HomeMy WebLinkAbout19- Revised April 8, 2019 NCOD Review - Final Policy Recommendations1
FINAL NCOD POLICY DIRECTION
JUNE 2019
2
3
Prepared for the City of Bozeman.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION + OUTREACH TEAM
BendonAdams
Sara Adams, AICP
Chris Bendon, AICP
Reilly Thimons
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
Cyndy Andrus, Mayor
Chris Mehl, Deputy Mayor
Terry Cunningham
Jeff Krauss
I-Ho Pomeroy
CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Marty Matsen, Director
Chris Saunders
Phillipe Gonzalez
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD
Michael Wallner, Chair
Jeanne Wilkinson
Chelsea Hooling
Jennifer Dunn
Eric Karshner
Crystal Alegria
Victoria York
PLANNING BOARD
Henry Happel
Cathy Costakis
Laura Waterton
Jennifer Madgic
Paul Spitler
George Thompson
Gerald (Jerry) Pape Jr.
Mark Egge
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
ZONING COMMISSION
George Thompson
Paul Spitler
Christopher Scott
Unless otherwise specifi ed, all documentaƟ on contained within this report has been aggregated and recorded
through materials received during outreach iniƟ aƟ ves. Direct quotes and transcripƟ ons are emphasized in italics.
Data includes all comments recorded by facilitators and parƟ cipants during noted outreach acƟ viƟ es.
While the majority of data was captured digitally, it is possible that errors may have occurred in the transcripƟ on
of hand-wriƩ en comments. This would have principally occurred due to interpretaƟ on and the nature of the notes
captured in the engagement acƟ viƟ es.
The Consultant has taken all care during the transcripƟ on process, but unfortunately, we cannot guarantee the
accuracy of all notes.
We are however confi dent that the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during the engagement
acƟ viƟ es have been captured in this report. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed herein represent those
of the engagement parƟ cipants.
BendonAdams is commiƩ ed to protecƟ ng the privacy of all parƟ cipants who parƟ cipated in the engagement
process and has published comments anonymously unless otherwise presented as formal public comment to the
City.
BendonAdams LLC
www.bendonadams.com
DISCLAIMER
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT TIMELINE
1 PROJECT TIMELINE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.4 WORK PLAN
1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS
1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS
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 ΈNONͳHISTORICΉ
CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
CHAPTER 6 PROJECT INFORMATION
6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
18
20
24
26
30
31
32
37
38
39
41
42
44
48
52
53
56
60
61
62
66
CH
A
P
T
E
R
1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
I
M
E
L
I
N
E
+
I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
7
The consultant team (consisƟ ng of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducƟ ng extensive public
engagement to best understand the community’s needs and preferences regarding historic preservaƟ on, the Neighborhood Con-
servaƟ on Overylay District, historic district boundaries, and future development. Below are high level fi ndings from Community
Outreach Phase I and Phase II. A full summary of fi ndings can be found in Appendix A.
1 PROJECT TIMELINE
2018 SãÙ㦮 P½Ä
Pʽ®ù υ.υ. DÙÃ㮽½ù ®ÄÙÝ ãÙÄÝÖÙÄù Ä Ùã ÝÝ ãÊ ½½ ®ãù ÊçÃÄãÝ. (P.φ)
Pʽ®ù υ.φ BÙÊÄ Ä ÖÄ Ä¦¦ÃÄã Ê¥ ã« ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ®Ä ®ãù ¦ÊòÙÄÃÄã, ®ÄÄÊòã®Ä¦ Ãã«ÊÝ ¥ÊÙ ®Äò®ã®Ä¦ ®ÄÖçã
¥ÙÊà 㫠ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Ä Ý㻫ʽÙÝ (P.φ)
BACKGROUND
Research on exisƟ ng
condiƟ ons within the
NCOD and develop-
ment of outreach pro-
gramming.
Community wide sur-
vey on status of NCOD.
TRIP #1
12 community events
soliciƟ ng 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 meeƟ ngs and feed-
back received to date
and publicaƟ on of raw
data and analyses on-
line.
DRAFT #1
IniƟ al draŌ recom-
mendaƟ ons based
upon analysis of ex-
isƟ ng condiƟ ons and
community feedback
published for public
review.
TRIP #2
Feedback from four
large format commu-
nity events, and Staff
and Board meeƟ ngs,
will provide further
clarifi caƟ on on policy
direcƟ on.
SUMMARY #2
Outreach summary of
all feedback received
during Trip #2 will be
pubished online in
conjuncƟ on with the
raw data public com-
ment submissions.
TRIP #3
Present outreach re-
sults and request
policy direcƟ on from
City Commission to
inform a fi nal work
program. Hold a pub-
lic open house to
inform the public.
FINAL DRAFT
Finalize recommenda-
Ɵ ons and alternaƟ ves
based on input from Trip
#3. Outreach summary
of all feedback received
from Trip #3 will be pub-
lished online.
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
7
8
Bozeman’s decision to adopt a ConservaƟ on Overlay District that includes the areas between designated Historic Districts was a
gutsy soluƟ on in 1991 that made Bozeman a pioneer in preservaƟ on of neighborhood character, scale and context. 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 ConservaƟ on Overlay District is the majority of Bozeman’s designated
historic districts, with two historic districts located just outside the overlay boundary.
Recent projects had residents, city staff , and review boards quesƟ oning the eff ecƟ veness of the Neighborhood ConservaƟ on Over-
lay District (NCOD) and whether other planning tools exist to beƩ er refl ect community senƟ ment. The Bozeman Community may
have diff ering opinions on the means and methods, but goal is the same: Bozeman is a special place worth protecƟ ng.
The NCOD has been in place since 1991 to protect neighborhood character, historic districts, and historic landmarks. The his-
toric preservaƟ on program goes beyond the NCOD to foster the knowledge of the city’s heritage, and culƟ vate civic pride in the
historic built environment. The 2015 NCOD Audit recommended removal of the NCOD by 2020 and replacement with a series
of design overlay areas and design guidelines to promote contextual and compaƟ ble development outside Historic Districts.
The recommendaƟ ons from the audit have been reviewed and taken into consideraƟ on as part of this project. Based on current
community senƟ ment, it was felt that an objecƟ ve review that focused on a comprehensive understanding of the NCOD and the
historic districts was the best approach. This report summarizes community outreach fi ndings and fi nal policy direcƟ on from the
City Comission.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
88
99
1.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document contains the fi nal adopted policy direcƟ on, community feedback, and areas for future discussion. The fi rst page of
each Chapter contains the fi nal adopted policy followed by the adopted workplan. The adopted policies are further incorporated
into each chapter narraƟ ve to provide context and background. Some of the adopted policies include “tools for future discussion”
that are based on recommendaƟ ons and alternaƟ ves that were presented to the community throughout the project.
City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan
compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟ ons contained herein. CorrelaƟ ons between the documents are noted throughout
the document. The enƟ re report refl ects many of the adopted goals and objecƟ ves of the 2018 Strategic Plan, the 2009 Bozeman
Community Plan, and the adopted 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, as noted below.
2018 SãÙ㦮 MÝãÙ P½Ä
Pʽ®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®®Ý. (P.ϊ)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. This report
is part of the infi ll conversaƟ on.
Pʽ®ù ϋ.χ. H®¦« Lò½ Pʽ®ù CÊÄòÙÝã®ÊÄÝ. (P.υυ)
Develop a structure to foster regular, ongoing dialogue on innovaƟ ve ideas and informaƟ on to assist the Commission with high
level policy deliberaƟ on and decisions.
2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä
C«ÖãÙ υ.χ, Gʽ ¦-φ ®ÃÖ½ÃÄãã®ÊÄ. (P.υχ)
Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory implementaƟ on acƟ ons undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objecƟ ves
of this plan are eff ecƟ ve, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
C«ÖãÙ ψ.χ, Gʽ -ψ DÝ®¦Ä G箽®ÄÝ. (P.ωτ)
Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direcƟ on in design and review of residenƟ al and non-residenƟ al neighborhoods
without unduly constraining architectural style and innovaƟ on.
Chapter 5.3, Goal HP-1 H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ.(P.ωϋ)
Protect historically and culturally signifi cant resources that contribute to the community’s idenƟ ty, history, and quality of life.
9
2.1
Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to disƟ nguish the two separate goals within the NCOD.
Both programs will work together, while a Historic PreservaƟ on Program will also apply to landmarks and
historic districts outside the boundary of the NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that refl ect Bozeman’s signifi cant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
2.2
Do not signifi cantly change the NCOD boundary.
1) Remove North 7th from the NCOD.
2) Move boundary to Front Street as proposed.
3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment - with moderate level
of survey for some areas.
4) PrioriƟ ze areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment. IdenƟ fy
the areas for the formal architectural suvey.
2.3
Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Down-
town, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that
support connecƟ vity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support
transiƟ ons between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characterisƟ cs
of each area and context.
3.1 Phase-in a local historic preservaƟ on program.
3.2 Explore a variety of incenƟ ves incenƟ ves for historic properƟ es owners. Engage with historic property
owners to ensure incenƟ ve relevance and clarity.
3.3 Allow HPAB recommendaƟ ons for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB
review of demoliƟ ons as a way to ease into review authority.
3.4 Create historic preservaƟ on (HP) standards and guidelines.
10
1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 8, 2019 fi nal recommendaƟ ons were presented to the Bozeman Mayor and City Commission during a regularly sched-
uled meeƟ ng. In addiƟ on to the draŌ report, a workplan that categorized the recommendaƟ ons into short, mid and long term
goals was presented. The Commission formally received the report, considered recommendaƟ ons from the Historic Preser-
vaƟ on Advisory Board, the Planning Board and the Zoning Commission, and adopted acƟ ons to be implemented as a work
plan. The adopted direcƟ ves and workplan are listed below, and are included at the beginning of each chapter of this report.
The report provides background and alternaƟ ve recommendaƟ ons that evolved through the NCOD and Historic PreservaƟ on
Program Review project.
4.1 Study of the B-3 transiƟ on zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority.
4.2
Explore adjusƟ ng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟ ng zone districts. Gather more
data aŌ er the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such
as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
4.3
Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more data aŌ er the ar-
chitectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to
understand zoning, mass and scale.
5.1 Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined.
6.1 Strengthen exisƟ ng project informaƟ on channels and work on push noƟ fi caƟ ons City-wide.
6.2
Develop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to applicaƟ on review with impacted neighbors. Collect input
from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟ cing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum
standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review.
11
1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12
1.
4
C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E
W
O
R
K
P
L
A
N
A do
p
t
l
o
c
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
Ɵ
o
n
p
r
o
g ra
m
w
i
th t
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
s
p
e
c
i
fi c
r
u
l
e
s
t
o
d
e
s
i
g -
n at
e
l
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
,
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
c
h
a
n
g es
.
Be Be gi gi n n pr pr oc o es s s s to to a a me me nd n N N R R li sƟ sƟ n n gs gs a a nd nd bo bo un un da da ri ri es es f f or or N N R R hi hi st st or or ic c d d is is tr tr ic ts ts ..
Wr W
it
e
co co
nt nt
ex ex
t t
pa pa
pe pe
rs rs
o o n n
Bo Bo
ze ze
ma ma
n’n’
s s
ve ve
r-r-
na na
cu c
la a r r
bu bu
il il
di di
ng ng
s s
id id
en en
Ɵ Ɵ fi fi ed ed
i i n n
su su
rv rv
ey ey
bu bu
t t
no o t t
el
ig ig
ib ib
le le
f f or or
N N aƟ aƟ
o o na na
l l
Re Re
gi gi
st st
er er
L ocally desi gn n ate Na Ɵ Ɵ onal Re g ister (NR )pr op op erƟ es w it h owner consent.
De
v
e
l
o
p
q
u
ic c k
r
e
fe
r
e
n
c
e
gu
id
e
s
f f or
a
p
-
p ro
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
p
a
ir
s
o
f
h
is
t
o
ri
c
p
r
o
p
e
r
Ɵ es
Cr Cr
ea ea
te te
h h is s to to
ri ri
c c
de de
si si
gn gn
s ta ta
nd nd
ar ar
ds ds
a a nd nd
g g ui ui
de de
li li
ne ne
s s
fo fo
r r
hi hi
st st
or r ic ic
d
is i
tr t
ic ic
ts ts
a a nd nd
l
an n d-
ma ma
rk rk
s s
th th
at at
a a li li
gn gn
w w it i
h
up up
da da
te te
d d
Se Se
c.c.
o o f f
In In
te te
ri ri
or or
’s
S
ta a nd nd
ar ar
ds ds
.
De
v
e
l op
p
r
es
er
va
Ɵ
on
p
l an
wi wi
th t
H
PA
B
to
i
de de
nƟ Ɵ f f y
pr
es
e
r
-
v aƟ
on
g oa
l s.
Tr Tr
ai ai
ni ni
ng ng
f f or or
H H PA PA
B B
me me
mb m
er er
s..
A d op
t
i
n
ce
nƟ nƟ
v
es s f
o
r
h
is
to
r
i
c
pr pr
op
er er
ty y o
w
n
e
r
s.s.
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
H
P
AB B r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
Ɵ
o
ns n
f
or
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
pr p
o j ec ec
ts
a
nd
p
ro
j e ct c
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
h i s t or o
i c d i s tr
i c t.
Be Be gi gi n n pr pr oc oc es es s s to to n n om om in in at at e e ne e w w NR NR l is Ɵ Ɵ ng ng s an an d d bo bo un un da da ri ri es es f f or or N N R R hi h st st or or ic ic d d is s tr tr ic ic ts ts .
Ma M
p
re
v
i
ew e
p
ro
ce e ss ss
a a nd nd
i de de
nƟ nƟ
f f y y
r e du u n d an
t
r
e
qu u ir
em m en en
ts ts
a a n nd
a
re r
as
o f
o o ve
rl
ap
f
or
p p ro r
je je
ct ct
s s
wi wi
t th
in
t
h
e
NC
OD
:
i.
e.
A A rƟ rƟ
c c l e
5 5 ,,
Si S
te te
P P l a n
Re Re
-
v i ew
, ,
Pr P
o j ec c t t
Re Re
vi vi
ew ew
.
Ex
em
pt p
t
he he
N
CO CO
D D
fr fr
om om
d d up u
li
ca
Ɵ ve
r
ev
ie
w
pr
oc
e
s
se
s
a
n
d
re
pl
ac
e
wi
th
c
o
n
te
xt
de de
ri ri
ve v
d d
st
an
da
rd
s
a
n
d
g u id
e l in
e
s
.
An An
al al
yz yz e e zo zo ne ne d d is tr r ic c ts s :
I D
w w he h
re
d d im
e
n
si
on on
al al
r r eq eq
ui ui re re me me nt nt s s an n d d bo b un n da da ri i es c c on on fl fl ic ic t t wi wi th th
n ei
g hb h
or
ho
od od
c c ha ha
ra a ct ct
er er
/f /f
ut ut ur ur e e vi vi si si on on , or o h h is is to to ric district boundar y.
R eq
u
ir r e
in
pu
t
fr
o
m
e
st st
ab ab
li li
sh sh
ed ed
n
ei ei
g h --
b o rh rh
oo oo
d d
as
s
o
c
i
aƟ
o
ns ns
o o n n
la la
rg rg
e e
sc c al a
e
pr pr
oj oj
ec ec
ts ts
a a nd n
p
os os
si
bl
y y
re re
zo zo
ni ni
ng ng
a a pp pp
l i-
ca
Ɵ Ɵ on on
s.s
St S
re e ng ng
th
e
n
e
x
i
s
Ɵ
n
g g
pr pr
oj oj
ec ec
t t
in in
fo fo
r-r-
m a Ɵ on on
c
h a nn
e l s s
an an
d d
wo w
rk
o o n
pu pu
s h
n oƟ
fi ca
Ɵ on
s
C
i
t
y
-w
id d e.
A m en d zo ne d d is tr ic c t re e qu q ir em em en en ts ts t t o o re r la a te to nei g hb or hood (or his -toric di d st rict i f f ap p pl pl ic i ab ab le e ) ch h ar ar ac ac te te r r (e (e it it he e r ex isƟ n g o r fu tu re v v is is io n)n .
Cr r ea e
te e
3 3 s
e
t
s
o
f
d
es
i g n
st t an a
da
rd d s
a
n
d
g u id
el
in
es
t
ha
t
ar
e
di
vi
de
d
in
t
o
a
c c ha
r
a
ct
er
a r ea a n
or
th
o
f
Do
w
n
to
wn wn
,
a
ch
ar
ac
te e r r
ar
ea
s
ou
th
o
f
Do
wn
to
w
n
, a
n
d
Do
w
n
to
wn
.
Th
er
e
sh
ou
ld ld
b b e e
ge ge
ne ne
ra ra
l
gu g
id
el l in in
es
t t ha
t
su u pp
or o
t t
co o nn
ec ec
Ɵ Ɵ vi v
ty y
b b et et
we we
en
t
he
a a re re
as as
,,
c r ea
te e
a a c
om om
mo mo
n n
th
re
ad
b
et
we we
en e
n
ei
gh h bo bo
rh rh
oo oo
ds ds
,,
an an
d d
su su
pp pp
or or
t t
tr t
an an
si s
Ɵ Ɵ on on
s s
b et
w
ee e n n
ne
ig i
hb b or or
h ho
od
s.
F
oc c us
o
n n
la
r g e
a
r
ea ea
s s
an an
d d
ev ev
en en
tu tu
al al
ly ly
r r ec ec
og og
ni
ze
s s pe p
ci
al al
c h a r ac
t e ri i sƟ sƟ
c c s s
of of
e e ac
h
a r ea
a nd d co
n te te
xt xt
.
Cr C ea a te t t ra a ns iƟ o n sp p ec i fi c stand ards a nd g g ui ui de li i ne ne s th th at at a a re re c c on on te te xt xt ba ba se se d d an an d d re re pl pl ac ac e e Ar Ar Ɵ Ɵ cl cl e e 5 5 st st an an da d rd rd s (w w he he re e i i t t is is r r ed ed un un da da n nt ))fo fo r r pr r oj o ec e ts w w it h i n NC C OD OD .
A d j u st
N
CO CO
D D
b o un un
d da
ry
b b as
ed
o
n
r e su
lt
s
of f b
ui
ld
in
g su u r rv
ey
:
**
N.
7
th
a ll
ou
t ..
*
Us
e
F
r
on
t
S
t
.
as
n
or
t
h
er e
n
ed
g e.
De
fi ne
n
ei
g h bo
rh h oo o
d
ch ch
ar
ac
te
r.
LONGTERM
Wi W
nd
s
h
i
e
l
d
s
u
r
ve
y
-
ne
ig g hb hb
or or
ho ho
od od
a a ss
o
c
ia
Ɵ on
a a re re
as as
a a nd
a re
as as
o o ut ut
si
de
o
f
es s ta t
bl
is
he
d
n
ei
g h bo o rh rh oo o ds d ....
S t a r t t
HP
A
B
r
e vi
e w
o f
d e mo
l i Ɵ on
a
pp
l i ca
Ɵ
o
n
s
.
E xp
l
o
r
e
a
va v
ri
e
t
y
o
f
in in
ce ce
nƟ nƟ
v v es es
f f or or
h h is is
to to
ri ri
c c
pr pr
op op
er er
Ɵ Ɵ es es
an an
d d
hi hi
st st
or or
ic ic
d d is is
tr
i
c t s .
C o n d uc
t
e xt
e n s iv
e ou
tr
ea
c
h
w
i
t
h h i s t o ri
c
p ro
p
e
r
t
y
o
wn
er
s
o
n
p
o
s
s
i
bl
e
i
n
c
e
n
Ɵ
v
e
s
.
Ga
t th
er e
m m or or
e e
da da
ta a a
Ō er
t
h
e
arc hi te ct ur al s ur ve y, s ce nari os , an d desi gn g
gu u id i
el el
in
es s
a a nd nd
s s ta ta
nd nd
ar a
ds d
a
re
c
o
m
p l et ed . Us e to o l s s su c h a s 3-D mo de l i n g t o un de r-
s t an
d zo ni n g , ma ss s a nd s s ca c l e .
De
ve
lo
p
a
p
l
an
t
o
ha
ve
p
ub
l
i
c
m
e
e
Ɵ
n
gs
p
r
i
or
t
o
a
p
pl
ic
a
t
io
n
r
e
vi
ew
w
i
t
h
im
-
p
a
c
t
ed
n
e
i
gh
bo
rs
.
C
o
ll
ec
t
i
n
p
u
t
fr
o
m
n
ei
g
h
b
o
rs
o
n
l
a
rg
e
sc
al
e
pr
o
j
ec
t
s
.
Ad
d
no
Ɵ
c ci
ng
r
eq
ui
r
e
me
nt
s
w
i
th
a
r
e
a
ra
d
i
us
.
De
ve
lo
p
m
i
n
i
mu
m
s
t
a
n
d
a
rd
s
th
at
ap
pl
ic
an
t
ha
s
t
o
m
ee
t.
D
ev
el
op
c
l
e
ar
t
h
r
es
ho
ld
s
t
h
a
t t
r
i
gg
er
r
ev
i
e
w
.
Ar A
ch
it
ec
tu
r
a
l In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
-
hi h
st st
or or
ic c
d d is is
tr tr
ic ic
ts ts
a nd nd
l an an
dm
ar
ks
(bu
il
d on on
r r ec ec
en en
t in
ve e n nt
or o
y of of
d ow ow
nt
ow o
n n bu u il di di ng ng s..
Ar A
ch
it
ec
tu
r
a
l
In
ve
nt
o
r
y
hi hi
st st
or
ic
d d is is
tr r ic ic
ts s
a nd d
l an
dm d
ar
ks
(bu
i
l
d
on on
r r ec ec
en en
t t
in
ve ve
n nt
or r y
of of
d d ow ow
nt nt
ow o
n n bu bu il i di di ng s s
1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS
The consultant team (consisƟ ng of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducƟ ng extensive public
engagement to best understand the community’s needs and preferences regarding historic preservaƟ on, the NCOD, historic
district boundaries, and future development. Below are high level fi ndings from Community Outreach Phase I and Phase II.
PHASE I COMMUNITY OUTREACH
In July 2018, the project team spent two weeks in Bozeman engaging with the public at 12 diff erent events. The events includ-
ed small group meeƟ ngs, a historic tour, board and staff meeƟ ngs, listening posts, an open house, and a windshield architec-
tural survey. A project page hosted by the City of Bozeman was also launched containing project informaƟ on, upcoming dates,
feedback summaries, feedback data, and opportuniƟ es for public comment.
Over 150 parƟ cipants joined small group meeƟ ngs, listening posts, aƩ ended the community meeƟ ng and parƟ cipated in on-
line surveys. A high-level summary is provided below:
Concern
Many parƟ c i p a n t s e x p r e s s e d a c o n c e r n o v e r r e c e n t
development projects, specifi c a l l y t h e s i z e , s c a l e , a n d
design of parƟ cular buildings within the NCOD. This
generally pertained to the areas directly adjacent to Main
Street that are seeing new higher density development.
Some parƟ cipants expressed an interest in creaƟ ng
transiƟ onal ‘buff er areas’.
RegulaƟ ons
W h i l e t h e r e w e r e m i x e d o p i n i o n s o n w h e t h e r t h e
current regulaƟ o n s a r e ‘ t o o s t r i n g e n t’ o r ‘ t o o l i b e r a l ’
on development - parƟ cipants felt that Historic Districts
should remain ‘strictly regulated’ while areas outside the
Districts but sƟ ll within the NCOD should be treated ‘with
moderaƟ on.’
Pace of Development
The majority of parƟ cipants 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 parƟ cipaƟ on process.
Many felt that slowing down the process would ensure a
focus on historic preservaƟ on and thoughƞ ul, compaƟ ble
development.
54 % Female 46 % Male 90 % are Bozeman
Residents
150+
participants
34%
Aged 65+
2%
33%
11%
21%
Aged <24
Aged 25-34
Aged 35-54
Aged 55-64
Phase I: July - August 2018
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Pʽ®®Ý υ.υ., υ.φ
13
1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS
14
145+
Participants
51%47%2%
38%
35-54
25-34
54-65
65+
aged 35-54
80%
previously
participated
The project team returned in November of 2018 for the
second phase of community engagement which encom-
passed four large format meeƟ ngs, two open houses and
two live polling sessions. These were followed by an inten-
sive online survey.
Our team presented the draŌ policy recommendaƟ ons
published in the October 23, 2018 draŌ report (available
at www.bozeman.net/city -project/ncod-review and parƟ c-
ipants were polled to show their level of support for each
of the proposed recommendaƟ ons and policy alternaƟ ves.
Over the course of a few weeks 145 community members
parƟ cipated in the live polling sessions, the open house
poster voƟ ng sessions, provided open comment via post-
cards, and the online survey.
Below we have summarized parƟ cipant demographics and
the high-level community senƟ ments:
PHASE II COMMUNITY OUTREACH
1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS
the City and could potenƟ ally create inequity between con-
temporary and historic properƟ es. The majority of those
polled selected phasing-in a stronger historic preservaƟ on
program with incremental steps in-lieu of implemenƟ ng
changes simultaneously.
While the majority of parƟ cipants were interested in HPAB
becoming a decision-making body, there was a vocal facƟ on
that felt there were other ways to strengthen the program.
Over 80% of parƟ cipants showed moderate to high support
for creaƟ ng standards and guidelines for historic landmarks
and historic districts.
Zoning + Context
In conversaƟ ons with parƟ cipants, there appeared to be
low support for adjusƟ ng the B-3 Zone District to allow for
increased transiƟ onal requirements outside of those found
within the UDC. However, across the two polling sessions
and online survey, the majority of parƟ cipants showed
moderate to high support for exploring how to beƩ er to
align the southern boundary of B-3 with low scale residenƟ al
neighborhoods to the south.
ParƟ c i p a n ts f e l t t h i s o p p o rt u n i ty w o u l d h e l p t o p r e s e rv e
the mass and scale in historic districts and reduce confl ict
between new developments in exisƟ ng neighborhoods.
ParƟ c i p a n t s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r s Ɵ fl ing downtown
development and pushing development into areas outside of
the Main Street area. ParƟ cipants were parƟ cularly confl icted
in how to approach adjustments with a fairly even spread
polling in favor of creaƟ ng a transiƟ onal zone, incorporaƟ ng
addiƟ onal site design requirements within exisƟ ng zone
edge requirements, and incenƟ vizing redevelopment along
North 7th Street.
While parƟ cipants felt that aligning zoning with historic
districts and neighborhoods would create more consistency
in development paƩ erns, there was no consensus on the
best approach.
NCOD: Purpose + Boundary
The majority of parƟ cipants supported retaining the NCOD,
staƟ ng that they felt it has been eff ecƟ ve and it would be
easier to ‘tweak’ the NCOD than to start over. Some parƟ ci-
pants were interested in exploring replacement of the NCOD
with design guidelines. It was felt that design guidelines
might help new designs fi t into exisƟ ng context.
ParƟ cipants expressed moderate to high support for creat-
ing standards and guidelines specifi c to diff erent areas and
neighborhoods. ParƟ cipants expressed moderate to high in-
terest in retaining the current area of the NCOD and were
supporƟ ve of making minor changes immediately - many felt
that sigifi cant changes warranted an architectural survey.
Historic PreservaƟ on
There was a high level of support for strengthening
the Historic PreservaƟ on program with the majority of
parƟ cipants feeling that it would aid eff orts to preserve
Bozeman’s unique history. There were some parƟ cipants
that expressed concern over increased regulaƟ on and
review processes becoming convoluted, but the majority did
not see any negaƟ ve impacts to strengthening the program.
There was a high level of support for expanding incenƟ ves
for historic properƟ es, and a request for further detail and
examples. Some felt that it might create addiƟ onal costs to
15
16
1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS
Process + InformaƟ on
ParƟ cipants were highly in favor of a more streamlined
process and wanted more detail on what this could look like
on the ground. Many felt that exploring how to streamline
current reviews would create a more predictable process
that is easier for applicants to understand.
Some parƟ c i p a n t s f e l t t h a t r e q u i r i n g a b i n d i n g r e v i e w
process from the Design Review Board might be an opƟ on
to streamline reviews.
ParƟ cipants across all meeƟ ngs and feedback opportuniƟ es
expressed an interest in having more specifi c thresholds
for how and when project informaƟ on is shared with both
neighbors and the public. Many were interested in building
upon exisƟ ng channels and potenƟ ally adding texƟ ng alerts
or increasing the informaƟ on on development noƟ ces.
BY THE NUMBERS
The Bozeman community is very passionate about historic
preservaƟ on; we engaged with a number of stakeholders,
community groups, property owners, historic preservaƟ on
specialists, developers, architects and designers, and
U n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y . P a r Ɵ c i p a n t s w e r e v e r y e n g a g e d
throughout the project and below we have provided a more
detailed summary of the outreach program, engagement
levels, and data:
• 21 meeƟ ngs and events
• 25+ public comment submissions
• 174 online survey responses
• 267 event parƟ cipants
• 98 acƟ vity and survey quesƟ ons
• 350+ open comments
• 635 windshield property surveys
• Over 20,000 unique points of data across all project
acƟ viƟ es
The depth of data across all project acƟ viƟ es provided the
project team with great insights into community senƟ ment
and diversity of opinions regarding how to balance the future
of historic preservaƟ on policy and growth in Bozeman.
The iniƟ al data set from Phase I provided clear direcƟ on for
the development of draŌ policy recommendaƟ ons which
were then veƩ ed by the community in Phase II before being
presented to the City Boards in February for further refi ne-
ment prior to adopƟ on by the City Commission in April 2019.
16
1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS
Both the windshield survey and the neighborhood character
s u r v e y a r e t o o l s w i t h i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e t o o l b o x t h a t a r e
combined with outreach results and best pracƟ ces to ulƟ mately
inform specifi c recommendaƟ o n s i n t h e r e p o r t r e l a t e d t o
design guidelines and standards, the NCOD boundary, and the
historic preservaƟ on program.
number of stories, roof typology, chimneys, porches, window
typology, entrance features, materials of principal buildings,
and detached secondary buildings.
WINDSHIELD SURVEYS
W i n d s h i e l d s u r v e y s a r e a u s e f u l t o o l t o g a i n a b r o a d
un d e r s t a n d i n g o f a r c h i t e c t u r e i n a l a r g e a r e a . P a Ʃ erns,
similariƟ es and diff erences in architectural style become
evident through data results that can then direct more detailed
surveys, appropriate design guidelines, and begin to defi ne
specifi c neighborhood styles.
Volunteers, Bozeman staff and the consultants completed a
windshield survey of 635 properƟ es north of Main Street during
a week in July 2018. The NCOD area is very large and there was
not enough Ɵ me to complete a windshield survey of the enƟ re
district, much less a Ɵ me intensive architectural survey of the
designated historic districts.
Surveys focused on roof forms, trees, fencing, landscape,
ONLINE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER SURVEY
In order to prioriƟ ze the districts and neighborhoods within
the NCOD, an online neighborhood character survey was
developed that garnered feedback on the specifi c quesƟ ons
such as “which 3 [Districts] have the greatest mass and scale
challenges with new development?” and “on a scale of 1 –
10 what is the importance of historic preservaƟ on in these
neighborhoods?”
The online neighborhood character survey asked parƟ cipants
to describe each area with one word to defi ne neighborhood
character, inform future design guidelines, and to help focus
the City’s future survey work to areas of immediate concern.
While the neighborhood character survey is a helpful tool,
it has limited capabiliƟ es: for example, areas between
established neighborhood associaƟ on and historic district
boundaries are not included in this study. It is imperaƟ ve that
these areas are surveyed to document basic neighborhood
characterisƟ cs.
17
18
Bon Ton
South Tracy/South Black
Lindley Place
Cooper Park Historic District
*note: Main Street was recently surveyed
Hi
g
h
-
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
G
r
o
u
p
Bozeman Brewery
Story Mill
South Tracy Ave.
North Tracy Ave.
Marwyn AddiƟ on – potenƟ al future historic
districtMi
d
-
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
G
r
o
u
p
NONͳHISTORIC AREA PRIORITIES WITHIN THE NCOD
Hi
g
h
-
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
G
r
o
u
p
Areas between historic districts and neighborhood
associaƟ on areas
South Central
Cooper Park (non-historic district area)
Bogert Park
Northeast
University
1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS
Mi
d
-
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
G
r
o
u
p
Lindley Park/Marwyn Lindley
Bozeman Creek
The neighborhood character online survey was incorporated into a prioriƟ zed list of neighborhoods and historic districts for
future architectural survey work, which will drive potenƟ al future boundary adjustments to the NCOD and to historic districts
and possibly inform future design guidelines specifi c to neighborhood character. Priority areas are based on survey and
community feedback, background and zoning analysis, and professional experƟ se.
HISTORIC DISTRICT PRIORITIES
1818 18
202202020202020202220202020022222020222
CH
A
P
T
E
R
2
NC
O
D
:
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
A
N
D
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
21
2.1 NCOD PURPOSE
Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to disƟ nguish the two separate goals within the NCOD. Both
programs will work together, while a Historic PreservaƟ on Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis-
tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that refl ect Bozeman’s signifi cant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
Do not signifi cantly change the NCOD boundary.
1) Remove North 7th from the NCOD.
2) Move boundary to Front Street as proposed.
3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment - with moderate level of sur-
vey for some areas.
4) PrioriƟ ze areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment. IdenƟ fy the
areas for the formal architectural suvey.
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Downtown, a
character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that support connec-
Ɵ vity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transiƟ ons between
neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characterisƟ cs of each area and context.
CHAPTER 2 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 2 WORK PLAN
ild on recent inventory of downtown buildings). toArchitectural Inventory - historic districts and landmarks (bud
Adjust NCOD boundary
based on results of
building survey:
* N. 7th all out.
* Use Front St. as
northern edge.
Defi ne neighborhood
character.
eservaƟ on pro-Adopt local historic pre
pecifi c rules togram with Bozeman sp
dmarks, designate land
xterior changes. districts, process for ex
character de-Create neighborhood
ardssign standa
and guidelines for North of Main,
South of Main, and downtown.
reas and areas outside of establishedidWindshield survey - neighborhood associaƟ on are
s.neighborhood
22
SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
2 NCOD
The NCOD was adopted in 1991 in an eff ort to preserve historic districts by protecƟ ng the surrounding areas between the dis-
tricts. While the City of Bozeman is preparing for future growth, the eff ecƟ veness of the district has been quesƟ oned. 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 prioriƟ es highlighted the need for a tune up.
The stated purpose of the NCOD in the Bozeman Municipal Code is to “sƟ mulate the restoraƟ on and rehabilitaƟ on of structures and
all other elements contribuƟ ng to the character and fabric of established residenƟ al neighborhoods and commercial or industrial ar-
eas.” The concept of the overlay is to infl uence development between the historic districts and to protect the neighborhood char-
acter that defi nes Bozeman. New construcƟ on is encouraged to relate to surrounding historic buildings and neighborhood context,
and demoliƟ on review is required for buildings within the overlay. While adjustments are recommended to diff erenƟ ate between
historic preservaƟ on and neighborhood character, the purpose and intent of the NCOD remains very relevant and important.
The NCOD requires a design review process for all properƟ es that propose alteraƟ ons, demoliƟ on, relocaƟ on, or new construcƟ on
within the overlay district. The NCOD has evolved since its incepƟ on to include design regulaƟ ons and zoning changes; however
the original purpose of the NCOD remains unchanged and perhaps more important today in light of Bozeman’s expected popu-
laƟ on growth.
AÄ ÊòÙ½ù ®ÝãÙ®ã ®Ý ½Ê½ þÊĮĦ
ãÊʽ ã«ã Ö½Ý ÝÖ®¥® Ù¦ç½ã®ÊÄÝ
ÊòÙ Ä ø®Ýã®Ä¦ Ý
þÊÄ ®ÝãÙ®ã.
A ÖÙÊÖÙãù ½Êã ó®ã«®Ä Ä ÊòÙ½ù
®ÝãÙ®ã ®Ý ãùÖ®½½ù ÙØç®Ù ãÊ Ãã
Êã« ã« Ý (çÄÙ½ù®Ä¦) þÊÄ ®Ý-
ãÙ®ã ÙØç®ÙÃÄãÝ ®Ä ®ã®ÊÄ ãÊ ã«
ÝÖ®¥®Ý Ê¥ ã«
ÊòÙ½ù ®ÝãÙ®ã.
OòÙ½ù ®ÝãÙ®ãÝ Ù ÊÃÃÊĽù çÝ
ãÊ ®Ä¥½çÄ ã« Ý®¦Ä Ê¥ Äó 箽-
®Ä¦Ý ÊÙ ãÊ ¥®Ä Ä
«®ÝãÊÙ® ®ÝãÙ®ã.
23
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Pʽ®ù ψ.υ.
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý χ.χ, ψ.χ
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE NCOD
W«ã ó «Ù:
When parƟ cipants were forced to choose the most important
aspect of the NCOD, most voted that it is to protect Bozeman’s
historic buildings. RegulaƟ ng the size and scale of new buildings
was a close second. When asked what the NCOD does well, par-
Ɵ cipants responded that the NCOD brings awareness to neigh-
borhood context and character, and historic preservaƟ on.
The overwhelming response from parƟ cipants was to create
diff erent regulaƟ ons 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 treaƟ ng historic districts with ‘strict regulaƟ ons’ and
non-historic districts within the NCOD with ‘moderate regula-
Ɵ ons’.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Retain the NCOD.
Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to
disƟ nguish the two separate goals within the NCOD:
1) Preserve historic buildings that refl ect Bozeman’s
signifi cant history; and
2) Enhance neighborhood character and context.
Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preser-
vaƟ on Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis-
tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD.
1) Historic PreservaƟ on Program. A Historic PreservaƟ on
Program needs to stand on its own outside the umbrella
of the NCOD. Historic preservaƟ on is a City-wide iniƟ aƟ ve.
DisassociaƟ ng the program from the NCOD enables preser-
vaƟ on of historic building and historic districts outside the
NCOD. The historic preservaƟ on program will have its own
purpose, regulaƟ ons, guidelines, and review process. As part
of this program, the current Historic PreservaƟ on Advisory
Board will shiŌ to a stronger advisory role which authorizes
the Board to review and approve certain historic preserva-
Ɵ on projects.
2) Neighborhood ConservaƟ on (or Character) Program.
The Neighborhood ConservaƟ on program will apply to the
non-historic neighborhoods within the NCOD. This program
will also have its own purpose, regulaƟ ons, guidelines, and
review process, and will be implemented by the Design Re-
view Board.
“The NCOD is fl exible, 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
unƟ l 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.”
2424
25
The NCOD boundary was originally based on a census tract and does not
follow a clearly defi ned 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 exisƟ ng condiƟ ons.
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 applicaƟ on to redevelop or demolish
their property. AŌ er documentaƟ on, a building may be approved for dem-
oliƟ on and replacement regardless of historic signifi cance. In addiƟ on, 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 properƟ es) 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 evaluaƟ on of the un-surveyed properƟ es located on
the northside of Main Street. The goal of this exercise was to record archi-
tectural details on each building, and to idenƟ fy paƩ erns that defi ne neigh-
borhood character. This informaƟ on can be Ɵ ed to exisƟ ng parcel data and
used to establish neighborhood paƩ erns and characterisƟ cs that may iden-
Ɵ fy areas for future consideraƟ on as a historic district or idenƟ fy prevalent
characterisƟ cs 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
MÊÄãÄ Sãã H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ O¥-
¥® ÙØç®ÙÝ CÙ㮥® Lʽ GÊòÙÄÃÄãÝ
½®» BÊþÃÄ ãÊ Ã®Äã®Ä Ä ãÊ ÊÄã®Äç
ãÊ ®Ä㮥ù «®ÝãÊÙ® Ä ÖÙ«®ÝãÊÙ® ÖÙÊÖ-
Ùã®Ý ó®ã«®Ä ®ãÝ ¹çٮݮã®ÊÄ. T« BÊþÃÄ
MçÄ®®Ö½ CÊ ÝããÝ ã«ã ã« ®ÝãÙ®ã
ÊçÄÙù Ãù Ùò®Ý Ý ®ã®ÊĽ ç½-
ãçÙ½ ÙÝÊçÙ ÝçÙòù óÊÙ» ®Ý ÊÃÖ½ã.
AÄ Ù«®ããçÙ½ ®ÄòÄãÊÙù ®Ý ãÝ
ã«ã ÝÖ®¥®Ý ®Ä¥ÊÙÃã®ÊÄ Êçã ã« «®ÝãÊ-
Ùù, çÝ, øãÙ®ÊÙ ¥ãçÙÝ Ä Ù«®ããçÙ
Ê¥ Ä ®Ä®ò®ç½ ÖÙÊÖÙãù. T« ãÝ
®Ä㮥®Ý ½®¦®®½®ãù ¥ÊÙ Äã®ÊĽ, Ýãã ÊÙ
½Ê½ «®ÝãÊÙ® ½ÄÃÙ» Ý®¦Äã®ÊÄ, Ä
®Ä㮥®Ý ½®¦®®½®ãù ¥ÊÙ ®Ä½çÝ®ÊÄ ó®ã«®Ä
Äã®ÊĽ, Ýãã ÊÙ ½Ê½ «®ÝãÊÙ® ®ÝãÙ®ã.
AÄ Ù«®ããçÙ½ ®ÄòÄãÊÙù Ä ½ÝÊ
çÝ ãÊ ¥®Ä Ä®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊ ÊçÄÙ®Ý
Ý ÊÄ ®¥¥ÙÄã ¥ãçÙÝ Ýç« Ý Ù«®-
ããçÙ½ Ýãù½ Ê٠箽®Ä¦ ÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄ
ã.
A ó®ÄÝ«®½ ÝçÙòù ®Ý Øç®» ʹã®ò
ÊòÙò®ó Ê¥ ½Ù¦ Ù ã«ã ÖÙÊò®Ý
¦ÄÙ½ ã. Iã ®Ý ½½ ó®ÄÝ«®½
ÝçÙòù çÝ ®ã ®Ý çÝç½½ù ÊÃÖ½ã
¥ÙÊà ÃÊò®Ä¦ ò«®½. T«®Ý ãùÖ Ê¥ ÝçÙòù
®Ý çÝ ãÊ ÖÙÊò® ¦ÄÙ½ ÝÝÝÝÃÄã Ê¥
ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Ä ãÊ Ê½½ã ã ÊÄ «Ù-
ãÙ®Ýã®Ý ã«ã ®Ä㮥ù ÙÝ ¥ÊÙ ÃÊÙ
㮽 Ýãçù.
25
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
The purpose and value of an architectural inventory is three-fold: it informs the NCOD boundary; it provides the
basis for the local historic preservaƟ on program; and it creates the foundaƟ on for new context driven design stan-
dards and guidelines.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Most respondents feel that the current NCOD boundary is
accurate or needs to be expanded. ParƟ cipants overwhelm-
ing voted to refi ne the NCOD for specifi c neighborhoods.
Many respondents recognize and support the need for a
complete architectural inventory of the NCOD and surround-
ing areas before adjusƟ ng the boundary.
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Retain the majority of the NCOD area.
There is no compelling reason to signifi cantly change the
NCOD boundary at this Ɵ me. DeterminaƟ ons to modify the
NCOD boundary should be made with factual informaƟ on
obtained through architectural surveys. The City may also
choose to focus energy and funds on compleƟ ng a compre-
hensive architectural inventory of the enƟ re NCOD prior to
implemenƟ ng design standards and guidelines (discussed be-
low). An updated architectural inventory is paramount to the
funcƟ on and success of the NCOD, and the preservaƟ on of
historic properƟ es and neighborhood character. An architec-
tural inventory disƟ nguishes between historic and non-his-
toric properƟ es and districts, and sets clear expectaƟ ons for
property owners, neighbors, staff and review boards.
As noted in AcƟ on 4 on the following page, incrementally sur-
veying the NCOD may be the most feasible approach to creat-
ing a comprehensive architectural inventory.
“NCOD was designed and created to protect historic
areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that
defi nes 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 regulaƟ ons may be helpful to
address noncontribuƟ ng buildings, however, the survey of
historic resources within the City should be updated to en-
sure the conƟ nued preservaƟ on of historic resources that
may not have been considered historic at the Ɵ me of the
previous survey.”
“I am very much in favor of maintaining the current
NCOD unƟ l a proper historic assessment can be complet-
ed. Given that many of the structures within the bound-
ary were not eligible as historic properƟ es at the Ɵ me of
the last inventory, it is imperaƟ ve that the inventory be
complete and updated before the NCOD boundaries are
changed or reduced.”
26
AÊÖã ã®ÊÄ:
1) North 7th Street is all out of NCOD.
The North 7th Street corridor should be either all in, or all out, of
the NCOD. Bozeman City Commission directed North 7th Street
to be all out of the NOCD. Regardless of the NCOD, both sides of
the street should have the same design regulaƟ ons.
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
protect historic buildings, but rather to protect neighborhood
character. The implementaƟ on of a historic preservaƟ on pro-
gram that extends beyond the boundary of the NCOD would pro-
vide protecƟ on 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 fi eld/
parking area as the terminus of the district. A minor adjustment
to the boundary in this area that follows North Rouse Street to
the intersecƟ on with Front Street clearly delineates the NCOD
boundary and avoids future confusion about review process and
jurisdicƟ on.
AcƟ ons 1 and 2 will have a signifi cant impact on the under-
standing of the NCOD boundary and the implementaƟ on of new
regulaƟ ons recommended in this document. These two recom-
mended adjustments can be made prior to a comprehensive ar-
chitectural inventory.
χ) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potenƟ al
boundary adjustment.
A windshield survey is a useful tool to narrow the scope of an ar-
chitectural inventory and to highlight signifi cant neighborhood
paƩ erns such as open front porches.
4) PrioriƟ ze areas to incrementally inventory to provide
basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment.
One approach to an architectural inventory is to prioriƟ ze
secƟ ons within the NCOD. For example:
• Historic Districts.
• Areas between Historic Districts.
• North 7th Corridor.
• Areas along the edges of the NCOD boundary.
PrioriƟ zed neighborhoods, areas, and districts are found in
SecƟ on 1.6 of this report (page 18).
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY
2727
LEGEND
N®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊ CÊÄ-
ÝÙòã®ÊÄ OòÙ½ù
D®ÝãÙ®ã BÊçÄÙù
A¹çÝãÃÄãÝ ãÊ ã«
Ä®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊ ÊÄÝÙ-
òã®ÊÄ ÊòÙ½ù ®ÝãÙ®ã
IIÄĽ½çç FFÙÙÊÊÄÄãã Ýãã.
RÃÊÊòò NN. 77ãã««
2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY UPDATES
28
29
CreaƟ ng design standards and guidelines is strongly recom-
mended, but aŌ er an architectural inventory, or at the very
least a windshield survey, is completed and zone districts
are evaluated. A comprehensive architectural inventory
highlights paƩ erns, architectural characterisƟ cs, and overall
neighborhood character that direct neighborhood boundar-
ies and inform an appropriate mix of requirements and rec-
ommendaƟ ons for each area.
There is an opportunity to incorporate the outcomes of the
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and the Communi-
ty Plan as they relate to neighborhood character and future
vision into a new design standards and guidelines document
that balances new development and growth policy iniƟ aƟ ves
with exisƟ ng neighborhood context.
2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
The NCOD has design guidelines, updated in 2015, that are organized by use (residenƟ al or commercial) and treat the NCOD
homogeneously without much diff erenƟ aƟ on between neighborhood character areas. More recently, sub-chapter 4B was cre-
ated to specifi cally 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 regulaƟ ons. A healthy mix of requirements
and more fl exible recommendaƟ ons typically results in creaƟ ve soluƟ ons that support and highlight important character defi ning
features of each neighborhood.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Community feedback provided clear direcƟ on that the NCOD
can do a beƩ er job defi ning and diff erenƟ aƟ ng neighborhood
character and encouraging more appropriate mass and scale
adjacent to historic districts. ParƟ cipants also responded that
diversity of architecture and fl exibility of design are areas for
improvement within the NCOD.
In speaking with community members and an assessment of
exisƟ ng condiƟ ons, there appears to be support for a more
fl exible, innovaƟ ve, and design-oriented approach to new
buildings north of Main Street, and a more conservaƟ ve, tra-
diƟ onal 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.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are
divided into a character area north of Downtown, a char-
acter area south of Downtown, and Downtown.
There should be general guidelines that support connecƟ vity
between the areas, create a common thread between neigh-
borhoods, and support transiƟ ons between neighborhoods.
Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special charac-
terisƟ cs of each area and context.
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
Downtown, and an area specifi c to Downtown, recognizes dif-
ferences between architectural styles, the history of industrial
development in the neighborhoods north of Main Street, and
diff ering senƟ ment toward ‘appropriate’ new development.
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®®Ý ψ.υ., ψ.ψ
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ
DBIP ¦ç®½®Ä Ö.χτ
DBIP RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυφ
30
2018 SãÙ㦮 P½Ä
Pʽ®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®®Ý. (P.ϊ)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Pʽ®ù ψ.ψ V®ÙÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ Ι CÄãÙÝ. (P.ϋ)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including
higher densiƟ es and intensifi caƟ on of use in these key areas.
Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙ㦮 MçÄ®®Ö½ SÙò® D½®òÙù EøÖãã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟ ons about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä
Gʽ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MĦÃÄã. (P.υχ)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟ ng, and enhancing the overall quality of
life within the planning area.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-υ LÄ UÝ. (P.χφ)
Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, effi ciently provides public and private basic services and faciliƟ es
in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-χ LÄ UÝ. (P.χχ)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical con-
necƟ on represented by this area.
2019 DÊóÄãÊóÄ BÊþÃÄ IÃÖÙÊòÃÄã PLÄ
G箽®Ä. (P. χτ)
Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residenƟ al neighborhoods through con-
text-sensiƟ ve development.
ÙÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ. (P.υυφ)
Create downtown design guidelines.
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 draŌ NCOD recommendaƟ ons. CorrelaƟ ons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found
below.
31
CH
A
P
T
E
R
3
ST
R
E
N
G
T
H
E
N
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
32 32
3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Phase-in a local historic preservaƟ on program.
3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES
Explore a variety of incenƟ ves for historic properƟ es owners. Engage with historic property owners to en-
sure incenƟ ve relevance and clarity.
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS
Allow HPAB recommendaƟ ons for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB re-
view of demoliƟ ons as a way to ease into review authority.
3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
Create historic preservaƟ on (HP) standards and guidelines.
CHAPTER 3 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
3333
CHAPTER 3 WORK PLAN
embers.Training for HPAB M
Develop preservaƟ on plan
wwiitthh HHPPAABB ttoo iiddeennƟƟ ffyy
preservaƟ on goals.
EExplore a variety of
incenƟ ves for historic prop-
erƟ es and hissttoric districts.
Develop quick reference
guides for appropriate
repairs of
historic properƟ es.
mendaƟ ons for Process for HPAB recomm
ects within a his-historic projects and proje
t.toric district
toric propertyAdopt incenƟ ves for hist
owners.
tandards andCreate historic design st
tricts and land-guidelines for historic dist
n withmarks that align
r’s Standards.updated Sec. of Interior
Locally designate NaƟ onal
Register (NR) properƟ es
with owner consent.
Begin process to nomi-
nate new NR lisƟ ngs and
boundaries for NR histor-
ic districts.
Begin process to amend
NR lisƟ ngs and boundar-
ies for NR historic dis-
tricts.
Conduct extensive outreach
with historic
property ownerrss aabout pos-
siblle incenƟ vves.
Start HPAB review of
demoliƟ on applicaƟ ons.
SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Historic preservaƟ on is not a one-size-fi ts all pracƟ ce. There are guiding principles established by the Federal government, but it
is up to communiƟ es to determine the appropriate preservaƟ on approach locally. CommuniƟ es with a strong inventory of historic
buildings oŌ enƟ mes implement a customized local program that protects the vernacular historic buildings that do not always
qualify for the NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places.
Vernacular buildings are a style of architecture that is specifi c to a local area. While na-
Ɵ onally signifi cant properƟ es represent broader historic importance, Bozeman’s local ver-
nacular creates a sense of place and pride for the community. Locally signifi cant buildings
that represent the evoluƟ on and development of Bozeman, important local people, or im-
portant community events, may not qualify for State or NaƟ onal Register lisƟ ng but can be
equally important to defi ning unique local character. It is up to the Bozeman community
to determine what is important through a local preservaƟ on program that focuses on local
history, addresses development pressures, and recognizes a sense of place for current and
future generaƟ ons. Buildings are authenƟ c, tangible pieces of history that are irreplaceable
once they are lost.
Bozeman has a voluntary historic preservaƟ on program with an advisory Historic PreservaƟ on Board. According to the Municipal
Code, a property is considered historic if it “is listed on the State or NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places, designated as a historic
property under local or state designaƟ on law or survey, considered a contribuƟ ng structure within a NaƟ onal Register Historic
District or local historic district, or is deemed eligible by the City of Bozeman to be listed on the NaƟ onal or State Register of His-
toric Places individually or as a contribuƟ ng building within an adopted or eligible historic district”. Currently, there are parts of the
Bozeman municipal code, such as local designaƟ on or local historic district status, which do not have specifi ed review processes
or criteria to be implemented which can a barrier to a local historic preservaƟ on program.
BÊþÃÄ «Ý ψϊ «®ÝãÊÙ®
箽®Ä¦Ý ®Ä®ò®ç½½ù ½®Ýã
ÊÄ ã« Nã®ÊĽ R¦®ÝãÙ Ä
υτ Nã®ÊĽ R¦®ÝãÙ H®ÝãÊÙ-
® D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ. T« Nã®ÊĽ
R¦®Ýã٠ʥ H®ÝãÊÙ® P½Ý ®Ý
îĮÝãÙ ù ã« Nã®ÊĽ
PÙ» SÙò®.
34
35
3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
There are 46 naƟ onally listed historic properƟ es and eight his-
toric districts within the NCOD (two historic districts are out-
side the NCOD). These districts and historic properƟ es were
designated based on 1987 architectural surveys.
Bozeman also has signifi cant post-World War II architecture
that is eligible for NaƟ onal Register lisƟ ng, as idenƟ fi ed by Di-
ana J. Painter in a Montana State Historic PreservaƟ on Offi ce
architectural context paper. In addiƟ on, the Marwyn AddiƟ on
has been idenƟ fi ed by local groups as a cohesive neighborhood
of ranch style mid-century residenƟ al buildings. It is highly like-
ly that the actual number of eligible historic properƟ es both
pre- and post-World War II, will increase with a new architec-
tural inventory. Regardless of eligibility, the creaƟ on of a new
NaƟ onal Register Historic District or an individual NaƟ onal Reg-
ister lisƟ ng 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 applicaƟ on for rede-
velopment within the NCOD to document any potenƟ al histor-
ic importance before alteraƟ ons or demoliƟ on 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 Ɵ me that a development or demoliƟ on applicaƟ on
is considered. This places the immediate aspiraƟ ons of a prop-
erty owner in potenƟ al confl ict with the community’s desire to
preserve its history. First BapƟ st Church. Photograph courtesy Bozeman Public Library, hƩ ps://
cdm15018.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collecƟ on/p16013coll45/id/86/rec/15.
What is the NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places?
T« Nã®ÊĽ R¦®ÝãÙ ®Ý ½®Ýã Ê¥ ®Ä®ò®ç½ Ý®ãÝ,
箽®Ä¦Ý, ʹãÝ, ÊÙ ®ÝãÙ®ãÝ ã«ã «ò ÃÊÄÝãÙã-
Ý®¦Ä®¥®Ä ãÊ ã« «®ÝãÊÙù Ê¥ ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù, Ýãã
ÊÙ ã« Äã®ÊÄ Ä Ù óÊÙã«ù Ê¥ ÖÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ.
T« Nã®ÊĽ R¦®Ýã٠ʥ H®ÝãÊÙ® P½Ý ®Ý Ä «ÊÄÊÙ-
Ùù Ý®¦Äã®ÊÄ ã«ã ÊÝ ÄÊã ÖÙòÄã Ãʽ®ã®ÊÄ ÊÙ
Ý®¦Ä®¥®Äã ½ãÙã®ÊÄÝ. PÙÊÖÙã®Ý ÊÄ ã« R¦®ÝãÙ
Ãù ½®¦®½ ¥ÊÙ Ùã®Ä ãø Ù®ãÝ.
Bozeman Downtown, courtesy of City of Bozeman.
36
3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
“[The] NCOD was designed and created to protect historic
areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that
defi nes 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.”
W«ã ó «Ù:
Historic preservaƟ on is the most important aspect of the NCOD.
Historic properƟ es should be protected against demoliƟ on,
and development regulaƟ ons within historic districts should
be strict. Support for an updated inventory is important to the
community, not just to defi ne the NCOD, but to also idenƟ fy and
to protect signifi cant buildings.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Phase-in a local historic preservaƟ on program.
The program would apply to all local historic districts and lo-
cal landmarks regardless of the NCOD boundary.
• Develop a preservaƟ on plan that arƟ culates community
preservaƟ on goals with an implementaƟ on agenda.
• Decide as a community what is important to protect
and then ensure that historic resources are protected
through stricter demoliƟ on criteria and specifi c mainte-
nance standards for historic properƟ es.
• Up-skill HPAB members with historic preservaƟ on train-
ings focused on reviewing projects against criteria and
improving recommendaƟ ons. The NaƟ onal Alliance of
PreservaƟ on Commissions off ers trainings specifi c to
historic boards. SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Pʽ®ù υ.φ, ϋ.ψ.
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä Gʽ ό.χ
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 potenƟ ally historic building from demoliƟ on. Maintenance standards are included in the Bozeman
Code; however the standards are universal and not specifi c to historic properƟ es. Standards for upkeep and maintenance are inte-
gral to a successful historic preservaƟ on program and should outline specifi c requirements to protect the longevity of a building and
avoid demoliƟ on by neglect. For example, a historic building may be required to patch holes in a roof to slow structural deterioraƟ on.
• Adopt local designaƟ on criteria and incenƟ ves that
only apply to NaƟ onal Register listed properƟ es,
with owner consent. Test out a local landmark pro-
gram on naƟ onally designated properƟ es to deter-
mine whether a local program is aƩ racƟ ve to prop-
erty owners and the community.
• Clear standards, objecƟ ve criteria for landmark des-
ignaƟ on, and protecƟ ons for designated buildings
are integral to a local historic preservaƟ on program.
• DemoliƟ on criteria could be weighted depending on
locaƟ on. For example, stricter requirements would
apply to eligible properƟ es within a historic district
as opposed to moderate requirements for eligible or
historic properƟ es outside a historic district.
• AŌ er compleƟ ng an architectural inventory, write
context papers on Bozeman’s local vernacular build-
ings idenƟ fi ed in the survey that are not eligible for
NaƟ onal Register status, but are important to Boze-
man’s history.
• Develop handouts for historic property owners that
off er quick reference guides to repairs based on na-
Ɵ onal standards for historic preservaƟ on. Off er free
consultaƟ ons for historic properƟ es to promote and
inform maintenance and upkeep.
• Explore a conservaƟ on easement program or build-
ing rehabilitaƟ on fund to help maintain signifi cant
historic properƟ es and prevent deferred mainte-
nance.
3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES
A voluntary landmark designaƟ on program can be very successful when there are reasons to designate a property. IncenƟ ves for
historic structures encourage designaƟ on by balancing the addiƟ onal layer of design review and required maintenance associated
with historic status. IncenƟ ves can also compensate a property owner’s sense of responsibility and outright addiƟ onal costs of pre-
serving an historic resource. Finding an appropriate balance takes Ɵ me and fi nesse to determine appropriate incenƟ ves that benefi t
property owners and do not negaƟ vely impact the community, neighborhood or other citywide goals.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Historic preservaƟ on is indisputably supported by the com-
munity. The community’s connecƟ on and dedicaƟ on to pro-
tecƟ ng their local history through buildings were a common
thread in the outreach feedback.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Explore a variety of incenƟ ves for historic properƟ es owners.
Engage with historic property owners to ensure incenƟ ve rel-
evance and clarity.
The Municipal Code already allows deviaƟ ons for historic
properƟ es which may be a meaningful incenƟ ve for some
property owners. Each project has a diff erent set of param-
eters and a diff erent boƩ om line that can Ɵ p the scales to-
ward voluntary designaƟ on or demoliƟ on. A list of incenƟ ves
that provides a variety of opƟ ons for diff erent projects and a
merit-based program to earn the benefi ts is recommended.
Finding an appropriate balance between carrots and sƟ cks,
regulaƟ ons and incenƟ ves, is the key to a successful voluntary
historic preservaƟ on program that relies on property owners
being willing parƟ cipants.
EøÃÖ½Ý Ê¥ IÄÄã®òÝ Ê¥¥Ù ®Ä Êã«Ù ÊÃÃçÄ®ã®Ý ®Ä½ç:
υ) A®½®ãù ãÊ ÊÄÝʽ®ã ½½ ÙØç®Ù Ùò®óÝ ã HPAB ¥ÊÙ øÖ®ã Ùò®ó ÖÙÊÝÝ.
φ) PÊãÄ㮽 ¥ÊÙ ã« C®ãù ãÊ Öù ÖÊÙã®ÊÄ Ê¥ ã« C®ãù ¥Ý ÝÝÊ®ã ó®ã« ã« ÖÙʹã.
χ) ãÙÄÝ¥Ù½ ò½ÊÖÃÄã Ù®¦«ã ÖÙʦÙà ãÊ ãÙÄÝ¥Ù ¥½ÊÊ٠٠ʥ¥-Ý®ã.
ψ) ÊÄÝÙòã®ÊÄ ÝÃÄã ÖÙʦÙà Ê٠箽®Ä¦ Ù«®½®ãã®ÊÄ ¥çÄ.
“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,
unaƩ racƟ ve development.”
T« C®ãù ®Ý ÊÃîãã ãÊ ÖÙÊò®®Ä¦ ÝçÖÖÊÙã ãÊ ÖÙÊÖÙãù ÊóÄÙÝ ãÊ ÝÝ®Ýã ã«®Ù ¥¥ÊÙãÝ ãÊ Ã®Äã®Ä, ÖÙÝÙò
Ä Ä«Ä ã«®Ù «®ÝãÊÙ® ÖÙÊÖÙã®Ý. RʦĮþ®Ä¦ ã«ã ã«Ý ÖÙÊÖÙã®Ý Ù ò½ç½ ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ÝÝãÝ
®Ý ã« Ý® ÖÙÃ®Ý çÄÙ½ù®Ä¦ ã« ÖÙÊò®Ý®ÊÄ Ê¥ ÝÖ®½ ÖÙÊçÙÝ Ä ÖÙʦÙÃÝ ¥ÊÙ Ý®¦Äã «®ÝãÊÙ®
ÖÙÊÖÙã®Ý Ä ®ÝãÙ®ãÝ.
ÝÃÖ½ ®ÄÄã®ò ÖÙʦÙÃ:
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®ù ψ.υ.
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä Gʽ ό.χ
37
38
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS
Under the current review process the Planning Director approves the majority of historic projects, while the Historic PreservaƟ on
Advisory Board (HPAB) may provide recommendaƟ ons. Currently there are about 100 CerƟ fi cate of Appropriateness applicaƟ ons
a year which are reviewed by staff planners – the Historic PreservaƟ on Offi cer 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-regulaƟ on
can be a barrier to historic preservaƟ on projects and to voluntary landmark designaƟ on. One way to tackle this issue is to create
a clear set of review criteria with thresholds for diff erent levels of review by either Staff or the HPAB.
W«ã ó «Ù:
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 beƩ er opportunity
to comment on projects.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Allow HPAB recommendaƟ ons for historic projects and for
projects within a historic district. Start HPAB review of demo-
liƟ ons as a way to ease into review authority.
HPAB is a required referral agency for historic projects and any
projects within a historic district. Defi niƟ ve thresholds need
to be developed to determine the appropriate review body.
Minor development of non-contribuƟ ng properƟ es within his-
toric districts, single family home, and/or small addiƟ ons (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 addiƟ on to a landmark.
HPAB recommendaƟ ons would occur at a public hearing
where noƟ ce is posted on the property to allow the public a
“Separate historic preservaƟ on from neighborhood preser-
vaƟ on since they address diff erent issues and needs.”
“Give clearer direcƟ on and quanƟ taƟ ve review parameters
for decision makers.”
“Review criteria more geographically based with reason-
able quanƟ taƟ ve evaluaƟ on criteria”
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ.
venue to comment and learn about the project. Other avenues
to communicate with the public that could be considered as
part of this alternaƟ ve are listed in Chapter 6.
In addiƟ on to required recommendaƟ ons, HPAB could also
have the ability through a majority vote to require a project be
reviewed by the Bozeman Commission rather than the Plan-
ning Director.
TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçÙ ®ÝçÝÝ®ÊÄ:
In the future, consider HPAB as a decision making body. A key
component to the historic review process is to authorize the
Historic PreservaƟ on Advisory Board to have fi nal authority on
certain projects, rather than just a recommendaƟ on. This cre-
ates a venue for formal review of a project during a public hear-
ing. Board trainings are available to help HPAB diff erenƟ ate
its role as project advocate vs. board reviewer. This approach
allows the Historic PreservaƟ on Offi cer to focus on long term
goals such as the development of a local historic preservaƟ on
program.
A noƟ ced public hearing and formal review process with clear
design guidelines and review criteria that are evaluated by the
Historic PreservaƟ on Board with a recommendaƟ on by the His-
toric PreservaƟ on Offi cer is a more inclusionary, predictable,
and oŌ enƟ mes parƟ cipatory process.
ÝããCÊÃÃÊÄ BÊÙ
T®ã½
SÊÖ Ê¥ Aç-
ã«ÊÙ®ãù
SÃÖ½ AÖÖÙÊò½ Açã«ÊÙ®ã®Ý ¥ÊÙ
H®ÝãÊÙ® D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ
Sããç/EøÃÖ½RÊÃÃÄ
ÊĽù COAs
AÖÖ½Ý
ãÊ S㥥
D®Ý®ÊÄÝ
NC Historic preservaƟ on 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 preservaƟ on
commission Broad X South Bend,IN
SD Historic preservaƟ on
commission Broad X Statute
ID Historic preservaƟ on
commission Broad X Statute
WY Historic preservaƟ on
commission
Narrow—did not
fi nd any city with
HPC approval
authority
X Casper Code
Cheyenne
WA Historic preservaƟ on
commission Broad X Spokane Code
UT Historic preservaƟ on
commission Broad X
Overview of state and
local districts
Statue
CO Historic preservaƟ on
commission Broad X X ManƟ ou Springs Denver
Code
OR
Historic preserva-
Ɵ on/ resources com-
mission
Broad X Admin Rules
Independence
NV Historic resources
commission Broad X Carson City Code
Reno Code
H®ÝãÊÙ® D®ÝãÙ®ã CÊÃîÝÝ®ÊÄÝ—A SçÃÃÙù Ê¥ Açã«ÊÙ®ãù
Many states grant ciƟ es the authority to establish commissions with broad authority to make recommendaƟ ons, spend funds,
hire professionals as needed, and approve exterior modifi caƟ ons and new construcƟ on in established historic districts. The
following is a summary of such commissions in select states indicaƟ ng their authority to grant cerƟ fi cates of appropriateness.
Two states included in the summary specifi cally authorize staff to grant minor CerƟ fi cate of Appropriateness (COAs) with appeals
heard by the commission, although other states, especially those with home rule, may not allow staff level authority.
3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS - CASE STUDIES
39
3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES
The exisƟ ng Bozeman Guidelines for Historic PreservaƟ on and the Neighborhood ConservaƟ on Overlay District document, adopt-
ed in 2006 and amended in 2015, address both historic preservaƟ on and new development throughout the enƟ re overlay concur-
rently. A chapter is devoted to rehabilitaƟ on guidelines for historic properƟ es and each historic district is alloƩ ed a few specifi c
design guidelines. There are general design guidelines for the enƟ re NCOD, and general suggesƟ ons for residenƟ al development
versus commercial development. This document has served as a good foundaƟ on for the NCOD; however, an update to create a
stronger disƟ ncƟ on between historic preservaƟ on and neighborhood character is overdue. The exisƟ ng 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
ProperƟ es.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Neighborhood character and historic districts should be ad-
dressed separately within the NCOD with special care given
to transiƟ on areas between historic districts. Historic preser-
vaƟ on 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 specifi cally address mass and scale
within these idenƟ fi ed historic districts in addiƟ on to poten-
Ɵ al zone district boundary changes.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Create historic preservaƟ on (HP) standards and guide-
lines.
The HP standards and guidelines should specify appropriate
contextual alteraƟ ons, remodels, and new buildings for each
historic district. Standards will be requirements (with the abil-
ity to request a deviaƟ on) and guidelines will be recommen-
daƟ ons. The HP standards and guidelines will build upon the
principles of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which
will sƟ ll apply, and will provide more detailed direcƟ on for each
historic district to specifi cally address historic signifi cance.
The HP standards and guidelines will be separate from the de-
sign standards and guidelines for non-historic properƟ es and
non-historic districts within the NCOD (discussed in SecƟ on
2.3, page 30). CreaƟ ng the HP standards and guidelines is rec-
ommended aŌ er an updated architectural inventory is com-
pleted (see SecƟ on 1.6, page 18 for prioriƟ zed list of historic
districts to be inventoried fi rst).
The architectural inventory may result in the expansion of exist-
ing historic districts and will likely highlight character defi ning
features and massing concerns specifi c to each historic district
which should be addressed in the hp standards and guidelines.
The hp standards and guidelines need to be relevant to exisƟ ng
condiƟ ons, refl ect good historic preservaƟ on pracƟ ce and en-
courage appropriate future development.
“The NCOD and corresponding regulaƟ ons are the reason
we have the charming Bozeman of today, and are neces-
sary to retain this charm.”
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®ù ψ.φ
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ
40
2018 SãÙ㦮 P½Ä
Pʽ®ù υ.φ (P.2)
Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovaƟ ng methods for inviƟ ng input from the commu-
nity and stakeholders.
Pʽ®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®®Ý. (P.ϊ)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Pʽ®ù ψ.φ. UÖã H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ G箽®ÄÝ. (P.ϊ)
Update the Neighborhood ConservaƟ on Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservaƟ on in downtown and other com-
mercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote conƟ nued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures relaƟ ve to
ongoing infi ll and redevelopment.
Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙ㦮 MçÄ®®Ö½ SÙò® D½®òÙù EøÖãã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟ ons about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä
Gʽ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MĦÃÄã. (P.υχ)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟ ng, and enhancing the overall quality of life within
the planning area.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-υ LÄ UÝ. (P.χφ)
Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, effi ciently provides public and private basic services and faciliƟ es in close
proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-χ LÄ UÝ. (P.χχ)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟ on
represented by this area.
Gʽ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Qç½®ãù. (P.ψϋ)
Update design objecƟ ves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development
Gʽ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.ψ DÝ®¦Ä G箽®ÄÝ. (P.ψϋ)
Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualiƟ es within neighborhood, com-
munity and regional commercial areas.
Gʽ ό.χ, O¹ã®ò -χ EÊÄÊî Dò½ÊÖÃÄã. (P.ϋϊ)
Recognize the importance of quality of life elements in aƩ racƟ ng and developing economic acƟ vity.
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 draŌ NCOD recommendaƟ ons. CorrelaƟ ons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below.
41
CH
A
P
T
E
R
4
RE
L
A
T
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
T
O
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
4343
4 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
Study of the B-3 transiƟ on zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority.
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
Historic Districts:Explore adjusƟ ng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟ ng zone districts.
Gather more data aŌ er the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use
tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
4.3 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
Non-Historic Districts: Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more
data aŌ er the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D
modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
Non-Historic Districts: Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more
data aŌ er the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D
modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
43
44
CHAPTER 4 WORK PLAN
SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
districts: AAnnaalyzzee zonee
al requirementsIIDD wheree ddimmeennssiioonn
fl ict with neigh-aandd boundarriieess cconnfl
future vision, or borhood chaarraacctteerr//f
boundary. historic ddiistrriicctt
Map review proocceessss aanndd
idenƟ fy redundaanntt rreeqquuiirree--
ments and areass ooff oovveerrllaapp
forr pprroojjeeccts withinn tthhee NNCCOODD::
i.ee.. ArƟ ccllee 5, Site PPllaann RReevviieeww,,
PPrroject Revviieeww.....
Amend zone district require-
ments to relate to neighbor-
hood (or historic district if
applicable)
character
(either exisƟ ng or future
vision).
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.
ards and guide-Create desiggn staanndd
B3 zone district. liinnes specifi cc to tthhee B
nd alignRReefeerenccee aan
ards andddessiiggn sttaanndda
adopted DBIP.gguuiiddeelliinneess wwithh tthhee
data aŌ er the architectural survey and designtGGatthheerr mmoorree d
dards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D model-edgguiddeellinness aanndd sttan
o understand zoning, mass and scale. giinngg tto
44
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 residenƟ al
neighborhoods highlights a potenƟ al disconnect between the
dimensional allowances such as height, setbacks, and fl oor
area of the zone districts and appropriate contextual develop-
ment within the NCOD.
The NCOD uses the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preserva-
Ɵ on and The Neighborhood ConservaƟ on Overlay District to
inform new construcƟ on, and the 2015 NCOD audit suggests a
mix of design overlay and buff er overlay districts to promote
and to support neighborhood context. However, it is virtually
impossible to create design guidelines that make a new, tall,
mulƟ -story building relate to a single story bungalow.
The abrupt height and mass transiƟ ons between historic and
non-historic districts has infl uenced negaƟ ve community
senƟ ment toward the NCOD and an overall feeling that the
NCOD needs to be improved.
LEGEND
NCOD BÊçÄÙù
NÊÙã« ãÙù
L®Ä½ù Ö½
BÊÄ TÊÄ
M®Ä SãÙã
MSU
SÊçã« TÙù /
SÊçã« B½»
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®ù ϋ.ψ.
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý χ.χ Ä ψ.χ
DBIP RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυτ
DBIP RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυϊ
45
46
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
The historic districts, residenƟ al neighborhoods and mixed-
use downtown core found within the Neighborhood Con-
servaƟ on Overlay District represent some of the most de-
sirable real estate in the city, elevaƟ ng redevelopment
potenƟ al and prompƟ ng serious consideraƟ on – and con-
cern – regarding infi ll development in the area. Some of
the exisƟ ng zone districts located in the NCOD have allowed
for development over Ɵ me that is not always characterisƟ c
of adopted historic districts or non-historic neighborhoods.
This disconnect between tradiƟ onal zoning pracƟ ce and
neighborhood character results in projects that may meet
the code (and the exisƟ ng form and intensity standards)
but are not always responsive to the surrounding neigh-
borhood, prompƟ ng frustraƟ on and distrust toward infi ll
development, especially within the NCOD.
Within the scope of the NCOD project, the focus is to
address community concern over mass, scale and densi-
ty issues that impact neighborhood character within the
district. In order to do so, an evaluaƟ on of the zone
districts present within the NCOD boundary was necessary
to understand how exisƟ ng standards infl uence develop-
ment within the district and pinpoint opportuniƟ es for
greater compaƟ bility and stronger implementaƟ on. The
B-3 Downtown Business District and its relaƟ onship to the
established historic districts and overall NCOD boundary
became an important part of this evaluaƟ on, based on
input from stakeholders and community members.
The intent of the B-3 zone is ‘to provide a central area
for the community’s business, government service and cul-
tural acƟ viƟ es with urban residenƟ al development as an
essenƟ al supporƟ ng use.’ Encouraging mixed use devel-
opment with a healthy balance of business, civic, cultural
and residenƟ al uses are central to a healthy downtown
district. In other communiƟ es, allowing urban residenƟ al
uses as part of a high density downtown district has un-
intenƟ onally created situaƟ ons where the highest and best
use of a property is top-shelf residenƟ al 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 infi ll
and higher density development. In addiƟ on, the Bozeman
Community Plan is being updated which will also pinpoint
areas for growth and development and will refl ect long
term vision of the community.
47
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
The B-3 ‘downtown district’ zone highlights an opportunity
for a soŌ er, context-appropriate transiƟ on between higher
density and taller buildings and small low density neighbor-
hoods. A sensiƟ ve soluƟ on is required to meet the goals
and intent of the zone district while balancing historic and
neighborhood preservaƟ on 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. Diff erent height requirements
within the zone district recognize historic context along
Main Street; however, this pushes taller buildings toward
low scale residenƟ al neighborhoods located to the north
and south. Setback and height restricƟ ons established by
the applicaƟ on of zone edge transiƟ on areas address this
issue within B-3 and properƟ es immediately adjacent to
residenƟ al R-2 districts, but may not go far enough to
address neighborhood character beyond mass and scale or
consider infi ll in a holisƟ c 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 funcƟ on as a vibrant mixed-use dis-
trict that accommodates substanƟ al 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 infi ll development within the district.
Excerpt from Bozeman Municipal Code, SecƟ on 38.320.060. - Zone edge transiƟ ons (within Division 38.320 Form and Intensity Standards).
48
W«ã ó «Ù:
LocaƟ ng new infi ll 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 addiƟ onal density and
intensity of development.
It is important to note the diff erent percepƟ ons around
what consƟ tutes infi ll. For some people infi ll is large high
density development, and for others infi ll is all new de-
velopment regardless of density or size. High density devel-
opment can also take on diff erent meanings among residents.
For some, high-density means an intense concentraƟ on of uses,
both verƟ cally and horizontally, refl ecƟ ve of larger urban areas
like Denver, SeaƩ le or Portland. For others, high-density could
be any use or development more intense than single-family res-
idenƟ al; in a city the size of Bozeman someƟ mes any new or
addiƟ onal development feels higher in intensity than what cur-
rently exists.
“Lack of buff er zone between new development and exist-
ing neighborhoods is hurƟ ng the community of the neigh-
borhoods which is diffi cult 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 residenƟ al zoning needs a buff er.”
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Study of the B-3 transiƟ on zone should be a mid- or long-
term priority rather than an immediate priority.
There is some acceptance by the community that new
development is going to happen in the NCOD. Results
from pointed quesƟ ons on where developments should
occur, as well as our assessment of the massing and char-
acter of exisƟ ng development within the NCOD boundary,
informed our recommendaƟ on to rethink the B-3 District
boundary within the NCOD. How this boundary is re-
considered could be approached from mulƟ ple direcƟ ons:
from modifying the boundary of the B-3 district to beƩ er
align with exisƟ ng historic districts, to creaƟ ng a new mixed
use district that serves as a transiƟ onal zone between B-3
and the residenƟ al neighborhoods, or expanding upon
the exisƟ ng zone edge transiƟ on requirements to beƩ er
address form and character in these transiƟ onal areas.
Using streets to delineate the boundary creates a physical
break between zone districts. The established neighbor-
hoods and historic districts located to the south of down-
town dictate a very clear boundary between tradiƟ onal
neighborhood development and the B-3 zone; our recom-
mendaƟ on, regardless of any of the opƟ ons presented, is
for the City to consider aligning the southern B-3 district
boundary with the exisƟ ng historic districts to the south of
Babcock Street. To balance an adjusted B-3 zone, incenƟ v-
izing redevelopment within areas zoned for B-2M along
the North 7th corridor should be considered to take ad-
vantage of recent upzoning in this area and the desire to see
addiƟ onal infi ll along this corridor.
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®®Ý ψ.υ. Ä ψ.ψ
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä Gʽ υ.χ
DBIP ¦ç®®Ä¦ ÖٮĮֽ Ö.χτ
The Bozeman Community Plan is currently being revised. The
fi nal document will provide context and future vision for this
decades old discussion around increasing density downtown
and protecƟ ng the essence of the Bozeman community.
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
49
TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçÙ ®ÝçÝÝ®ÊÄ:
Tools to consider in the future are provided as opƟ ons that address the
delicate balance between incenƟ vizing infi ll and supporƟ ng historic pres-
ervaƟ on and enhancing neighborhood character.
1) Create a B-3 transiƟ onal 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 properƟ es located between Babcock and the exisƟ ng B-3
boundary to the south, and Mendenhall and the exisƟ ng B-3 boundary to
the north. The intent of the exisƟ ng B-3 zone would remain in place, with
massing, scale, site design and other dimensional requirements adjusted
to beƩ er align with a transiƟ oning commercial, mixed use to residenƟ al,
mixed use neighborhood. Design standards and guidelines developed to
maintain the character of the area would further refi ne where and how
infi ll development would occur within this zone.
B-3T?
B-3T?
2) Incorporate addiƟ onal site design standards within the exisƟ ng zone
edge transiƟ on requirements.
Similar to the recommendaƟ on above, but working within the exisƟ ng
municipal code framework, addiƟ onal site design standards could be in-
corporated within SecƟ on 38.320.060 of the City’s municipal code ad-
dressing compaƟ ble transiƟ ons between high density and low density
districts. Façade arƟ culaƟ on, transparency, construcƟ on materials, roof
type, landscaping and other design requirements could be incorporated
– in addiƟ on to exisƟ ng height and setback requirements – to further
defi ne the character of the transiƟ on zone and extend it beyond imme-
diately adjacent properƟ es.
3) IncenƟ vize redevelopment along North 7th through TDRs.
Using a combinaƟ on of the above opƟ ons establishing a transiƟ onal zone
along the B-3 “edge”, encourage infi ll development within the expanded
NCOD district along North 7th Avenue by allowing developers to shiŌ
density from the transiƟ onal 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 direcƟ on resulƟ ng from
the City’s community plan update, landowner input, and the adopted
downtown plan update.
4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS
50
Zone district analysis is not exactly within the scope of the NCOD
project; however, there are defi nite 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 defi ned and cohesive
architectural style. Approved projects within the B-3 zone dis-
trict directly adjacent to designated historic districts, highlight
incompaƟ bility 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 Ō . max) are
lower than the R-4 Zone District (44 Ō . max), and signifi cantly
lower than the B-3 Zone District (70 Ō . 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-
nifi cantly lower than a 44 Ō . building allowed in R-4.
Numerous zone districts within one cohesive historic district
can be frustraƟ ng 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-
Ɵ on, on-street and off -street parking needs, aff ordable housing
needs, and many other growth and development topics.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Through our analysis and discussion with parƟ cipants the
Main Street Historic District and surrounds was idenƟ fi ed as
having the greatest mass and scale challenges with new de-
velopment.
Many parƟ cipants reference recent tall developments in the
B-3 zone adjacent to residenƟ al neighborhoods, as evidence
that the NCOD needs to beƩ er protect neighborhood char-
acter. Rather than design, the review process, or neutral op-
Ɵ ons, parƟ cipants 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. Specifi c concerns within
the NCOD ended up relaƟ ng largely to projects approved un-
der the B-3 zone district and Design Guideline Subchapter 4B
which is specifi c to the B-3 zone.
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
The NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places describes the Bon
Ton Historic District as “Bozeman’s fi nest examples of histor-
ic residenƟ al architecture, spanning from the early 1880s to
the mid-1930s, consƟ tute the bulk of the 228 buildings in
the Bon Ton Historic District.”
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
(ÄÊÄ-«®ÝãÊÙ® Ä®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊÝ)
Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood
character.
Gather more data aŌ er the architectural survey and design
guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D
modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
New design overlay districts and neighborhood specifi c design
guidelines are not the singular answer to the mass, scale and
incompaƟ bility issues voiced by the community. To success-
fully address the concerns in non-historic neighborhoods we
recommend a mulƟ -pronged approach that starts with align-
ing dimensional requirements and allowed uses in the NCOD
zone districts to neighborhood character and the future vision
for each neighborhood. Design guidelines should be consid-
ered aŌ er an architectural inventory or windshield survey of the
NCOD is completed and aŌ er zone districts are amended.
TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçÙ ®ÝçÝÝ®ÊÄ:
1) Update the form and intensity standards to beƩ er address
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 standards
that have not been adequately tested. Sample case studies
could shed light on the applicability of the form and intensity
standards and whether AlternaƟ ve 1 is an appropriate opƟ on.
2) Update current design guidelines and add design standards
to beƩ er address concerns about mass and scale.
New design standards can encourage thoughƞ ul design ele-
ments that reduce the percepƟ on of mass and scale and can
require architectural elements, such as front porches or large
street facing windows, that relate new development to sur-
rounding character. New design standards and guidelines for
neighborhoods are addressed in Chapter 2 of this document.
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®ù ψ.ψ
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä Gʽ υ.χ
DBIP ¦ç®®Ä¦ ÖٮĮֽ Ö.χτ
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
(«®ÝãÊÙ® ®ÝãÙ®ãÝ)
Explore adjusƟ ng the historic district boundaries to relate to
the exisƟ ng zone districts.
Gather more data aŌ er the architectural survey and design
guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as
3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale.
AŌ er an updated architectural inventory of the NCOD is com-
pleted, determine whether exisƟ ng historic district bound-
aries need adjustment and idenƟ fy eligible future historic
districts within the NCOD. Consider historic preservaƟ on in-
cenƟ ves that off -set any “down zoning” that may occur when
zone district boundaries and dimensions are adjusted.
TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçÙ ®ÝçÝÝ®ÊÄ:
1) Explore adjusƟ ng the historic district boundaries to relate
to the exisƟ ng zone districts.
If an architectural inventory is not feasible at this Ɵ me, bound-
ary adjustments can be made based on current informaƟ on
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
signifi cance and do not contribute to the historic district. On
the other hand, historic districts should not exclude important
historic properƟ es in order to align zone districts with historic
districts as this would be counter-producƟ ve. This alternaƟ ve
may involve amending the NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places
historic district designaƟ on unless local historic districts are
adopted.
2) Develop an historic preservaƟ on 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, diff erent dimensional
standards apply to properƟ es inside the Main Street historic
district as opposed to outside the district.
4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT
51
2018 SãÙ㦮 P½Ä
Pʽ®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®®Ý. (P.ϊ)
Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.
Pʽ®ù ψ.ψ V®ÙÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ Ι CÄãÙÝ. (P.ϋ)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher
densiƟ es and intensifi caƟ on of use in these key areas.
Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙ㦮 MçÄ®®Ö½ SÙò® D½®òÙù EøÖãã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟ ons about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä
Gʽ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MĦÃÄã. (P.υχ)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟ ng, and enhancing the overall quality of life with-
in the planning area.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-χ LÄ UÝ. (P.χχ)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟ on
represented by this area.
Gʽ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Qç½®ãù. (P.ψϋ)
Update design objecƟ ves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development.
Mù 2019 DÊóÄãÊóÄ BÊþÃÄ IÃÖÙÊòÃÄã Ö½Ä
G箮Ħ ÖٮĮֽ “MÊÙ ã«Ä M®Ä SãÙã” (P. χτ)
Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residenƟ al neighborhoods through context-sensiƟ ve
development.
RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυτ
Adjust the B-3 District Boundary to Eliminate Land Use and Scale Confl icts.
ÙÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυϊ
Explore “Gentle” ResidenƟ al Infi ll.
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 draŌ NCOD recommendaƟ ons. CorrelaƟ ons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below.
525252
CH
A
P
T
E
R
5
ST
R
E
A
M
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
55
5 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS ΈNONͳHISTORICΉ:
Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined.
55
5656
CHAPTER 5 WORK PLAN
56565656
rom duplicaƟ ve Exempt the NCOD fr
nd replace withreview processes an
dards and guide-context derived stand
lines.
SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
56
5 STREAMLINE PROCESS
There are numerous requirements and reviews that may apply to projects within the NCOD including: a CerƟ fi cate of Appropri-
ateness, Sketch Plan Review, Form and Intensity Standards within each zone district, and Project Design Review to name a few.
These mulƟ ple layers can create confusion for neighbors. The City of Bozeman developed handouts that simplify applicaƟ on
requirements to be accessible and understandable to a wide range of users.
The number of diff ering reviews increases the potenƟ al for confl icƟ ng standards that need to be recƟ fi ed 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 recommendaƟ on is required from the Design Review Board (DRB). These thresholds are specifi c to large de-
velopments with 45 or more dwelling units or are a minimum of four stories, and provide a good foundaƟ on 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.
57
5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC)
W«ã ó «Ù:
Clear review criteria, an understandable process, and a
streamlined review are areas that need improvement accord-
ing to the small group meeƟ ng parƟ cipants. Placing more
weight on public comment and Design Review Board (DRB)
recommendaƟ ons is desired; and, relaƟ ng scope to level of
review process is recommended by the small group meeƟ ng
parƟ cipants.
Overall, parƟ cipants felt that the review process for new de-
velopment is slightly Ɵ lted to developers with some parƟ ci-
pants agreeing that the review process is balanced.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined.
Map out the diff erent review processes to determine overlap
and areas to simplify and consolidate. For example, explore
the advantages and disadvantages to exempƟ ng the NCOD
from form and intensity standards in zone districts (and pos-
sibly other review processes) and instead use context derived
design guidelines (recommendaƟ ons) and standards (require-
ments).
Develop review criteria that is objecƟ ve and allows some fl ex-
ibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulaƟ ons, de-
sign standards and design guidelines.
TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçÙ ®ÝçÝÝ®ÊÄ:
1) Require a binding design review process with the Design
Review Board (non-historic properƟ es).
The DRB would be authorized to make the fi nal decision on
design review, while sƟ ll enabling the Bozeman Commission
to consider a large project for review when certain thresholds
or requirements are met. At the same Ɵ me, lower the thresh-
olds that triggers DRB review to include smaller projects to
balance the recommendaƟ on requiring a design review pro-
cess for large projects.
This is a signifi cant change to the Bozeman Municipal Code
and requires a commitment to training the DRB to apply re-
view criteria. A large majority of established communiƟ es im-
plement a similar review structure with design review boards,
historic preservaƟ on boards, planning boards, and/or zoning
boards conducƟ ng quasi-judicial procedures to review proj-
ects that fall between a staff level review and a comprehen-
sive review by elected offi cials. Under this process, planning
staff conƟ nues to approve minor projects and provides exper-
Ɵ se and recommendaƟ ons 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 fi t the character of the par-
Ɵ cular neighborhood.”
“There should be room for deviaƟ on from exisƟ ng com-
munity character, if the proposed building’s architecture is
world-class, contemporary.”
SãÙ㦮 P½Ä Öʽ®®Ý ψ.φ., ψ.ψ, ϋ.ψ.
CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ
58585858
CHAPTER 5 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS
2018 SãÙ㦮 P½Ä
Pʽ®ù ψ.φ. UÖã H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ G箽®ÄÝ. (P.ϊ)
Update the Neighborhood ConservaƟ on Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservaƟ on in downtown and other
commercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote conƟ nued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures
relaƟ ve to ongoing infi ll and redevelopment.
Pʽ®ù ψ.ψ V®ÙÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ Ι CÄãÙÝ. (P.ϋ)
Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher
densiƟ es and intensifi caƟ on of use in these key areas.
Pʽ®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙ㦮 MçÄ®®Ö½ SÙò® D½®òÙù EøÖãã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11)
Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟ ons about the City’s capacity to deliver services.
2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä
Gʽ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MĦÃÄã. (Ö.υχ)
Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟ ng, and enhancing the overall quality of life within
the planning area.
Gʽ χ.χ, O¹ã®ò ½ç-χ LÄ UÝ. (P.χχ)
Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟ on
represented by this area.
Gʽ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Qç½®ãù. (P.ψϋ)
Update design objecƟ ves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development.
Gʽ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Qç½®ãù. (P.ψϋ)
Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualiƟ es 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 draŌ NCOD recommendaƟ ons. CorrelaƟ ons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below.
59
6060
CH
A
P
T
E
R
6
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
61
6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
Strengthen exisƟ ng project informaƟ on channels and work on push noƟ fi caƟ ons City-wide.
61
6.2 PROJECT INFORMATION
Develop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to applicatoni review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from
neighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟ cing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that
applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review.
62
CHAPTER 6 WORK PLAN
SSttrrennggthheen eexisƟ ng project
innffoorrmmaaƟƟ oon chhannels and work
oonn ppuusshh nnooƟƟ fifi caƟƟ onss City-wide.
DDDeeveelop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to applica-Ɵ
ttoonni review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from r
nneeeighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟ cing require-A
mments with area radius. Develop minimum standards m
tthhaatt aappllicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds o
that trigger review.ew
SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM
62
The City of Bozeman requires mailed and posted noƟ ces that include informaƟ on about the project, contact number, and the date
of a public hearing for specifi c types of projects. In addiƟ on, the City of Bozeman is currently working on expanding web access
to development project informaƟ on and advisory board agendas with links to packet material. A CerƟ fi cate of Appropriateness
in the NCOD does not require posƟ ng of noƟ ce prior to approval; rather, the Municipal Code may require noƟ ce be posted on the
property that describes the scope of the already approved project. AdministraƟ ve reviews at the staff level do not have required
public noƟ cing prior to the decision. By their very nature, staff reviews are for projects that comply with code requirements and
a CerƟ fi cate of Appropriateness can be issued quickly without slowing down development momentum.
W«ã ó «Ù:
Project informaƟ on is mostly found in the newspaper, on the
city website, and through word of mouth. Most parƟ cipants
feel that available informaƟ on provides enough detail to un-
derstand the main points of a project.
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Strengthen exisƟ ng project informaƟ on channels.
Go beyond the standard posƟ ng, mailing, and publishing, and
provide informaƟ on to the area surrounding the project prior
to the fi rst hearing or staff determinaƟ on. The City of Boze-
man has a robust award-winning GIS Department and web-
page. The informaƟ on that is available online includes layers
that illustrate projects that are under iniƟ al review, on hold,
are within a public noƟ cing, under fi nal review, and approved.
In speaking with the community and reviewing the website,
there is an opportunity to work within the exisƟ ng GIS layers
to add addiƟ onal informaƟ on. Examples from other ciƟ es in-
clude a summary of the project proposal, more detailed appli-
caƟ on status, and associated permits.
OpƟ ons to explore:
• Working with GIS Department and web administrators on
how to integrate addiƟ onal informaƟ on into the exisƟ ng
GIS layers and website to make detailed project informa-
Ɵ on more readily available to the public.
• EducaƟ onal campaign through City social media channels
discussing where to fi nd planning project informaƟ on.
“ALL of these sources and several Ɵ mes IN ADVANCE- you
can’t adverƟ se too much”
“Send out texts with development/proposal info to folks
within a fi ve block radius.”
“ConƟ nue to uƟ lize GIS in a useable format so the public
can see proposed projects early in the process and have a
chance to comment.”
“Neighbors directly aff ected deserve a direct communica-
Ɵ on.”
City of Boulder, GIS, Development Review Cases.City of Fort Collins, GIS, CiƟ zen Portal.
6 PROJECT INFORMATION
63
AÊÖã Öʽ®ù ®Ùã®ÊÄ:
Increase opportunity for community awareness through no-
Ɵ ced public hearings.
Pushing more projects and review authority to the DRB or
HPAB will automaƟ cally generate a forum to gather informa-
Ɵ on during project review and may result in more community
awareness of ongoing projects.
OpƟ ons to explore:
• A required meeƟ ng prior to applicaƟ on review with the
neighborhoods impacted by the project.
• To take it a step further, required input from the neigh-
borhood associaƟ on on large scale projects could be ex-
plored. For example, in Pitkin County Colorado, specifi c
areas within the County have formed caucuses that are
required to provide a recommendaƟ on to the reviewing
body on large projects within their area.
6 PROJECT INFORMATION
646464
65