Plan
Project Page
Online and Windshield Survey
Historic Tours
Open Houses
Listening Posts
Stakeholder Meetings
Staff Meetings
Board Meetings
Live polling sessions
621
WE ASKED PARTICIPANTS ABOUT
NCOD
Purpose and
Boundary
Key role and
function of the
NCOD
Streamlining pro-
cesses and project
Information
Where to
encourage new
development
Role of Historic
Preservation
Advisory Board
Current
policy and
regulations
Design
Guidelines and
Standards
Transition zones
and boundary
adjustments
Historic
preservation
program
622
BY THE NUMBERS
403
Participants
120+
Questions
asked
~7,500
Data
Points
22
Historic
Tour Attendees
18
Total Outreach
Opportunities
30
Formal
Submissions
93%
Bozeman
Residents
80%
Repeat
Participants
645
Open
Comments
34
Stakeholder
Groups
174
Online
Surveys
635
Windshield
Surveys
623
WINDSHIELD SURVEYRoof forms
Trees
Fencing
Landscape
Number of stories
Roof typology
Chimneys
Porches
Window typology
Entrance features
Materials of principal building
Detached secondary buildings
635 properties
624
RECOMMENDATIONS
+ WORK PLAN
The following slides outline the level of sup-
port for policy recommendations concerning
the NCOD purpose and boundary, historic
preservation program, zoning and context,
streamlining processes, and dissemination of
development information.
A suggested work program has been com-
piled indicating short, medium, and longterm
priorities; and will be reviewed by City staff
and City Commissioners.
625
NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARYRetain the NCOD.
Support Final RecommendaƟ on
2.1 Retain the NCOD and focus on
two programs to disƟ nguish two
separate goals: promote historic
preservaƟ on through local desig-
naƟ on and establish neighborhood
character areas.
High
IniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
1
626
NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARYDon’t change the NCOD
area.
2.2 Adjust NCOD boundary based
upon results of building survey:
1) North 7th all in or out,
2) Use Front Street as
northern edge,
3) Conduct building survey to pro-
vide basis for boundary adjust-
ments
4) Complete an architectural sur-
vey
Mixed
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
2
627
NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARYCreate standards and
guidelines specifi c to ar-
eas / neighborhoods with-
in the NCOD.
2.3 Create Neighborhood
Character Design Standards
and Guidelines.
High
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
3
628
NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARYSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
(build on recent inventory of downtown vArchitectural Inventory - historic districts and landmarks i
buildings).
July neighborhood survey results.dPrioriƟ ze historic districts based on feedback from st
Building survey of
neighborhood character -
use July windshield survey
as example.
Adjust NCOD boundary
based on results of building
survey:
* N. 7th all in or out.
* Use Front St. as
northern edge.
Defi ne neighborhood
character.
vaƟ on programAdopt local historic preserv
es to designate with Bozeman specifi c rule
ess for exteriorlandmarks, districts, proce
changes.
aracter designCreate neighborhood cha
delines. standards and guid
629
HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCreate local historic
preservaƟ on program
applicable to districts
and landmarks regard-
less of NCOD boundary.
Support Final RecommendaƟ on
3.1 AlternaƟ ve: Phase in a
stronger historic preservaƟ on
program
Mixed
IniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
1
630
HISTORIC PRESERVATIONSupport Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
Develop incenƟ ves for
historic properƟ es.
3.2 Expand incenƟ ves for
historic property owners
High
2
631
HISTORIC PRESERVATIONElevate Historic Preser-
vaƟ on Board to a deci-
sion-making body.
3.3 AlternaƟ ve: Require HPAB
recommendaƟ ons for histor-
ic projects and projects with-
in a historic district
Low
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
3
632
HISTORIC PRESERVATIONSupport Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
Create historic preser-
vaƟ on standards and
guidelines.
3.4 Create historic design stan-
dards and guidelines for historic
districts and landmarks that align
with updated Sec. of Interior’s
Standards.
High
4
633
HISTORIC PRESERVATIONSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
mbersTraining for HPAB Me
Developp ppreservvaaƟƟ oonn
plan with HPAB to
idenƟ fy preservaƟ on
goals.
EExplore incenƟ ves for
historic propperƟ es, his-
toric districts.
Deveelop quick refer-
ence guides for aappro-
priatte rreeppairs oof hhisttoor-
ic prrooperƟ es.
daƟ ons for his-Process for HPAB recommen
within a historic toric projects and projects w
district.
property owners.Adopt incenƟ ves for historic p
and guidelines for Create historic design standards
s that align withhistoric districts and landmark
Standards.updated Sec. of Interior’s
Locally designate Na-
Ɵ onal Register (NR)
properƟ es with owner
consent.
Begin process to nom-
inate new NR lisƟ ngs
and boundaries for NR
historic
Begin process to
amend NR lisƟ ngs and
boundaries for NR his-
toric districts.
634
RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXTSupport Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
Adjust B-3 Boundary
near historic districts to
encourage beƩ er transi-
Ɵ on. Use streets to de-
lineate boundary.
1
4.1 Create a B-3 transiƟ onal
zone for areas located beyond
the Core. Incorporate addi-
Ɵ onal transiƟ on standards
within the exisƟ ng zone edge
transiƟ on requirements.
Mixed
635
RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXTAlign zone district
boundaries and dimen-
sional allowances with
historic districts.
4.2 AlternaƟ ve: Explore adjust-
ing the historic district bound-
aries to relate to the exisƟ ng
zone districts.
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
Mixed
2
636
RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXTConsider aligning zone
district allowances with
neighborhood charac-
ter.
4.3 Align zone districts with neigh-
borhood character. Update form
and intensity standards to bet-
ter address concerns about mass
and scale. Update current design
guidelines and add standards to
beƩ er address concerns about
mass and scale.
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
Mixed
3
637
RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXTSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
Analyze zoonnee ddiissttrriicctts::
ID where ddiimmeennssiioonnall
rreeqquuiirrementtss aanndd bboouund-
aarriieess confl icctt wwiitthh nneeigh-
bboorrhhoood chhaarraacctteerr//ffuutturee
vision, oorr hhiissttoorriicc ddiisstrict
bounddaryy.
MMap reevviieeww pproceessss aanndd
iiddeennƟƟ ffyy rreedduunnddaanntt rree-
qquuiirreemmeennttss aanndd aarreeaass ooff
oovveerrllaapp ffoorr pprroojjeeccttss wwiitthh-
iinn tthhee NNCCOODD:: ii.ee. AArrƟƟ ccllee 55,,
SSitte PPllaan Reevvieeww, PProjeecctt
Reevviieww...
ements to relate to neighbor-Ammeend zonnee ddiissttrriicctt rreeqquuirree
ct if applicable) characterhood (oorr hhiissttoorriicc ddiissttrriicc
or future vision). ((eeiitthheerr eexxiissƟƟ nngg
c standards and guidelines CCreeaattee ttrraannssiiƟƟ oonn ssppeeccififi c
d replace ArƟ cle 5 standards thhat aarree ccoonntteexxtt bbaasseedd aannd
for projects within NCOD.((wwhheerree iitt iss rreedduunnddaanntt)) f
nd guidelines specifi c to com-Creattee ddeessiiggnn ssttaannddaarrddss an
dge in B3 and adopted URDs;mercciiaall,, mmiixxeedd uussee aanndd llood
ocess by Staff or Commission and ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo aa rreevviieeww pprro
and align design standardswitthh rreeffeerrrraallss.. RReeffeerreenncce
th the adopted DBIP.aanndd gguuiiddeelliinneess wwit
3 or URD are subject to resi- RReessiiddeennƟƟ aall wwiitthhiinn tthhee BB3
and tradiƟ onal NCOD reviewddeennƟƟ aall ssppeecciififi cc gguuiiddeelliinnees a
rds are in place and apply topprroocceessss.. TTrraannssiiƟƟ oonn ssttaannddaa
s of B3.eeddggees
638
STREAMLINE PROCESSEnsure the review pro-
cess is understandable
and streamlined.
5.1 Map out the diff erent review
processes to determine overlap
and areas to simplify and consol-
idate.
Develop review criteria that is ob-
jecƟ ve and allows some fl exibili-
ty. This can be achieved through
a mix of regulaƟ ons, design stan-
dards and design guidelines.
High
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
1
639
STREAMLINE PROCESSSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
rom duplicaƟ veExempt the NCOD fr
nd replace withreview processes an
dards and guide-context derived stand
. lines.
640
PROJECT INFORMATIONStrengthen exisƟ ng proj-
ect informaƟ on chan-
nels.
6.1 Explore working with GIS De-
partment and web administrators
on how to integrate addiƟ onal in-
formaƟ on into the exisƟ ng GIS lay-
ers and website to make detailed
project informaƟ on more readily
available to the public.
Look into an educaƟ onal cam-
paign through City social media
channels discussing where to fi nd
planning project informaƟ on.
High
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
1
641
PROJECT INFORMATIONIncrease opportunity for
community awareness
through noƟ ced public
hearings.
6.2 Explore meeƟ ngs prior to
applicaƟ on review (with im-
pacted neighbors). Explore
collecƟ ng input from neigh-
borhood associaƟ ons on large
scale projects.
High
Support Final RecommendaƟ onIniƟ al Policy DirecƟ on
2
642
PROJECT INFORMATIONSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
EEExxxpppllooorree mmmeeettthhhods for input
fffrrroommm eeesssttaaabbblished neigh-
bbbooorrrhhhooooooddd aaassssociaƟ ons on
llaaarrgggeee ssscccaaallleee ppprrroojects and
pppooossssssiibbbly rezoning
aaapplicaƟ ons.
EExxpplloorree hhoossƟƟ ng meeƟ ngs
ppprriiooor ttoo aapplicaƟ on
review for
iimmppacctteedd neighbors.
643
Architectural Inventory - historic districts and landmarks (build on recent inventory of downtown buildings. y
PrioriƟ ze historic districts based on feedback from July neighborhood survey results.s
Adopt local historic preservaƟ on program with Bozeman specifi c rules to desig-
nate landmarks, districts, process for exterior changes.
Begin process to amend NR lisƟ ngs and
boundaries for NR historic districts.
Write context papers on Bozeman’s
vernacular buildings idenƟ fi ed in survey
but not eligible for NaƟ onal Register
Locally designate NaƟ onal Register (NR)
properƟ es with owner consent.
Develop quick reference guides for ap-
propriate repairs of historic properƟ es
Create historic design standards and guidelines for historic districts and land-
marks that align with updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards.
Develop preservaƟ on
plan with HPAB to idenƟ fy
preservaƟ on goals.
Training for HPAB members.
Explore incenƟ ves for historic proper-
Ɵ es, historic districts.
Adopt incenƟ ves for historic property owners.
Process for HPAB recommendaƟ ons for historic projects and projects within a
historic district. Begin process to nominate new NR lisƟ ngs
and boundaries for NR historic districts.
Map review process and idenƟ fy redundant
requirements and areas of overlap for proj-
ects within the NCOD: i.e. ArƟ cle 5, Site Plan
Review, Project Review..
Exempt the NCOD from duplicaƟ ve review processes and replace with context
derived standards and guidelines.
Analyze zone districts:
ID where dimensional requirements and
boundaries confl ict with neighborhood
character/future vision, or historic district
boundary.
Require input from established
neighborhood associaƟ ons on large
scale projects and possibly rezoning
applicaƟ ons.
Require neighborhood meeƟ ng prior
to applicaƟ on review.
Amend zone district requirements to relate to neighborhood (or historic district
if applicable) character (either exisƟ ng or future vision).
Adjust zone district boundaries to use streets, alleys?, geographic barriers,
adopted plans.
Building survey of neighbor-
hood character - use July
windshield survey as example.
Third party to conduct 6-10 development scenarios to test zone
district requirements and ArƟ cle 5 along transiƟ on edges of B3
and potenƟ al impact of taller buildings between historic Main
Street and historic districts to the north and south. SP
Create neighborhood character design standards and guidelines.
Create transiƟ on specifi c standards and guidelines that are context
based and replace ArƟ cle 5 standards (where it is redundant) for
projects within NCOD.
Create design standards and guidelines specifi c to commercial, mixed use and
lodge in B3 and adopted URDs; and subject to a review process by Staff or Commis-
sion with referrals. Design standards and guidelines reference and align with the
adopted DBIP and VisionNE.
Adjust NCOD boundary based on results
of building survey:
* N. 7th all in or out.
* Use Frontage St. as northern edge.
ResidenƟ al within the B3 or URD are subject to residenƟ al specifi c guidelines and
tradiƟ onal NCOD review process. TransiƟ on standards are in place and apply to
edges of B3.
Defi ne neighborhood character.COMPREHENSIVE WORK PLANSHORT TERM MID-TERM LONGTERM
644
QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSION
Do you recommend any changes to the work plan?1
2 Is there anything else that should be considered?
645
1
DRAFT NCOD POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
INITIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVIEW OCTOBER 29, 2018
646
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
2 647
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
3648
CHAPTER 1PROJECT TIMELINE + INTRODUCTION650
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
651
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
6 652
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.
7653
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
8 654
CHAPTER 2NCOD: PURPOSE AND BOUNDARY656
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
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
658
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.
11660
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.”
12 661
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
13662
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.
14 663
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.”
15664
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
665
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
666
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
667
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.
668
CHAPTER 3STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM670
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.
672
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.
674
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.
675
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.
676
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
677
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.
678
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
679
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.
680
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.
681
CHAPTER 4RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT682
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. 684
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
686
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.
687
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).
688
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
689
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
690
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.”
691
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
692
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.
693
CHAPTER 5STREAMLINE PROCESS694
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
696
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.
698
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
699
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 644 700
CHAPTER 6PROJECT INFORMATION702
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
46 704
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
47706
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%
48 707
From:agenda@bozeman.net
To:Agenda
Subject:Thank you for your public comment.
Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 11:07:39 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Public Comment Form
Date & Time:07/06/2018 11:07 AM
Response #:117
Submitter ID:8702
IP address:172.24.96.111
Time to complete:3 min. , 4 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Public comment may be submitted via the form below, or by any of the following options.
Public comment may also be given at any public meeting.
Email:
agenda@bozeman.net
Mail to:
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
In-person delivery to:
Attn: City Commission
City Clerk's Office
City Hall, Suite 202
121 N. Rouse Ave.
Bozeman, MT
First Name Bonnie
Last Name Buckingham
Email Address bonnie@buckinghamcarpentry.com
709
Phone Number 406-404-0515
Comments
A strategy for preserving the tone of a community--
https://www.denverpost.com/2016/04/01/tax-credits-for-historic-preservation-help-spark-neighborhood-
eco-devo/
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
710
From:Phillipe Gonzalez
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD Review Project Public Comment
Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 3:27:35 PM
Phillipe Gonzalez | Historic Preservation Specialist
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2940 | E: pgonzalez@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Wells <wellst@mtventurelaw.com>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 12:27 PM
To: Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Gale Farnsworth <gale@mtventurelaw.com>
Subject: NCOD Review
Phil,
I read the article in the paper on the NCOD review and took a look at the website schedule. Thank you for your
work on this. My wife Gale and I live at 623 S 3rd Ave. Our house is a classic craftsman with an addition that is
modern in character with a spacer in between. We support conserving our historical structures and permitting
creative, dynamic and modern additions that demonstrate the vitality of our historical districts.
Taking a look at the schedule of events that are coming up, I am not sure where it is best for homeowners to weigh
in during this process.
I would appreciate a call or an email response so we can better understand. My phone number is 406 570 7135.
Best,
Tom Wells
711
From:JACK and JANE JELINSKI
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD
Date:Sunday, July 15, 2018 8:21:27 PM
Please do not approve the dismantling of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as being
proposed for “study.” The NCOD has been effective for many years and the proposal I have read
appears to have been written by and for developers and disregards the community, neighborhood
assets within the district. The listening sessions notices are inconsistent, and scheduling one of them
at the Element, the building of Bozeman’s most aggressive developer, appears like an insider project,
not one of the city for its citizens. What is being proposed here is undermining the high quality of
life we have enjoyed in the NCOD for decades.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Jelinski
433 N Tracy
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-587-8365
jjjelinski@msn.com
712
From:Phillipe Gonzalez
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD Review Public Comment
Date:Monday, July 16, 2018 8:31:36 AM
Phillipe Gonzalez | Historic Preservation Specialist
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2940 | E: pgonzalez@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
From: Barry Sulam <barry.sulam@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 10:47 AM
To: Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Jeff Copeland <jouzelcopeland@gmail.com>; Baumler, Mark <mbaumler@mt.gov>; Chere Jiusto
<chere@preservemontana.org>
Subject: windshield survey volunteer
To: Phillipe Gonazalez, Bozeman HP officer
Windshield Survey: I can help out on july 19 in the afternoon. Tell me where and what timeafter 1 pm that works for you.
Barry Sulam
Regarding Public Comment on NCOD Study: I have a quote I would like delivered to consultants working on NCOD, if you would forward
this:
From Jim Jenks, A Guide to Historic Bozeman, Montana MainStreets book, pages 140-141,ISBN 978-0-9721522-3-5
2paragraph, pg 140, " Today, much of Bozeman is located within the city's Neighborhood
Conservation overlay district, formed in 1990. One of the largest in the country, the overlaydistrict serves to protect places located outside of Bozeman's historic core and to preserve for
the future the possibility of creating new historic districts. Outside the overlay district, workremains to be done."
Last para. pg 141; "All in all, Bozeman is home to one of the most progressive municipal
historic preservation programs in the nation. Two essential ideas lie behind Bozeman's historicpreservation program: to educate the public about the breadth of history represented in the
community's heritage sites and to preserve their special places for the use and enjoyment offuture generations."
PRESERVE, PROTECT FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF FUTURE
GENERATIONS sounds a lot like the Organic Act that created the National Park Service in1916. In its simplicity there is a double bind--- a contradictory mandate---because USE and
ENJOYMENT can mean consumptive activities that preclude the first priority: PRESERVE
713
and the second PROTECT. This has been challenged in court and Congress and the precedentis now established. There are three priorities in the statement: first Preserve, then Protect and
thirdly use and enjoy, without abrogating the first two mandates.
That is the clear and easily defended position for a municipal government that is supported byCertified Local Government funding for its preservation program. It can be defended as the
strings that tie the city governing bodies to the Federal priorities. If there was a better mandateit would come from the local voters. That is to ask them if they want to follow the Federal
guideline and priorities and keep accepting the CLG funding or go their own way and havereject further funding from CLG because of the local mandates that would abrogate the prime
directives of the Federal Organic Act as later regulated by more explicit National HistoricPreservation Acts (NHPA) in 1966, 1976, 1986 etc.
As you know the listings on the National Register are subject to review by local and state
officials every decade to see if they are still in the condition that qualified them for listing inthe first place. Furthermore the decade review ought to allow for additions and sadly
subtractions if a property is lost. In the case of the NCOD it seems fair that every decade areview is done to updates its boundaries and to complete as many NR nominations that are
warranted.
In the light of the push now to nominate Mid Century Architecture the decade review seemslike a good way to chip away at that mission for our generation so that we don't inadvertently
lose those examples of post WW II historic properties before they are even evaluated fornomination. A case in point is the Armory in the downtown area being gutted and reused for a
hotel platform spaces. Without an early recognition by the State of the value of that FredWillson creation in preparation for the WW II build up there would have a parking lot there
for the past twenty years after the National Guard moved out.
I am an advocate for a dynamic approach to Preservation in Bozeman as we inherit the legacyof John Dehaas, Jim McDonald and others who worked for the nomination of the original
historic districts. With a comprehensive decade review strategy there will be no spot zoningor push for demolition to satisfy short term ambitions. If there are valid property owner
demands for changing the existing NCOD or NR districts they can become part of the nextdecades review and in a predictable timely manner they will get their due process under the
law. Emergency actions in the face of disasters, like the explosion site on Main Street can behandled by public hearings and Appeal processes due to the exigencies of the situation.
I offer these comments as a working dynamic for changes to the city statutes and to me it
seems defensible as policy revisions to the NCOD and planning/ Zoning regulations goingforward.
If you or consultants have any questions I will be available during the windshield survey to
answer them or advise further.
Barry SulamRegistered Architect,
Retired Senior Regional Historical Architect, National Park Service, Intermountain Region
Fomerly with the Historic Preservation Board of Gallatin CountyCurrently in the American Studies PhD program at MSU
714
From:agenda@bozeman.net
To:Agenda
Subject:Thank you for your public comment.
Date:Monday, July 16, 2018 9:25:53 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Public Comment Form
Date & Time:07/16/2018 9:25 AM
Response #:119
Submitter ID:9650
IP address:172.24.96.111
Time to complete:3 min. , 11 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Public comment may be submitted via the form below, or by any of the following options.
Public comment may also be given at any public meeting.
Email:
agenda@bozeman.net
Mail to:
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
In-person delivery to:
Attn: City Commission
City Clerk's Office
City Hall, Suite 202
121 N. Rouse Ave.
Bozeman, MT
First Name Erna
Last Name Smeets
Email Address E1smeets@yahoo.com
715
Phone Number 4065821582
Comments
I would like the mayor and city commissioners to know that I would like to see our historic preservation
district protected as is. I like the feel of the city’s neighborhoods, and although in the past it has affected
how I could remodel my home, I do agree that we need to protect our city acape.
Thanks for listening
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
716
Letter to Editor NCOD Applause to Derek Strahn and Ron Brey for their July 15 opinions piece on keeping the NCOD, not dismantling the exemplary core historic districts of our city. “We want to keep our neighborhoods, as is.” Perhaps it’s time to reexamine the effectiveness of the halo and B4 rather than the NCOD. Can we call a Time Out to more high rises? On July 11 an analysis of Bozeman’s and Gallatin Valley’s taxes and land use policies were examined by a speaker, Joseph Manicozzi. He focused on the benefits to our tax coffers and to developers. He led his talk with an example of a renovated commercial building; the reuse of how a solid old structure revitalized Ashville, N.C. This is a core example of historic preservation. Look at the reinvestment value (taxes, maintenance, mortgages, etc.) of each structure within the NCOD; it adds huge value to any given piece of property. Put the properties in a neighborhood of the NCOD and together they total BILLIONS. The millions being invested in new structures can never catch up. We’re told we have close to 4,000 structures in the known NCOD. Some of these structures are over 150 years old. A building replaced, should have better quality and design for continued increasing value. You can never
717
replace the Blackmore Apartments with a Black Olive and catch up. Remember, the sum of Bozeman includes its tree canopy, views, creek, and air and water quality. Let’s insist on keeping our historic place in the Valley of the Flowers. I pray that the current consultants are visionaries, not rubber stamps for the 2015 consultants report that encouraged a revision of the NCOD. Bozeman began to flourish when the NCOD was established with guidelines defining the limits. Keep them. Respectfully, Jane Davidson Klockman 713 S Willson Bozeman, MT 59715
718
From:KPowell & S Griswold
To:Agenda
Cc:chris@bendonadams.com
Subject:[SENDER UNVERIFIED]University Neighbors Association Comments NCOD review
Date:Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:21:52 PM
Attachments:UNA & NCOD Review 7-2018.docx
Hello Bozeman City Commission, city Staff and BendonAdams consulting
Attached is a letter from the University Neighbors Association (UNA) Board regarding the
NCOD review.
3/4 of UNA is in the NCOD and has and does make our older neighborhood more livable,preserves our character and has helped improve the neighborhood and bind it together.
You can read more about our neighborhood perspective on the NCOD and an overview for
other neighborhoods.
A healthy heart (of the city) is key to a healthy of community.
Kathy PowellPresident UNA
406-600-1164powellgriz@icloud.com
719
July 18, 2018 To: Mayor Cindy Andrus Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl Commissioners Terry Cunningham, Jeff Kraus, & I-Ho Pomeroy Community Development Director Mary Matsen Community Development Manager Chris Saunders Consultants of BendonAdams & Orion Planning & Design City Manager & Asst City Managers Andrea Surrat Chuck Winn & Anna Rosenberry Neighborhood Coordinator Tanya Andreasen RE: NCOD Review People in the University Neighbors Association (UNA) like their neighborhood. They like the character of their older neighborhood. They like the eclectic mix of homes from 1920’s to 70s with a few newer more modern homes. They like the camaraderie among neighbors. They like being next to MSU and walk ability to downtown, MSU & a grocery store. They like the big trees, the sidewalks, the street lights. The neighborhood has a sense of place, a cultural heritage. It is part of the HEART of Bozeman, its historic core. The NCOD is charged with protecting neighborhood character and preserving historic structures. It has worked. Many homes have been rehabilitated, reinvested in, cared for. There is a mix of older retirees, working adults, families with kids and MSU students and other renters. It is a neighborhood. UNA recently formed two Working groups - one for the NCOD and one for parking. Both groups met recently and both weighed in on the NCOD. The UNA Board has also weighed in on the NCOD review, as have other UNA neighbors. We have not had time to talk to all UNA neighbors but everyone who has weighed in supports keeping the NCOD. Without it, homes will be built according to just zoning standards and the building code with no consideration for the character that makes a neighborhood cohesive. Should the NCOD be tweaked? Most policies need some fine -tuning. One of the members of the UNA NCOD Working Group has worked on preserving neighborhood character & historic structures in several parts of the county, especially in the southern end of Portland OR. Her comments made a lot of sense to us. UNA’s recommendations are: 1. Inventory the NCOD – none has really been done since the 80’s. That inventory hired a consultant to train local people in how to do a proper inventory. That gets the work done and keeps costs down.
2. Develop criteria for architectural styles in NCOD area 3. Create a Pattern Book of these styles for residents and officials to use. 4. Train the Historic Preservation Board & or the Design Review Board to be knowledge based about the NCOD. If the Planning staff is uncomfortable dealing with the character side of the NCOD, give more authority to these boards to review building requests in the NCOD. Should certain neighborhoods be redefined into “Design Overlay Districts” as suggested in the 2015 KLJ and ARCHitecture trio? An interesting idea, pocket neighborhoods. But the concern here is increased confusion for residents & builders/remodelers as well as potential confrontation in areas between such pockets. Now which rules are required for this pocket? How would such districts interface with each
720
other? Who decides such areas? Who has the expertise to do this? How much time and money would be needed to create “Design Overlay Districts”? Instead gently tweak the NCOD. Don’t get rid of it. Sprawl is an issue but it can an only really be reduced if Gallatin County implements comprehensive zoning. The City needs to continue to support revitalization of our community. That means supporting the visual and beating heart of Bozeman – the neighborhoods in the NCOD. The NCOD is valued by the community as a whole. It is valued by residents living in the NCOD and it contributes immeasurably to our community’s unique identity and quality of life. Respectfully submitted, University Neighbors Assoc (UNA) Kathy Powell, President & UNA representative to Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) 406-600-1164 powellgriz@icloudcom Jess Stillman, Vice President jess.stillman@gmail.com Pat Flaherty, Secretary flaherty.66@gmail.com
721
From:Susan Hinkins
To:Agenda
Subject:[SENDER UNVERIFIED]NCOD Review Public comment
Date:Friday, July 20, 2018 10:50:27 AM
I live in the NCOD and it is important to me to retain the current look and dynamics of our
neighborhood. I do not want to see the character of my neighborhood lost. There are challenges to
this, due to issues of parking, traffic, and affordability. And the pressure for infill where it is notalways suitable.
I agree with the overall purpose to review the NCOD and I agree with the recommendation that we
need to consider different neighborhoods and possibly propose different Design Overlay Districts fordifferent areas with different needs or desires.
However, I disagree with some of the recommendations or assertions in the report. Specifically:
1. We should not remove the existing NCOD boundary until we have replacement(s) agreedupon and in place.
2. Infill by itself is not a solution to the affordability problem. It allows contractors to make
more money but does not ensure that the ‘added’ structures will be any more affordable. We’ve seen examples close to campus where the infill is a large, expensive house.
3. In some cases, infill is not feasible. It is a bad idea when the district already has traffic and
parking issues. Where I live, there currently is not enough parking as is. Also in the
downtown area, the addition of hotels and apartment houses, without additional parking andwith narrow streets, is going to make a downtown traffic/parking problem even worse.
4. Why would we continue or expand the affordable housing incentives (waiving fees, reducing
parking requirements) when these incentives have not produced affordable housing.
We cannot go back and make the streets wider in the NCOD to meet the needs for parking and traffic
flow and snow removal. But Bozeman is going to expand and we need to also concentrate on
planning the areas of new growth, thinking about traffic flow, snow removal, and how developmentcan include housing that is affordable not only now, but as it is resold over time.
Thank you.
Susan Hinkins1122 South 5th AveBozeman
Sent from my iPad
722
From:Mary Hunter
To:Agenda
Cc:bob@webpatent.com
Subject:NCOD Review Public Comment
Date:Monday, July 23, 2018 2:51:44 PM
Subject: NCOD Review Public Comment
Bozeman City Commissioners:
Four generations of our family have benefitted from the positive effects of historic preservation guidelines.
Bozeman has maintained its historic character, walkability, and attraction to visitors because of the efforts
of preservationists. We strongly support maintaining and strengthening historic preservation guidelines,
specifically the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary and Bob Hunter
723
First Name J
Last Name Dubitzky
Email Address jad0929@gmail.com
Phone Number 4065814775
Comments
NCOD review
Please consider keeping the current regulations within the historic district. We are a perfect example as to the
importance of having regulations. In the early 90's, our neighbors illegally added an additional story and a
apartment over their garage, ignoring setbacks. It has decreased the property value of our home by being intrusive
and ugly. They did not allow for parking- always an issue near campus. We choose this part of town for the access
to downtown and campus, but also for the beauty of the homes. I would recommend making the requirements
more streamline, while keeping the integrity of the neighborhood intact.
724
From:Dean Littlepage
To:reilly@bendonadams.com; Agenda; Phillipe Gonzalez; sara@bendonadams.com
Subject:Bozeman NCOD review comment
Date:Tuesday, August 07, 2018 1:11:01 PM
Attachments:DL Bzn NCOD Review Comment 8-8-18.docx
Hello -- here are my comments on the current review of Bozeman's NCOD,
attached as a Word document. Pasting into the message ruins the
formatting, so I've had to rely on the attachment.
Thanks,
Dean Littlepage
618 W. Curtiss St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
dljm@bresnan.net
(406) 522-3871
725
August 7, 2018
To: BendonAdams, Bozeman City Commission, and Bozeman HPO From: Dean Littlepage, 618 W. Curtiss St., Bozeman; resident of Cooper Park district
Subject: NCOD Review Greetings; these are my comments on the current NCOD review.
Summary: The NCOD has worked well as intended and is incorporating infill in an essentially compatible
manner through construction of ADUs and some elements of “missing middle housing.” The district not only should not be altered, but its character, design elements, and lot size should be a model for development elsewhere in Bozeman and more broadly in Gallatin County. If smart growth is the objective, there is no better model. In addition, the NCOD neighborhoods contribute greatly to Bozeman’s identity and quality of life and
are one of, if not the most valuable of our community assets.
Infill model: ADUs and missing middle housing (see, for example, the 2.5 story triplex that replaced a small single-story, single family home at 209 S. 9th) are the elements that should constitute the infill approach for NCOD/core neighborhoods. The large blockhouse apartment/condo buildings are incompatible (size/scale, design, traffic and parking impacts) with our older neighborhoods.
In addition, Bozeman citizens and City employees have put an incredible amount of time and effort into creating and maintaining the urban forest that is so important to microclimate, neighborhood desirability, and property values in the NCOD and elsewhere. Infill development should reflect the value of that hard-won urban forest. We’ve already seen removal of some large trees for development that has been approved to date, e.g., on
the SoBo (Pizza Hut) property. Impact on sprawl: The large blockhouse apartment/condo development of downtown areas that is occurring, and which the City and its chosen consultants appear to favor for the rest of the core neighborhoods, is unrelated
to the sprawl that is occurring outside the core and outside the city, and in some cases is working at cross
purposes with the stated desire to increase effective density in the core. First, the two housing markets are very different. Most of the developments in the county are suburban neighborhoods; the new housing downtown consists of “stack and pack” apartments and condos. There will
probably be some buyers who will pick a new home in a crowded complex downtown instead of the larger
home on a suburban lot they were planning to buy, but that choice can’t remotely be assumed to be the rule – they’re different types of housing, in general different markets altogether. Second, nothing we do in the town core has any effect on sprawl in the valley at least as long as the County
refuses to manage the growth occurring outside Bozeman.
Third, if the goal is to protect open space, farmland, and habitat outside the city, the only sure way to accomplish the goal is to acquire transfers of development rights. The recently passed open space tax increment is only a partial fix; the funds are limited and not exclusively for TDRs/conservation easements. If the City is
serious about this goal, it should require developers to contribute toward it. Currently, a TDR/easement program
commensurate with the scale of sprawl and the damage to core neighborhoods the City’s apparent agenda would effect is not even within striking distance. Fourth, it appears that many of the existing downtown-area developments are being used primarily as part-time
dwellings. For example, although it’s been on a regular bicycle route of mine for several years, I have only very
rarely seen any signs of life in the Village Downtown development, which occupies a large area of valuable
726
property downtown, much of which sits virtually unused for weeks and months at a time – not the most efficient
use of valuable real estate for a city concerned about perceived inadequate density in the core. In a similar vein, and accurate as far as I can tell, the new giant blockhouse-style developments are being rightly panned as “high-rise, high-priced ghost towns.”
Last, the blockhouse developers advertise outside Bozeman. This kind of development isn’t just growth
management; at the very least, in part, it promotes growth that would not occur without it. Existing values of NCOD neighborhoods: I write here from the perspective of a Cooper Park area resident, but I think these thoughts reflect neighborhood concerns throughout the NCOD. My neighborhood is a human-
scale, biking/pedestrian, low vehicle traffic, sociable, leafy, beautiful, neighborly place to live, where residents
walk their dogs, push small kids in strollers, visit with each other outside their homes as they walk the neighborhood or work in their yards, and walk and bicycle to do most of their everyday tasks in town. The large blockhouses developers favor and the City supports would clearly have negative impacts on the livable, walking/biking character of NCOD neighborhoods, primarily through increased traffic and parking
hassles, the latter given the City’s penchant for ignoring the need for adequate provision of parking by developers. The City’s and developers’ assertions that their favored style of infill will contribute to walking/biking neighborhoods are very odd given the reality that those developments will actually diminish that character in the targeted neighborhoods.
Residents value the character of these neighborhoods IMMENSELY. These “amenities” are not something to be taken lightly, and are certainly not to be squandered on ill-conceived, super-density campaigns that would sacrifice these values for a very questionable assertion of benefit outside the town core. The NCOD is not broken. The district doesn’t need fixing. The infill development that has been occurring
within the parameters of the pre-2015 block character guidelines is increasing density reasonably, and is appropriate to the neighborhoods’ character and values. We don’t have to sacrifice these neighborhoods; they are healthy and should be a model, not a target for development excess. Need for better development review processes:
From my experience of the past 2-3 years, I strongly favor a thorough review and amendment to aspects of the City’s development review process. Some of the specific practices inhibit residents’ participation in decisions that affect them, and others tend to limit a thorough review of all the consequences of development. I would point out the following as requiring consideration and amendment; these concerns are central to balancing the
City’s desires for superdensity in the NCOD and residents’ desires to protect the very much loved character of their neighborhoods. * Project notification practices should be commensurate with a project’s potential impact. Wider notification and clearer, more appropriate time frames for response should be the rule for projects that affect areas broader
than the approximately one-block notification radius practiced now. Prior to the last commission election, then-candidate Terry Cunningham expressed online agreement that those requirements should be considered for modification. * Notices should clearly and accurately communicate what precisely is being proposed. In my neighborhood,
we recently saw a rezoning notice in which those conditions were emphatically not met, written completely in city planning and legal jargon, with no attempt to clearly communicate the intent and effect of the proposed action.
727
* Impact analysis needs to be comprehensive. In this neighborhood, one shortcoming that’s come to light is the
limited analysis of vehicle traffic impact, focusing only on collectors, arterials, and major intersections, with no consideration of impacts within the neighborhood. Other brief points:
* Carving up the NCOD and the historic districts would lead to more boundary/transition zones, creating more sources of potential conflict between the City and developers on one side, and residents on the other. One district with one set of reasonable guidelines is much simpler for the City to administer and much simpler for residents to understand, negotiate, and live with.
* The 1987 NCOD survey of historic properties is too dated to serve as rationale for City action to modify the district. Windshield surveys by non-professionals are not a substitute for the real thing. * The City’s infill campaign appears to be driven too much by developer and Main Street business preference,
putting aside broader community concerns and residents’ desires in the process.
To sum up: The NCOD is one of the highest density residential neighborhood clusters in the city, it is adding to that density in a reasonable way, and in my opinion as a resident of one of those neighborhoods, it is very much worth caring about and protecting.
The language authorizing the NCOD referred to a primary goal of protecting “the fabric and character” of the neighborhoods involved. Most existing residents would enthusiastically agree with that goal; these neighborhoods’ fabric and character very much deserve to be valued and protected.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
728
From:Gretchen Rupp
To:Gretchen Rupp
Subject:Comments on NCOD Update
Date:Monday, August 06, 2018 4:44:47 PM
Dear Commissioners:
I write to voice my support for retaining Bozeman's Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District guidelines in their present form, and the district boundaries as they
exist now. Historic Bozeman is a treasure that we should not sacrifice in order to
squeeze in more residents. It is not so large that the integrity of tiny historic
neighborhoods can be retained, should they find themselves immersed in a non-
historic sea. Such a break-up would result in too much "edge," with unconforming
structures stuffed-in immediately adjacent to legacy areas, inevitably degrading their
character. We are about to witness this delightful phenomenon as the Black Olive
rises in my "historic" neighborhood.
I don't oppose building high-density residences in Bozeman, and I find many of the
new styles and materials downright exciting. These buildings have their place: in their
own, planned neighborhoods, not chock-a-block adjacent to quiet old neighborhoods.
As you make decisions on the NCOD and other development proposals, I ask that
you aspire to keep Bozeman the "most livable place" for current residents, not just
alluring to potential future residents.
Sincerely yours,
Gretchen Rupp
221 Lindley Place
729
From:The Canfields
To:Agenda
Cc:Reilly Thimons
Subject:NCOD Review Public Comment -- South Central Association of Neighbors
Date:Wednesday, August 08, 2018 3:53:55 PM
Attachments:Combined Input to BendonAdams 2018.07.08.pdf
Dear City Commissioners and City Staff,
The South Central Association of Neighbors has formed a NCOD Review Working Group. This group has sent the
attached talking points to consultants BendonAdams, along with comments from SCAN residents gathered using
Nextdoor. Both our talking points and the comments are contained in the attached document.
We have found the schedule for coherent neighborhood input during this Visit #1 to be challenging, but appreciate
the flexibility and openness in communication shown by BendonAdams.
Sincerely,
Richard C Canfield, SCAN Steering Committee President, for the SCAN NCOD Review Working Group: Richard
Canfield, Tammy Minge, Mark Ringer, Jon Wirth, and Victoria York
730
To: Bendon Adams
From: SCAN NCOD Working Group
Re: NCOD Review Talking Points for Visit #1
Date: August 8th, 2018
The South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) is large (over 1000
households) and historic (including the Bon Ton, South Tracy / South Black, and
South Tracy Avenue historic districts). It abuts downtown on the north and the
university neighborhood on the south, and is centered on South Willson Avenue.
We have written the following document to help you learn about SCAN and our
priorities. We have also solicited comment from all SCAN Nextdoor subscribers,
and we attach all comments we received in time for your schedule. The NCOD
review is very important to us, and we appreciate your commitment to
understanding existing conditions and impacts of potential changes.
We hold the following views:
1) SCAN Character
a) The SCAN neighborhood is very eclectic -- from small one story
homes to large mansions -- spanning many historical time periods
and patterns of growth
b) The older homes, street trees and lighting make Willson Avenue
one of the best streetscapes in Bozeman.
c) Long-term residents, newcomers, and visitors all love SCAN’s
neighborhood and historic character
2) NCOD/Preservation
a) Most of the members of the SCAN community are supportive of
historic preservation
b) The NCOD preserves the character of Bozeman neighborhoods
c) Hundreds of homes have been brought back to structural and
design integrity via the NCOD
d) Credit is due to the property owners who are taking part in the
preservation process
3) Historic Preservation is About More than Structures
a) It preserves neighborhood character in the form of mature
landscaping, sight lines, gardens, traditional lot development
patterns, etc.
b) Active sidewalks with people strolling about increase the sense of
community
c) Alleys are also an important part of the neighborhood character
731
4) Flexibility is Key
a) Flexibility is key, but at the same time the NCOD provides base
guidelines and offers a structure for the area within its boundaries
b) Involvement and communication between the preservation board,
preservation officer, architects, and community members can help
make preservation proceed smoothly
5) Larger Issues and Unintended Consequences
a) Conflicts arise over transitions between zoning districts and types
of use
b) Growth is a regional issue but can be helped by infill growth within
the NCOD
c) Parking spillover from downtown and MSU causes conflict within
the NCOD
d) Reuse & rehabilitation can support affordable housing
6) Community Awareness and education
a) Additional outreach is necessary to educate the public about the
NCOD, neighborhood associations, historic districts, etc.
b) An up to date inventory is an important part of preserving our
neighborhoods
732
Richard Canfield, South Central Association of Neighbors98
Your comments, please
The City of Bozeman recently hired consultants BendonAdams
<http://bendonadams.com/> to carry out a comprehensive review of the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), its Design
Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Program. They have recently
completed the first of three visits to Bozeman, during which their primary
task was information gathering. Your neighborhood association, the South
Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN) <https://www.scanbozeman.org/>
formed an NCOD working group, and the five of us listed below volunteered
to help the consultants in this task. In that spirit, we drafted what we believe
is a thoughtful and balanced list of talking points about SCAN and the
NCOD, its Guidelines, and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Program.
Before we submit our talking points to the consultants, we invite you to add
your comments by replying to this message here on Nextdoor. Whether you
agree or disagree with any of our points, in any case reply with your
comment(s), so that a good sample of views is represented. We plan to
collect all replies received by the end of the day on Monday, August 6th,
along with our talking points, and send them to Bendon Adams and the City.
Dick Canfield, Tammy Minge, Mark Ringer, Jon Wirth, and Vicky York
SCAN NCOD Review Working Group
• Input to BendonAdams.pdf
Edited 5d ago · South Central Association of Neighbors in Documents
Reply
Gene Goldenfeld
, South Central Association of Neighbors·Edited 5d ago
Re the point that "Growth...can be helped by infill within the NCOD." This
oft-repeated claim, frequently pushed by an MSU faculty member and
picked up by local leaders, is that infill lessens "outfill." The claim is bogus.
That is, 1) there is no research evidence to support it; at a city meeting, I
questioned the MSU prof/researcher specifically about it and he admitted
733
there is no evidence to support it; and 2) the claim doesn't make sense on the
face of it. that is, those whose needs fit or require them to be in or near the
city center will want and need to build there, and those whose don't will
want to build elsewhere. The two dynamics are largely independent of each
other. The outfill fear is being falsely and demagogically used by city
officials and others to justify changes to zoning and other permissions that
effectively give (large) builders a free hand. The result is an undermining of
the character and aesthetic of neighborhoods in the infill areas.
Tammy Minge
, South Central Association of Neighbors·5d ago
If you live within the SCAN neighborhood please get online and fill out the
BentonAdams survey. They are collecting data now. Now is the time to
make public comment on the NCOD.
Richard Canfield
, South Central Association of Neighbors·5d ago
As we said above: "We plan to collect all replies received by the end of the
day on Monday, August 6th, along with our talking points, and send them to
Bendon Adams and the City."
Henry Happel
, South Central Association of Neighbors·3d ago
I am writing to provide comments concerning neighborhood preservation,
historic preservation, and Bozeman’s NCOD. The NCOD has value just by
setting forth that it is the City’s general policy to preserve its well
established and well functioning neighborhoods. The boundaries of the
current NCOD extend to neighborhoods that I’m not sure can be described
as well-established. I don’t have any views about those boundaries, but it’s
worth careful thought whether the one-size-fits-all nature of the NCOD is
really appropriate for all the areas of the City it encompasses. The
neighborhood in which I live, (which I will define as bounded by 8th
Avenue, Ollive Street, Church Street, and the MSU campus) is well-
734
established and well-functioning and deserves to be preserved. By preserved,
I don’t mean left unchanged, but I do mean that it’s feel and function should
be preserved. Here are elements that I think are most important to
accomplish that: the current layout of streets and alleyways, current lot
coverages, current building heights, and established trees. (You will note
that this list does not include architectural styles.) To illustrate my point,
imagine that every house in the neighborhood is architecturally mid-century
modern. That would not change the character of the neighborhood all that
much. Now imagine the neighborhood with winding streets and cul-de-sacs,
or with big houses pressing close to each other and the streets, or without
large numbers of mature trees. Any of these changes would drastically alter
the character of the neighborhood, and not for the better. I like old houses.
My wife and I substantially remodeled and lived in two 1920’s houses. But a
legal requirement that almost all old houses be preserved strikes me a bit like
requiring all owners of 1950’s cars to install seatbelts, airbags, soft plastic
dashboards and a fuel efficient engine rather than send the car to the
junkyard and buy a new one. The neighborhood certainly has homes that,
because of the craftsmanship employed or the events that occurred there,
deserve preservation. However, it is full of houses that simply cannot be
made as safe, efficient, functional and comfortable as a new house. The City
should not, as a matter of principle, be discouraging new construction in the
neighborhood. Joe Minicozzi, a planner with Urban3, has argued that the
primary driver behind historic preservation is the fear that new structures
won’t be as aesthetically pleasing as what they replace. I think that is a
perceptive comment. The NCOD has additional value because it addresses
this by requiring architecturally reviewed Certificates of Appropriateness for
substantial remodels and new construction. For me, the criteria for the
issuance of such Certificates should simply be whether the proposed new
architecture plays nicely with its surroundings. I have the feeling that the
City in some circumstances has been too stringent in applying this standard
to small remodels and too lenient in applying it to major new constructions.
There is an assumption in many of the comments submitted that the NCOD
has been the driving force behind the preservation of Bozeman
neighborhoods. I am not sure that assumption is correct. I think for the most
part neighborhoods have been preserved because people like old houses and
are willing to expend the time and money to fix them up. Preserving
neighborhoods requires the deployment of wealth. If Bozeman becomes
poor, neighborhoods will deteriorate. It follows that those of us who care
about neighborhood preservation need to care as well about the prosperity of
the community as a whole. The prosperity of the community will not be
735
enhanced by freezing neighborhoods in an as-is condition. It would not have
been a good idea 40 years ago and it’s not a good idea now. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment. Henry Happel 608 South Grand Avenue
Jane Klockman
, South Central Association of Neighbors·2d ago
Jane D. Klockman. South Central Association of Neighbors. The NCOD has
boosted the maintenance of residences in the Bon Ton and other
neighborhoods for almost 30 years. It has encouraged neighborliness and
pride. The NCOD aids greatly in preserving the soul of our city. Prior to its
establishment in 1981, many buildings in Bozeman suffered neglect of paint,
roof repairs, etc. Then with the NCOD in place, the movement to repair,
restore, re-use took hold and spread spurring the "discovery of Bozeman" as
the "last best place." Now that we've become the belle of the ball and the
dance card of growth is nearing "filled". let's be very selective of suggested
change to the NCOD--the program that got us here.
736
From:The Canfields
To:Agenda
Cc:Reilly Thimons
Subject:NCOD Review Public Comment
Date:Friday, August 10, 2018 9:40:48 PM
The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) defines the boundaries
within which Bozeman’s guidelines for historic preservation apply. These guidelines
have been in place for almost 30 years, during which the character of central
Bozeman has been brought to a level that is the envy of historic preservation nation
nationwide. That success notwithstanding, in 2015 consultants recommended
replacing the existing NCOD by multiple sub-districts, surrounded by areas
completely without overlay district protection. As much as local developers might like
this recommendation, this Swiss-cheese structure is unwise for two reasons.
First, a single coherent NCOD is easier and more cost effective to administer than
multiple districts. For an example, consider the US health care and insurance system,
which is a patchwork of plans, government and private. Each has its own rules,
deductibles, reimbursement levels, and nuances. This complexity leads to confusion
and errors that are major drivers of U.S. healthcare costs. Just like health care,
community planning needs to be kept as manageable as possible.
Second, creation of multiple sub-districts of the NCOD will mean more transition
zones, which invariably mean more conflicts. A painful example is the transition zone
between the massive and character-less Black Olive development and the adjacent
charming and livable historic districts. Such transition zones must not be created
willy-nilly throughout central Bozeman.
Tweak the boundaries where the surveys show that it makes sense, but keep one
single coherent NCOD.
Richard C Canfield
(406) 579-9095
737
From:agenda@bozeman.net
To:Agenda
Subject:Thank you for your public comment.
Date:Friday, August 10, 2018 11:17:55 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Public Comment Form
Date & Time:08/10/2018 11:17 AM
Response #:133
Submitter ID:10241
IP address:172.24.96.111
Time to complete:8 min. , 44 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Public comment may be submitted via the form below, or by any of the following options.
Public comment may also be given at any public meeting.
Email:
agenda@bozeman.net
Mail to:
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
In-person delivery to:
Attn: City Commission
City Clerk's Office
City Hall, Suite 202
121 N. Rouse Ave.
Bozeman, MT
First Name Zehra
Last Name Osman
Email Address zosman534@gmail.com
738
Phone Number 4066401088
Comments
Dear Mayor Andrus, Commissioners, and NCOD Consultants,
I live in the sprawling sea of houses on the west side of town. I’m tired of hearing that “smart growth”
means we must increase housing density downtown. On the contrary, when a new high-density condo
complex that few can afford displaces low-and-medium-income housing downtown (and drives up
surrounding costs), they’re pushing us all out into the sprawl. Many of these expensive infill apartments
benefit only the absentee owners and developer. How is that good for our community?
We need a commitment from the city to instead focus on creating self-contained
Midtown/West/Northwest villages that are not only walkable, but have places we want to walk to;
workplaces, small grocers, shops, restaurants, cafes, and spots for weekly Farmer’s Markets. Build up the
density here; this is where the radical, hip, contemporary architecture should happen, as part of walkable,
self-contained villages—not in the NCOD. Then, we west-siders wouldn’t have to spend so much time in
traffic. Currently, west-side commercial strip developments are only accessible via hot, windy, exposed, and
inhospitable sidewalks along congested, too-wide, multi-lane roads. By making the downtown infill a
priority, you're choosing to make us west-siders wait until the pockets of the developers are first filled.
The downtown Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District already has a sense of place worth preserving;
its guidelines exist to protect our historic districts and preserve the character of Bozeman, and should not
be changed. Furthermore, the consultant’s NCOD windshield survey was superficial and didn’t assess
historic significance through historical research. Before changing the NCOD boundary, fund a proper
historic building survey to assess areas that have become historic since the NCOD was established.
Finally, I request the Bozeman City Mayor and Commissioners slow the planning down so we residents can
participate. Multiple consultants are conducting multiple fast-paced planning efforts concurrently; how can
we keep up with one, let alone several? Instead, begin with the umbrella Community Plan, then proceed to
other plans sequentially.
Sincerely,
Zehra Osman
312 Sanders Ave.
Bozeman MT 59718
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
739
From:Chris Naumann
To:Agenda; Addi Jadin; Phillipe Gonzalez; "Sara Adams"; "Brie Hensold"; Chris Saunders
Subject:Re: Smart Planning & Protect NCOD
Date:Saturday, August 11, 2018 9:17:31 PM
Thanks for sharing, Chris.
"Before changing the NCOD boundary, fund a proper historic building survey to assess
areas that have become historic since the NCOD was established."
There needs to be a considerable amount of public education about the differences
between historic preservation and neighborhood conservation and neighborhood
associations. Most folks see the maps being used and think everything shaded in a color is
a designated historic district...ex. NENA = historic district. A first step would be to stop
showing HDs and NAs on the same map...always show them on separate maps.
Chris Naumann
Downtown Bozeman Partnership
From: Chris Saunders
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2:43 PM
Subject: FW: Smart Planning & Protect NCOD
To: Agenda, Addi Jadin, Chris Naumann, Phillipe Gonzalez, 'Sara Adams', 'Brie Hensold'
Passing on received public comment.
Chris S
From: webadmin@bozeman.net <webadmin@bozeman.net>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 11:35 AM
To: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Smart Planning & Protect NCOD
Message submitted from the <City Of Bozeman> website.
Site Visitor Name: Zehra Osman
Site Visitor Email: zosman534@gmail.com
I live in the sprawling sea of houses on the west side of town. I’m tired of hearing that
“smart growth” means we must increase housing density downtown. On the contrary, when
a new high-density condo complex that few can afford displaces low-and-medium-income
housing downtown (and drives up surrounding costs), they’re pushing us all out into the
sprawl. Many of these expensive infill apartments benefit only the absentee owners and
developer.
We need a commitment from the city to instead focus on creating self-contained
740
Midtown/West/Northwest villages that are not only walkable, but have places we want to
walk to; workplaces, small grocers, shops, restaurants, cafes, and spots for weekly
Farmer’s Markets. Build up the density here; this is where the radical, hip, contemporary
architecture should happen, as part of walkable, self-contained villages—not in the NCOD.
Then, we west-siders wouldn’t have to spend so much time in traffic. Currently, west-side
commercial strip developments are only accessible via hot, windy, exposed, and
inhospitable sidewalks along congested, too-wide, multi-lane roads.
The downtown Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District already has a sense of place
worth preserving; its guidelines exist to protect our historic districts and preserve the
character of Bozeman, and should not be changed. Furthermore, the consultant’s NCOD
windshield survey was superficial and didn’t assess historic significance through historical
research. Before changing the NCOD boundary, fund a proper historic building survey to
assess areas that have become historic since the NCOD was established.
Finally, I request the Bozeman City Mayor and Commissioners slow the planning down so
we residents can participate. Multiple consultants are conducting multiple fast-paced
planning efforts concurrently; how can we keep up with one, let alone several? Instead,
begin with the umbrella Community Plan, then proceed to other plans sequentially.
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s
Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2,
Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the
contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s
record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information
related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
741
1
NCOD Comments: I appreciate the efforts so far by the city and hired consultants to engage us
in a process that should help manage growth with gentle infill and preserve this beautiful small
town. But will our citizen engagement actually make any difference? Many of us are burned by
the Black/Olive fiasco, SoBo Lofts, the rezoning without appropriate stakeholder involvement,
the myth of “new urbanism” that density prevents sprawl, and many other tone-deaf actions
and opinions by elected officials and developers. Now-- will the NCOD survive? That is our
current brief.
First regarding the Neighborhood Character Survey: I am very concerned that this survey is
another example of a failed opportunity to elicit meaningful citizen participation from a
population who have shown their passion and concern in countless forums, letters, meetings
etc. What exactly are the expected outcomes from such a survey? I do not see any explanation
for this confusing odd breakdowns and distinctions between “district and neighborhood”, or
character, buildings and properties, to expect us to grade by order of importance the thousands
of structures and landscapes as a “ whole” with a highly subjective and intangible criteria? To
what end?
In my opinion this “breakdown” of the town is to justify replacing the NCOD –something I
completely oppose. The idea behind this "balkanization" or dividing—up our historic districts
and neighborhoods—is ill-conceived and is suspect as it implies a “divide and conquer” kind of
mindset—this benefits developers not residents or the city in the end. In reality the city
administration will find it impossible to manage successfully the multiple transition and buffer
zones between all the different parts of town, snarling permitting, enforcement, appeals,
design review, etc.—it will make neighborhoods "compete" for attention, prioritizing narrow
interests without a unified commitment to the "whole " –our town that is made up of the
wonderful parts as characterized but unified in the NCOD. I believe we should be working
together with the goal, a view of the whole—as the current NCOD intended and has succeeded
in great part—to be improved but retained.
However, my primary contribution in this discussion outside of the built environment, is the
need for improved protection and management of street trees/the urban forest –
understanding and maintaining the tree canopy--and creating a new Tree Protection Code
(Bozeman has none). This code would include replacement policies and fees, permitting, public
and private as many cities have, environmental benefits of trees in development decisions, and
designation and create incentives for retaining "Exceptional" or Heritage trees.
Bozeman must improve its commitment to the health and retention of magnificent trees that
make our town so unique. These are the most vulnerable victims of unmanaged growth.
Witness Seattle drowning in its current growth juggernaut now down to 6000 “Exceptional
Trees” in the so-called “Emerald City of the pacific northwest.” Tree canopy in neighborhoods
at 19% (Tucson is at 12%). I hope that is not our fate here.
742
2
Other urgent issues about trees and growth:
Ø ADUs must be planned and designed in number and scale to protect greenspace and
trees.
Ø Contracts with sub-contractors on city street projects: the contracts currently have no
provision for protecting trees along streets or the tree driplines. The excavations and
repaving now occurring could hypothetically kill a whole street of trees.
Ø see dripline: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottowp/?qa_faqs=what-is-the-critical-
root-zone
Ø The city must take a role in educating the public about the economic and environmental
benefits of trees on public and private property. Public outreach!
Ø Affordable housing should include the benefits of greenspace and trees.
Elizabeth Darrow
603 West Babcock Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
743
From:Felix Spinelli
To:Agenda; The Canfields; Jane Klockman; Elizabeth Darrow
Subject:Changing Course on NCOD could involve a "takings" for many individuals
Date:Monday, August 13, 2018 10:11:58 AM
I support your efforts to address the concerns and needs of your citizens. Your job to balance
growth in such a desirable place as Bozeman will take courage and knowledge of issues thatare complex, but have been faced by many communities around the country and especially in
the Mountain West. I would recommend (if you have not already read it) a book, Better, NotBigger that addresses many of the relevant issues concerning growth. As far as the NCOD is
concerned, I am wondering if the changes in this successful program will detrimentally affectthose individuals in the NCOD that have made substantial improvements in their properties to
retain their historical nature due to their belief that the NCOD policy will remain in place andsafeguard their investment. This may also apply to those individuals that surround the NCOD
that have also made similar improvements. I would think that such individuals may havegrounds to request a financial compensation if the NCOD policy safeguards are pulled away
from their neighborhood. I am interested to hear what the City's view is concerning thisissue.
As an aside, it is my opinion that the NCOD policy should be maintained and strengthened in the future to
safeguard our neighborhood and quality of life.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Felix Spinelli
-- Felix (Phil) Spinelli
744
From:collettebrooks-hops
To:Agenda; Phillipe Gonzalez; sara@bendonadams.com; reilly@bendonadams.com
Subject:historic preservation downtown.
Date:Friday, August 17, 2018 4:03:25 PM
Hello,
We sincerely hope that the City of Bozeman and Bozeman's City Commissioners will listen to the will of the people
and preserve the NCOD with its comprehensive, all-encompassing design guidelines for historic areas and
neighborhoods. Once town looses that character, the soul of that town is lost as well.
Please do the right thing for Bozeman.
collette and Larry hops
745
From:Phillipe Gonzalez
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD Public Comment
Date:Friday, August 24, 2018 9:14:45 AM
Phillipe Gonzalez | Historic Preservation Specialist
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2940 | E: pgonzalez@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
From: Zehra Osman <zosman534@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 7:30 AM
To: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>; Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@BOZEMAN.NET>;
reilly@bendonadams.com
Subject: New entry for "Comment Form" has been recorded
Hi Chris and Phillip,
I submitted this comment last week. It didn’t make it into the running list of NCODcomments, so I’m sending it directly to you.
It’s my response to Chris Naumann’s comment about my earlier letter/public comment. Since
Chris had an opportunity to contact you directly via email, I thought I’d do the same.
The comment is forwarded below. Another public comment was posted on that list that verysame day, so I expected to see my comment shared there as
well. http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?startid=157844
Please pass it along to the consultants and any other city staff who are involved in this NCODreview.
Thanks!
Zehra Osman
312 Sanders AveBozeman, MT 59718
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bozeman, MT <webadmin@bozeman.net>Date: Friday, August 17, 2018
Subject: New entry for "Comment Form" has been recordedTo: zosman534@gmail.com
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Comment Form
Date & Time:08/17/2018 5:03 PM
746
Response #:9
Submitter ID:12353
IP address:172.24.96.111
Time to complete:23 min. , 30 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
We want to hear from you!
1.First Name
Zehra
2.Last Name
Osman
3.Phone
4066401088
4.Email
zosman534@gmail.com
5.Comments
COMMENT: "There needs to be a considerable amount of public education about the differences between
historic preservation and neighborhood conservation and neighborhood associations. Most folks see the
maps being used and think everything shaded in a color is a designated historic district...ex. NENA = historic
district. A first step would be to stop showing HDs and NAs on the same map...always show them on
separate maps.”
RESPONSE: Agree that neighborhood associations are different than historic properties and this should be
differentiated. The NCOD is an excellent conservation tool because it preserves the historic integrity of the
properties between historic districts. In addition to the various historic districts, which are all shaded in
different colors, there are many properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Place and these should also be shown on NCOD maps. Furthermore, there are many properties outside the
existing historic districts that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register, and these
should also be shown on NCOD maps since they carry the same protections. Altogether, these various
property types and designations fill up the 1991 NCOD boundary map. Finally, some of the properties that
were determined non-contributing within a district and some of the properties determined non-eligible for
individual listing outside of historic districts, back in 1991, may in fact be eligible today! This is why – before
making any decisions to change to the NCOD boundary – it is very important to fund a proper historic
building survey to assess and include properties that have become historic since the NCOD was established.
Who knows – we may want to expand the NCOD boundary.
The NCOD is why Bozeman has retained its sense of place over the past 27 years of growth and it is one of
747
the best historic preservation tools in Montana.
Thanks!
Zehra Osman
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
748
From:Scott Hedglin
To:David Fine; Terry Cunningham
Cc:Brit Fontenot; Agenda
Subject:[SENDER UNVERIFIED]RE: NCOD engagement and October meeting
Date:Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:05:35 AM
Public Comment-
In my opinion, it will be a shame if portions of Midtown get sucked back into the NCOD limits. I hope
layers of regulation will be removed in the attempt to make development within Midtown less
confusing and cumbersome. I’m disappointed with how the UDO re-write worked out for the
District.
I’ve spouted this before: Big picture and clear priorities need to be defined and decisions made
based on them. In this case, is “Infill Redevelopment” a priority? Or will neighborhood input,
affordable housing, maximizing tax base, coordinating development, storm-water engineering,
various other departmental agendas, etc. continue to dilute and delay the focus? All these things
have their place but, if Infill Redevelopment is a priority should “best-use” perfection be the enemy
of good “acceptable” projects?
Scott Hedglin
From: David Fine [mailto:DFine@BOZEMAN.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 5:18 PM
To: Fraser, Susan <sfraser@montana.edu>; nicholasarodgers@gmail.com; Scott Hedglin
<scotthedglin@live.com>; Rhino <rhinocasino@gmail.com>; 'carl@montana.com'
<carl@montana.com>; 'fogleit@ymail.com' <fogleit@ymail.com>; 'kevin@genecookrealestate.com'
<kevin@genecookrealestate.com>; Terry Cunningham <TCunningham@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Brit Fontenot <bfontenot@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: NCOD engagement and October meeting
Importance: High
Midtown Board:
Consultants working on a project to update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)
may propose changes including expanding the boundaries of the NCOD to include the Midtown
Urban Renewal District. As you may recall, Midtown was removed from the NCOD with the adoption
of B-2M zoning, but it is possible the boundary could be expanded to include parts of Midtown.
There are 3 public meetings led by the consulting team and they are also providing an update to the
City Commission at their regular meeting at 6pm on Monday. You can find out more about the other
meetings here https://www.bozeman.net/city-projects/ncod-review . Please consider making time
to participate in these meetings. Brit and I will be out of the office and will not be available to
participate.
NCOD Review Project Event @ MAP Brewery Co.
10/01/2018 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM
749
NCOD Review Project Event @ The Ellen Theatre
10/02/2018 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
NCOD Review Project Event @ Cheevers Hall, MSU
10/03/2018 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM
The October Midtown Board meeting is cancelled due to a lack of new business. Please plan to be
present at the November meeting as we expect at least one significant project request at that
meeting.
Best regards,
David
David Fine | Urban Renewal Program Manager
City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
C: 406.551.0209 | E: dfine@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II,
Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code
Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public
disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain
confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from
disclosure under law.
750
From:JACK and JANE JELINSKI
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD
Date:Thursday, October 04, 2018 4:36:44 PM
Please do not approve the dismantling of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as being
proposed for “study.” The NCOD has been effective for many years and the proposal I have read
appears to have been written by and for developers and disregards the community, neighborhood
assets within the district. The listening sessions notices are inconsistent, and scheduling one of them
at the Element, the building of Bozeman’s most aggressive developer, appears like an insider project,
not one of the city for its citizens. What is being proposed here is undermining the high quality of
life we have enjoyed in the NCOD for decades.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Jelinski
433 N Tracy
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-587-8365
jjjelinski@msn.com
751
752
From:Amy Kelley Hoitsma
To:reilly@bendonadams.com
Cc:Agenda; Martin Matsen; Phillipe Gonzalez; NENA-VisionNE
Subject:City of Bozeman NCOD 2018 Update— Public Outreach #2 Sessions and Draft Policy Recommendations Document
Date:Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:42:55 AM
Date: 27 November 2018
To: BendonAdams LLC c/o Reilly Thimons (reilly@bendonadams.com)
From: Amy Kelley Hoitsma, President, Bozeman’s Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) and Members of the VisionNE NENA subcommittee
RE: City of Bozeman NCOD 2018 Update— Public Outreach #2 Sessions and Draft Policy Recommendations Document
NCOD Update Consultant Team:
I write as the President of the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) and as a participant in a NENA subcommittee, VisionNE, which works to stay informed, understand
current codes and plans, and actively participate in community planning discussions in order to have a positive influence on future development in our neighborhood. Multiple VisionNE
members participated in your first and second public outreach sessions and read the Draft Policy Recommendations document dated October 29, 2018. We recently met to debrief from
those sessions and to discuss the draft document. Below please find our thoughts about the sessions and document.
We are encouraged by and support Recommendation 2.1: Purpose of NCOD:
Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to distinguish the two separate goals
within the NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preservation Program will also apply to landmarks and historic districts outside the boundary of the
NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman’s significant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
We request more information be added in the final plan regarding the definition of
neighborhood character and guidelines for distinguishing historically significant buildings.
We are also interested in Recommendation 2.4: Neighborhood design standards + guidelines:
Create design standards and guidelines for each neighborhood in the NCOD.
VisionNE has been working on a document that begins to provide guidelines for future
development in our NENA neighborhood, which perhaps aligns with this recommendation. That said, we feel strongly that such guidelines should not replace the NCOD but rather
enhance it.
753
We all agreed that our interest was piqued in the last few minutes of the formal presentation, when you had us vote on multiple ways that the current review process might be improved.
You presented several options that we would like to see pursued further:
§ Provide information to the area residents surrounding a proposed project
prior to the first hearing.
§ Add project information (for example project proposal, more detailed
application status, associated permits) to online maps (GIS).
§ Use social media channels to educate ways to find project information.
And especially:
§ Require a meeting with the neighborhood areas prior to formal
Community Development Department application submittal and review.
§ Require input from established neighborhood associations on large scale projects.
We also discussed a recent Bozeman Chronicle Op-Ed piece by John Vincent (former Bozeman City Commissioner and Mayor), in which he proposes several specific changes to
the City’s building review process that would provide earlier and more robust opportunities for public participation. If you read the piece I think you will find there are many similarities
between his recommendations and the options you laid out at the end of the session:
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/guest_columnists/bozeman-s-
neighborhoods-need-seat-at-the-table/article_de3ee116-fdd4-5619-974b-4f6d2de66a35.html
It seems that at this point in the process you are floating “trial balloons” to gauge public
reaction about how the NCOD could be improved. NENA and VisionNE want to be engaged in this process. We are open-minded about change. We care about the future our neighborhood
as well as our city. While we are able to provide comment and input using computer tablets and surveys, we would like to ask you to hold an open public meeting with our neighborhood
when you are next in Bozeman. Now that you have received two rounds of input from Bozeman residents and others, we would ask you to provide an overview of your professional
recommendations and allow meeting attendees to openly engage with you and each other in a dialogue about those recommendations.
We encourage you to share your insights and what you know are community best practices that will mesh with adopted city plans, codes, and policies as well as community feedback.
We look forward to participating in the next round of the process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of assistance in planning a NENA neighborhood meeting when you
are next in Bozeman. I will do my best to involve the neighborhood as much as possible.
Best,
Amy Kelley Hoitsma
706 E. Peach St., Bozeman, MT 59715 | (406) 581-1513 | aok@mcn.net
754
cc Bozeman City Commissioners, Marty Matsen, Phillips Gonzales
755
City of Bozeman City Commission
Community Development Department (submitted via e-mail)
City Commissioners and Mr. Matsen:
On November 20, 2018 the Downtown Urban Renewal District Board discussed the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and pending policy recommendations. The NCOD guidelines place an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy over the downtown district which has its own comprehensive “neighborhood” guiding document—the Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan. The URD board believes that applying the NCOD in addition to the Downtown Plan creates policy confusion and regulatory conflict. In the past, efforts to reconcile the two have been subject to inconsistent interpretation from one project to the next and by one administration to another.
The Downtown URD Board concluded that the Downtown Plan should be the governing document for the downtown district and that the NCOD is best suited to guide residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the Downtown URD Board respectfully requests that the Downtown B3 and URD Districts be excluded from the NCOD and its associated guidelines.
Downtown has a long history of thoughtful planning: 1995 Downtown Urban Renewal Plan; 1998 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan; 2009 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan; and the pending 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan. All the plans have spoken to the importance of our Historic Districts and adjacent residential neighborhoods. All the plans also call for continued
change and evolution of Bozeman’s central business district in order to remain vibrant as Bozeman grows from a big town into a small city. Considering downtown has a clear plan for the future that is rooted in the past, issues like transition of the urban built environment along the interior periphery of the B3 zone should be regulated by the
Downtown Plan. Correspondingly, the NCOD should address potential transition guidelines along the interior periphery of residential zoning district. The 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan provides an opportunity to reinforce the transition requirements that were codified in the 2018 UDC update. The new Downtown Plan will emphasize
the importance of the existing Historic Districts and Historic Buildings. In addition, the new Downtown Plan may recommend formal historic designation and protection based on the findings of the 2016 historic inventory report which provided updated assessments for over 100 buildings downtown. Until recently, the NCOD included the primary set of design guidelines for new construction and
significant remodels for downtown. Recently a robust set of commercial design guidelines were codified in Article 5 of the 2018 UDC Update. Therefore, that role of the NCOD has been supplanted. In addition to the six nationally recognized Historic Districts in and around downtown, numerous properties are essentially protected due to ownership by the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Federal GSA, Bozeman School District, and several non-profits (churches and Emerson Cultural Center). These properties are in essence “conserved” with little probability of changing significantly,
756
thus providing a significant buffer particularly adjacent to four of the Historic Districts on the southern half of downtown. See the map below.
With the pending updates of the Downtown Plan and the NCOD, now is the time to clearly delineate
district boundaries and specifically define each document’s purview. Thank you for your consideration of this formal request to exclude downtown from the NCOD.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Downtown Urban Renewal District Board,
Chris Naumann
In addition to the six Historic Districts (highlighted), a significant amount of property (outlined in red) within downtown is protected by ownership subject to minimal change.
757
From:Jonathan Wirth
To:reilly@bendonadams.com
Cc:Agenda; Phillipe Gonzalez
Subject:City of Bozeman NCOD Review - SCAN Feedback to Policy Recommendations
Date:Tuesday, January 08, 2019 2:20:05 PM
Attachments:SCAN NCOD Recommendations Feedback.pdf
Dear Ms. Thimons,
Please find attached collective feedback from the SCAN (South Central Association of
Neighbors) NCOD Working Group in response to the October 29, 2018 Draft NCOD Policy
Recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and input, and we look forward to the next
steps.
Have a great day!
Jon Wirth
758
Date:December 2018 -- DRAFT
To: BendonAdams (mailto:reilly@bendonadams.com)
Cc:City Commissioners & Staff (mailto:agenda@bozeman.net)
From: South Central Association of Neighbors (SCAN)
Re:City of Bozeman Draft Policy Recommendations, Oct 29, 2018
As a community, our identity is rooted in our history. With the influx of new residents,
incorporating our history to better ground us in our communal identity is key to Bozeman's
NCOD and Historic Preservation programs. Our SCAN neighborhood plays a central role in
that communal identify. The Bon Ton, South Tracy / South Black, and South Tracy Avenue
Historic Districts are all within the SCAN boundaries. SCAN encompasses almost half of all
properties that contribute to Bozeman's National Register of Historic Places inventory.
A Working Group on the NCOD Review was formed to carry out the SCAN mission.
Members of this group, as well as the Steering Committee and many SCAN residents, have
participated actively in Bozeman's Review of the NCOD and the Historic Preservation
Program, including your exemplary public outreach program. Our Working Group has
reached out to the SCAN neighborhood using Nextdoor, and has met weekly over the last
month to consider your recommendations and alternatives.
Regarding the recommendations and alternatives that you presented in the October
29th Draft: We had hours of fruitful discussions. During all of our discussions, it was clear
that we support as strongly as possible a historic inventory as a priority since it is the basis
for any and all recommendations and alternatives. We’ve tried to focus this feedback on
areas that are either very important to us or are areas of disagreement with the
recommendations in the October 29th Draft.
2.1 Purpose of the NCOD (pg. 12). We support the most fundamental
recommendation of all: to retain the NCOD. Since its inception, the NCOD and the
759
City's Historic Preservation program have contributed immeasurably to our
neighborhood's broadly recognized character.
2.2 NCOD Boundary (pg. 15). We support Alternative 1, preferring the North 7th
Street corridor to be all out of the NCOD. We like the idea of development on North
7th because it would allow downtown to expand, takes development pressure off
the historic downtown & adjacent residential historic districts, and it would allow
for denser growth very near downtown. This is an area where an inventory is
crucial for decision making.
2.3 Neighborhood Design Standards and Guidelines (pg. 18). We do not support
the recommendation to create design standards and guidelines for each residential
neighborhood within the NCOD. We believe that this would be expensive and
complicated for all involved. Context-sensitive implementation of guidelines would
better allow for the delineation of neighborhood character.
3.3 Historic Review Process (pg. 26). We support increasing the HPAB’s
responsibilities to a body that makes (non-binding) recommendations to the city
planning staff in certain circumstances. One important aspect to this change would
be to train the HPAB, so that they can knowledgeably provide input. All want to be
cautious not to add more steps to the process than are necessary.
3.4 Historic Preservation Standards and Guidelines (pg. 28). While we generally
prefer guidelines, we agree that standards could be very useful in certain cases.
4.1 Infill Transitions (pg. 35). On 4.1 for infill transitions, we all disagreed with
the recommendation setting a hard B-3 boundary on Babcock. We believe that the
street would look odd with different zoning districts on each side. Historic
760
neighborhoods grew organically without as much structure from zoning rules. This
is an area where an inventory is crucial for decision making.
4.2 Relate Zone Districts to Context (pg. 37). We do not support the
recommendation to align zone district boundaries and dimensional allowances with
historic districts in SCAN, or either of the alternatives. The historic pattern in SCAN
included an intermingling of residential and commercial properties. This is an area
where an inventory is crucial for decision making.
6. Project Information (pg. 48). We support going beyond the optional
recommendation of a required meeting prior to application review with
neighborhoods affected by projects to requiring input from appropriate neighbors
and/or associations on large/impactful projects. See the suggestions of former
mayor and county commissioner John Vincent.
In closing, we thank you and the City of Bozeman for considering this input, and for your
role in keeping Bozeman a special place worth protecting.
SCAN Steering Committee: Jon Wirth, Vice President; Marilyn Raffensperger, Treasurer;
Susan McCarty, Secretary; Jennifer Rockne, INC Liaison; Carson Taylor
SCAN NCOD Working Group: Tammy Minge, Mark Ringer, Carson Taylor, Jon Wirth, and
Vicky York.
761
From:Chris Mehl
To:Agenda
Subject:FW: ZC-PB NCOD Meeting February 26th
Date:Friday, February 22, 2019 11:19:55 AM
Chris Mehl
Bozeman Deputy Mayor
cmehl@bozeman.net
406.581.4992
________________________________________
From: Chris Naumann [chris@downtownbozeman.org]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:49 AM
To: Henry Happel (hap@fastmail.fm); Cathy Costakis; lwaterton@sandersonstewart.com; Jennifer Madgic; Paul
Spitler; 'George Thompson'; 'Jerry Pape'; Mark Egge (mark@eateggs.com); Chris Mehl; 'Erik Garberg'; Julien
Morice (j@ironwoodd.com)
Cc: Tom Rogers
Subject: ZC-PB NCOD Meeting February 26th
Zoning Commission and Planning Board Members,
In light of your February 26th meeting regarding the NCOD policy recommendations, I wanted to provide you with
related information from the draft Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
(www.downtownbozeman.org/plan<http://www.downtownbozeman.org/plan>).
The draft Downtown Plan includes revised recommendations regarding the NCOD. Here is a summary of the
recommendations found in the draft Downtown Plan:
* Recognize downtown within the NCOD as a distinct and independent ‘neighborhood’ (as defined by the B3
zone boundary)
* Adopt a specific set of downtown design guidelines that inform urban design, architecture, and
landscape/streetscape elements
The full NCOD narrative can be found on page 112. In addition, I would also direct your attention to page 70 that
addresses downtown’s historic districts and properties. Pages 114-116 cover the recommendations about building
heights, mix of scales, and transition.
I think the revised Downtown Plan recommendations compliment Bendon-Adams’ initial NCOD policy ideas:
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES (P.18) Recommendation: Create design
standards and guidelines 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.
The blending of the Downtown Plan recommendations and NCOD policy options would yield a hybrid sufficiently
serving the needs of the community:
1. Recognize three distinct NCOD ‘character areas’
* The Downtown District
* The area north of the Downtown District
* The area south of the Downtown District
762
1. Develop a unique set of design guidelines for each of the three areas
Please let me know if you have any questions. I am planning to attend your meeting on February 26th.
Also, please forward this e-mail to Christopher Scott as I do not have his address. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Naumann
Executive Director
Downtown Bozeman Partnership
222 East Main Street #302
Bozeman MT 59715
406-586-4008
www.downtownbozeman.org<http://www.downtownbozeman.org/>
763
From:Zehra Osman
To:Agenda
Cc:Tom Rogers; Phillipe Gonzalez; Jeanne Wilkinson
Subject:NCOD recommendations- Zehra Osman comments
Date:Tuesday, February 26, 2019 5:25:44 PM
(Due to a bad cough, I’m unable to attend this evening’s meetings regarding the NCOD. Forthis reason, I am sending you my comments directly.)
Greetings,
Reading the recent draft of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and draft NCODrecommendations, it is clear there is a push for a shiny new downtown Bozeman. I
respectfully ask two questions:
(1) For whom are we building this shiny new downtown Bozeman? (2) Why does it have to be so “shiny?"
The first question is answered by evidence. If you google the price of a 660 square-foot
apartment in one of the new high-rise buildings, you’ll find it rents/sells for at least twice theprice of a 3-bedroom house of twice that square footage in Bozeman’s sprawling west side.
Who can afford this? Therefore, as Bozeman’s downtown develops vertically, most peoplewho cannot afford or are displaced by the price/rent of new high-rise units will probably
buy/rent on the fringes of town – in the sprawl.
I’m not against infill housing within the NCOD; in fact, instead of these expensive high-riseshort-term vacation rentals, we should have affordable/attainable housing within walking
distance for folks like the cooks and servers who work at our favorite downtown restaurants.The important point is that no matter who it is built to serve, historically compatible infill can
do the job without cannibalizing the historic districts.
This leads to my second question. Why are these plans pushing for such a “shiny” newdowntown Bozeman/NCOD?
Many of us can get behind compatible infill within the NCOD that honors the genuine,
authentic architectural character that conveys Bozeman’s history. The historic buildings anddistricts within the NCOD have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places
through rigorous processes, requiring proof of the property’s value—architectural, yes, butalso cultural and historical. Each time a designer arrogantly disrupts the historic character of a
district by building something particularly differentiated from adjacent historic buildings, nomatter how “hip” it may be, they are contributing to the gradual erosion of that authentic
historic character. This leads to just a hodgepodge of different architectural styles down anystreet and, sadly, loss of sense of place.
Seriously, why inflame the community when compatible infill could do the job?
Within the NCOD, we need to follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties, which states, “New additions, exterior alterations, or related newconstruction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property.” The standards do warn that “new work will be differentiated from
764
the old” but also state that it “will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
These standards are filled with guidelines that are meant to preserve historic districts andsettings.
So, to answer Bendon-Adams questions, I plead:
(a) the city keep the downtown within the NCOD,
(b) the NCOD remain intact and not be broken up into individual neighborhoods with distinctdesign standards and guideline,
(c) that we follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards within all of the NCOD, and (d) that infill be compatible with historic districts and properties —new and necessary, but in
harmony with the adjacent historic properties in order to protect the integrity and character ofthe historic architecture and districts.
Compatible downtown/NCOD infill still meets all of our needs for growth, and at the same
time preserves the sense of place resonant in our downtown—the Bozeman we love waking upto every day.
If developers yearn to build stylish new creations, please have them build these structures
outside of the old town sections of Bozeman. We need walkable communities in Bozeman’sMidtown, West Side, and Cannery areas, which will one day be historic districts that convey
the hip architectural styles of 2019.
Respectfully,Zehra Osman
West side Bozeman resident
765
Historic Preservation Advisory Board
February 26, 2019 | 5:00 pm
City Hall Commission Room - 121 N. Rouse Ave., Bozeman MT
A. 05:02:30 PM (00:00:19) Call meeting to order and Roll Call
Jennifer Dunn (Chair)
Michael Wallner
Jeannie Wilkinson
Eric Karshner
Crystal Alegria
Samantha Fox
B. 05:02:50 PM (00:00:39) Changes to the Agenda – None.
C. 05:02:56 PM (00:00:45) Minutes for Approval (None)
D. 05:03:01 PM (00:00:50) Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication – None.
E. 05:03:10 PM (00:00:59) Public Comment – None.
F. Action Items
1. 05:03:39 PM (00:01:28) Presentation from consultant BendonAdams on the NCOD Review Project
report. Consider report recommendations and make board recommendations to City Commission.
Presentation
Public Comment:
o 2018 Public Comment
o 2019 Public Comment
NCOD Review Draft
City Historic Preservation Specialist Phil Gonzalez gave an introduction of BendonAdams and the report.
05:05:03 PM (00:02:52) Chris Bendon of BendonAdams introduced himself and the topics for tonight. He
reviewed the project scope.
05:08:17 PM (00:06:06) Allison Mouch of Orion Planning & Design gave a history of the NCOD and how it was
formed and amended over time. She discussed the team for the report and engagement methods used.
05:14:44 PM (00:12:33) Bendon spoke of the recommendations and the Work Plan.
05:17:01 PM (00:14:50) Bendon spoke of the NCOD purpose and boundary.
05:18:54 PM (00:16:43) The Historic Preservation Program and the HPAB were discussed.
05:22:26 PM (00:20:15) Mouch spoke of relating zoning to context, specifically the possible interaction between
historic preservation and the goals of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and future development.
05:27:10 PM (00:24:59) Mouch and Bendon spoke of streamlining processes.
766
05:29:03 PM (00:26:52) Project information recommendations were discussed. The Comprehensive Work Plan
was briefly shown.
05:33:17 PM (00:31:06) The Consultants answered questions from the Board regarding local Preservation
Programs, differing approaches for differing properties and neighborhoods, and code, standard and guidelines.
05:47:01 PM (00:44:50) The Consultants continued to answer questions from the Board regarding the role and
training of HPAB, interaction of the NCOD with City Policies and Plans, and differing zones and neighborhood
boundaries inside the NCOD, specifically downtown.
05:59:36 PM (00:57:25) Bendon answered questions about the time frame used in the report and strategies to
accomplish recommendations.
06:03:34 PM (01:01:23) PUBLIC COMMENT
06:04:01 PM (01:01:50) Irene Decker (unknown address) asked the Consultants what building height would
be considered transitional.
06:05:04 PM (01:02:53) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, spoke on
how the Partnership views the report in regards to Downtown, and how important the Downtown
Neighborhood is to the NCOD and Bozeman.
06:08:42 PM (01:06:31) Jane Clockman (713 S Wilson) spoke of her concerns of the comment regarding removal
of Downtown from the NCOD and her hopes that Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods will be in sync in
the future.
06:11:18 PM (01:09:07) Leslie Gilmore (180 North Low Bench, Gallatin Gateway) spoke of HPAB duties and
possible roles, and of her experiences as a former Preservation Board Member in Illinois.
06:13:34 PM (01:11:23) Dick Canfield (3rd and College) spoke of his appreciation of the new Secretary of The
Interior 2017 guidelines and how Bozeman does not acknowledge those in the design guidelines but should. He
also spoke of possible problems with responsibilities given to Neighborhood Associations in the report.
06:18:42 PM (01:16:31) The Consultants responded to Mrs. Decker’s question about transitional building height
and a Board question about Downtown zoning, NCOD inclusion, and historic preservation.
06:27:28 PM (01:25:17) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report recommendations one through
thirteen, public comment, and all other information presented, I move to recommend recommendations one
through thirteen as presented: Jeanne Wilkinson.
06:27:45 PM (01:25:34) SECOND: Eric Karschner.
06:27:48 PM (01:25:37) A brief discussion and comment session from the board occurred.
06:30:53 PM (01:28:42) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carries Unanimously.
767
G. 06:31:25 PM (01:29:14) FYI/Discussion
1. Board questions and general discussion
H. 06:31:30 PM (01:29:19) Adjournment
For more information please contact Phillipe González at pgonzalez@bozeman.net or 406-582-2940
Preservation Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact
our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD).
768
Joint City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 07:00:47 PM (00:00:06) Call meeting to order
Chris Scott (ZC) Chair
Julien Morice (ZC)
Jennifer Madgic (PB)
Cathy Costakis (PB)
Mark Egge (PB)
Henry Happel (PB) Chair
Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl (PB) Commission Liaison
Paul Spitler (ZB & PB)
Lauren Waterton (PB)
Jerry Pape (PB)
B. 07:01:50 PM (00:01:09) Changes to the Agenda
C. 07:02:06 PM (00:01:25) Approve Joint Meeting Minutes (none)
D. 07:02:11 PM (00:01:30) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an
audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling
within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each
action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
E. Action Items
1. 07:02:30 PM (00:01:49) Presentation from consultant BendonAdams on the NCOD
Review Project report. Consider report recommendations and make board
recommendations to City Commission. (Gonzalez, Rogers)
Staff Memo
Presentation
07:03:05 PM (00:02:24) City Historic Preservation Specialist Phil Gonzalez gave an introduction
to the report and Chris Bendon and Allison Mouch.
769
07:04:07 PM (00:03:26) Chris Bendon from BendonAdams introduced himself and quickly
reviewed the project scope.
07:07:00 PM (00:06:19) Allison Mouch of Orion Planning & design gave a history of the NCOD
and how it was formed and amended over time. She discussed the team for the report and
engagement methods used.
07:13:31 PM (00:12:50) Bendon spoke of the recommendations and the Work Plan.
07:16:23 PM (00:15:42)Bendon spoke of the Historic Preservation Program and HPAB.
07:19:24 PM (00:18:43)Mouch spoke of relating zoning to context, specifically the possible
interaction between historic preservation and the goals of the downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan and future development. Streamlining processes was also discussed.
07:25:21 PM (00:24:40) Project information recommendations were discussed. The
Comprehensive Work Plan was briefly shown.
07:31:31 PM (00:30:50) The Consultants answered questions from the Board regarding the
sensitivities of transition, sequence of events, and potential conflict inherent in smaller
neighborhood distinctions.
07:39:52 PM (00:39:11) The Consultants continued answering questions about transition zones,
future districts, designation of districts/neighborhoods, and standard, guidelines and review
processes.
07:52:11 PM (00:51:30) The Consultants continued answering questions about conflict between
historic preservation districts and affordability, and density issues.
08:04:09 PM (01:03:28) Bendon answered questions about infill within the NCOD.
08:07:00 PM (01:06:19) PUBLIC COMMENT
08:07:13 PM (01:06:32) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman
Partnership, spoke on the recommendations in regard to the Downtown Plan.
08:10:04 PM (01:09:23) Linda Semonis (Church Street) commented about the perception of
skewed demographics from the workshops used to create the report.
08:11:50 PM (01:11:09) Zoning Board Chair Scott opened the floor for a motion for the Zoning
Board.
08:12:57 PM (01:12:16) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report
recommendations one through thirteen, public comment, and all other information presented, I
hereby move to recommend recommendations one through thirteen as presented: Julien
Morice.
770
08:13:11 PM (01:12:30) SECONDED: Paul Spitler.
08:13:13 PM (01:12:32) Zoning Board members discussed the report and recommendations.
08:17:53 PM (01:17:12) VOTE: Motion Carries 2-1.
08:19:08 PM (01:18:27) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report
recommendations one through thirteen, public comment, and other information presented, I
hereby move to recommend recommendations one through thirteen as presented: Lauren
Waterton.
08:19:25 PM (01:18:44) SECONDED: Jerry Pape.
08:19:33 PM (01:18:52) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.1-retaining the NCOD
and focus on two programs to distinguish two separate goals: promote historic preservation
through local designation and establish neighborhood character areas.
08:21:39 PM (01:20:58) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.2-adjust NCOD
boundary based upon results of building survey: North 7th all in or out, Frontage Street as
northern edge, Conduct building survey to provide basis for boundary adjustments, and
complete an architectural survey.
08:24:00 PM (01:23:19) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.3-create
neighborhood design guidelines and standards.
08:27:10 PM (01:26:29) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.1-phase in a stronger
historic preservation program.
08:30:51 PM (01:30:10) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.2-expand incentives
for historic property owners.
08:33:22 PM (01:32:41) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.3-Require HPAB
recommendations for historic projects and projects within a historic district.
08:42:25 PM (01:41:44) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.4-create historic
design standards and guidelines for historic districts and landmarks that align with updated
Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
08:49:48 PM (01:49:07) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.1-create a B-3
transitional zone for areas located beyond the core. Incorporate additional transition standards
within the existing zone edge transition requirements.
08:53:58 PM (01:53:17) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.2-explore adjusting
the historic district boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts.
771
08:54:44 PM (01:54:03) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.3-align zone districts
with neighborhood character. Update form and intensity standards to better address concerns
about mass and scale. Update current design guidelines and add standards to better address
concerns about mass and scale.
09:00:48 PM (02:00:07) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 5.1-Map out the
different review processes to determine overlap and areas to simplify and consolidate. Develop
review criteria that is objective and allows some flexibility. This can be achieved through a mix
of regulations, design standards, and design guidelines.
09:01:02 PM (02:00:21) Discussion occurred regarding recommendations 6.1 and 6.2-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 information more
readily available to the public. Look into an educational campaign through City social media
channels discussing where to find planning project information. 6.2-Explore meetings prior to
application review (with impacted neighbors). Explore collecting input from neighborhood
associations on large scale projects.
09:04:50 PM (02:04:09) Discussion began on the proper order and system to work through any
possible amendments to the over-arching Motion.
09:11:20 PM (02:10:39) AMENDMENT: Whether recommendation 2.1 has your approval: Henry
Happel.
09:11:29 PM (02:10:48) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:12:22 PM (02:11:41) AMENDMENT: Recommendation 2.2 be approved with the caveat that
the board recommends that North 7th be entirely out of the NCOD: Henry Happel.
09:13:49 PM (02:13:08) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:14:07 PM (02:13:26) Discussion began on recommendation 2.3 and how best to show
approval.
09:14:29 PM (02:13:48) AMENDMENT: I’d like to amend the original motion to clarify that
number 2.3 would include the acknowledgement of Downtown as a distinct neighborhood:
Lauren Waterton.
09:14:42 PM (02:14:01) SECOND: Chris Mehl.
09:14:45 PM (02:14:04) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:15:02 PM (02:14:21) AMENDMENT: Amend the original motion to clarify that in 3.1 we are
approving the alterative which is to phase in a stronger historic preservation program.
772
09:15:40 PM (02:14:59) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:16:14 PM (02:15:33) AMENDMENT: This recommendation (3.2) be revised to provide that
the city should explore developing incentives for historic properties: Chris Mehl.
09:16:26 PM (02:15:45) SECOND: Cathy Costakis.
09:16:29 PM (02:15:48) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:16:55 PM (02:16:14) AMENDMENT: I would move to strike 3.3 from the Motion: Mark Egge.
09:17:00 PM (02:16:19) SECOND: Jerry Pape.
09:17:04 PM (02:16:23) A discussion about recommendation 3.3 took place.
09:20:11 PM (02:19:30) AMENDMENT: I move to make a friendly amendment that states that
the input of the HPAB should be sought for historic projects and projects within a historic district
with need determined by the Design Review Committee: Jerry Pape.
09:20:38 PM (02:19:57) A short discussion took place on the proposed amendment.
09:22:19 PM (02:21:38) AMENDMENT: I move to make a friendly amendment that states that
the input of the HPAB should be sought for historic projects and projects within a historic district
through a process that will be determined later: Jerry Pape.
09:23:53 PM (02:23:12) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:24:18 PM (02:23:37) VOTE (Mr. Egge’s Amendment as modified): Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:25:00 PM (02:24:19) MOTION: Move to support this (3.4): Chris Mehl.
09:25:50 PM (02:25:09) VOTE: Motion carries 6-2.
09:26:12 PM (02:25:31) AMENDMENT: Move to remove this (4.1): Chris Mehl.
09:26:13 PM (02:25:32) SECOND: Mark Egge.
09:26:17 PM (02:25:36) Deputy Mayor Mehl spoke to his Amendment to remove 4.1 from the
Motion.
09:27:00 PM (02:26:19) VOTE: All in favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:27:49 PM (02:27:08) AMENDMENT: Move that we decline to recommend 4.2: Henry Happel.
09:28:00 PM (02:27:19) SECOND: Mark Egge.
09:28:04 PM (02:27:23) A discussion on recommendation 4.2 took place.
773
09:30:19 PM (02:29:38) Discussion took place in regards to wording of an Amendment for
recommendation 4.2.
09:33:50 PM (02:33:09) AMENDMENT: Delay the exploration of adjusting the historic district
boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts until a completion of the architectural survey:
Chris Mehl.
09:34:07 PM (02:33:26) SECOND: Jerry Pape.
09:34:56 PM (02:34:15)VOTE: All in Favor- Motion Carries Unanimously.
09:35:10 PM (02:34:29) AMENDMENT: Remove 4.3 from the main Motion: Mark Egge.
09:35:22 PM (02:34:41) SECOND: Henry Happel.
09:35:25 PM (02:34:44) Mark Egge spoke to his Amendment. A small discussion took place.
09:40:43 PM (02:40:02) VOTE: 3-5- Amendment Fails.
09:41:29 PM (02:40:48) A short discussion about recommendation 5.1 took place.
09:42:38 PM (02:41:57) A short discussion about recommendations 6.1 and 6.2 took place.
09:43:40 PM (02:42:59) VOTE: (the original Motion as amended) 7-1 Motion Carries.
F. 09:44:05 PM (02:43:24) FYI/Discussion
A short discussion on the organization of the meeting took place. Deputy Mayor Mehl thanked
the public for coming. Staff Planner Tom Rogers reminded the Board of the annual ethics training on
March 5th.
G. 09:45:21 PM (02:44:40) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
774
From:Linda Semones
To:Agenda; Linda Semones
Subject:NCOD Review
Date:Friday, March 01, 2019 5:03:35 PM
I attended the Historical Preservation Committee and the Planning/Zoning Committee
meetings this week. I stayed for both meetings, for a total of around 5 hours of listening to
the presentations and discussions. After listening to many opinions on the NCOD review, I
would like to support the review and aplaud their consultations with as many of the public as
possible. During the Planning/Zoning Committee meeting, there were 2 discussions that
caught my attention. First, that the sample of public opinions presented by the consultants
only represented 1% of the population of the area, and that led the committee member to
question their validity. It was also implied that the sampling only represented people over 65.
I myself am over 65, but when making comments at the meetings I was also carrying in the
opinions of my adult children, as were others. The meetings were held at times that were
very difficult for working young professionals to attend, and those of us who did attend were
carrying the opinions of others. Stereotyping members of the public for their age, and
assuming that older people have all the same conservative voice is wrong. One particular
board member even blamed people over 65 for the increasingly unaffordable home prices in
Bozeman. We all know that there are many factors that play into the increasing home prices.
It is complicated. Publicly blaming one segment of the population for this is simply simplistic
and deceptive. I have heard this idea touted about in more than one debate, usually from the
Build Bozeman group. But to hear it at a public meeting of city representatives was
disheartening. Those who attended the public forums should be thanked, not berated, for
their service.
Also, at the same meeting, there was discussion of the viability of private citizen boards
and their quality. While discussing whether the Historic Preservation Board should have
judicial input on designs, or just be able to recommend on designs, it was mentioned that the
citizen boards were full of volunteers, who often didn't have any qualifications to be on them.
There was discussion around limiting the number of citizens on the board without professional
training or degrees, as well as providing training for the volunteers. Obviously there is a need
for communication between the Historical Preservation Board and the Planning/Zoning
Committee. The relationship between these three entities is crucial in the COD review plan.
Yet, these two boards have never met face to face. The Planning/Zoning Committee is
unaware that there are very qualified and professional members on the Historical
Preservation Committee. I would highly recommend some kind of meet and greet between
the two boards, a social and professional mixer, before the City Commission meets on April 8
to listen to the NCOD Review presentation. I would also suggest that the members of the City
Commission attend the mixer as well, since these 4 entities will be working to flesh out the
work plan, and will need to know each other and each other's areas of expertise. I personally
found it offensive that a member of a city committee would question the validity of volunteer
citizen involvement.
775
As a citizen of Bozeman, I support the NCOD review and it's suggestions. I would like to see
a stronger Historical Preservation Board, more than just an advisory board. What that would
look like is to be decided in the next few months. I do not believe a person buying a home in a
historic district expects to be able to do whatever they want to the home. They are buying the
home because they like the idea of participating in the history of the area, and generally
would appreciate positive guidance in renovation and detailing. That does not mean they
want a million little details regulated, and it is up to the city to make sure that positive
guidance does not become control of every feature. But the COD review suggestions are a
good basis for a solid start in preserving homes, businesses and schools that make Bozeman a
desirable place to live. The reason people want to live in the downtown area is not large 5
story apartment buildings. It is the atmosphere created by homes with green space and
history. Shall we have a historical downtown Bozeman surrounded by blocky apartment
buildings? That would toss our desirable atmosphere of community out the window.
I have several more comments. I attended a visioning meeting for this process in the
upstairs event center downtown. At this point I can't remember whether the meeting was for
the Downtown Plan or the NCOD review. Either way, my comment is pertinent. In that
discussion, several members of the group mentioned that the idea for the downtown was to
have people live, work and play in the downtown area. If that is the goal, it should be obvious
that only rich people will live, work and play downtown. The housing going up will be
unaffordable for teachers and service workers. My own children work in the public school
system, and would like to live close to their jobs where they could walk or ride a bike to work.
My daughter works at Whittier, and my son-in-law works at the high school. At this point,
they are living in my basement, hoping for a housing miracle. The housing going up will be
affordable for couples pulling in a 6 figure income or better, but not for everyone who works
downtown. If the city is serious about affordable housing, downtown would be a good place
to start.
Also, there seems to be a consensus that in the future, everyone will live in 10 story
buildings because they are more sustainable. What is sustainable about a 10 story box
building? Do the box buildings planned for downtown Bozeman have any green spaces?
Rooftop gardens? Solar panels? Or are we just calling them sustainable because they house
lots of people efficiently ? It seems to me that we would be adding to the global warming
problems by allowing these heat creating boxes to be built alongside asphalt streets without
green setbacks. There is more to solving the environmental problems we face than dealing
with a population increase by boxing up as many humans as possible. What we plan as a
community, what we dream as a community, is what we will get. We should plan and dream
the very best possible for our growing community, not the defaults that other less desirable
places have settled for.
Sincerely,
Linda Semones 404 S. Church lindasemones@hotmail.com
776
From:Amy Kelley Hoitsma
To:Agenda
Cc:NENA-VisionNE
Subject:Comments on NCOD recommendations
Date:Saturday, March 16, 2019 5:33:02 PM
Attachments:VisionNE_Comments_on_NCOD_Recommendations.docx
Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and City Commissioners:
We respectfully submit the attached comments in advance of your April
8 Commission meeting, and hope that you will take them into consideration as part of
your discussion about updating the NCOD.
Best,
Amy Kelley Hoitsma
Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) President
www.NENABozeman.org406-581-1513
777
Date: 15 March 2019
To: Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and City Commissioners:
From: Amy Kelley Hoitsma, President of Bozeman’s Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) and Members of the VisionNE NENA subcommittee
RE: Comments on BendonAdams Policy Recommendations to the Bozeman
City Commission for revising the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and Historic Preservation
VisionNE is a volunteer subcommittee of the Northeast Neighborhood Association
(NENA) that formed in response to the positive neighborhood participation in a R/UDAT in April 2017 (a design assistance team sent to Northeast Bozeman by the American Institute of Architects — see https://www.bozemanrudat.com).
One of the goals of VisionNE is to ensure that new growth and developments maintain
the vitality and character that is Bozeman’s unique Northeast Neighborhood. We feel that many of the recommendations made by BendonAdams to maintain and strengthen the NCOD bolster that goal.
Specifically:
NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARY
We support the following recommendations:
2.1 Retain the NCOD and focus on two programs to distinguish two separate
goals: promote historic preservation through local designation and establish
neighborhood character areas.
2.3 Create Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines [specific
to areas/neighborhoods within the NCOD], which necessitates “defining
neighborhood character” as part of the process.
Discussion:
RETAINING THE NCOD: VisionNE has discussed the idea of creating a “sub-area
plan,” similar to how the Downtown has its own plan. We understand the time, expense,
and expertise required for such a plan. We feel that retaining and strengthening the
NCOD will benefit the goals and vision not only of NENA but also the City as a whole.
DEFINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: In our vision statement, VisionNE states
that we “embrace the notion that change can be positive” and that it can “enhance our
neighborhood’s unique character and vitality.” We have worked on various fronts to
define what that “neighborhood character” is as well as to highlight and celebrate it by
778
holding regular neighborhood events, including the Parade of Sheds and the Northside Stroll, which local businesses hold several times each year.
During the R/UDAT process the neighbors that participated found that we shared more
in common about our vision of the neighborhood than disagreed. The problem is putting that into words or policy: specifically defining neighborhood character and creating actionable standards to protect that character.
It is difficult, but it has been done in other cities. I participated in the second annual
Inter-Neighborhood Council Retreat a few weeks ago and we looked at what several other cities have done in terms of defining and utilizing neighborhood associations. One of those cities was Bellingham, WA. They managed to define the Alabama Hill
neighborhood quite succinctly and visually in two paragraphs:
https://www.cob.org/services/planning/neighborhoods/Pages/alabama-hill.aspx
We very much welcome a coordinated effort to not only define neighborhood character across the city, but to create actionable design standards that will preserve and
enhance neighborhood character rather than mere guidelines that are overruled when in
conflict with the UDC. Please know that we are willing and, in fact, eager to participate
in that discussion.
RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXT
We support the following recommendations:
4.1 Create a B-3 transitional zone for areas located beyond the Core. Incorporate
additional transition standards within the existing zone edge transition requirements.
4.3 Align zone districts with neighborhood character. Update form and intensity
standards to better address concerns about mass and scale. Update current
design guidelines and add standards to better address concerns about mass and scale.
Discussion:
The City has made very clear in its adoption into the existing NCOD of “SUBCHAPTER
4-B: GUIDELINES FOR THE B-3 COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AREA” that “Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of greatest height and intensity in the
community.” The problem for the neighborhoods is the transition, where B-3 zoning is
across the street from R-2. The NCOD guidelines speak of “compatibility” and
“transition” and “sensitivity” to the neighborhood, but they are not sufficiently defined;
they are mere guidelines, which will inevitably be overruled when a new development meets code requirements.
TRANSITION ZONES: If we are successful in “defining neighborhood character,” we
agree that the next step would be to identify where zone boundaries conflict with
779
neighborhood character and either create transition zones or create transition standards to apply to edges of B3.
STREAMLINE PROCESS
We support the following recommendation: 5.1 Map out the different review processes to determine overlap and areas to
simplify and consolidate. Develop review criteria that are objective and allow
some flexibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulations, design
standards and design guidelines.
Discussion:
Streamlining the various review processes should facilitate citizen participation in the
process, which we wholly support.
PROJECT INFORMATION
We support the following recommendations:
6.1 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 information more readily available to the public. Look into an educational campaign through City social media channels discussing where to find planning project information.
6.2 Explore meetings prior to application review (with impacted neighbors).
Explore collecting input from neighborhood associations on large scale projects. Discussion:
In order to be effective in our efforts, VisionNE members have been educating
ourselves and meeting with City staff in order to understand various City codes and
design guidelines, as well as how the development process works. We have also participated in public meetings pertaining to the updates of the major City planning documents.
We commend the City for its revised Strategic Plan, which articulates a vision of
“fostering civic engagement and creativity” in part by “dramatically increase[ing] transparency and creat[ing] access to all city documents.” We also appreciate efforts to
improve access to information through the Community Development interactive map.
What we believe is missing, however, is an established process for meaningful
neighborhood participation in the development review process. It is our belief – and experience – that neighbors understanding and engaging in the process early on allows
for advance knowledge and, ideally, constructive feedback that results in better building
projects for all.
780
VisionNE has endeavored to engage with potential developers early on in the planning
process for projects in our neighborhood. The Cottonwood + Ida PUD is one example of
how developers have shared their vision with the neighborhood early on in the process,
seeking constructive feedback in order to help make their project stronger, and working through potential conflicts before finalizing plans.
We support not only EXPLORING “meetings prior to application review (with impacted
neighbors)” and “collecting input from neighborhood associations on large scale
projects” but STANDARDIZING that as an official part of the design review process. Thank you for consideration of our comments in your review of the NCOD Update
recommendations.
Best, Amy Kelley Hoitsma, NENA President
and VisionNE Committee members:
Vickie Backus Leah Belair Barb Cestero
Cathy Costakis
Chandler Dayton
Joe Hagemeister
Suzanne Held Dani Hess Todd Hoitsma
Paul House
Jane Jelinski
Whitney Lutey
Beth MacFawn Paula Mozen Jay Pape
Shana Wood
Ted Wood
781
From:Jennifer Dunn
To:Phillipe Gonzalez; Agenda
Cc:Jeanne Wilkinson
Subject:HPAB letter to commission on NCOD
Date:Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:08:05 PM
Attachments:NCOD Letter to Commission3-27-19.pdf
Please see attached letter for 4/8 commission meeting regarding the NCOD.
Best,
Jenn Jennifer Dunn RA
782
March 27, 2019
To Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and City Commissioners:
Re: Support of the NCOD Recommendations by Bendon Adams
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) thanks you for commissioning the review of the
Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). The NCOD contributes immeasurably to
our community’s unique identity, sense of place and soul. The list of recommendations for the NCOD and
Historic Preservation put forth by Bendon Adams is a positive step in preserving and strengthening our
city’s history and core neighborhoods. We whole-heartedly support the recommendations and would like
to highlight three specific items from the report.
First, we agree that the HPAB role in the city’s preservation program needs to be strengthened. Currently
we are a full board of seven including the required architect, historic preservationist, professional
designee, at large members and historic district resident. Yet, the board has no review authority.
Alternative recommendation 3.3 suggests HPAB review for historic projects and projects within a historic
district. We understand there are approximately 50 Certificate of Appropriateness requests related to
historic properties per year. We do not necessarily have to review them all but do believe there should be
thresholds set for project review and demolition requests, similar to other boards where the city planner
and commission seek advice from their advisory boards. We believe this is a step that will help strengthen
the city’s preservation program as whole.
Second, it is crucial that we complete a historic architectural inventory survey. The survey will inform
multiple future steps in the recommendations. It will help determine if additional properties should be
nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and areas where new historic districts should be
created. It will also inform the community of neighborhood characteristics or of areas that could become
local historic districts.
Lastly, we agree with alternative recommendation 3.4 to incrementally create historic district
preservation standards and guidelines based on the recently updated Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties and existing NCOD guidelines. We also agree with alternative
recommendation 2.3 to create separate design standards and guidelines for non-historic areas within the
NCOD, with special standards for blocks adjacent to historic districts or historic structures. This will
strengthen local preservation in nationally recognized neighborhoods. It would provide a gateway for
future guidelines and could be rolled in with current Block Frontage Standards in the Bozeman United
Development Code.
Thank you for your efforts and we urge you to accept the NCOD recommendations to strengthen and
protect our history.
The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Jennifer Dunn, Chair
Jeanne Wilkinson, Vice-Chair
Crystal Alegria, Member
Samantha Fox, Member
Chelsea Holling, Member
Eric Karshner, Member
Michael Wallner, Member
783
From:Derek Strahn
To:Agenda
Subject:Public Comment Regarding Bendon-Adams NCOD Report
Date:Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:42:50 PM
March 31, 2019
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
Dear City Commission:
Many thanks to the City of Bozeman and its Historic Preservation Specialist, Phil Gonzalez, for funding and
overseeing the recent study of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), by consultants Bendon-
Adams. This process has afforded our community an opportunity to voice its strong support for historic
preservation at a critical juncture in Bozeman's development.
I urge the City Commissioners to follow the recommendations of Bendon-Adams and: 1.) preserve the NCOD and
Bozeman's historic districts; and 2.) enhance the role of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) in the
local preservation planning process.
Regarding the NCOD boundaries, I would suggest eliminating North Seventh Avenue, so as to facilitate the
promising new developments at Midtown, where, in contrast to the Main Street Historic District, culturally-
significant fabric is far less prevalent. When budgets allow, trained professionals should draft clear, enforceable,
locally-specific preservation guidelines for evaluating new construction within the NCOD.
The City Commission should also capitalize on the Historic Preservation Advisory Board's knowledge by enhancing
its needed purpose and functions in several useful and cost-saving ways. The HPAB could: 1.) work in tandem
with paid preservation experts to update Bozeman's inventory of historic resources; 2.) help create new preservation
guidelines and regulations for the NCOD and its nationally recognized historic districts; 3.) make recommendations
regarding a new, meaningful demolition ordinance for the NCOD; 4.) identify additional "local historic districts" i.e.
neighborhoods within or outside of the NCOD with high concentrations of historic resources where preservation is
prioritized; and, when appropriate, 5.) assist the City in reviewing new construction projects within the NCOD.
Again, thank you for shining a spotlight on historic preservation over the past several months, and for your
consideration of the matters outlined above.
Derek Strahn
412 West Harrison Street
Bozeman, MT. 59715
406-587-0254
784
From:Mary Lou Osman
To:Agenda
Subject:Historic preservation
Date:Tuesday, April 02, 2019 10:23:52 AM
Commissioners, I couldn't put it better than Derek Strahn's letter to the editor today. Please
re-read his excellent points about preserving the NCOD. Awhile back city officials decidedthat Bozeman didn't need an opera house and once it was gone, it was gone for good. Pity. If
you dismantle the NCOD you will be remembered for dismantling a truly real and wonderfulplace to live. Towns like Bozeman aren't being made anymore except by Disneyland. They
made a phony town with paper falling leaves and snow made of soap that falls inDecember...in Florida! And please stop the silliness of saying you can spare us from sprawl
by endless in-fill. You know that isn't true. Landowners will sell their land and developerswill build subdivisions. Why sacrifice our town too? We have something to save and care
for here. Yes, affordable housing is a problem, but short term vacation rentals have swallowedup the rental ADU's. Is the Black Olive affordable? Or million dollar penthouse
apartments???? What we have in Bozeman is special. That's why people drive in to walkaround town and the neighborhoods all the time. Once it's gone, it's gone. Please work with
the recommendations of Bendon-Adams and preserve the NCOD and the historic districts. Thank you, Mary Lou Osman
785
From:Patty Fraser
To:Agenda
Subject:Bozeman"s Historic Preservation Program
Date:Tuesday, April 02, 2019 8:09:32 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I was a citizen participant in the NCOD questionnaire held at the Story Mansion. I fully support the
recommendations of the Bendon-Adams consultants and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, with the
exception of the North 7th corridor which is benefitting from new economic growth. I definitely prefer to see Main
Street, from North 7th Avenue to Church Ave., retain it’s historic, brick, original appearance and city-scape. Tall
and modern buildings don’t fit in with the long cherished beauty of “historic downtown Bozeman’.
Thank you,
Patty Fraser
786
From:Chris Mehl
To:Agenda
Subject:FW: NCOD Discussion this evening and update
Date:Tuesday, April 02, 2019 1:21:57 PM
Attachments:NCOD Review public comment.pdf
Chris Mehl
Bozeman Deputy Mayor
cmehl@bozeman.net
406.581.4992
________________________________________
From: The Canfields [DickandDeb@Canfields.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 1:07 PM
To: Chris Mehl
Cc: Lesley Gilmore; Derek Strahn; Zehra Osman; Bob Hawks; Cyndy Andrus; Amy Kelley Hoitsma; Jack Ranieri;
Jeanne Wilkinson
Subject: Re: NCOD Discussion this evening and update
Chris,
I am pleased to express my appreciation to you, Cyndy, and Bob for enabling and participating in this discussion, to
the extent that nature and your other duties allow. I have written up my comments, attached below, and submitted
them to agenda.
Dick
> On Mar 29, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Chris Mehl <CMehl@BOZEMAN.NET> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone, it was a good conversation and really helpful to better my understanding of the issues.
>
> Chris Mehl
> Bozeman Deputy Mayor
> cmehl@bozeman.net
> 406.581.4992
>
> City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9)
and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email,
its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the
City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to
individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
>
Richard C Canfield
(406) 579-9095
787
Re: Policy Recommendations for the NCOD & Historic Preservation
Dear City Commissioners and Community Development Staff,
The report Policy Recommendations for the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District and Historic Preservation, written by
BendonAdams / Orion Planning + Design, deserves your broad
support. These consultants are obviously very competent and well
informed, and their recommendations are critical for preservation of
Bozeman's historic character and charm as it grows.
Working with a professional architect and builder, my wife and I have
rehabilitated a single-family home in the Bon Ton Historic District. It is
now a contributing property to that historic district. Through this
process, I gained a working appreciation for the strengths and
weaknesses of the City's design standards and guidelines and
historic preservation program. As well, I learned from the
preservation professionals who are fellow members of the Bozeman
Preservation Advocacy Group (BPAG). On this basis I have
comments on two specific recommendations in the report:
Recommendation 3.4: "Create historic design standards and
guidelines for historic districts and landmarks that align
with updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards”.
The all-important part of this recommendation is "align with the
updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards". From the associated summary
at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.htm:
"The section on exterior additions to historic buildings in the
Rehabilitation Guidelines has been broadened to address related new
construction on a building site."
In the coming decades, population movement from coastal and
semiarid regions in response to climate change will increase pressure
for infill in Bozeman beyond what we are currently experiencing.
Historic design standards and guidelines for historic districts and
landmarks that align with updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards are
necessary to ensure that the character and appeal that made
788
Bozeman the success that it is today is preserved under the new
construction. Careful reading of the updated Sec. of Interior’s
Standards, in the section "New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings
and Related New Construction" (pp 156-162), reveals several
standards and design concepts that need to be added to Bozeman's
current Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the NCOD.
Recommendation 2.3: "Create Neighborhood Character Design
Standards and Guidelines”.
In contrast to Recommendation 3.4, this recommendation relates to
neighborhoods (residential and commercial) within the boundaries of
the NCOD that are not National Register historic districts. I am
concerned that the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP)
includes a section entitled "Create Downtown Design Guidelines" (p
112) that does not clearly distinguish the downtown neighborhood
from the downtown Main Street historic district. This section includes
the paragraph that begins "The Downtown Design Guidelines should
address design elements, issues, and aspirations that are not already
informed by the B-3 zoning provisions and UDC Article 5. They can
include historic preservation considerations for the Main Street
Historic District and designated historically significant buildings".
It appears that this section is based on incomplete understanding of
the distinction between neighborhoods and historic districts, as used
in the consultants' NCOD Policy Recommendations. My concern is
the following: the design standards and guidelines for the Main Street
Historic District and landmarks should align with a single city-wide set
of historic design standards and guidelines for historic districts and
landmarks, aligned with the updated Sec. of Interior’s Standards
(Recommendation 3.4). This single set of nationally recognized
standards and guidelines, which apply to both commercial and
residential properties, need to be followed so that special interests do
not make Bozeman into just another city.
Richard C. Canfield, 726 S 3rd Avenue, 4/2/2019
789
From:Serena Mercer
To:Agenda
Subject:NCOD - Historic Preservation
Date:Tuesday, April 02, 2019 9:32:47 AM
Commissioners-
I will be out of town April 8 hence the email urging the commission to follow the recommendations
of Bendon-Adams and preserve the NCOD and Bozeman’s historic districts. The North Seventh
Avenue boundary needs compromise – it should not be thrown entirely out of the NCOD. Turning
North Seventh into another commercial free-for-all would be another development disaster. Main
Street – our historic Main Street should remain within the NCOD and the historic district –taller
buildings will mar what is left of our historic Main drag- witness the effect the Black-Olive building is
already creating on Olive and the buildings that surround it. The Bridger apartment building will lose
the sunlight and those who live in the building’s southside apartments have lost the view of Hyalite
Peak (not to mention the PARKING issue the commission so easily caved on).
We participated in the NCOD conversations last summer. It appears the results of the community
voices is strongly in favor of maintaining the single district NCOD as is and keeping present historic
NCOD areas from 1991 – we agree. Do not sell out all of Bozeman to the whims and poor taste of
the greedy developers. Hold on to some integrity.
These are challenging times. Growth hurts yet as our representatives it is up to you to balance the
growth with history. Keep the NCOD and the historic rules. Empower the historic preservation officer
and give the Historic Preservation Advisory Board a prominent role in the city’s growth/development
plan.
Serena Mercer
922 S. 3rd Ave.
Bozeman
790
Historic Preservation Advisory Board
February 26, 2019 | 5:00 pm
City Hall Commission Room - 121 N. Rouse Ave., Bozeman MT
A. 05:02:30 PM (00:00:19) Call meeting to order and Roll Call
Jennifer Dunn (Chair)
Michael Wallner
Jeannie Wilkinson
Eric Karshner
Crystal Alegria
Samantha Fox
B. 05:02:50 PM (00:00:39) Changes to the Agenda – None.
C. 05:02:56 PM (00:00:45) Minutes for Approval (None)
D. 05:03:01 PM (00:00:50) Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication – None.
E. 05:03:10 PM (00:00:59) Public Comment – None.
F. Action Items
1. 05:03:39 PM (00:01:28) Presentation from consultant BendonAdams on the NCOD Review Project
report. Consider report recommendations and make board recommendations to City Commission.
Presentation
Public Comment:
o 2018 Public Comment
o 2019 Public Comment
NCOD Review Draft
City Historic Preservation Specialist Phil Gonzalez gave an introduction of BendonAdams and the report.
05:05:03 PM (00:02:52) Chris Bendon of BendonAdams introduced himself and the topics for tonight. He
reviewed the project scope.
05:08:17 PM (00:06:06) Allison Mouch of Orion Planning & Design gave a history of the NCOD and how it was
formed and amended over time. She discussed the team for the report and engagement methods used.
05:14:44 PM (00:12:33) Bendon spoke of the recommendations and the Work Plan.
05:17:01 PM (00:14:50) Bendon spoke of the NCOD purpose and boundary.
05:18:54 PM (00:16:43) The Historic Preservation Program and the HPAB were discussed.
05:22:26 PM (00:20:15) Mouch spoke of relating zoning to context, specifically the possible interaction between
historic preservation and the goals of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and future development.
05:27:10 PM (00:24:59) Mouch and Bendon spoke of streamlining processes.
791
05:29:03 PM (00:26:52) Project information recommendations were discussed. The Comprehensive Work Plan
was briefly shown.
05:33:17 PM (00:31:06) The Consultants answered questions from the Board regarding local Preservation
Programs, differing approaches for differing properties and neighborhoods, and code, standard and guidelines.
05:47:01 PM (00:44:50) The Consultants continued to answer questions from the Board regarding the role and
training of HPAB, interaction of the NCOD with City Policies and Plans, and differing zones and neighborhood
boundaries inside the NCOD, specifically downtown.
05:59:36 PM (00:57:25) Bendon answered questions about the time frame used in the report and strategies to
accomplish recommendations.
06:03:34 PM (01:01:23) PUBLIC COMMENT
06:04:01 PM (01:01:50) Irene Decker (unknown address) asked the Consultants what building height would
be considered transitional.
06:05:04 PM (01:02:53) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, spoke on
how the Partnership views the report in regards to Downtown, and how important the Downtown
Neighborhood is to the NCOD and Bozeman.
06:08:42 PM (01:06:31) Jane Clockman (713 S Wilson) spoke of her concerns of the comment regarding removal
of Downtown from the NCOD and her hopes that Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods will be in sync in
the future.
06:11:18 PM (01:09:07) Leslie Gilmore (180 North Low Bench, Gallatin Gateway) spoke of HPAB duties and
possible roles, and of her experiences as a former Preservation Board Member in Illinois.
06:13:34 PM (01:11:23) Dick Canfield (3rd and College) spoke of his appreciation of the new Secretary of The
Interior 2017 guidelines and how Bozeman does not acknowledge those in the design guidelines but should. He
also spoke of possible problems with responsibilities given to Neighborhood Associations in the report.
06:18:42 PM (01:16:31) The Consultants responded to Mrs. Decker’s question about transitional building height
and a Board question about Downtown zoning, NCOD inclusion, and historic preservation.
06:27:28 PM (01:25:17) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report recommendations one through
thirteen, public comment, and all other information presented, I move to recommend recommendations one
through thirteen as presented: Jeanne Wilkinson.
06:27:45 PM (01:25:34) SECOND: Eric Karschner.
06:27:48 PM (01:25:37) A brief discussion and comment session from the board occurred.
06:30:53 PM (01:28:42) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carries Unanimously.
792
G. 06:31:25 PM (01:29:14) FYI/Discussion
1. Board questions and general discussion
H. 06:31:30 PM (01:29:19) Adjournment
For more information please contact Phillipe González at pgonzalez@bozeman.net or 406-582-2940
Preservation Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact
our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD).
793
Joint City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 07:00:47 PM (00:00:06) Call meeting to order
Chris Scott (ZC) Chair
Julien Morice (ZC)
Jennifer Madgic (PB)
Cathy Costakis (PB)
Mark Egge (PB)
Henry Happel (PB) Chair
Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl (PB) Commission Liaison
Paul Spitler (ZB & PB)
Lauren Waterton (PB)
Jerry Pape (PB)
B. 07:01:50 PM (00:01:09) Changes to the Agenda
C. 07:02:06 PM (00:01:25) Approve Joint Meeting Minutes (none)
D. 07:02:11 PM (00:01:30) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an
audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling
within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each
action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
E. Action Items
1. 07:02:30 PM (00:01:49) Presentation from consultant BendonAdams on the NCOD
Review Project report. Consider report recommendations and make board
recommendations to City Commission. (Gonzalez, Rogers)
Staff Memo
Presentation
07:03:05 PM (00:02:24) City Historic Preservation Specialist Phil Gonzalez gave an introduction
to the report and Chris Bendon and Allison Mouch.
794
07:04:07 PM (00:03:26) Chris Bendon from BendonAdams introduced himself and quickly
reviewed the project scope.
07:07:00 PM (00:06:19) Allison Mouch of Orion Planning & design gave a history of the NCOD
and how it was formed and amended over time. She discussed the team for the report and
engagement methods used.
07:13:31 PM (00:12:50) Bendon spoke of the recommendations and the Work Plan.
07:16:23 PM (00:15:42)Bendon spoke of the Historic Preservation Program and HPAB.
07:19:24 PM (00:18:43)Mouch spoke of relating zoning to context, specifically the possible
interaction between historic preservation and the goals of the downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan and future development. Streamlining processes was also discussed.
07:25:21 PM (00:24:40) Project information recommendations were discussed. The
Comprehensive Work Plan was briefly shown.
07:31:31 PM (00:30:50) The Consultants answered questions from the Board regarding the
sensitivities of transition, sequence of events, and potential conflict inherent in smaller
neighborhood distinctions.
07:39:52 PM (00:39:11) The Consultants continued answering questions about transition zones,
future districts, designation of districts/neighborhoods, and standard, guidelines and review
processes.
07:52:11 PM (00:51:30) The Consultants continued answering questions about conflict between
historic preservation districts and affordability, and density issues.
08:04:09 PM (01:03:28) Bendon answered questions about infill within the NCOD.
08:07:00 PM (01:06:19) PUBLIC COMMENT
08:07:13 PM (01:06:32) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman
Partnership, spoke on the recommendations in regard to the Downtown Plan.
08:10:04 PM (01:09:23) Linda Semonis (Church Street) commented about the perception of
skewed demographics from the workshops used to create the report.
08:11:50 PM (01:11:09) Zoning Board Chair Scott opened the floor for a motion for the Zoning
Board.
08:12:57 PM (01:12:16) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report
recommendations one through thirteen, public comment, and all other information presented, I
hereby move to recommend recommendations one through thirteen as presented: Julien
Morice.
795
08:13:11 PM (01:12:30) SECONDED: Paul Spitler.
08:13:13 PM (01:12:32) Zoning Board members discussed the report and recommendations.
08:17:53 PM (01:17:12) VOTE: Motion Carries 2-1.
08:19:08 PM (01:18:27) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered draft report
recommendations one through thirteen, public comment, and other information presented, I
hereby move to recommend recommendations one through thirteen as presented: Lauren
Waterton.
08:19:25 PM (01:18:44) SECONDED: Jerry Pape.
08:19:33 PM (01:18:52) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.1-retaining the NCOD
and focus on two programs to distinguish two separate goals: promote historic preservation
through local designation and establish neighborhood character areas.
08:21:39 PM (01:20:58) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.2-adjust NCOD
boundary based upon results of building survey: North 7th all in or out, Frontage Street as
northern edge, Conduct building survey to provide basis for boundary adjustments, and
complete an architectural survey.
08:24:00 PM (01:23:19) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 2.3-create
neighborhood design guidelines and standards.
08:27:10 PM (01:26:29) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.1-phase in a stronger
historic preservation program.
08:30:51 PM (01:30:10) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.2-expand incentives
for historic property owners.
08:33:22 PM (01:32:41) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.3-Require HPAB
recommendations for historic projects and projects within a historic district.
08:42:25 PM (01:41:44) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 3.4-create historic
design standards and guidelines for historic districts and landmarks that align with updated
Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
08:49:48 PM (01:49:07) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.1-create a B-3
transitional zone for areas located beyond the core. Incorporate additional transition standards
within the existing zone edge transition requirements.
08:53:58 PM (01:53:17) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.2-explore adjusting
the historic district boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts.
796
08:54:44 PM (01:54:03) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 4.3-align zone districts
with neighborhood character. Update form and intensity standards to better address concerns
about mass and scale. Update current design guidelines and add standards to better address
concerns about mass and scale.
09:00:48 PM (02:00:07) Discussion occurred regarding recommendation 5.1-Map out the
different review processes to determine overlap and areas to simplify and consolidate. Develop
review criteria that is objective and allows some flexibility. This can be achieved through a mix
of regulations, design standards, and design guidelines.
09:01:02 PM (02:00:21) Discussion occurred regarding recommendations 6.1 and 6.2-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 information more
readily available to the public. Look into an educational campaign through City social media
channels discussing where to find planning project information. 6.2-Explore meetings prior to
application review (with impacted neighbors). Explore collecting input from neighborhood
associations on large scale projects.
09:04:50 PM (02:04:09) Discussion began on the proper order and system to work through any
possible amendments to the over-arching Motion.
09:11:20 PM (02:10:39) AMENDMENT: Whether recommendation 2.1 has your approval: Henry
Happel.
09:11:29 PM (02:10:48) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:12:22 PM (02:11:41) AMENDMENT: Recommendation 2.2 be approved with the caveat that
the board recommends that North 7th be entirely out of the NCOD: Henry Happel.
09:13:49 PM (02:13:08) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:14:07 PM (02:13:26) Discussion began on recommendation 2.3 and how best to show
approval.
09:14:29 PM (02:13:48) AMENDMENT: I’d like to amend the original motion to clarify that
number 2.3 would include the acknowledgement of Downtown as a distinct neighborhood:
Lauren Waterton.
09:14:42 PM (02:14:01) SECOND: Chris Mehl.
09:14:45 PM (02:14:04) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:15:02 PM (02:14:21) AMENDMENT: Amend the original motion to clarify that in 3.1 we are
approving the alterative which is to phase in a stronger historic preservation program.
797
09:15:40 PM (02:14:59) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:16:14 PM (02:15:33) AMENDMENT: This recommendation (3.2) be revised to provide that
the city should explore developing incentives for historic properties: Chris Mehl.
09:16:26 PM (02:15:45) SECOND: Cathy Costakis.
09:16:29 PM (02:15:48) VOTE: Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:16:55 PM (02:16:14) AMENDMENT: I would move to strike 3.3 from the Motion: Mark Egge.
09:17:00 PM (02:16:19) SECOND: Jerry Pape.
09:17:04 PM (02:16:23) A discussion about recommendation 3.3 took place.
09:20:11 PM (02:19:30) AMENDMENT: I move to make a friendly amendment that states that
the input of the HPAB should be sought for historic projects and projects within a historic district
with need determined by the Design Review Committee: Jerry Pape.
09:20:38 PM (02:19:57) A short discussion took place on the proposed amendment.
09:22:19 PM (02:21:38) AMENDMENT: I move to make a friendly amendment that states that
the input of the HPAB should be sought for historic projects and projects within a historic district
through a process that will be determined later: Jerry Pape.
09:23:53 PM (02:23:12) VOTE: All in Favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:24:18 PM (02:23:37) VOTE (Mr. Egge’s Amendment as modified): Amendment Carries 7-1.
09:25:00 PM (02:24:19) MOTION: Move to support this (3.4): Chris Mehl.
09:25:50 PM (02:25:09) VOTE: Motion carries 6-2.
09:26:12 PM (02:25:31) AMENDMENT: Move to remove this (4.1): Chris Mehl.
09:26:13 PM (02:25:32) SECOND: Mark Egge.
09:26:17 PM (02:25:36) Deputy Mayor Mehl spoke to his Amendment to remove 4.1 from the
Motion.
09:27:00 PM (02:26:19) VOTE: All in favor- Amendment Carries Unanimously.
09:27:49 PM (02:27:08) AMENDMENT: Move that we decline to recommend 4.2: Henry Happel.
09:28:00 PM (02:27:19) SECOND: Mark Egge.
09:28:04 PM (02:27:23) A discussion on recommendation 4.2 took place.
798
09:30:19 PM (02:29:38) Discussion took place in regards to wording of an Amendment for
recommendation 4.2.
09:33:50 PM (02:33:09) AMENDMENT: Delay the exploration of adjusting the historic district
boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts until a completion of the architectural survey:
Chris Mehl.
09:34:07 PM (02:33:26) SECOND: Jerry Pape.
09:34:56 PM (02:34:15)VOTE: All in Favor- Motion Carries Unanimously.
09:35:10 PM (02:34:29) AMENDMENT: Remove 4.3 from the main Motion: Mark Egge.
09:35:22 PM (02:34:41) SECOND: Henry Happel.
09:35:25 PM (02:34:44) Mark Egge spoke to his Amendment. A small discussion took place.
09:40:43 PM (02:40:02) VOTE: 3-5- Amendment Fails.
09:41:29 PM (02:40:48) A short discussion about recommendation 5.1 took place.
09:42:38 PM (02:41:57) A short discussion about recommendations 6.1 and 6.2 took place.
09:43:40 PM (02:42:59) VOTE: (the original Motion as amended) 7-1 Motion Carries.
F. 09:44:05 PM (02:43:24) FYI/Discussion
A short discussion on the organization of the meeting took place. Deputy Mayor Mehl thanked
the public for coming. Staff Planner Tom Rogers reminded the Board of the annual ethics training on
March 5th.
G. 09:45:21 PM (02:44:40) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
799