The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-20-21 HPAB Meeting AgendaA.Call meeting to order B.Disclosures C.Changes to the Agenda D.Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from September 15th, 2021 (Donnelly) E.Public Comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for THE BOZEMAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA BHPAB AGENDA Wednesday, October 20, 2021 WebEx Event Information Via Webex: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php? MTID=e9d1c32f69f340fd368ba20c11a1767cb Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190 • Call-in toll number (US/Canada ): 1-650-479-3208 • Access code: 2551 263 0639 Public Comment: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 4:00pm on Wednesday, October 20th, 2021. You may also comment by visiting the City's public comment page. You can also comment by joining the Webex meeting. If you do join the Webex meeting, we ask you please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to 406-224-3967. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190. 1 individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. F.Special Presentation F.1 Special Presentation from Kate Hampton with the State Historic Preservation Office(Hampton) G.Action Items H.FYI/Discussions H.1 NCOD Policy Direction Discussion (Rosenberg) I.Adjournment For more information please contact Sarah Rosenberg srosenberg@bozeman.net This board generally meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month from 6:00pm to 8:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Taylor Chambers - Community Development Technician II SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes from September 15th, 2021 MEETING DATE:October 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the meeting minutes from September 15th, 2021 STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:None UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve meeting minutes with corrections 2. Do not approve meeting minutes FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 09-15-21 HPAB Minutes DRAFT.pdf Report compiled on: October 12, 2021 3 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 9-15-21 Page 1 of 3 THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Wednesday, September 15th, 2021 WebEx Meeting Information A) 00:33:11 Call meeting to order Present: Chelsea Holling, LaDeen Arthun, Savannah Donnelly, Christopher Coburn, Linda Semones Absent: None B) 00:33:42 Disclosures 00:34:02 Introductions Board members took turns introducing themselves to the rest of the Board. C) Changes to the Agenda D) 00:40:44 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from 04-22-21 04-22-21 HPAB Meeting Agenda DRAFT.pdf 00:41:18 Motion D) Approval of Minutes Chelsea Holling: Motion LaDeen Arthun: 2nd 00:41:25 Vote on the Motion to amend D) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 5 - 0 Approve: Chelsea Holling LaDeen Arthun Savannah Donnelly Christopher Coburn Linda Semones 4 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 9-15-21 Page 2 of 3 Disapprove: None E) 00:42:15 Public Comment Elizabeth Darrow commented that she has applied to be on the Board and is excited to listen and participate in meetings. Jacob Klatt commented that he is excited to have a better understanding of the Historic Preservation initiative. F) 00:45:42 Action Items F.1 Election of Officers 00:46:47 Board Discussion Board member Donnelley commented that she would be interested in being chair or vice chair Board member Semones, commented that she would be open to being the vice chair. 00:48:56 Motion To appoint Savannah Donnelley to be the Chairman of the Board. Chelsea Holling: Motion Linda Semones: 2nd 00:49:08 Vote on the Motion to approve To appoint Savannah Donnelley to be the Chairman of the Board. The Motion carried 5 - 0 Approve: Chelsea Holling LaDeen Arthun Savannah Donnelly Christopher Coburn Linda Semones Disapprove: None 00:50:02 Motion To appoint Linda Semones as the Vice Chair of the Board. Chelsea Holling: Motion LaDeen Arthun: 2nd 00:50:05 Vote on the Motion to approve To appoint Linda Semones as the Vice Chair of the Board. The Motion carried 5 - 0 5 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 9-15-21 Page 3 of 3 Approve: Chelsea Holling LaDeen Arthun Savannah Donnelly Christopher Coburn Linda Semones Disapprove: None G) 00:50:46 FYI/Discussions G.1 Introductions G.2 00:50:48 Updates from Staff on historic inventory, board consolidations, and future projects. Project 3 Survey Map CityOfBzn_2020-2021_SummaryLetter final.pdf 00:51:49 Staff Presentation Staff liaison Rosenberg gave a brief explanation of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and what they do for the City. 00:56:19 Board Questions Board members did not have questions for Staff. G.3 01:08:36 The Future and Roles of HPAB BHPAB By-Laws 01:08:37 Staff Presentation Staff Liaison Rosenberg inquired about the Board's views for the future of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. 01:23:57 Board Discussion Board members discussed their thoughts on what they would like to see for the future of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. 01:57:42 Public Comment Opportunity Elizabeth Darrow commented in support of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board having a stronger voice in the community. H) 02:07:23 Adjournment For more information please contact Sarah Rosenberg at srosenberg@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Sarah Rosenberg, Associate Planner SUBJECT:Special Presentation from Kate Hampton with the State Historic Preservation Office MEETING DATE:October 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:NA STRATEGIC PLAN:1.3 Public Agencies Collaboration: Foster successful collaboration with other public agencies and build on these successes. BACKGROUND:Kate Hampton, the Community Preservation Coordinator with the State Historic Preservation Office, will give a presentation that includes a brief overview of Montana's historic preservation program and the roles and responsibilities of Montana's Certified Local Governments (CLGs). UNRESOLVED ISSUES:NA ALTERNATIVES:NA FISCAL EFFECTS:NA Report compiled on: October 12, 2021 7 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Sarah Rosenberg, Associate Planner SUBJECT:NCOD Policy Direction Discussion MEETING DATE:October 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:NA STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:From the NCOD Policy Direction Report that was adopted in 2019, a number of recommendations were outlined how to evolve the NCOD and Historic Preservation Program. The Executive Summary on page 10 and 11 of the report outline the suggested recommendations. We will begin to review these recommendations and start making a work plan with goals on how to move the Preservation Program forward. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:NA ALTERNATIVES:NA FISCAL EFFECTS:NA Attachments: Final Policy Recommendations 6.28.19 Final Version.pdf Report compiled on: October 13, 2021 8 1 FINAL NCOD POLICY DIRECTION JUNE 2019 9 2 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 CHAPTER 1PROJECT TIMELINE + INTRODUCTION14 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 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù υ.υ. DÙÃã®½½ù ®ÄÙÝ ãÙÄÝÖÙÄù Ä Ùã ÝÝ ãÊ ½½ ®ãù ÊçÃÄãÝ. (P.φ) PÊ½®ù υ.φ BÙÊÄ Ä ÖÄ Ä¦¦ÃÄã Ê¥ ã« ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ®Ä ®ãù ¦ÊòÙÄÃÄã, ®ÄÄÊòã®Ä¦ Ãã«ÊÝ ¥ÊÙ ®Äò®ã®Ä¦ ®ÄÖçã ¥ÙÊÃ ã« ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Ä Ýã»«Ê½ÙÝ (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 15 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 16 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 SãÙã¦® MÝãÙ P½Ä PÊ½®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ PÊ½®®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. PÊ½®ù ϋ.χ. H®¦« Lò½ PÊ½®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, GÊ½ ¦-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, GÊ½ -ψ DÝ®¦Ä Gç®½®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 17 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. 18 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 19 121.4 COMPREHENSIVE WORK PLANAdopt local historic preservaƟ on program witht Bozeman specifi c rules to desig-nate landmarks, districts, process for exterior changes. BeBegiginnprprocoessss totoaamemendnNNRRlisƟsƟnngsgsaandnd bobounundadaririesesffororNNR R hihiststororiccddisistrtrictsts..WrWite cocontntexextt papapepersrsoon n BoBozezemaman’n’s s vever-r-nanacuclaar r bubuilildidingngss ididenenƟ Ɵ fi fi edediinnsusurvrveyey bubutt noot teligigibibleleffororNNaƟaƟoonanallReRegigiststererLocally designnate NaƟ Ɵonal Register (NR)propoperƟ es with owner consent. Develop quicck reference guidesffor ap-propriate repairs of historic properƟ esCrCreaeatetehhisstotoriric c dedesisigngnstatandndarardsdsaandndgguiuidedelilinenes sfofor rhihiststorricic disitrticictstsaandnd lannd-mamarkrkssththatataaliligngnwwitih upupdadateteddSeSec.c.oof f InInteteririoror’s Staandndarardsds. Develop preservaƟ on plan wiwitht HPAB to idedenƟƟffy preser-vaƟ on goals. TrTraiaininingngffororHHPAPAB Bmemembmerers..Adopt incenƟnƟ vess for historic prproperertyy owners.s.Process for HPABB recommendaƟ onsn for historic prpojecects and projectcs within a historoic district. BeBegiginnprprococesessstotonnomomininatateeneewwNRNRlisƟ Ɵngngs ananddbobounundadaririesesffororNNRRhihststororicicddisstrtricictsts.MaMp reviewe proceessssaandndidedenƟnƟffy yreduundant requuiremmenentstsaannd areras ofooverlap forpprorjejectctss wiwitthin the NCOD: i.e.AArƟrƟccle55,,SiStetePPlan ReRe-view, ,PrPojeccttReReviviewew.Exemptp thehe NCOCOD D frfromomddupulicaƟ ve review processes and replace with context dederirivevddstandards and guidelines. AnAnalalyzyze e zozoneneddistrricctss: IDwwhehreddimensiononalalrreqequiuireremementntssannd d bobunndadariiesccononflfl icictt wiwiththneighbhorhoododcchaharaactcterer/f/fututurure e vivisisionon, orohhisistotoric district boundary.Requirre input from eststabablilishsheded neieigh--borhrhooooddassociaƟ onsnsoon n lalargrge esccalaeprprojojecectstsaandn posossibly y rerezozoniningngaappppli-caƟ Ɵonons.sStSreengngthen exisƟ ng gprprojojececttininfofor-r-maƟ onon channels sananddwowrkoon pupush noƟ fi caƟ ons City-widde.Amend zoneddistricctreequqirememenentststtoo rerlaate to neighborhood (or his-toric didstrict if fappplpliciabablee) chhararacacteter r (e(eititheer exisƟ ng or futurevvisision)n.Crreaetee33 sets of design sttanadardds and guidelines that are divided into accharacter areaa north of Downtownwn,a characteer r area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There shouldldbbee gegeneneraral gugidellininestthat suupporot tcoonnececƟ Ɵvivtyybbetetweween theaarereasas,,createeaa comommomonnthread betweweene neighhboborhrhoooodsds,,ananddsusupppporort t trtanansisƟ Ɵ ononssbetweeennneigihbbororhhoods. Foccus onnlarge areaeassananddevevenentutualallylyrrececogognizesspepcialal characteriisƟsƟccssofofeeach area andd contetextxt.CrCeaatet traansiƟonsppecifi c standardsandgguiuideliinenes ththatataarerecconontetextxt babasesed dananddrereplplacaceeArArƟ Ɵclclee55ststanandadrdrds (wwhehereeiittisisrrededunundadannt))foforr prrojoecetswwithin NCCODOD.Adjust NCOCOD Dboununddarybbased on results off building suurrvey:**N. 7th all out..*Use Front St. as northeren edge.Defi ne neighborhhoood chcharacter.LONGTERMWiWndshield survey - neigghbhbororhohoododaassociaƟ onaarereasasaandareasasooututside of esstatblished neighboorhrhooodsd....Start tHPAB review of demoliƟ on applicaƟ ons.Explore a vavriety of inincecenƟnƟvvesesffororhhisistotoriric c prpropopererƟ Ɵ eses anand d hihiststororicicddisistricts.Conduct extensive outreach with historic property owners on possible incenƟ ves.Gattheremmororeedadataa aŌ er the architectural survey, scenarios, and designgguuidielelinessaandndsstatandndaradsd are completed. Use toolsssuch as 3-D modeling to under-stand zoning, masss andsscacle. Develop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to application review with im-pacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟ ccing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. ArAchitectural Inventory - hihststororiccddisistrtricictsts andnd lanandmarks (build ononrrececenent inveenntoroy ofofdowowntowonnbuuildidingngs..ArAchitecturalInventoryhihiststoricddisistrricictssanddlandmdarks(buildononrrececenenttinvevenntorryofofddowowntntowonnbubuilididingss20 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 cipants expressed a concern over recent development projects, specifi cally the size, scale, and 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 While there were mixed opinions on whether the current regulaƟ ons are ‘too stringent’ or ‘too liberal’ 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 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®®Ý υ.υ., υ.φ 13 21 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 22 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 cipants felt this opportunity would help to preserve the mass and scale in historic districts and reduce confl ict between new developments in exisƟ ng neighborhoods. ParƟ cipants expressed concern over sƟ 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 23 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 cipants felt that requiring a binding review 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 University faculty. ParƟ cipants were very engaged 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 24 1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS Both the windshield survey and the neighborhood character survey are tools within a comprehensive tool box that are combined with outreach results and best pracƟ ces to ulƟ mately inform specifi c recommendaƟ ons in the report related to 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 Windshield surveys are a useful tool to gain a broad understanding of architecture in a large area. PaƩ 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 25 18 Bon Ton South Tracy/South Black Lindley Place Cooper Park Historic District *note: Main Street was recently surveyed High-Priority Group Bozeman Brewery Story Mill South Tracy Ave. North Tracy Ave. Marwyn AddiƟ on – potenƟ al future historic districtMid-Priority Group NONͳHISTORIC AREA PRIORITIES WITHIN THE NCOD High-Priority Group 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 Mid-Priority Group 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 181818 26 202202020202020202220202020022222020222 CHAPTER 2NCOD: PURPOSE AND BOUNDARY27 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 28 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 29 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 þÊÄ®Ä¦ ãÊÊ½ 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 ÊÃÃÊÄ½ù çÝ ãÊ ®Ä¥½çÄ ã« Ý®¦Ä Ê¥ Äó ç®½- ®Ä¦Ý ÊÙ ãÊ ¥®Ä Ä «®ÝãÊÙ® ®ÝãÙ®ã. 23 30 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®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 ÖÊ½®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 31 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 CÙã®¥® LÊ½ GÊòÙÄÃÄãÝ ½®» BÊþÃÄ ãÊ Ã®Äã®Ä Ä ãÊ ÊÄã®Äç ãÊ ®Äã®¥ù «®ÝãÊÙ® Ä ÖÙ«®ÝãÊÙ® ÖÙÊÖ- Ùã®Ý ó®ã«®Ä ®ãÝ ¹çÙ®Ý®ã®ÊÄ. T« BÊþÃÄ MçÄ®®Ö½ CÊ ÝããÝ ã«ã ã« ®ÝãÙ®ã ÊçÄÙù Ãù Ùò®Ý Ý ®ã®ÊÄ½ 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 ®Äã®¥®Ý ½®¦®®½®ãù ¥ÊÙ Äã®ÊÄ½, Ýãã ÊÙ ½Ê½ «®ÝãÊÙ® ½ÄÃÙ» Ý®¦Äã®ÊÄ, Ä ®Äã®¥®Ý ½®¦®®½®ãù ¥ÊÙ ®Ä½çÝ®ÊÄ ó®ã«®Ä Äã®ÊÄ½, 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 ÊÙ ç®½®Ä¦ ÊÄÝãÙçã®ÊÄ ã. A ó®ÄÝ«®½ ÝçÙòù ®Ý Øç®» Ê¹ã®ò ÊòÙò®ó Ê¥ ½Ù¦ Ù ã«ã ÖÙÊò®Ý ¦ÄÙ½ ã. Iã ®Ý ½½ ó®ÄÝ«®½ ÝçÙòù çÝ ®ã ®Ý çÝç½½ù ÊÃÖ½ã ¥ÙÊÃ 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 ®Äã®¥ù ÙÝ ¥ÊÙ ÃÊÙ ã®½ Ýãçù. 25 32 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. SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. AÊÖã ÖÊ½®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 33 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 34 LEGEND N®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊ CÊÄ- ÝÙòã®ÊÄ OòÙ½ù D®ÝãÙ®ã BÊçÄÙù A¹çÝãÃÄãÝ ãÊ ã« Ä®¦«ÊÙ«ÊÊ ÊÄÝÙ- òã®ÊÄ ÊòÙ½ù ®ÝãÙ®ã IIÄÄ½½çç FFÙÙÊÊÄÄãã Ýãã. RÃÊÊòò NN. 77ãã«« 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY UPDATES 28 35 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 ÖÊ½®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. SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®®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 36 30 2018 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ PÊ½®®Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. PÊ½®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. PÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙã¦® 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 GÊ½ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MÄ¦ÃÄã. (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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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 Gç®½®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. 37 31CHAPTER 3STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM38 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 39 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 40 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® ç®½®Ä¦Ý ®Ä®ò®ç½½ù ½®Ýã ÊÄ ã« Nã®ÊÄ½ R¦®ÝãÙ Ä υτ Nã®ÊÄ½ R¦®ÝãÙ H®ÝãÊÙ- ® D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ. T« Nã®ÊÄ½ R¦®ÝãÙ Ê¥ H®ÝãÊÙ® P½Ý ®Ý Ã®Ä®ÝãÙ ù ã« Nã®ÊÄ½ PÙ» SÙò®. 34 41 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®ÊÄ½ R¦®ÝãÙ ®Ý ½®Ýã Ê¥ ®Ä®ò®ç½ Ý®ãÝ, ç®½®Ä¦Ý, Ê¹ãÝ, 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®ÊÄ½ R¦®ÝãÙ Ê¥ H®ÝãÊÙ® P½Ý ®Ý Ä «ÊÄÊÙ- Ùù Ý®¦Äã®ÊÄ ã«ã ÊÝ ÄÊã ÖÙòÄã ÃÊ½®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.42 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 ÖÊ½®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. SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù υ.φ, ϋ.ψ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½ 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. 43 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 ÖÊ½®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 ÊÄÝÊ½®ã ½½ ÙØç®Ù Ùò®óÝ ã HPAB ¥ÊÙ øÖ®ã Ùò®ó ÖÙÊÝÝ. φ) PÊãÄã®½ ¥ÊÙ ã« C®ãù ãÊ Öù ÖÊÙã®ÊÄ Ê¥ ã« C®ãù ¥Ý ÝÝÊ®ã ó®ã« ã« ÖÙÊ¹ã. χ) ãÙÄÝ¥Ù½ ò½ÊÖÃÄã Ù®¦«ã ÖÙÊ¦ÙÃ ãÊ ãÙÄÝ¥Ù ¥½ÊÊÙ Ù Ê¥¥-Ý®ã. ψ) ÊÄÝÙòã®ÊÄ ÝÃÄã ÖÙÊ¦ÙÃ ÊÙ ç®½®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 ÊÃÃ®ãã 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. RÊ¦Ä®þ®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 ÖÙÊ¦ÙÃÝ ¥ÊÙ Ý®¦Äã «®ÝãÊÙ® ÖÙÊÖÙã®Ý Ä ®ÝãÙ®ãÝ. ÝÃÖ½ ®ÄÄã®ò ÖÙÊ¦ÙÃ: SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®ù ψ.υ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½ ό.χ 37 44 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 ÖÊ½®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” SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®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. 45 ÝããCÊÃÃÊÄ BÊÙ T®ã½ SÊÖ Ê¥ Aç- ã«ÊÙ®ãù SÃÖ½ AÖÖÙÊò½ Açã«ÊÙ®ã®Ý ¥ÊÙ H®ÝãÊÙ® D®ÝãÙ®ãÝ Sããç/EøÃÖ½RÊÃÃÄ ÊÄ½ù COAs AÖÖ½Ý ãÊ Sã¥¥ 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 CÊÃÃ®ÝÝ®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 46 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 ÖÊ½®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.” SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®ù ψ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ 40 47 2018 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®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. PÊ½®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ PÊ½®®Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. PÊ½®ù ψ.φ. UÖã H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ Gç®½®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. PÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙã¦® 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 GÊ½ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MÄ¦ÃÄã. (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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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 GÊ½ ψ.χ, O¹ã®ò -υ.ψ DÝ®¦Ä Gç®½®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. GÊ½ ό.χ, O¹ã®ò -χ EÊÄÊÃ® 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 48 CHAPTER 4RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT49 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 50 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 51 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» SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý χ.χ Ä ψ.χ DBIP RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυτ DBIP RÊÃÃÄã®ÊÄ Ö. υυϊ 45 52 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. 53 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).54 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 ÖÊ½®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. SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®®Ý ψ.υ. Ä ψ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½ υ.χ DBIP ¦ç®®Ä¦ ÖÙ®Ä®Ö½ 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 55 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 56 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.” 57 AÊÖã ÖÊ½®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. SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®ù ψ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½ υ.χ DBIP ¦ç®®Ä¦ ÖÙ®Ä®Ö½ Ö.χτ AÊÖã ÖÊ½®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 58 2018 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù ψ.υ. Dò½ÊÖ Ä A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ PÊ½®®Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infi ll and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. PÊ½®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. PÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙã¦® 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 GÊ½ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MÄ¦ÃÄã. (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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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 Gç®®Ä¦ ÖÙ®Ä®Ö½ “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 59 CHAPTER 5STREAMLINE PROCESS60 55 5 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS ΈNONͳHISTORICΉ: Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. 55 61 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 62 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 63 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 ÖÊ½®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.” SãÙã¦® P½Ä ÖÊ½®®Ý ψ.φ., ψ.ψ, ϋ.ψ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½Ä GÊ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ 58585858 64 CHAPTER 5 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 2018 SãÙã¦® P½Ä PÊ½®ù ψ.φ. UÖã H®ÝãÊÙ® PÙÝÙòã®ÊÄ Gç®½®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. PÊ½®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. PÊ½®ù ϋ.ψ. SãÙã¦® 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 GÊ½ υ.χ, O¹ã®ò ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MÄ¦ÃÄã. (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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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. GÊ½ 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 65 6060 CHAPTER 6PROJECT INFORMATION66 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. 67 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 68 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 ÖÊ½®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 69 AÊÖã ÖÊ½®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 70 65 71