HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 2015 NCOD Report - �{L'[ { � "{ " , n J -, .�,.�: � • M"
r
-:er� ._ ���� "'�f'.i� ' ��� �t iti;� ��. ' �r� � � � , y,t
r . 'r'" Ti' S'*�. .r, �� � '' � / ' �� ,a ��1'�� ��1'S� '�'' '�v:. i.
� �i'. . _yi' . 'J,1�, A�„', �: � �• �' C y, .. �ftj �° .�. hw '±1.- ?
� 1�^ M�� � _ r ' . g'�}`•� 9 �� ' r f x' � '�
. -�� . �i�. .�.!;�.,���.. . b �' ■ _.Y, ,1';�w � � � } ,'' !' -
� L'1• ;�' �_j.� I� � v.�.. _._. .,''•i � �
� . .. ., -,�s.
• Y i"
� t �" I ' a �
' - �f �� .� ,.,F �i � � ���
��' ....���������II'i U.Illil il ' �I ��illlill �I�i����','iii ,�i .•�.=
- . •�^ # � -t��.- - -�
y , ..
� � .. .�...._.
_
. _.__ � __._. ..._
��
_ . -- -_ _ —�; ' ._ ..
;
� T ,
.
�� � " '�� � .... . . �f.�:Y.. MT`-•.�. �',...i.2
� � ....-:/fYt'�...... ._.�....� �.. _ '.�_ . . ..�1-F
�
�-.W_ � : � ' • • 1 • ' � �
� � . , � . . � � .
B�ZEMAN NC�D � • � • � �
j-i-�;'"'�� _ �y.� J' - �
i � �' �r _ ',� �7,�� - �' �c. �. - �, �.
d �
��, - �. � �-'
. .� � � � ��. ��� � `_ , - �.
- _ -- - — � _ - ��Y �'.w�- �.d � ._ � \
� r � � � � �`
r �, � , ` �'� -;' � + - - ` � ��i,�� � i �,�,I'
� . ��" _ .% \�-W�. - �.y �q! � r � _� I I
�`� _� '
r C'� '• .�. �' �r' �, 71 �/F
/ � • � ,��� l -_
� �� p - .
I �� �:' � �i � -
� �iil�lll l�� �I _ �— �� � . _
-� �,,�- - - _ ���-,- -
w ,.���_�"'�'� I - , ` �� �c��y
u�� _ � '' . �� � ..��' :. -
� ��� �
� � � � � ' �+���
;��
=`-__ _ � � „�Y, .r-.-=-�r '
i �-� _ - '�'� � a . <�:
= � � A �� =-- = ���� � '� . -
� ' ' ,�� �
:.�— � e ���- � �?� �* � ' ; �
� �
G
� � _ w - �,
I � �- � ��t , ��
. T�,� - � , �7, y .i, � C - �
� x
� , �;�.�. � 1 � , , � ;,�;� ,-� f o _
� ��.1 �,�� �- - ��+ � � � �:..,��:`��; � �q` ,� �,_ -1 = ._
,_ �..,. - _ . _ .�
� __ _ _
� r
, ., .
-� _ --� _ --_ ,
�.-;, _ . -- -- � y� ' - -s.�,� �f : �.� , -
,�_ r �� -- --� � ■ 1 y- 4�, .
.c V i�' _ �i~ . ..
i � i • . �1 � � '. � �f �-� , , � .
�. _ �_ � _ � y � .��, �A .
��'� :� a -Y , r" -� s� f�`{ �ia;��'�
�- - -+�-� _`� ,_ �� � ::�►'�' �'.�.�� . ..�- } � ��'�� ��
= :.,ar.«.... � � � _
::.��� •
t'r-�� - [�: . . �, I
.-�r . . . _ �.. � . __ ���
Y "r"' ,,r��^r;"„ � '4,r��.s.+rx.�i �,: �.�.F'�r,..r+� �� �`� — ' •
�, ,i'�3 Y'��t.
, s��.:'�,�lk��aK���ka'�::'�'''�'+.�Xw.i'�r�`"'";�_:57:i!'��`'�iY�a j
�T ., K �� •
�S '� L C Irl /v11V ���II MAO N TAMNRA � � tr1O
_ Q
V
� ;�; BOZ��� �COD TABLE OF CONTENTS �
_ I
. �� ��..�.�. �.�.�..,. :_nr�.,,...��,... �...,����ci '
�
— - - ---- — .,�
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................... 1
Historic preservation .............................................................................................1
AffordableHousing................................................................................................2
InfillDevelopment ................................................................................................2
DesignGuidelines .................................................................................................2
Codeprovisions....................................................................................................2
Recommendations ...................................................................................................2
NCODBoundary....................................................................................................3
Historic Preservation .............................................................................................3
AffordableHousing................................................................................................3
InfillDevelopment ................................................................................................3
DesignGuidelines .................................................................................................4
Preferred Recommendations....................................................................................4
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................7
Process ...................................................................................................................... 8
BestPractices ........................................................................................................8
Existing Case Studies and Previous Planning Documents .....................................................8
Historic Property Classification ...................................................................................8
Affordable Housing and Infill ......................................................................................8
Bozeman Unified Development Code and Design Guideline Analysis.......................................8
PublicOutreach ......................................................................................................9
Analysis of Existing Conditions.........................................................................................10
HistoricPreservation................................................................................................. 10
PreservationStatistics ............................................................................................ 10
AssessmentUpdates............................................................................................... 11
AffordableHousing ................................................................................................... 14
2015 Affordable Housing Study.................................................................................. 14
InfillPotential......................................................................................................... 18
VacantProperties.................................................................................................. 18
Current Infill Incentives .......................................................................................... 18
Zoningand Infill.................................................................................................... 19
DesignGuidelines..................................................................................................... 21
Background of Design Guidelines ............................................................................... 21
Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties ............................................................ 23
i
V
� ;�; BOZ��� �COD TABLE OF CONTENTS �
_ I
. �� ��..�.�. �.�.�..,. :_nr�.,,...��,... �...,����ci '
Design Guidelines for All Properties............................................................................ 23
Guidelines for Residential Character Areas ................................................................... 24
Guidelines for the Commercial Character Area .............................................................. 24
District Specific Descriptions .................................................................................... 25
UDCProvisions ........................................................................................................ 25
General Code Elements........................................................................................... 26
Deviations within NCOD........................................................................................... 26
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................................................................ 29
Demolition of Existing Structures............................................................................... 32
Parkingand Access ................................................................................................ 33
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and City Notification Processes................................... 34
Air B�t6s and VRBOs ............................................................................................... 34
Best Practices Summary............................................................................................. 36
CommonThemes................................................................................................... 36
Unique Ideas/Concepts ........................................................................................... 36
MajorDrawbacks................................................................................................... 36
Best Practices from Cities Studied.............................................................................. 37
Summary............................................................................................................. 37
Neighborhood Context and Infill Case Studies................................................................... 38
North Fifth Avenue and West Lamme Street.................................................................. 38
Site ................................................................................................................ 38
Conflicts/Suggestions........................................................................................... 38
North Sixth Avenue and West Short Street.................................................................... 40
Site ................................................................................................................ 40
Conflicts/Suggestions........................................................................................... 40
South Eighth Avenue and West Alderson Street.............................................................. 42
Site ................................................................................................................ 42
Conflicts/Sug�estions........................................................................................... 43
West Story Street and South Grand Avenue................................................................... 43
Site ................................................................................................................ 43
Conflicts/Suggestions........................................................................................... 44
South Willson Avenue and West Koch Street.................................................................. 45
Site ................................................................................................................ 45
Conflicts/Suggestions........................................................................................... 46
Recommendations........................................................................................................47
NCODBoundary ....................................................................................................... 47
ii
V
� ;�; BOZ��� �COD TABLE OF CONTENTS �
- I
. �� ��..�.�. �.�.�..,. :_nr�.,,...��,... �...,����ci '
Initial Changes to Boundary...................................................................................... 47
Long-Term Removal ............................................................................................... 47
Historic Preservation................................................................................................. 48
Local Historic Districts............................................................................................ 48
Historic Primary District (HPD) .................................................................................. 48
Intent.............................................................................................................. 48
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 50
Cri te ri a............................................................................................................ 50
Historic Buffer District (HBD).................................................................................... 50
Intent.............................................................................................................. 50
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 52
Cri te ri a............................................................................................................ 52
Historic Preservation Program Implementation................................................................. 52
Implement Code Revisions ....................................................................................... 52
Update Historic Property Record Forms ....................................................................... 53
Initiate Neighborhood Consortiums............................................................................. 53
Redefine the Certificate of Appropriateness Process ....................................................... 53
DevelopLeadership................................................................................................ 54
AffordableHousing ................................................................................................... 54
Incentives for Affordable Housing .............................................................................. 54
InfillDevelopment.................................................................................................... 55
COA................................................................................................................... 55
ADUs.................................................................................................................. 56
UDCChanges........................................................................................................ 56
SpecificCode Changes ......................................................................................... 56
DesignGuidelines..................................................................................................... 56
Design Overlay District (DOD).................................................................................... 57
Intent.............................................................................................................. 57
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 57
Criteria............................................................................................................ 57
OtherDistricts...................................................................................................... 58
UDCChanges........................................................................................................... 59
UDC Changes Pertaining to the Current NCOD Boundary ................................................... 60
Deviations........................................................................................................... 60
Demolitions ......................................................................................................... 61
Air B�B and VRBO Uses ........................................................................................... 61
iii
V
� ;�; BOZ��� �COD TABLE OF CONTENTS �
_ I
. �� ��..�.�. �.�.�..,. :_nr�.,,...��,... �...,����ci '
Implementation Matrix .............................................................................................. 62
Appendix1.................................................................................................................64
Public Engagement Process......................................................................................... 64
Schedule of Public Events........................................................................................ 64
Summary Comments from Stakeholders and Written/Verbal Comments ................................ 64
Public Meeting #1 - Issues and Solutions Matrix.............................................................. 64
Public Meeting #2 - Keypad Polling Results ................................................................... 66
Dox Matrix Results from Neighborhood Meetings............................................................. 75
iv
V
� ;�; BOZ��� �COD TABLE OF CONTENTS �
_ I
. �� ��..�.�. �.�.�..,. :_nr�.,,...��,... �...,����ci '
�
— - - ---- — .,�
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Historic Preservation Districts within Bozeman........................................................ 12
Table 1: Maximum Home Prices Affordable at AMI Levels in Bozeman ........................................ 14
Figure 2: Affordability of Single-Household Homes in NCOD (Valuated to 2014 Prices) .................... 15
Figure 3: Affordability within NCOD with Housing Valuation for Year 2014 .................................. 16
Figure 4: Affordability outside the NCOD with Housing Valuation for Year 2014 ............................ 16
Figure 5: Assessed Values within NCO (Based on MT DOR Taxable Value) .................................... 17
Figure 6: Vacant Parcels by Year in NCOD .......................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Bozeman Design Guideline Matrix ........................................................................ 22
Table 2: Deviation Status within NCOD (2004 - 2105) ............................................................ 27
Table 3: Type of Deviation Approved within NCOD (2004 - 2015) .............................................. 27
Figure 8: Deviations by Year........................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: ADU Locations by Year...................................................................................... 30
Figure 10: Deviations with Overlapping ADUs by Year............................................................ 31
Figure 11: Bozeman Parking Districts in Relation to the NCOD Boundary..................................... 35
Figure 12: Potential Future Historic Districts Based on Eligible Properties................................... 49
Figure 13: Potential District Classification Areas.................................................................. 51
Figure 14: Public Views on Affordable Housing Incentives within NCOD ...................................... 55
Table 4: Example Development/Deviation Tracking Spreadsheet.............................................. 60
v
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�.��
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Bozeman established the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) in 1991 as a
locally-adopted zoning district that prioritizes conservation of neighborhood character and preservation
of historic properties. The boundary was initially based on the City's 1957 census boundary. The boundary
does not necessarily reflect the historical integrity of structures either adjacent to, within or outside the
boundary. Substantial reinvestment has occurred in the NCOD area over the past 24 years as Bozeman
has grown significantly since 1991. Therefore, the City is evaluating the NCOD and what recommendations
may be needed to update the district and its associated regulations. The City is also conducting
evaluations and revisions of land development standards which interact with this report. Some
recommendations from the draft report have been removed as they have already been completed.
KLJ and ARCHitecture trio, Inc. were hired to analyze the effects on historic preservation, affordable
housing and infill development within the NCOD and what recommendations are needed based on those
findings. Best practices from six Mountain West communities were studied to determine what unique
preservation or infill strategies could be implemented in Bozeman. Three Montana cities were also
examined for best practices implemented across the state. The communities included:
» Austin, TX » Santa Fe, NM
» Fort Collins, CO » Billings, MT
» Portland, OR » Livingston, MT
» Salt Lake City, UT » Missoula, MT
» Spokane, WA
The analysis concluded that the NCOD has affected affordable housing, infill development and the
historical integrity of properties within the district. The District has had several successes including
preserving potential historical buildings, creatin� historic districts and preserving neighborhood context
in certain areas. However, the NCOD has also had challenges including affordable housing and application
of design guidelines and code enforcement.
Recommendations are listed for each focus area and in some instances these recommendations are in
conflict with each other. This was done on purpose to encourage the public and City Commission to
determine what is the most critical aspect moving forward whether it be affordable housing, historic
preservation, infill development or creating new design �uidelines. However, a preferred set of
recommendations is provided that tries to achieve a balance between the four focus areas. It should be
noted that these can and will likely change pending input from City Commission on what direction the
NCOD should take moving forward. The major conclusions are as follows:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
» Approximately 74% of the resources within the NCOD have been inventoried for historic
eligibility, which is a great first step. However, the majority of inventories were prepared more
than 30 years ago.
» Eight (8) historic districts were created with the inception of the NCOD, but only two new historic
districts have been designated since then.
» The same level of recognition and protection has been �iven to both potential new historic
districts and other non-historically significant properties.
» The Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process encourages property owners to think critically
about future development and impacts to adjacent properties.
1
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
» Affordable housing is a growing concern and city-wide issue not restricted only to the NCOD.
» Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)can provide a less costly option for some to live within the NCOD.
» Single-Household homes within the NCOD are unaffordable for the majority of households,
whereas outside the NCOD the majority of households making 100%AMI can afford homes.
» 3- and 4-person households at 80% AMI or lower can afford zero single household homes in the
NCOD; however, 3% of 3-person households and 23% of 4-person households can afford homes
outside the NCOD.
» 3-person households at 100% AMI can only afford 15% of single-household homes in the NCOD;
whereas 51% of households outside the NCOD can afford homes.
» 4-person households at 100% AMI can only afford 45% of single-household homes in the NCOD;
whereas 56% of households outside the NCOD can afford homes.
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
» Preliminary results indicate at least two areas within the NCOD may be underdeveloped in terms
of minimum density standards required in the Unified Development Code (UDC).
» Approximately 40 properties within the NCOD have the potential to be redeveloped if code
relaxations or changes are implemented.
» Ground-floor ADUs can contribute to infill potential but require code changes to allow them.
» Incentives for infill are limited; however three zoning districts do encourage mixed uses.
» Zoning map revisions are needed to more accurately reflect existing uses and structures versus
development potential if warranted.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
» Guidelines have a good foundation for allowing flexibility within certain districts and could be
expanded to more accurately reflect neighborhood characteristics.
» Current Guidelines do not sufficiently address the unique characteristics of each of the eight
National Register (NR) historic districts within the NCOD.
» Guidelines are too restrictive for those areas with little or no historic integrity (ineligible for NR
listing).
CODE PROVISIONS
» 87% of deviations requested were granted (from years 2004-2015).
» 53%of requested deviations were encroachments into front, rear, side and watercourse setbacks.
» Minimum lot widths and lot sizes in established neighborhoods predate zoning and subdivision
regulations. Thus, some do not comply with current codes yet either have existing structures or
could be developed if relaxations were implemented.
» Lot covera�e and additional land area requirements for additional dwelling units should be
changed to account for small parcels within NCOD.
Recommendations
The major recommendations below used best practices from other cities, incorporated public comment
and included data analysis. More refined recommendations can be found in the Recommendations
section. A time/financial cost estimate for each recommendation is provided in the Implementation Plan.
2
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
The preferred recommendations are listed after Infill and strive to balance and limit the conflicts
between the four focus areas.
NCOD BOUNDARY
» NCOD boundary should be removed in 5 years and replaced with historic districts and design
districts. This will require at least one amendment to the zoning map.
» Local historic districts should be encouraged to form within 5 years to preserve potential areas
as preliminary identified in Figure 13.
» Historic Buffer Districts will help protect existing districts from negative impacts; a one-block
radius shall serve as a buffer for Historic Primary Districts (HPD).
» Design Overlay Districts (DOD) should be created to preserve areas outside historic districts but
within the current NCOD which have a demonstrable design character when supported by the
property owners.
» Areas not covered by DODs or historic districts will only be subject to zoning standards.
» The N 7th Corridor should be removed from the NCOD to encourage infill and redevelopment;
the current NCOD boundary should be moved east to 5th and 6th Avenues.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
» Create local historic districts based on existing NR Districts and buffer districts to serve as a
buffer/transition areas and to help protect existing districts from negative impacts.
» Review each district and potentially refine boundaries to ensure district-specific guidelines
protect potential new structures on the fringe of the district. This approach is more logical and
better accomplishes the vision of the NCOD for preservation.
» Strengthen neighborhoods to advocate for preservation of those characteristics that make their
neighborhood special.
» Continue with assessment updates as the initial work completed is preliminary; more detailed
historic information is needed to begin creating additional historic preservation districts.
Complete and update inventory forms on a ten-year basis.
» Develop an enforcement process for COA compliance and violations as well as a better
notification procedure for neighboring properties.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
» There is no "silver-bullet" - a varied approach offers something for most people as affordability
is a city-wide issue. Allow by right small-scale development (2,500 sq.ft. lots) for properties
within the current NCOD boundary; development should have appropriate standards for context
sensitive design.
» Continue or expand implementation of incentives such as waiving impact fees, reducing parkland
requirements, allowing density bonuses and reducing parking requirements.
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
» Allow ground-floor ADUs and increase sidewall height to five feet for second-story ADUs.
» Implement code changes to allow for small-scale development on small, platted lots.
» Reduce parking standards and remove parkland dedication requirements for ADUs that only have
one dwelling unit and are less than 800 square feet.
» Remove the demolition restriction of requiring a building permit before demolishing structures
that are non-contributing to a historic district.
3
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
» Demolition restriction should remain in place for structures contributing to a historic district.
» Change "Deviations" to "Permissible Modifications" and expand their use.
» Remove minimum lot width requirements and reduce minimum lot sizes and setbacks for
residential properties within NCOD but not within historic districts.
» Increase lot coverages for residential districts in NCOD.
» Revise parking standards to allow more flexibility with parking locations for buildings within the
B-3 district including the potential to reduce parking standards for some residential uses.
» Conduct a comprehensive parking study to determine impacts from large-scale residential and
commercial developments and include recommendations for changes to parking space cash-in-
lieu-of, parking requirements and locations for off-street parking.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
» Develop Design Overlay Districts (DOD) to guide development to achieve the highest level of
design integrity with very specific objectives, including B-3 `halo' area surrounding Main Street
District, East and West Gateways, and Brewery District area.
» Establish district appropriate guidelines with active participation from neighborhoods and
stakeholders to address specifics characteristics and defining features for each area.
» Create new Design Guidelines that encoura�e mixed uses, provide buffered edges, protect
important public views, avoid historical misrepresentations, respect adjacent historical buildings
and recycle existing building stock.
PREFERRED RECOMMENDATIONS
» Remove existing NCOD boundary within 5 years or upon replacement with Historic Primary
Districts (based on existing NR districts) and Design Overlay Districts. Some areas currently part
of the NCOD will no longer have overlay district protection.
» Proceed with makin� immediate changes to NCOD to remove N 7th (Midtown) area from NCOD.
» Create local historic districts (Historic Primary Districts) based on the existing National Re�ister
districts each with their own boundaries including Historic Buffer Districts (HBD), update building
inventories, and implement design guidelines specific to each district that clearly define
significance and character. Renovation, new construction, demolition and land use would be
still be reviewed through a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process.
■ Preservation Plans will closely resemble the existing Design Guidelines. The COA process
would remain in place with continued improvements to procedures and review.
» Provide for Design Overlay Districts to enhance a particular design character through an overlay
district plan. These districts will be similar to Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors but
much simpler in size and scope.
» Allow ground floor ADUs and increase sidewall height to five feet and reduce parking and parkland
requirements for units less than 800 square feet.
» Remove the demolition restriction of requiring a buildin� permit before demolishing structures
that are non-contributing to a historic district.
» Change "Deviations" to "Permissible Modifications" and allow greater flexibility in their use.
» Continue or expand implementation of affordable housing incentives such as waiving impact fees,
reducing parkland requirements, allowing density bonuses and reducing parking requirements.
» Implement code changes to allow for small-scale development on small, platted lots.
4
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�.��
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) evaluation would not be possible without the
time and dedicated efforts from the following people, organizations, agencies and citizen advisory
boards.
» Bogert Park Neighborhood Association (BPNA)
» Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association (BCNA)
» Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
» Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board
» Cooper Park Historic District Residents
» Downtown Bozeman Association
» Downtown Bozeman Business Improvement District
» Downtown Bozeman Partnership
» Marwyn-Lindley Neighbors (MarLinN)
» North 7th Urban Renewal District
» Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA)
» Northeast Urban Renewal District
» South Central Association
» Southeast Neighborhood Association (SENA)
» Southwest Montana Building Industry Association
A special thanks to City of Bozeman Planning and GIS staff for their time and efforts in collecting data,
providing input, creating maps and reviewing the document.
Lastly, we would like to thank the multiple businesses, companies and general public that provided
valuable feedback, information and ideas as well as for their input on solutions to issues facing the NCOD
and their respective areas in which they live and operate. Without their participation, this evaluation
and report would not be feasible.
Report contributions made by the following people:
» Pat Jacobs, ARCHitecture trio
» Jordan Zignego, ARCHitecture trio Consultant
» Matthew Best, KLJ
» Shari Eslinger, KLJ
» Joe Froelich, KLJ
» John How, KLJ
» Elizabeth Raab, KLJ
» Forrest Sanderson, KLJ
5
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
This assessment was funded by the City of Bozeman and the Montana Department of Commerce through
a Community Development Block Grant.
City of Bozeman
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana 59771
(406) 582-2320
www.bozeman.net
City Commission
Honorable Jeff Krauss, Mayor
Honorable Carson Taylor, Deputy Mayor
Cynthia Andrus, Commissioner
Chris Mehl, Commissioner
I-Ho Pomeroy, Commissioner
City Management
Chris Kukulski, City Mana�er
Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager
Department of Community Development
Wendy Thomas, Director
Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
6
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:���
I NTRODUCTION
The City of Bozeman is evaluating the regulatory component of our community's historic preservation
program. Established in 1991, the City's Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) is a locally-
adopted zoning district that prioritizes conservation of neighborhood character and preservation of
historic properties. The City seeks to understand how the NCOD affects historic preservation, density,
affordability and infill development.
The stated purpose of the NCOD is to "stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all
other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and
commercial or industrial areas." In many regards, the NCOD was envisioned as an incubator for future
historic districts.
However, the NCOD also states "new construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary
emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided the design of such new
space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the
surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping
with the above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a
dynamic, changing community."
Efforts to preserve historic neighborhoods began in Bozeman in the late 1970s with the South Willson
Avenue Protective Association. "Residents realized that heavy traffic on the street plus needs to expand
the central business district could erode their neighborhood," noted the 1978 South Willson Avenue
Historic District nomination to the National Re�ister of Historic Places. In light of citizen interest in
historic preservation, the City of Bozeman partnered with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) in 1984 to conduct a large-scale survey to identify historic properties.
The City followed up on this effort in 1986 and 1987, by nominating eight historic districts and fifty
individual properties to the National Register of Historic Places. Zoning on these properties ranged from
high to low density residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use. At the community's behest, the
1991 zoning code included a large-scale zoning overlay district known today as the NCOD.
In 2004, the City significantly revised its zoning standards for the required front and side yard setbacks
and lot sizes to be more compatible with existing structures and lot patterns within the NCOD. The City
also updated the design guidelines for the NCOD in 2006 and again in 2015 to help provide more flexibility
and to meet design objectives from the Downtown Plan and Bozeman Community Plan. The current NCOD
Design Guidelines, while not perfect, are improvements from previous versions and will need further
refinement as Bozeman's urban core continues to redevelop.
��� '� �,F. df �.. � . �. '�:, . �ri,Y./�, iy� �,-_ :
, � , �d. �.r" y,
it` Y'$�. . / , � -:� ' ' -.
Al�* ...� � _ _" _ �I 1. r>.� � _ _ � �
f �.
_�
a.':- �� _-.._.� _ S -..
.�.r� �'':��� -��--`L�.. �� � ; �"� :�„
�r ��g � 1 �' j��` � � �' ,tG , E
S". ,� t ..� p� I
' 7� � v.y >' R r1 ( lil
. . �� . .,':�, ;, sv 1}� P� �"a' e�. i � , . ����r
�� �,.� :, � �. ii o -I
�•r I ' � � � � �,��_� ���` _ .... -
,..
� �_ �
;A�� '[e€�i� ����:, - '�
. , i�7'.• ����i Y I� ~� �d:>n�j, :,';'�- "�l+.
_ � •. ��E� � � �Y A
Existing buildings within the NCOD ranqinq from Nationally Re�istered properties to high, density residential infill
7
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�.��
PROCESS
Four primary processes were used throughout the study including collecting data, analyzing best
practices, reviewing case studies and soliciting public information. The goal was to collect relevant, local
case studies that focused on the City's approach to Certificates of Appropriateness (COA), accessory
dwelling units (ADU) and the overall effectiveness of implementing design guidelines within the NCOD.
In addition, several communities across the mountain west were examined to determine what, if any,
processes or policies could be implemented in Bozeman.
Best Practices
KLJ analyzed the best practices from six communities with similar attributes and strong historic
preservation programs across the west including Austin, TX; Fort Collins, C0; Santa Fe, NM; Portland,
OR; Salt Lake City, UT; and Spokane, WA. Additionally, three communities in Montana were studied
including, Billings, Livingston and Missoula. KLJ determined that, while Bozeman's NCOD is unique, each
of the six cities studied provided insight on how Bozeman could improve the NCOD. The review provided
in Analysis of Existinq Conditions is a brief summary of similar cities and their regulations, policies and
strategies that KLJ deemed appropriate for the City of Bozeman.
Existing Case Studies and Previous P(annin� Documents
Working with City staff, KLJ toured approximately 20 properties within the NCOD that were classified as
"good" examples of neighborhood preservation, "appropriate" redevelopment within the context of
existing neighborhood character, and "poor" projects that did not fit into the design character of
neighboring structures. Specific properties were not highlighted so as to preserve individual privacy, but
also because the focus was to identify which elements within each specific property could either be
improved or replicated. Relevant studies were also examined and reviewed for synergistic policies and
strategies to support recommendations; such studies included the Downtown Bozeman Improvement
Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; North 7th Avenue Plan; Downtown Bozeman
Truck Study; revised B-3 Design Guidelines; and Downtown Bozeman Parking Studies.
Historic Property Classification
KLJ utilized information provided from City staff regarding a recent (2015) analysis of properties within
the NCOD and their potential to be classified as contributing to a historic district. The study included
several properties outside the NCOD to determine whether new sections of the City where the "50-year
threshold" had been reached had sufficient inte�rity to contribute to potential new historic districts.
Affordable Housin� and Infill
The evaluation also utilized three different data sets/studies regarding housing prices within the NCOD
and affordability. The recent (2015) affordable housing study commissioned by the City of Bozeman was
reviewed and certain elements were drawn upon when making recommendations. Additionally, the
Gallatin Association of Realtors provided housing sale prices across a range of years inside and outside
the NCOD boundary for comparison. Lastly, State of Montana assessment data was compiled to show the
extent of assessed values and their locations relative to the NCOD as well as possible infill locations.
Incentives for both affordable housing and infill were included in best practices research. Note that the
NCOD area is almost entirely built out and intensification will likely require site acquisition and clearing.
Bozeman Unified Development Code and Design Guideline Analysis
The City's design guidelines for properties (commercial and residential) were analyzed to determine
which elements, if any, could be improved or removed. In addition, KLJ reviewed specific sections of
Bozeman's Unified Development Code (Chapter 38, Article 16: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
8
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
District and Chapter 38, Article 15: Requirements for Creation of a Historic Mixed-Use District) to identify
ways to improve the NCOD and how to streamline the creation of future Historic Mixed-Use Districts.
Currently with the conclusion of this study, the City is conducting another study that focuses specifically
on development code revisions. As such, the recommendations within this study will be included and
implemented as part of the larger code rewrite process.
Public Outreach
Public outreach consisted of three different avenues: 1) traditional public meetings, 2) stakeholder
interviews, and 3) targeted neighborhood and advisory board meetings. Each effort focused on the
audience attending so that multiple viewpoints, opinions and suggestions were obtained. KLJ conducted
three public meetings (dates provided below) and conducted 22 stakeholder interviews from May -
October with property owners, architects, concerned citizens and contractors/developers doing work
within the NCOD. The neighborhood meetings (dates provided below) included speaking with citizens
residing specifically within the boundaries of established City of Bozeman neighborhood association. A
comprehensive review of public input activities is included in Appendix A.
20� 5 PUBLIC MEETINGS , NEIGHBORHOODANDADVISORY BOARD MEETINGS
'� � � � �
Kick-Off Meetin�;and Introduction—4/9/t5
, Historic Preser ation Board—4/z3/i5
, Intra eighborhood�Council (INA) 5/�4/�5
� eypad Polling Meeting and Design Guideline Discussion—5/28/i5
, Dalwntown TI F District—7/zi/i5
, Dbwntown BI D—7/Zz/i 5
, North 7th Urban Renewal District (NSURD)—8/6/i5
, North�ast Neighborhood Associati n (NENA)—8/ii/i5
, Un�versity Neighblorhood Associ tion (UNA)—8/i8/i5
, South Central Association (SCA )—8/�8/i5
, �Bozeman Creek Neighborho d Association (BPNA)—8/z /i5
, �Southeast Neighborhood As ociation (SENA) —8/z6/i5
, Cooper Park Historic Di rict and East Side Residents —g/i/i5
Northeast Urban Rene�al District (NUERD)—io/6/i,5 ,
Community Affordably ousing Advisory Board—io/�4/�5 ,
Historic Preservation Board—t�I4Ih5I,
Draft Plan Presentation—i�/5 �5
Final Plan Presentation to City Com ission—iz/i4/�5
9
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�.��
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions within the NCOD were studied to determine what is currently working within the
district and what needs to be changed or removed to improve affordable housing, infill development and
preservation throughout the NCOD. Six elements specific to the NCOD were included for analysis: Unified
Development Code (UDC) provisions, design guidelines, infill incentives, affordable housing, historic
preservation and neighborhood context and case studies.
Historic Preservation
Preserving Bozeman's heritage was stated in the NCOD Guidelines as a primary goal for the community.
In the Bozeman Community Plan (June 1, 2009) the first item outlined in the community's vision suggests
the importance that historic preservation plays in Bozeman's identity. An entire chapter is devoted to
the City's mission to, "Carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman's
historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community."
Bozeman's historic resources are a significant part of what makes Bozeman a desirable place to live and
visit. It is its special character, its community aura, its
sense of place defined by its past, its present, and its
vision towards the future that defines who and what "Bozemon's unique identity, characterized by
we are. There is a delicate balance in preserving those �ts natural surroundings, its historic and
characteristics that define Bozeman as unique and �u(tural resources, and its downtown, which is
special without shutting out the potential for its the heart and center of the community, is
future. Part of Bozeman is its history and the ever- Preserved and enhanced."
changing landscape. Each phase of development
brought new traditions, architectural styles, development patterns and materials. Our built environment
encapsulates in a tangible form that richness of history. The NCOD was created to provide a level of
protection for those resources and the areas surrounding them so they may be enjoyed and serve as a
"dynamic historic legacy" cherished by present and future generations - residents and visitors alike.
The 1980s Cultural Resource Survey laid the foundation for identifyin� historic buildings within the
downtown core that were architecturally and culturally significant. It was this information that served
as the basis for the nomination of multiple historic districts and individual properties to the National
Register of Historic Places; City of Bozeman historic preservation districts are shown in Figure 1. By 1991
the NCOD was in place and the adoption of updated design guidelines in 2006 further strengthened the
review process. Through the use of these guidelines, properties have been renovated and restored, new
additions have been constructed onto historic buildings and totally new structures have been
incorporated into the landscape of the NCOD. The change has been so desirable and significant that
downtown livin� and new commercial development investment has been accelerating at an increasingly
faster pace. With this development comes new challen�es for preserving our historic cultural resources
that significantly contribute to Bozeman's identity.
Preservation Statistics
The following information is a compilation of data for the NCOD through January 2014. Data collection
shifted after that period and is no lon�er tracked in the same manner, creating a �ap in valuable
information.
The largest challenges of today remain similar to those from the NCOD's inception in 1991 - how should
we be protecting our valuable cultural resources, what are they, and what do we need to do to protect
them? Even prior to the NCOD, the City was beginning recognize the frailty of our neighborhoods. In 1984
a large-scale survey was initiated with the intention to identify historic properties. By 1987, Bozeman
10
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:���
had nominated eight historic districts and fifty individual properties to the National Register of Historic
Places. Since the time of the original survey, only two additional districts, the Montana State University
and Story Mill Districts, have been added.
Because of the way the NCOD portion of the Bozeman Municipal Code is written, the Montana Historical
and Architectural Inventory (Inventory) forms serve as an important tool in reviewing COA applications.
However, inventory sheets have generally not been updated unless as a requirement of the COA process.
The City of Bozeman is waiting for updated
Data indicates that of the 3,106 properties �nventories for properties within the B3 zoning
within the NCOD, no property inventory sheets district surrounding the Main Street Historic District.
exist for more than 27% (844) of the properties. New inventory forms are desperately needed where
they are missing, where buildings have undergone
significant changes or where buildings not previously
considered historic, have now achieved the "50-year threshold" and should receive consideration. The
City, as a repository for this type of documentation, coupled with the COA process which documents
change, has an opportunity to be a gatekeeper of information for local historical, architectural and
cultural resources.
Assessment Updates
Foremost is the need for complete and updated Inventory forms. City staff must be able to review
applications based on current and accurate information. This process should be revisited at minimum on
a ten-year basis.
Second, as Main Street remains strong and vital as an anchor of retail for Bozeman, there is a need to
"spread out" a little. Mendenhall and Babcock Streets provide that fertile ground for growth
opportunities. When the original NCOD Design Guidelines were written, the vision of the City was
primarily focused on the preservation of Main Street. The guidelines reflect this and therefore echo a
very traditional approach to development. Only limitedly, and without clear guidance, do they address
areas with little or no historic integrity
or context. Examples of successful W�th the amendment to the B-3 guidelines, the City has
urban design guidelines to encourage begun to take steps to recognize the need for revised
quality and permanence in design can �uidelines that expand beyond Main Street. A more
be found across the country and can comprehensive assessment with focus on structures outside
easily be used as the basis for a new historic districts and Main Street will be needed for the
overlay design focused district which successful redevelopment of these areas.
has a different intent than a historic
district.
Third, Bozeman's National Register Historic Districts reflect the time in which they were nominated.
While the intent of the National Register remains the same, the criteria, nomination forms and even the
review process have evolved and become more stringent. District boundaries seem in many cases to be
awkward and arbitrary resulting in ambiguity (as voiced through nei�hborhood forums)as to why one side
of a property line has to do things one way and the other side another. Reviewing each district and
creating new local districts based on the National Register criteria would allow boundaries to be cleaned
up and more district-specific guidelines to be created. In addition, it would allow those areas to be
preserved and protected in a manner that is more logical and better accomplishes the area's vision for
its preservation.
11
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �_���
Figure 1: Historic Preservation Districts within Bozeman
� } .
— .�_ '.,,.;,. !
_�
, m �. `
1 _
..�� - -� - -
_ • .`
•.� �,
� -', s� m �� /
� ,
� _.� � - � � � � �
. .m�.
; '�� :_ ... ., --�.
j ���', � ,
; , .�. ..._ _
.
: , � -:.
� � ��.
,�,;
� �`', '�
; ; _
�'�";;� Q #
� �� , Q -
,
� 4 ¢ ��
�� 4 u� ¢
�;;, a o
: ��r.,- o 0
� • o o a,- � � —'� j �
�:� . �
--- f ° � ��:��„�� Q - � �
o f�a
� � � a 4 a� ��o o �, - �� � ��
I Q� a ° , o o ._ \
� i � ����,, _
��,�� �J ,
`_�����,,,,��r.����. � ;.���1111 ��i --
�^_ � , u,���� ��,�„. �'� 'L:.,. .___ �., : = : : �
jI4��n I un �}"wh IiLa6� ' J,., ,.. ......._. ..
�.� �1 _''_'_
�
L_L_
�F. �� - �!_::_. ._._.'_"'_. '\
' �
� � � �
� - ' � - Q
o � -� g ����r�.,,
fl a f __ �,����•
' � =_ -=@ I,crend
�: '— �� -His[aric DirirKts
i,�•�.. � -� QLI' oCoruervatlanaetlay
I�J F�_. f Historic Plates
SChools
�' Parceis
�'
��' � — , A
City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Districts
12
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Fourth, some areas within the current NCOD boundaries don't have the architectural or cultural integrity
to warrant the extra level of design review prompted by its inclusion in the overlay district. In instances
where new development is strongly encouraged, the review process becomes an unnecessary
encumbrance and in some cases a hindrance.
Further analysis is needed to determine which areas should stay protected and which properties should
only be guided by the underlying zoning. One of the cleanest and easiest ways to determine this is through
the National Register criteria for listing a historic property or district. If there is not sufficient integrity
to meet the criteria, then strong consideration should be given to its removal from overlay review.
And lastly, with development, economic and political pressures, we are beginning to see an erosion of
the character of what once made our historic districts si�nificant. Demolition, unsympathetic new
construction, lot subdivision and
aggregation, and foreign � , \� � � -- � r �� � , �
. s�' j,� ''W
development patterns, scale and � � � ; � ., �. ,
massing have begun to wear away ' `R � '�} ,,'� q �' `�`-
�� `° ,�,__'� ._
those characteristics that can be � � "'��_' �°
� � � � �� ��� ,
r-- ��,��v ��� ';;_
seen, felt, experienced and < y.�
�
recognized, but are difficult to � ��a � � '' •-�� �. =
P � .., `r .�
define. Bozeman is at a critical r '^�
�
juncture where a determination � �;,,�..�.�; ��".' � .
- �+...�• >
must be made to retain, protect, � �� :°�' " >
� � � � ....� R
advocate, cherish and celebrate �� tv . � -
. ,, . � � �
the city's cultural and built ,, i ��� t' ,� ,�, ,i,.,::_ -'r�
history, or to open the doors wide � � ,_ °.� R � :
•.:. ' � ., .' :
��:� ��'.�� .. � ,�i�"::�' �
to change, innovation, growth and ,,�- � ,�� ,��
economic strength, sometimes one � ��``
at the expense of the other. Q historical house within Cooper Park noting the relevant features to
preserve going forward with future renovations within the district
Recent public input backed by and/or potentially expandin� the boundary and induding more homes.
various planning documents within
the last decade indicates the former. Refreshing and reevaluating the National Register districts would
strengthen them and renew a commitment to their protection.
As the approach to historic preservation (nationally) has become more sophisticated and its results more
substantiated, so must the preservation program for Bozeman. A three-pronged approach should be taken
to strengthen the historic districts and provide a renewed commitment to their preservation and
protection. This approach includes:
» Reevaluation of the boundaries for the designated historic districts creating new local districts.
» Identifying their unique historic significance locally, to the State, and nationally.
» Developing appropriate and comprehensive guidelines to preserve and protect those elements
while allowing an appropriate continuum of growth and development.
Historic preservation has always required a strong voice if it is to have a saving impact. Bozeman is
fortunate to have much of the "real thing" that communities try to emulate through contrived new
construction. The loss of the Brewery Building on south Wallace has been an unfavorable loss for the
community and serves as an unfortunate example of, "when it's gone, it's gone!"
13
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing within Bozeman and especially in the NCOD has been an ongoing concern. As noted
earlier, three separate studies and data sources were used to identify whether housing within the district
is affordable. While the targeted study area of the NCOD is limited to a specific boundary, the larger
issue facing the community should also be recognized as a contributing factor. As such, this project
referenced the recent (2015) Affordable Housing Study commissioned by the City.
2015 Affordable Housing Study
The study notes that the median sales price has increased steadily since 2006. The median sales prices
for all housing types has risen $30,000 from $258,000 (2006) to $287,000 (2015), or more than 11 percent
according to the 2015 study. Income ranges for
The median price for detached homes has affordable home prices vary depending upon the
risen $73,750 or near(y 30 percent from household size. Table 1, which comes directly from the
$252,250 in 2011 to $326,000 in 2014. Recommendations for Re�ulatory Changes to Support
Affordable Housin� Development report, shows that
unless a household of four is at 100 percent of area
median income (AMI), then housing within Bozeman is not deemed affordable. Moreover, only a
household of five or six at 100 percent AMI can afford detached homes.
Similar data from the Housing Study also indicates that the rental market is experiencing a non-
affordability growth trend. While not as severe as detached home prices, rental prices have begun to
rise to unaffordable rates. Figure 3 within the Housing Study demonstrates the number of renter
household and income ranges for rental type properties.
Table 1: Maximum Home Prices Affordable at AMI Levels in Bozeman
Number of Persons in Household
Median AMI (2014) 1 2 3 4 5 6
65% $113,129 $134,427 $155,124 $176,619 $187,183 $211,493
80% $148,989 $176,102 $202,565 $244,562 $254,234 $278,929
100% $212,988 $251,523 $283,008 $321,543 $337,165 $368,102
*Table referenced in Recommendations For Regulatory Changes To Support Affordable Housing Development
Figure 2 shows properties within the NCOD with values adjusted to 2014 prices so that all properties
could be determined as meetin� affordable guidelines as compared to the AMI and household affordable
price determined from the Housing Study. Affordability was calculated using the thresholds for both
three persons per household and four persons per household. Affordability of single-household homes
within the NCOD based on household size and affordability guidelines are shown in Figure 2.
Data provided by the Gallatin Association of Realtors (GAR) offers a better picture with regards to sale
prices within and outside the district. While individual properties cannot be shown or listed (due to
confidentiality agreement with GAR), data indicates properties within the NCOD are more expensive and
retain value more than properties outside the district. Random data was selected across multiple years
so the housing price index calculator from the
Federal Housing Finance Agency was applied to
A majority of sin�(e-househo(d homes within determine an "apples to apples" comparison for
the NCOD are not af fordable; whereas a year 2014. As noted, a majority of single-household
majority are affordab(e outside the District homes are not affordable within the NCOD.
indicating that affordabi(ity within Bozeman's
core is and wil( continue to be a pressing issue. It should be noted that in multiple neighborhood
meetings, residents recognized the NCOD is a
14
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
desirable place to live and people are willing to pay a premium because of its close proximity to
downtown amenities. However, not all existing residents shared that sentiment. One realty company also
stated that the NCOD is "the place to live" because of its neighborhood character and was the highest
requested area when conducting showings.
Recent data compiled by the City's GIS department was able to identify assessment data from the State
of Montana. The data does not contain "sales specific" information; but it does show where the most
expensive assessed properties are located. The data, while not a surprise, identifies properties along
Main Street, Babcock and Mendenhall as the highest assessed properties at more than $500,000 (in
assessed values). Figure 5 shows assessed values for all properties within the district. It should be noted
that assessed values are not the same as market sales information. Valuations include commercial and
multi-household properties as well as single-household properties.
Figure 2: Affordability of Single-Household Homes in NCOD (Valuated to 2014 Prices)
Affordability of Single-Household Homes in NCOD
Affordable outside NCOD
3%
0%
Affordable in NCOD �
o/
Unaffordable outside NCOD
Unaffordable in NCOD
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
■100%AM14-Person Household 80%AMI 4-Person Household
■100%AM13-Person Household 80%AMI 3-Person Household
15
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
Figure 3:Affordability within NCOD with Housing Valuation for Year 2014
Affordability within NCOD
S1,400,000
$i,zoo,000
S1,000,000
Ssoo,000
$600,000 I
- + - ■ � 1 �
Saoo,000
--T—
S2oo,o00 ---------------------------------
$o � � _ _ . � I � I � � � I
� Home Valuation --- 80%AMI(3pH) --- 100%AMI(3pH)
80%AMI(4pH) 100%AMI(4pH)
Figure 4:Affordability outside the NCOD with Housin�Valuation for Year 2014
Affordability outside NCOD
$900,000
Ssoo,000
5�00,000
$600,000 - I � I
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000 --------------------������������������
$200,000 ��������������������������������������
$100,0$O I I I I I � � I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I 1 I � I I � I I I I I I
� Home Valuation --- 80%AMI(3pH) --- 100%AMI(3pH)
80%AMI(4pH) 100%AMI(4pH)
16
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
Figure 5: Assessed Values within NCO(Based on MT DOR Taxable Value)
Values Within NCOD AKST F� ,ryT��STqTF9
By DOR Appraisal Value �kST r�����' Oy�Y
i .
W �`
I �.I �; a � '•
W �
� N � �
_' 0 �
� ��
j :;J�_ � - . .� �u�n...�a.fy.u.......0 Z� =�.
Q �� �
� �� ' , �� � � �
n2 � � �� � r ,��
�� ■
2�' ..� �� - . � �� S -�, R�
. . . . . ��= � � � . : �
::��� .■ —` 1 . p�■ ��.
DURSTON RD � �•�W,�PEACH�S� � E PEACH ST���- � �',� :
:�„ .' �� „".
W � ` . �' ■- � '
z W ' � '■' =���' �� -�' �� -`_a�. -:
� > .-_ � .— , ,� .:
,,�..i a R N �s .. �' .�_, t '1�%
z � ■ . � — �.�� �.
Z� { �—�■ �� �� � :
; � �t • 'I �4 . .Z �� �'�"� � �:
: 1 �'� i� ■ J _ � r 1�
. � � � �
'- �� � � + ■
: � � , �.
i ..w.�.��.��W�MAIN ST _�, � �'� ■'i' `E MAINISi• ■ ; , 1
-�, � i � J ` � '� - '�
� ��� �
�.�i _ i �_ •- �
■ � ��
■ � W �.�ej'�'i1�.
i ■ �� � > ` !.,.. -
� . . ... � ,� a , ' ��F '` r,
i —�•� . . �-� ,x ■ �'� = i,�y 4�'„ ,.,
�' � - V '` :`'��.�'+`{�d s�
�� � .-� ` . ��.... . . �`3 � I`d.,`.`�4`'�
-�� ' .^ � ♦ �lt. ' R�
�� _ _� _1 ■� � ;-- U � s y�� .�,•. . • ;.
Q�.._. ���d � ! . � � . `j ; � �• .kE�"��N�r'r� �
_= •- -.. .. , '� � la ,." � '�'��`,"���.; `��p<:
N �. .... z • _ .' F,���j�t'1 <'
ai , _' �!— fn _ _1'._ � �� .-. +r �l.��yl�ti���,r..
v� , �. � �r . � � � �� ,Rd ti..� y�t,
! , . .'L��,� _I ' - y�' ��.,i� !•+�.\N�V^t
�?.�' 1
: . ,�,_ _ . _ _ � � � .r ... .
�•�����u;�a!�•�^—s W COLLEGE ST �
_ , 1 ! �: ,�
�� ,�,. �w
���.�,.�...�.
r � ��
:
.
1�S� � � ,
-.,._ ' �t '� � Legend
•�. . ' . - .�, 'w . �
���� .
, , r..
�S�� r:. �, i . �
.,.yi+- � � � � � ,��r Conservation Overlay
,�ls:«'�f'_" - e•.�� . � i
_��y�����; ,,. �'— = City Limits
� *� _ � Parcel Values(DOR)
N!lS� `f , � � . ,_� $0-$250k
� _ a_ . ^ i
�.ui . � �; ' $251 k-$400k
I • „ ■
� � � — $401k-$600k
lb'� ' ��...qa....:eu�.w..��rr� $601k-$900k
- _ $901k-$1 5 million
., y ;,
-y.� N _ $� 5 million+
� �. ,
""-""' _� 0 750 7,500
Nsmy r.vs<iealeC EytM CliydBswnan GI9 DepaNnm aM a�merWetl b a4nninp puqo�esd.y'n�v:�ns Fe et
17
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Infill Potential
Vacant Properties
While specific information regarding lot sizes and lot widths was not readily available from City
databases, vacant lots were included to determine the development potential of these lots without the
use of deviations or variances. As shown in Figure 6, of the five available lots in 2014, only two may be
unavailable to construct a modest structure without a deviation or variance. Since 2005, in which 14
vacant properties were available within the NCOD, 8 properties have been developed suggesting that
infill has been successful to date with near 100 percent of Bozeman's core developed. However, as
redevelopment continues, site clearing and land acquisition may become difficult. Incentives will likely
be needed to encourage future infill.
Vacant properties were analyzed using historic records of land use for specified years. Since the three
years denoted certain land types as undeveloped or vacant, these two uses were merged for the purpose
of this study. The analysis does not include properties under one ownership that may have a large or
wide yard and appear to be vacant.
During a windshield survey conducted in September,
several lots were analyzed for the potential of infill QPProximately 40 properties were
development if code relaxations were implemented. �dentified as having the potential to
Such code relaxations could include reducing setbacks, subdivide or further develop if code
increasing lot coverages and reducing lot areas or re(axations were adopted.
removing minimum lot widths. Only single household
units were analyzed as having the potential to occupy
an "open parcel" - properties currently unsubdivided but with enough room to place a structure. The
windshield survey did not address the potential for future ADUs on existing lots as ADUs can vary
dramatically in size. Most of the NCOD is zoned to allow multiple dwelling development. Additional
opportunities for infill of this type were not evaluated.
Current Infill Incentives
Bozeman's current infill incentives for attracting quality development within the NCOD are limited. While
a Planned Unit Development (PUD) can be established, it requires an extensive process to create the
PUD. Infill incentives should be easy to implement with clear objectives (e.g. setback reductions,
parkland reductions, parking reductions, etc.). This has not occurred widely within the NCOD and has
been primarily focused on commercial uses.
Because infill development usually requires the demolition of existing structures, it is substantially more
time consuming and more complex than traditional "green field" development. As shown in Figure 6 only
six vacant and undeveloped parcels as classified within the City's GIS database exist within the NCOD,
less than 0.1 percent of all parcels within the NCOD. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that all
infill potential will be satisfied using only these vacant lots. Furthermore, it can be extremely difficult
to assemble land for larger projects in the built environment and requires willing sellers.
The City's current zoning code is
written with Euclidean zoning - The intent of the Northeast HMU is to "support a mix and variety
separate uses from one another - of nonresidential and residential uses" that are not found
with the exception of three elsewhere in the city and"shou(d be preserved as a p(ace of fering
unique districts that promote odditiona( opportunities for creatinq integration of(and uses."
mixed use: Historic Mixed-Use
District (HMU), Residential
Emphasis Mixed-Use (REMU) District and Urban Mixed Use (UMU).
18
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
As noted in Article 15, the purpose of the HMU is to "provide for a continuation of a mixtures of uses
that serve the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interested and a standard
zoning district." It is clearly evident that infill development with HMU is strongly encouraged; however,
such intent for recognizing a diversity of land uses is only found within the HMU and B-3 districts.
The Downtown Improvement Plan (Plan) also specifically calls for and recognizes the importance of infill
development. Two strategies - Build Housing and Strengthen Downtown Businesses - speak directly to
infill development. Additionally, the Plan identifies three specific sites along Mendenhall with the
potential for infill; one of these sites has been redeveloped, evidence that plans such as these can
become reality.
Zoning and Infill
Bozeman's UDC and zoning districts play a critical role in encouraging infill development. An analysis of
density within zoning districts was performed to determine which zoning districts or areas of the NCOD
could be densified using only the current zoning classification to allow for more units or increased floor
area ratio (FAR). Results from this endeavor are still being calculated and will be included in the final
report; however, initial results indicate at least two areas within the NCOD may be underdeveloped in
terms of minimum density requirements from the UDC.
A majority of development professionals interviewed stated that more robust incentives are needed to
further encourage infill within the NCOD as well as city wide. Bozeman's current infill incentives may be
appropriate for some development and include the following provisions:
» Expanding non-conforming buildings
» Reducing lot widths for parcels with alley access
» No dwelling unit size minimum beyond building code
» Water rights waiver up to 1 acre foot
» Parkland dedication simplified
» Impact fee TED 29% transportation impact fee reduction
» Impact fee credit for prior uses
» Impact fee piping charge waiver
» Simplified reuse, further development review of previously existing buildings
19
� +���
; ; BOZEIUI�AN IUCOD
. , ,�,.�.�.
Figure 6: Vacant Parcels by Year in NCOD
F
2005 �'"ST .��-��, Vacant Parcels by Year 2014 9ksr �;..y,
: ., .,
��� - �' 2010 a _'• f� � _-�•
� .� y . y .
_ �Ma�n����uu�u....n�� z � w t �� Tuqi�u�.�.u��uu�¢°� o . ��
��+uµ+}��yuu�u...�u�u°¢-
'¢� ` ■:�.�r , . . � a �. r��n�. z _ -� � a'� . �.-''i;it` �. -� '�
. . ��.� . . ��' , . .
` : - " . . _ ' '_. � � ' - e � ., � � ' � � . ^ �
i i i
. i' - � � ' , .,•.
���W-PEI+CNST.�i�i E�EAC.ViST `• i ... �� . . _ ;� yi.� '"
��W PEACH ST���� �E PEFCM ST ��W pEACH ST���r. E PE�CH 5T ��J�;
- � � ~ � ,.' . J •:�
z . - � > .`�" �i ����._' . .'S � � ' ;I 'fT_,`��
� r � � � _ � � "•7.��Yr 1�C4s rva��v�r �.:+�-0^k ��.�':�Q�.ii�'1,.
'4 ■ i s ! +'t'`~ •S�'i,i 11.Y�,`+x��' tr+,
��^
,: _ '�., t � � �, .. .M_ _ I� 1�� � . :. ! �_k,�!�.�. t� .±_' T�.�_...�„`rrt,, . . ��,y..b�,
- . � ', _ � ■_ "r t �� �'C1'" �CC �A'�`I, -. . . ._ _- . 6 . i ♦ .r� 'SP yd".�t, o'`+pS� _ ���'��w'
� -, %TM h(�'_ - ■ ' � - � t , � � -4 T��i�^_ � -„
v i - �Z� .� _ � � i - yr ^ �
..��• INMnIM1ST . -- -- EM4Il�i � - l'�� : '� '� M� � Il
� .r�—`� p�� H o���s W MAIh 5T r.`. •— .E MAIN ST. _. - :. . \ti�',..��c7 �� .,��- ._. E MAIN ST�
.� °'-'� 9 � .•.�
1��n.. _ . A - '�f x� ` . . .
�^�.. ' . _ . F, ._ . .. }�' ♦�.
j�1 �y.
,�(f.�i . . . ' . , Y"f't�.`' - �
��. 'j�
..�. . . �� " ` . ,tSr`�' u . . �t
r � 'c�
�' ' �,� v, • � �'��'d�r;
., .,� . �t ��.
, � �, ,r•
3 . �1 . - r.. .j
. ,�'.� . . 1 . . • 1
1 . �, j..� .... - � . .
v:r.uuece sr � . .
� � � W COLLEGE ST �•_, ` ,+ ��ti LOLLE�E_T , _ � .
` �j � •
.. ..::� . � 1�������1 . . . . 'tai����.�L . 1 . -
_ ' . . ■ _ .� ' � ' ■ . . {� '�1 : •
w . '' � � ' . .r �� ' - '
� - . . � '. . - . �. . ., � _ �
G .;�: . . . " � . - . . � .
i .. , . . . I . .
L.� n !r, ���. - � . a� ■ r .a 1� . . '.
t ,.` •, � . � .. i . ' g� , . ' ' '� '. � ..
� .��a �AY - � � B , ;T' : �-{.� � � -
i . ' ._,CI . . � ,�, . _. x' . . ' .., %1 - � - .
4 .t .s1 . •., _ , a"� ' ' ,'1 ,
�� '.- �;rw'•.�1 .. v�' . , a� ..,.... � , � - 'JI � � -
! �� ; a` ��'e ���.�� � ,��i,� �; . t ". . .
n���n�.iWl'Y�i�ui � «.n.u..����r�w�f ..n�n�n.,un � •
��r
0 750 1,500
-i��.�_„ -..,�.,�n,m«c,naew�m�.r.���c.,,,�..m,�nr.���.,,,�:,�in���..�.,��,�:��<�,�.�iY ummiz "' mFeet
20
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Design Guidelines
The current Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD Guidelines) were adopted on January 17, 2006 with the overall design goal for
Bozeman being, "...to preserve the integrity of its individual historic structures and the character of its
streetscapes that are unique or irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods" (NCOD Guidelines,
January 17, 2006, pg. 3, Introduction).
Over the last 24 years since the creation of the NCOD, the designation has been successful in its intent
to, "... stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to
the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas."
Historic buildings have been preserved, there is a greater appreciation and understanding for the unique
qualities that define the downtown commercial and residential areas, development is strong, property
values have increased and people simply
want to live in and experience downtown
The essentia( idea behind the Neighborhood Bozeman. The downtown has remained
Conservation Overlay district concept is to protect relatively stable despite significant adversity
Bozeman against alteration and demolition that miqht including the natural gas explosion of March
damage the unique fabric created by hundreds of 5, 2009, destroying the 200 block of Main
important bui(dings and sites that make up the historic Street, and the real estate and economic
core of Bozeman. downturn of 2007-2008 that saw the
construction industry come to an abrupt halt.
The question is: has the NCOD designation of
1991 been a factor in the stabilization, preservation and development within the boundaries? General
public input says, yes. Given that understanding based on trends and intuition, why might this be so?
The NCOD Guidelines are working to a
certain degree. They have provided a Community members expressed strong concern with
certain quality and consistency to the level how Bozeman is growing and changing thus recognizing
of historic rehabilitation and new the importance of assessing the NCOD Guidelines and
construction. This in turn is a contributor �,�,here they are working, where they are fa(lin� short,
in stabilizing and increasing property and where they might continue to serve the community.
values. This same trend has been
demonstrated across the United States
where design guidelines have been formalized and adopted.
Background of Desi�n Guidelines
Two key components should be understood regarding the NCOD Guidelines:
1) Guidelines are just that, and do not dictate solutions, but rather define an appropriate range
of solutions for a variety of design issues.
2) The guidelines were in response to a recognition of the fragility and vulnerability of
Bozeman's historic, cultural and architectural heritage and the need to promote their
significance.
21
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
These guidelines provide a written approach for making consistent decisions for the treatment of historic
resources. The application of the NCOD Guidelines is based around that determination of historic
eligibility as identified through the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory prepared back in 1984.
This method of determining an approach is currently flawed for three reasons: 1) not all properties within
the NCOD have been inventoried; 2) the 1984 inventory has
in many instances become outdated and numerous
The current guidelines are divided properties not meeting the "50-year rule" at the time of
c(ear(y with two perspectives - is the the survey may in fact after 25 additional years now be
property identified as "historic,"or not? considered eligible: and 3) renovations or remodels since
the initial survey may have impacted its classification.
It is difficult to apply the guidelines if the level of historic significance has not been determined or more
recently been reevaluated. Within the last year the City of Bozeman has undergone a resurvey of the B-
3 zoning district surrounding the Main Street Historic District. The detailed information regarding the
new survey was not available at the time of this analysis, but preliminary data was mapped for reference.
One of the most clear and easily understood images of the NCOD guidelines is the matrix identifying how
the guidelines apply as shown in Figure 7. The diagram is simple, concise and demonstrates a clear
approach for the type of work being done and to what classified property type and what guidelines are
applicable. Represented by the matrix, and of as much importance, is understanding the various
components for which the design guidelines apply. This hierarchical approach guides the user on how the
guidelines will be considered by the appropriate review authority. It outlines the format for providing
information and reasoning behind a particular application and its review.
Figure 7: Bozeman Design Guideline Matrix
CHAPTER TO USE
__ �a - -
_� �.e �- .�` - -
__ _ - - � � _ _
_ �� c ��s �_ � �� �� Ra
1.Atteration of a � � � � �—�( �—�( �
ontnbuUng u u
property'in an H�isL ric
District �� ��
li?��Aentiil l..mm�rcial
2 Workona"non- � � � � � �
ontributing"
][ properry�in an H�s[oric
� o�str�a �� ��
OR._���Irniial C�rtnm.�rci�al
� 3 Workonan � � � � � � �
'ntl�ivitluallY listed
LL National Register
O Property"in Il Itnninxi
the Neighborhood Ze-iAznnil cial
W conservation
� Overlay Dislrict
4 Workona"hlstoncally � �—�y � �/ � �
� sign�ilicanc LJ� `�
� property�in Ihe
Neighborhood �� ��
Con rvatlonOverlay n�i�i�iitir,l t.�.iiiii�sici:.l
D�sir�ct but outsitle of an
His�oric District
S.Workona"non- � � � � �/
his6�rically `�
signitiran['propehy in ihe
Neignbomaod i< « I
Gonservation Ru��u��W �.viuii������1
O�erlay District bu[
oumltle of an HisR nc
D�sVici
6 Sew iniill and � � � � �
n o-ua�on��
lhe Neighborhaod
Gonsarvation �� ��
OverlaY DiSiriet.but Iir.��Ae�ifi�l ����.ici�.il
outside an Z�ai.: Zin�
Hisloric Distriot I��iFfr�ict Ili.inc�
c.Sew�infilland � � � � � i/
n trucbon in `�
An Historic Dlstrict'
It II
k���ilu�ii:il �..�ii�iiu��i��l
Note:Ablank box indicotes that the chapterdoes not app/y.
"Chopter 1.Chopter 3 and Chapter4 guidelines will be applied more iigorously on projects in these districts.
Source: Bozeman Desi�n Guidelines for Historic Preservation £t the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
22
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, :���
Rehabilitation Guide(ines for Historic Properties
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (S01 Standards)
(http://ww� v/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm) were
created by the National Park Service as part of the Historic ,,�� — :,,�
Preservation Tax Incentives program and are used across the .
country as the basic principles of historic preservation. The _�"` `= �
�-:__... ��a",�r,
Bozeman Municipal Code incorporates these standards by reference �, �\
under the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process (Bozeman � _
Municipal Code, Chapter 38, Section 38.16.050 - Standards for rr���j �
, •���►���
Certificate of Appropriateness). The standards were the original '`=� ~ � ''�, _
: r
guidelines written for use by professionals working in the NCOD and ;
were not illustrated thus making them difficult to understand for �j 'a v
4.:.� °m���.
the general public. A desire to improve the clarity and usefulness ` - , : �
of the guidelines led to the 2006 update. �` �
�: :�., ,
Through the COA process, building owners in the NCOD applying for ;� � � � .i.:Y , �,-
a COA must consider a building's Character Defining Features, the �,�;�• � f .--==� , � �
historic building materials, and the individual building features ;� " , � .
including windows, doors, roof configuration, etc. This is a standard �� '`�"�--`�' I ��
approach used in historic preservation guidelines adopted in - �� `
communities across the country. Success has been demonstrated _ '- ,
. � r ���
locally through appropriate building renovation and revitalization _ �� '`�i :,� ti �;
efforts since their adoption and through the COA process. ���'
, �b,�� � ,�}�;�
Many of the NCOD guidelines for rehabilitation of both historic , .�x'-�' ;,;., ''
residential and commercial buildings are a reiteration of the The intricate turned wood detailing
Secretary of the Interior Standards (S01). Wording in the NCOD represents a significant character
Guidelines often represents a simplification of the 501 Standards, while defininq feature on this remaining
photographs of local examples and block form diagrams illustrating the historic porch in the South Tracy
guidelines are helpful in demonstrating the intent of the 501 Standards Historic District.
and demonstrate the content through conditions found in Bozeman.
Design Guidelines for Al( Properties
These guidelines were written more loosely and are designed to encourage respect and consideration of
those existing features that make
, , ; � � up an area's context. These
�' f'` ' "`�'" include elements such as
ti� � •' � _ ,
'�` �� � � � °" � to o ra h the atterns of the
F"'^ ��`� �. `` "'""' P � P Y, P
�v< /� `
F :� � r � :,_ �. � � �'�, streets and alleys, the streetscape
. ;�% ''„���;� ��i� �' -�1.- � which incorporates setbacks,
. � ,M1,. ;' �t,.����F ( - �=- � relationship of street/sidewalk/
�,' ` " ,,,��:.~` � �, street trees, and traditional
����^ a-��a � :,, � landscaping. When considering the
`�`' �'���� �.w�r�`��-���, - + � ,� '� ��" "�. : --- building design in a non-historic
.. . .� T�.�' . '' � '�� - � 'R'=''�
��, �,q, area, components such as the
� ' `��, � solid-to-void ratios, fenestration
��." � .
t��*. ^ ;x... �� ,�' �, patterns, building form and
' � �• _-4 y... �k� �..�� compatible material pallet are
Houses within the NCOD but outside a historic district represent also given consideration.
development dating to C. 1940 with orientation to the street, front
door sidewalks, street trees and a consistent building setback.
23
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
One of the greatest challenges of the NCOD Guidelines can be found in this chapter. The statement,
"New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures," leaves much to interpretation. The
recommendations are consistent with those found in the S01 Standards; however, these concepts mean
very different things to different people, building owners and designers. This concept is further
complicated for those trying to interpret the concept because very little information and no examples
are provided to represent the ideas.
Other considerations in this chapter include parking, buffers, site lighting and utilities/service area. As
the NCOD continues to experience progress, growth and development, the guidelines under these sub-
chapter headings only begin to touch on the issues which must be addressed today. Density and higher
property values are forcing these components to be looked at more creatively. The current guidelines
are broad in their approach. Additional
guidelines with representative photographs and
diagrams addressing context, density, heights, �nterestingly enough, some of the design
development patterns, use of materials, and 8uide(ines for Residential Character Areas conflict
solar and light impacts should be incorporated �'�'�th what is permissible in many of the zoning
and be relevant to the varied characteristics of c(assifications for the residentia( districts.
each historic district. A contemporary approach
to new development and infill development should be encouraged with more emphasis on context and
compatibility and less on a traditional, purist approach.
Guidelines for Residential Character Areas
This chapter looks at areas in the NCOD which are primarily residential in character, and addresses
generally new infill projects in the whole of the NCOD and the historic districts. This chapter encourages
an evaluation of the hierarchy of public and private space - looking at street orientation, entry,
connecting the public right-of-way and the private front yard, etc. Each residential area has an overall
feeling of the mass and scale of the housing stock. The housing stock often reflects the development
patterns of the dominant time period of construction for the area. Taking these characteristics into
consideration when designing for new infill and additions in the NCOD is often counter to the lar�e and
more sprawling design trends of the present day. The design challenge is to make the new construction
so as not to appear dramatically greater in scale than the established context and that the visual
continuity of the neighborhood remains uncompromised. The intent was not to stifle creativity, but to
encourage compatibility.
Design guidelines versus regulatory zonin� discrepancies exist particularly in the case of secondary
structures that have been constructed in non-traditional locations. The scale or design may be
inconsistent with traditional patterns, or higher density multi-household buildings may be foreign in
character to the many multi-household apartment buildings which can be found throughout the NCOD.
Guidel ines for the Commercial Character Area
This chapter provides guidance for new commercial properties. It is in this section where recently
adopted changes to the NCOD guidelines to better address the B3 Commercial zoning district attempt to
correct and clarify the intentions of portions of this chapter.
The NCOD guidelines for this chapter appear to be incomplete in that they consider primarily the Main
Street Historic District and less so the opportunities for development and commercial growth in the
"halo" area around the central core of the downtown. In general, the guidelines were written with a
stronger bent towards more pure traditional Main Street-type development and less towards encoura�ing
an innovative, contemporary, yet compatible new design.
24
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Further conflicting were the zoning classification and the recommendations in the Bozeman Community
Plan for higher intensity development. Much of the intensive B3 areas directly abuts residential zoning
districts and in accordance with the
design guidelines, new development � �� :�:�
needs to be contextually compatible.
The amended guidelines are intended '
to be a temporary solution until !
updated permanent guidelines are
putin place.
�i..�
District Specific �'�` �' _
�,;r '■' -
Descriptions .. `�`�
This chapter begins to identify the F;�` u� -�� ■ ` �
unique characteristics of each of the �' �'�
,�r,
National Register Historic Districts �T ' : _ �� _ — —
within the NCOD. Each district �s A new hotel (ocated across from the City parkin� �arage on
identified by its period of significance Mendenhall Street represents one of the first major developments
and its character defining features. outside of the Main Street District in 8-3 zoning.
The guidelines provide design
directives for preserving the defining elements of each of the historic districts. This chapter is very
general in its content and merely hits the high points of what makes each district significant to the
community and worthy of
�� \� preservation. In many communities
where historic district guidelines
have been implemented,
- considerable effort is placed on
identifying those characteristics
' which have given each district its
�`" 1 � � honorary designation and listing on
T � -� - ��� �}� �,. the National Register of Historic
� Places. The guidelines are then
� ` a; ,�� -� -
— � ' �,� -� *��_- _-- - - often very specific in preserving and
' respecting those characteristics.
The Appendices incorporated as
The new City parking garage provides o similar scole, massing and part of the NCOD guidelines provide
material pallet compatible with historic Main Street, yet valuable supplemental information.
contemporary in its buildin� type and interpretation. Ground floor With the easy internet access for
tenant space and the public transit hub reinforce pedestrion octivity. most individuals, much of this
information could be provided
through current links to state and federal agency information such as the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards, Preservation Briefs, architectural styles and other educational components.
UDC Provisions
Two sections within the Bozeman UDC were specifically analyzed for the NCOD: Article 16: Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District and Article 15: Requirements for Creation of a Historic Mixed-Use District.
In addition to these two sections, general code requirements pertaining to residential and commercial
uses such as setbacks, lot sizes, building heights and others were studied in relation to the NCOD.
25
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
General Code Elements
Specific code elements such as setbacks, lot coverages and minimum lot size were most commonly
identified by stakeholders and during neighborhood meetings as basic hindrances within the existing
framework of the NCOD. Because a vast majority of the properties within the NCOD predate zoning,
subdivision regulations and the adoption of the UDC,
multiple conflicts with existing lots and structures Approximate(y 89 comments were made
have arisen and will continue to arise as these re�arding improving or changing the UDC ond
properties redevelop or are rehabilitated. While Zoning code to provide more f(exibility with
Bozeman's zoning code was initially adopted in 1934 desi�n while preserving neighborhood context.
and revised in 2004 to help address the items listed
below, it is primarily written for "green field"
development. Some revisions have been implemented to alleviate setback and lot size issues, but
conflicts still remain within the district such as:
» Small lot sizes
» Narrow lot widths
» Structures located within required setbacks
» Multiple dwelling units within a structure
» Accessory dwelling unit location on lots
» Alley access for multiple dwelling unit structures
» Non-conforming uses (multiple dwellings in one and/or two household zones)
» No transition zone between residential and commercial properties
» Verify that the zoning map is properly applied for existing and potential future development
The City is undergoing a major UDC code rewrite and as such, the items listed above should be accounted
for with the new code to streamline the development process within Bozeman's urban core.
Deviations within NCOD
The purpose of deviations within the NCOD is to advance historic preservation. While reviewing data,
more than 190 properties were identified that either had to receive a deviation, variance or other code
relation in order to proceed with development. The most prevalent contributor to the use of these code
relaxations were items dealin� with minimum lot width,
minimum lot size or minimum setback requiring a
deviation. While deviations (a modification of physical More than 70 percent of stakeholder
standards of Chapter 38 as applied to a specific piece of �nterviews and at least two neighborhood
property located within the neighborhood conservation meetin�s focused on improving or
overlay district or entryway corridor overlay district or changin�how deviations are used
anywhere within the city throu�h a planned unit
development) do allow properties with unusual hardships
to move forward with development, the use of and policy interpretation relating to deviations has shifted
amon� planning directors.
26
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
The use of deviations has changed throughout the years and as a result has introduced an element of
confusion from property owners as how best to proceed with remodels, development and adaptive reuse
that responds to the context yet is contrary to code. The intent was so that older properties within the
NCOD that predated adoption of the code could move forward with improvements. The goal should be
to apply deviations where appropriate using objective criteria that also protects existing properties and
minimizes negative effects to adjacent properties. Since deviations allow a project to not follow the
letter of the zoning standards they introduce uncertainty for owners and for adjacent owners. However,
data indicates that deviations have been granted evenly over the years and across the entire NCOD as
shown in Figure 8.
Data provided by the City indicates that 219 deviations have been submitted from 2004 to 2015 (August).
Table 2 shows the breakdown of deviations used within the NCOD since 2004. Table 3 shows the types of
deviations submitted along with the approval
More than 50 percent of deviations were percentage of each type. Deviations were also mapped
associated with structures infringing upon showing locations throughout the NCOD to determine if
front, rear, side and watercourse setbacks. certain areas were more prone to requiring deviations
based on lot sizes or other physical restraints and year
approved throughout the past 18 years. Figure 8 displays
the requested deviations by year in the district.
Data clearly illustrates that the City's zoning code needs further refinement for non-structural elements
including setbacks, lot coverage, lot widths and parking demand. Structure elements including building
heights and miscellaneous items such as fence heights, backing distances, etc. appear not to be a limiting
factor when constructing within the NCOD.
Table 2: Deviation Status within NCOD (2004 - 2105)
Number Percent
Total Deviations 219 --
Approved 191 87%
Denied 25 11%
Conditionally approved 3 1%
Denied but COA Approved 11 44%
Table 3: Type of Deviation Approved within NCOD (2004 - 2015)
Type of Deviations Number Percent Percent
Approved
Setbacks(front, side, rear,watercourse) 115 53% 90%
Lot Width 16 7% 94%
Lot Area 19 9% 84%
Parking 12 5% 92%
Building Height 18 8% 72%
Misc(drive access, light fixtures,signs,fence height,etc.) 39 18% 92%
Tota I 219 100% --
27
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
Figure 8: Deviations by Year
� r r.,...?,R _ — • —_ . , r
�ror ' -'�' 'r`
Deviations Within NCOD F = ` ` fRSTQTF� ` �
�Aksp � � �,�- . °yWr
By Year of Use �,.:r.` � r �I � i '� �"'�� ' � �. ,•.,.
- ';;� !;�� - �s� �L •.►�r��� W �- �';; `r
.. .' �r��v�l'� 'r'�r�l �li� r ��I ,0.A �O� I �� I�� .
r 1
�- I L '� S J � .. .� � Z �' ��- � �.'��
w � µT.��l1l1��l�i��a�i�u�}..��1!�w1` ,�,r� ' ' �
�� i'J'''��r �,t t��' �" - '
_ �r ,��.� �� �,. � �_� '�'��` `r� r � •
r ��— r r.R � �f � as ��'t �)✓'��C`� ���l�l' ;� S'�'.� ,
.. Zr'�-I r--�..,� ��I�i���•�"� ° �`yy'��.--�s,-a��;`�..�rc`�-�•����: 3�b�.
:' r—..' �1(�, „ : ,�� ,*r - ,�,;�� � �y�.�'+J,S�r C�'�f �..�n�� �
.. "��-� �w. �u���►� �T`, y}� � R . -� r��`,
-'' :"'r � �CK�x4 ���ti 1'A��"J�r��• x w� w< �`3ts� r' f''� �
- � DURSTON Itb �a� 4W�rF� H)$T � "'-� E PEACH ST j:� i �{,'A';!`�4jy� '
y L ' . Q�� J-"..� Y-�� i �" ��^��' t�" �'1:—�. ; .._fx . _ P�� ,�, ���tl �� , •
� � ;'�I"" � ' '�s y + '� Nr��'r J�i�' r � ) . . lt,��! s ,�}ry�h-"f �T ,j��j`, - .
w t,- �� 'i- -- �N � �, �_/ �.� •<�,T r�� . � ���,�. �''� .''`tr. ��„//�
i - !�a�f- s{ T ����f � f.,,'��'�- � � �).'il J. .., - r Qx e� av . rAt �� � �;
F _. �, � ?M1' ra jr�. \-X I :���n�. r I ._ �`) � . *� f �i� �t � �R A
'+ r�. !�^ � �' t _ � �
�L ,� , �.v�.? �r �':�Y�,y�rr.� �xrAe'`� �''r�y��!r�,� �?t� - A-•k,�� ��+ ,pjyTr" I
Z���'���� µ�~��r�i 1�-'__`�1fi��T�T��a--c �.�Z.�§ .,.�` 1'y�L y'�.�� , '� . r'_ r' ��X�i"��E��� r -/.�.
� � "� E;��� ..� e-::���c.F?'"..°' ♦ �:''2('b rs' . . ,T�`��,'�!c'��P' ff' ,r i ,, �/��4r f�.
. _ ` � (} _
"` �c;,. t� �s-.�&I a � i f� , �i. t-iT.1- - "-� rr'-�.y`..�-`'�"��k� . .`°�N.j+ rf' :-�,�.
.�:.. �- ._T���n�""� ��1�y y'��i.B*Y:�'i��!.��,ti�r�� '�r-r`���lM. E' �.,, Au, t't'.�? �er .�, �.:.
� '" t�." 4c*r� c,J. �'r r i°'�r�'T j�'.�'(�"'1��,"D:J�(+C'l���S� �� �',r"�}�.�%'.4 r ?� ��'�'�,y��-' " ✓ .
�
t r � +..-i h� r ' ?;r �+ ,.+� - +�-
��„I` � ,. .. � ';_ ,_[�t�(yC�i�t`�'� r i t�' I ! f,-r��'�' :� ..��e' � � i�'..F �,'i1�� �.{�r"f� �r.r•
` � .-�
_� q , . �, i: ■i t •,(y)' h��.�{• � '�il�i �..' �r��i�sr��.i��- F -:Pr"wai�� MF, �•�r.
�`� � f�.i r�.7 �'�'� -f rr �,- ' �d�.!iF'1[�.�►I' ����r1�-'�f.Jr+"�:._ ,. ��.�n� ��_d�,,'.������':'. ��r�r ..;:1'-
- ■ !�;�R a• �W MAIN ST�r ' 1�—'*�— r+-,� . . E.MAIN ST
� ; I t� �--�- � �� �; � � J��� t�` � ���f`i � i. I ��.� � ,�y �—�
_ �' �_- �+rnY,` c•,)��Q� 'r�r-J o a � . Y� �.€ti"�.� -' �z;°.. E �t�GT� �. opy*
y • ���[ i�,ri' . ! �w�{,�'„q'`"��',.�"1`_�'�1.� 7".1���di''� �$lrrri� R �� -t��i y �I �Laa.�'n7 �'%c
�.�.��'�(�'�^'1� � �7��i �}ft��` � �' �f�;,,�� ',�� ,�+v1� 5 9��tr[� , .?,',^-F' +'�A�l.
�, s?���$- i ,� : ���: �� � �„� �, �: �' --'� �a ��9`\�. ��� ' ��`'
r + (v �{, �}� �' .
�::�� �L ilwi .,�g�Y. ,r� �r�:�i *�F��,I;1dF�'�1�3 y�rl�e:�O��t�*,� �L.9 �- .: , ::�` �� M�`a.
� �
� r; ��yf,
-T�`,5 ,� i�c,T� r� t �. r'{� f:� � 1 ,:._� yl'-J,�'�rr��l,-( '� '+w.. ,�y� =•i�a( ) �. „N�{_ ` ,
� y �����. t r. � # :.��r�+%-� 4r(f,r Rr �+—��j,F�a� :�'rY- � .l � :,��, c���.. �1,��, �H`L't . ���
� � „ ��, �..�{ `��`E o �n �:- • e�� xi��\� "�'
4 �� ;`��1 ��� 4 ,�5��.��?�.�,���''-"�r y c �i�lyx�''�`r Z'f,� ..�'x�,� 1 � � ' � �,'�3'�it� `N� .. 1. ,
' s '•rk��r i,� t�• � ,r +^'�;r "'r � F^^ � f. y �j.,. Y i�t��.
-�,�� .r ���,�., r,>.• �,{1,vilr _� f ������' ��,� �.�Z.�•i�'�r nM} R.� . .�1'�, i'•'���T.i';����`�`^,'�.+:
��n,,,� .,I'�l �;� �� � • � t ht � o i» �i,� irr,�P �_;�+.��� \ w� .�`�`.��.•1 t
~-�,.F ,�►F'�F �;4 �;,f- �� f C�''�+�:. �+1�i�as ;�'",.�.��'F" " ,. �+dr . '�!P-1 ��, •i
�i�{�'�'��,�` `�,�a�+ �C� , �`�S s�'�,nr;w�-. r3 r�'� �`�'�-,��� f .: •t t•,a�',��,w�•4,e,�
d .^ „ '��'1ca� ^lC �
►�l A �-I
��.y1b ''�rrj-•S�'�'f "�)..� •U I .r,j �'..�.(�^ �'tf,l ..,.j�`�3.. �'. � r.- � • ... .,, .
� �—�,�- �-� y ,�` � � `s r 'r �'+�i"
,� �.._ �� , �"� :'• �.� (� '-`"�ta - �z �" X,��m�`�, - r-%n ?�-
��.��*� t . a. w cOLLEGE ST - a. �r� � . �_
.i;; �; „�5t' 3-"�,�.. �, - ��+�,1p�� � �,+��'�`..�� -` : � Legend
'� ���t . � I�� �)�`c. r �,r�' ,Yti~1 r a��e� L. 'F-'� . .`?,r� .? R... YEAR
.-�����r^���' .�:.J�'� ) �M Fi� i �. � ". -s'�i?)� . 1. �r. : � 2004
^ F h � �� �t,,�� ?%�f�c�.J .;. � � 7� r� s���f�'" .�.r�Y��'"�� � r'�r�x:,�. . � .
��� � � .�- 2005
„�h� . � M�� y�w ���'�R.��.n♦t�MZ��.� 7'�� 'eJ�;l.,'y..,� � „�: � � .��rT.-.f `-��' C� 2006 �1:
� M Js�� �� r'� � :�) �` .��r K s. ..� T� e �'� {,.'3;�� r��_.,,
,�, '—�;�, ry�} 1�,�ra'����7' ^��.. 5 �� r� `Zb,�y`" i :" k �� - �s h'��1-1 � �� 2007
\� J ..�'� T' , '.�{a.�=�C.(i.�y�- � Qy� h�a�7t!�� :�,'dy�" .�L9d������..#����� �� Z��a
_:� "J{��.r_� r' ' "J►if���i�"r"� 'li h� ,"�r,..�f_•�� #.�. ' � , s ��Nr,y �� 2009
�3'�r� �J �._���.��� 1��. ♦� ,_�� t �I g i� .. -n V.•.'.�. _
—�• �!l; � k�'' ��:,,�. � s, . � �r�� "r_ �r ��_'r��w ,��.' ..� 2010
_, '"►''If��.l �.."(i �',� ki,�7�x°T �f rM r.. �F�• J'�� !' � r ) 2011
��� . ����1�i7:<i }'' � `r �� `r �':��! "t�C.�.'�'C `.;.4�jr �e.-� �t'.- _ ';..
h .,►,' �;,b ?1 � +3' �e �3. 'I a � �.� 2012
q.� t ',"i!"�` ��( �; '�\��r,���� ar�*pe�t
4�.; � �t � A r ��� z`�..�.' .� r.'M,1 ���`��'.� L� 2013 j
� � �I,�R�� ����-k �� �r �.�� ..r'� �,;,�ri',�`(�: � , � i Y M � .
r^'� y -�\ ��lti�M. t .
2014
h�; ,��— � - ., _ y¢. � ^�!I ��' e
j
-t. , t �r N I { " ,� ._ �rS� ";� � 1w� •_� F� ... M'. � 2015
��, �-�' ,� � �y,' �„ �s � ,t
���-� � �� � . ����y:o�'i` ��� � �r Conservation Overlay -.�•
e � � F� �=:... �r ._
, �.
. ;'.�, ...� , . ... � A . . v, ' ►.a}ra.c �r..�. City Limits �'-tc,
. . � .. . , • . . 'T � . -. -- , ,- N
. _._.__ . ,. - . ' � '-}:�,. -�. 0 750 � 1 500�:
o;sow�s�E,i�,�v a vorareemr�cc a �� . �ry,��oiiv:ons � . .. ... � � _ Feet
28
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, :,�.;,���
Accessory Dwell ing Units (ADUs)
Considerable comment was received regarding ADUs within the NCOD. Approximately 60 percent of
stakeholder interviews and all four neighborhood meetings commented on expanding the use of ADUs
and allowing ground floor ADUs within the NCOD as long as certain criteria (setbacks, adequate parking,
maximum lot coverage) were maintained. Current code only allows for ADUs to be built above garages
and can have a maximum side wall height of three feet. These two code provisions were addressed
multiple times during the public engagement process as needing refinement.
The majority expressed concern with "privacy" associated with second-story ADUs. Multiple comments
focused on the lack of privacy people felt when located next to an ADU. The argument was that neighbors
next to an ADU felt as if their privacy was infringed upon because residents within the second-story ADU
could look down upon them in their yards. Additionally, several people stated that their views of
mountains, trees and other neighbors were impeded with a second story ADU. Had the ADU been
permitted as a "ground-floor" unit, these people felt that privacy and view sheds would have been better
protected.
While the prevailing notion was that hundreds of ADUs were being constructed within the NCOD, data
refutes this claim. Only 59 ADUs have been permitted since 1998 within the NCOD, thus signaling that a
relatively small number ADUs have actually been constructed. Figure 9 shows the relation of ADUs
constructed by year and locations in the district. Accessory buildings which resemble ADUs but are used
for other purposes may account for some of the perception of ADUs being more prevalent than they are.
Figure 10 shows the relation of ADUs with deviations granted.
The concern moving forward is that second-story ADUs have established a precedent and trend that may
continue if code changes are not implemented. Some residents expressed concern with costs associated
with constructing second-story ADUs and the inability to provide affordable housing when costs escalate.
As one local architect noted, "Construction methods and costs vary from project to project, but typically
it is less expensive to construct ground-floor ADUs."
As affordability within the NCOD continues to be a challenge and a growing concern, amending the UDC
to allow for ground-floor ADUs may help lower construction and design costs. Whether those costs savings
are passed onto potential renters remains to be seen. That said, simplifying the process to reduce costs,
provide more flexibility with design, and improve development review of ADUs should be encouraged.
Moreover, several existin� ground-floor ADUs exist within the district and predate the UDC code. This
suggests that there is an established historic precedent in some areas within the NCOD for ground-floor
ADUS, which have been successful and part of the alley-scape and were designed to fit onto existing
parcels.
r � '� �,r�, ,� . '�'�r- `'� .,_ `�
� '-k � � .$� �, ' +�
�; �k'�` 3'lY'.� R ti '° �. 5i �F � X�
�y 1i �,�'� ..)g� � , �, �t 2� �- .::
� ,.� ,S -� ' �} � ,�.-tlt e F�. /
'��` .. '���' `� ' �. _ ��'�
.. �e .' �t; ���' �'
��*, �r • _
�� ` 3�,: �M 4
� �,2=.'x �,,:� y' �" '�. i'i'a � �;
-1 _ ... P l ' , v
_ �v �'�.'` ` M �< . ..z— ���� . - . � �Y �M ',�_ I
�+�-•.i° - - �� �'4��7! �
�� lilll '�If� �� '� '�, ' ��r
� ��`»�- '�'� � �,� i ' I,
'-�..��„t s.�.� r ,�,� i�� i
z ��y,�_
:i � .
.s:._
.... _�
. _ Ft'i _r�.
. . , . <s=.+� .
:'... ��. . .
. . .A_
._. I
.. . -- � � �. _ �'
°r
Ground floor ADUs existing within the NCOD with size ranging from approximatefy 400 to 800 sq.f t.
29
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:=��
Figure 9: ADU Locations by Year
ADUs Within NCOD � � O ��AkST'�: �� �� � ���
- - - �-.�: _ �z,'.��.` ..
' � � - � �� � � � �.�, _�,. . ,�
By Year of Construction r•,r� : �,�, • W� ',`� _ ',.,,
� , � • .,
u,(- . .. �tv -a��y��f ,��......k:��u .,;a r . . �i
. !' 3� ��.' �'� o� + � `.
� -� x,. �,�, ����,� • �1� + `� - �„ ��.�-.'T��if` � _ar"`? s . �r_ �t
� .-r ,�
.,� � I�; "`��'—r at�
z�� �� �'. �� � ±yy, " ''� ''*�'� r � � i��',�,�, r �
: , � w., __ t�°'�� �,"'F�� ,,,�`�'�, r �t,�h _,+�►
� �t �����:�� _���t-�,,,,r�a � '� �� '�.`-' r,. � a�
��.�i Cr'c�Rl� X� � f �`.a, ' . fi�� �� Tf'Y'q��� !,�'.�� I'"�!, y ;�, r
DURSTON HD l y �k� ' �' F PEACH�.ST ,�"- � r "\ :
_ - ... �*i.4iV��P.EMCHi�T ��J -, k� .. ��. q-'�,w''�y�{� ���- � , .
•. ��r ..;_ .f '.iM�� ,���+C}�a�. � �� �'9K'�+"y�yK'ft �� ' ec,'F'!, y`�.I .
� C" � ,- � - ,L.'�f�. � �'`" �� �l�M.a+ �! I�,? f''i /.N.
w t -- . Yrc _ � .n �+"' � "!F'�.f1�(,�.� �}_ '-v� ?r' �',1�� 4' r � +sy�r "• � •r
� �- iy-• ,-q,, ..P 'r. y ' � �Z� �'�� �c t� ��"� ^i�.•f A ! f.�rl .
� dk 1'�x` l rs �,��.��' '�+ r �`�� ,#'�y.w�'.ek�� � .� , ,�4! ����„-.'" 1,���{ tiE .
s-- ��i 'T � �riTi`�� �r-' �i,. r� �.�'t�r» '�j�'-r-(.
_ _ �' � 7C '�
o- y� .� ����,�y
.'�- :.a�i c� r� �►'#rc•a`��14 1:. � 4'k� !,� � ifi'���a�� �� �','� � ��.;pA'�l1e�l .
� .i�"�'� `r-:'�a� ��'`+�t�.,���'+Jf`,i:���a�,5 'f ��' �1 ��+..: :r �1:�' ir f .,.r �.,
'� b.�ari t+� i �� �`�'s•t• u 4�$' r� . � f''zy ��7�����, � �'�'� �� E 'l
`'"�".a� ���" .i���� ���C���i�p'��, �. ��a��.«�;;^,�;9^�f:`7Cr.+ `�'��ti:4'��-�^��<��t;`"�,,.
r ,��� �}�S�i�t r,.���ryeee ,-.•'
,[',� �.����}__ r� 'w;��.'(�S'J�ii���.��'ti;�f�r1.�i�-. -� ti+'��� '��� � � t'MNsvy'� ^i�d1R'�A�. - ��' �l
i'e��' ..ffi'� ��~�iJ41�r�f�tYiia�AS� �'r�`6�. 1�7, f-}a�" a+ 'cSi �,°I � Z�-� .�,��y1� �� .�, .
tv.^ • t� if ('*-'��A�.�!{j�• �t� v��-�..�, ('"_�'Y��y r�.�� ,,- af�y�ir rt ��(,. �
rr �� - ,-• �'� �-r ,p� ,J-T` •-, r,.. -y�:,�.f'�}�-!��� } � L,r�:-,,,., ��-_--:�f .
r � .:6'�' +m.aA,'i� ,r �,�- 7 Ci'��I�:���r"� � l �' �.f .1 li". � ,.. r .:1"'-
• +i�ui� W MAIN ST �- -�� r � . E.MAIN ST
�,� �� ,J�,.�=- �+1 rf g, 1.. �-��+rY:�l�' r �' �� � "�y��:�� /�vaP�-,{ '�r; „�
_ � , ' +'F!',7N�'�' � :. 1 P �°, f� �`A ;e�� �'� tU-.'aa r " ?�'�. _� 1ff,��(" ,�r ,�I��
:�ri i'P�",: �rjii !;tf��:�"���..��!'0 ,�'1'e�tr�1��,� r+� f�. �.i6�i�,��y,,�J,ji '�1��y`r,'�"r
.. x � �5 1 t�,/��V�� �'y'�tCf J1 �/'�j F I'I�'.. ��.F1'_'1 ,:��� .�r��Ip �.y����i Y W'T'�f . ��Sq•��,` .
l7�^ T4..}I A },�� � ,K
,���'�r�.'���'� raf �''� `��� K"�,S�''{e��p��'�-`M.a,fi, ��'.i' y. Y'��. a�^�r- 'a',� � .1 `�,+ � ,�,�
. �FT�hhll �fF'�rr.£��yr�����'`�ro�(.P�ItLi��',:..}1. ��l"M�.�.�-.Y� "�, ��� `�-����{��`�_�✓' � ���Y��� �'•i .
" ��{��" �;,[N�':t��j��f�z•rt�r+,� a�� j �,:� �1't t F�1� r b� -,c�y � _�� I `+H �� a
����v`�'!'FA7"�+.Jm1'J�'"�Y.7�'�� wn����'f���..T�.+I�i��rt' ►�� ' P ��.►'`.. 1����?4�� fn�'�� 1n����S�' -.. ,,1.
w �y_ ,�t �
> "ii.,,�°'+`�'+�1'"��'�r{r�`S�1'> r _„�i ! �.� �� ��*�,�,��i`-��,�-+�e� at�v,�r++i'!��#'��► t'*«� n t �{• .
� .a %;1t ,� ••+ � �r,v�� r i r f' r +�.t, w� �,� k�.�' � -"� w ��.�y�-?.-' �f", ��t,.y • ' <a�:
_ .. � � i��I�,�w;.n� i y���+ w �• r�ia . �, w � .,��`, �
� j�g'�•l�w�, � .f'�„"�yrtA-��"i�,nir 5 `�I� A f f Z�,��`�;��''� �a,�'i� •_''T flr r��1 F��..•�,Z�tZ't���:� ^h'� �.
. `� .F('�t,,.�1 ' . r;i,�.�.i+ f� ,E�1r Y o� r.,,���.:''�� ,�.�..�Y {F,�P-4���. , t��Z.1 p�.�.�t,::
�. �� -1:�7 r r .A � �. !'��,�"�� vi ��'f_/'Afr � !-� r�F ♦
��`"'�� � � M_ 1 r �'�"� ��'� -�-� -
, � � ! y a �1 �� 1 r-}� �� . � �.��:�'M �i.�� r.�.. 1��;�^s -.. Y� � � � •r. .� ♦ .�
� � b �,.;�-} ;1.^,k� � N�.�,: �':-."-"- ,� s Legend
u� .� u--�� rr�'7 '��K"""Lra:1'�'�'I ,��, �' .. ♦��'i;�i� � �L, �'�' � ' a: �
,� '�'}� � ' ;` � r„ ,�� w y�4,�i� i .y, �-- c "' Pro ect Year
pE-.'-�r- _ '� '-..' ' °��^:'i.n v�l`\Y�:�tiy{�',�1'�4`�..� � r �-� mT.� ��,h�' '• ,�L; 1
� * - 1998
-��� ���� � � h. v.W COLIEGE�ST� < <r yt..� i._ 7 ��j����� " � t � �j��',
.�N� }��.�:= R r';c i ➢,�..rj..•�f, y'�j.,e5 ���:~'wYit�`S`�zv' ��' �, . &r'•'��: - 1999
r e � �Ik����-��i�'y 'F�F�'����.ii?�� .G.,�'..e�',. .'�';� .. 3.,,c � r . �.
s�,�}r+ti4tv7. �.t�, � ^ -
- �:,� 1 T-'d �;,t"` �i"''�;�sr1� .�l ti i e�t���� � r zool
��,1""' ;;�� t J r •.�F r� �r.�r�,. �0� ..f'iF;� fi r r:�� :r. - 2002
t � �.� 1�p�l� � �' r s �a M+ ,rr-at ��� `
..r �+�y u ����z �r i w f�b� •�;� ��.* F� .�' � � �} zoos
�,• �
� .._ '��j� �...k�� ,n� ■i�. f rt+,{r'..''�� r . � k .'��� �s t. �� �.��..-• 2004
�..._ �i.. I-y�' '�. �;• #'� �S�r a. i � k �.��F" _- .:.f�,!n�-�,� +�.
��^'�^ �� . � -��.J�' '?„a����Y►�lyi�..� �Y��'�✓^ ..14ar.�':����.�-. 2005
,_ ,
,' .. � � , , . �.�.R • . 2006
r ...w�i.:.-� r ��,aa,i �� �i'f ����'�-' �, K,� � (, y
� .� �; .- �-- � �y,C � ,`1u ;�` 200�
���, � r ���YM%��=��i..'�'s'�.tY „{'� +..� � � ��r�,[��� .
, ,;.w:'.N...� .. .f�� � :�-�'�r �t^�;s � i���� ���r ;����'•S ...t. �, ii "r'�.,,s+r.., 2008
,-c' :r. j�� �-p�, ,� � y ,,-,�.
� ��� ai: . � �!�;-�,...,��W .lY�a��.�e. e^ .�'_,•�. �;�t�'�•,�k zoo9
�� •l'' f '�� �'i. ,i� aa`�'�"_T k'�`' ,�'•��a7-'"':7''� � r�,h 20�0
,.�. ..'_��/tt ;;�� � 1.� ''. �, r r+�e,�,kK � N'":.A"`� .' 011
r',. �-,:�., ".. �whr0.+w��� -w�RV�Y't���''�. i �1,.'� „ .�;�_; 2
.. *r� �'��� �F� ,�, � :`r.. .- `��_ . /« + . ����'u.,- 2012
M�b .� ,�` ^!a r����, � � �,ri ,a.a,������"�'!.p � 2013 .A
w.. ''�� . �� � 5
: �� ,§ r`;� ■ f
a � �,t4 j ' �- � . y, - q��,. i ,,y ,y' �:�•�,� .�»., 20�a �
�r- ,,w,�„n�,'�'�'C' R +.1 ?��' �� �� j�- . . - zo15 �
., . ,���. " �. .. �. �,,. , �
� �� �- , ��. .�• � ` ; (�, Conservation Overlay
� • . �iG i.l� ' y•y �� � r"r' ��[KAG y : � ':.,* � � N Crty Lintits
,' ._ _ _ . � W KAGY BLV D y�,� . . Q! :
�Y'•�5�e" � L �� .
� f a n
+ ..` � . � � 'I.r: .. , : ��500,. . �
, �� _�x R ..����', I .� _ti.
," o o �so
i_ ....��."�, �aWaled��11S� imr�p.a" n�incv�m�L.. ✓ Feet ,
�
30
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
Figure 10: Deviations with Overlapping ADUs by Year
8'w^'� '-: c._br� _' .�� ....: .�� ��~ ' . /. "y
Deviations & ADUS � ° �' � ��.. � '`1��: 'r;�i'}� �"
- - ..� ' - - .�'.`. _ ,�� � ,��
5hown by Areas of Overlap 9 � i�_-"' �-�.� ' � `�'
,7� �����
-����QQQI�....��� h��� �h. '({y� �~ 1�� �._ 0.
- V'�� �-:. � i��ti, r � 1 _ „r:� . I � �'/ �` ' •K
r.i � � ..w ' r(1 � !� � 'R Y �1�' IyQ1r ./ �i ! . .
� , {1 � +� .s °y,i"�' r r� �i 'r� - - �'
, >` !—.�_ �� f r'� '.� ; , K � " '� �,
„� � �--� � � - ?i r'1' y�i� y,,�,� ��� l� �.
� .. � ; t i. r ,...�.-o �`- -•��A-��r .,�
� �,,,���°� � ..w i _ I S��':}� � ,���
i r r � ;��� � '"��*y�,,,� �'��`./'i� � •�L�v��
�
_`' aQ�����♦ � , ; �irX �1"•�,- ����+ ,�4r���::�+�� �C'-�`'"�����.�_
.,� �� �; .' „Ya� �, !!�,�.�:- � �T� � .�..�fi^ . � �:. .
GiiL��.� �� r_ ! ,.
� ° �i��}�{ ` t'Sl��.�����i��'� .�r _�'' . M �`' � �
'G` -�Kn ��.:.. ��'� �,�i 1�,,�L'r�' P�' �'2�r�.n � ����r
r p � �
.�+a, � � , � � � _ �,�+��'- F���,,�� + r, 7 ,
� � ti � .� � � ��
� �, '¢- �� - '_ .��,f��� '3�" �± � �K �,.Y: �. e;� r��'�
� � �y,!r `�1 � ��f: ,. 4. � �_, ,
�F+���`t�;,r �� �1y, '.7�.�����€�l��� �L. t�'�'-� � ` s.t��{' r' � �f"�'
x t ��'� ` � i4 n � �r/ .,
�.1���+ ._ i , .� �-��.r--- fq..� > > r,. 1a . � }� � -� v .l �,^ ..
�i�+" ::�� '� �
.. ���i�'����1�__� a � '� ��'' �� }������-�� �. ,.. '� ��. I�.
� ,.
�;�.�'����j��W'r �t�'�rj�R 6''�.:�e�{:�f����.,��}�".��w°YL�' �wl�-�����i ..��', ;,C,�,;:'
.� '[�i.u GLZ�' ■r���jj� ���'1��71�.'qr��t��� iY���y4� �A:�j`T`r �"�ho.�y'd��.���i
��F,�r�.��`.'�� � P�.y l�f'; Y'. � r�r���+'��/�-r-��i�w��i �r�.s'��� �.. ��'?"��' ��ry t
;'', 1 �Cr�►., ��►.-r},�.=�� ���- io a.� 1 ����` ,�`!� ��. r) �i' "" ,
t s ' e�'se+ib'�S�r I_ `-.C?�lf�';f f-' �;'�M1'"'-� ::� (--r�t �,C1 .�r`L� ^'" ' r. �.
.. ,. .
'�, i�•--+� A� xrt �'T '",''a.r¢�1&! ��' ' _"'� �'�ir-i �t$rT.�I �'� � t t_'1
? k�#�'F>x;���.� 'r� �r :t �`..'�i L�s! a. ' :-'�a `, ��;r� r�i��p
-�, ; i
� , c Kr,', y�� �+� r/�!r q[+��`('' �. �°� i.��s � R' t
• .S"L f_- �wf 'L�`,�-IIv_�r13F ML E;��..K rv� k��« "1 .�'�,'� �'�+ �,� ` t� � ,.
x_` J 1 ,j�
��"'T- •" ���'�?�h��',�4'riritN� 1 ��,t�f tj'� �;�t`���� 1�i �'x'���-� � �'�hT•
«s e�z �
i ��`a "'��'>�%�' '^t '�(��kµ' .r• 5-'� I" �a� �.T �r �'��� r �'� '��, �j�,'
,�� + t� ti�- 1 � r"`i �'
7=� �r7��S'3 �-'°.i z�,"�7.�e�� �tE!R,s���?4H�F�_, �:�.-+,� �7 .�„'�f-a :ad(' R: _� 4f..
1- �j �+ ���l�i hr+. j�'���r �.`Y; �' � N� ti
�C �i a� '`.. ♦ �r r- �,•� �R�-4t �.�� � ��. 1��"� .�. ` �. •
����i'f'y')�Y�"""� k �� -t` ��}�(+���'Y} 4 .�'r �7 �t'� SC� . . y �• f!H1'R !•�.t
(Y�,j�\ i 1.. � y ��.. Y �_['���� �.+� ` .��� � �
"tiJ-�-�'�jw.'�,�k�' "��tlA-',.�a�1,� `�_ +�a� ��� �3:.'h:. �ji"C_� • .. F�•F ,+�'�1p`rN�i�� �.a.
xT.et2 . e i- ..7+ '►r }'
�,rl:��,sY`�.r�: f�i i�►rT�;?��-��o`�i� Y �ic! ��'� G ' ��''� r �" '��� ��` ����'�`Y
..�r�:s ��-.0 j7 E�l.�bv�,y�`'C �F�7i l�l r �l;*� 1rf _ '�'��� � �`{"i�'.i.';•
F�7: h c � t,��Y- �-ri^rti r-.r- ti, � .. �t�,.�:����; �t�'.
,���� .F'r'_'��`"�2 e .-�~� f�a�W'd'iF�'.,�"7 i7��a+r �,—�'?- �J^� �: � � �� T+1l.Mt�� r!►.
''g^„�}1�+� .�►�t•. e,�i a'"3!r*�.{�t' ! ,lf. ^j � ..n;�►,� ) � � , � ��r,�,. yZ� �,,.
{��..,-} �Qq�, gs�,ypp �`SD �,�, .,� Mi. a!t1i�{
•LL�JC]�':�R^9 � �����'t�"+iSS%!ik2 ��F�'y �1��^��}"'���".�..��k ���+�+-�.�H�1 ���,,•. ( • r1 ! •�,.. ,
w.� �Gt�� �t. ��fifr'm°��� �'�� -'„�,�'c'���,y �( yf+YiR .,� .y . .. ... w .
'Y.1'• 'F.��^ ���;����# ,�.� W���i�� ��y�'� �' .Y ��7�- �
��w.� y� � .. WH ��e. ret r.` 1a� . .
� �f ,�� A ! ..� ��;� � �+'�w��,''. , y�,.Ma
Y /^
�'���� - ���������.r�.�ll�y� ��7c') �� �.
� . . .� _y_,.}4� �fq f' j"� , �� �1 .
B.�'� " � ' ' '� � J� S���y.i.r4 h*, .++'. : +�'� F r4�i�.1� c�t�:
` � �I 1l�� n., . .,y.- �. `�,_, , „
� • -
���-.� '1�,a`�`` '� '���� ��, �,��, 1,} � � �-�'��" �y
r'�,t�- ,��� ,�a � -�-� t > r °� � '�.� .. r
�•�.
,, � � N � t � r �,� . �.� y, �- • �
+ �i . �`�}� � �•�+ �
"�`-'�`r'.' '`.�. ,��. . e ���� �,�e.Y"'�K'�F�'� �'T ' :tZ�`E'' c i� -_ _��' �`�,•.� :�` -
�.;�.-1' �Y� � rJ ' i �, �,�t tir�'"'� 1 .., + �y �� `��,Y•.
? !''�.�' I_ �'�� b�3,�?� �'C y!- �� „�`.��x..�T ;�r... "i- '�
-- �"•�' '�"� ' r��-.-�-�•f ��l-R •: �i '�-�- +� �,,.:._G,.,. •.'�,.. «� qv
•• 61-� � }� a !� � �*- .y r`.',tf �S'-i�.x` . .�i
��R �-� �h7�r 7 .�� �L3r1�l�i��i•�' + }��� Legend .�.
��sk:�- . w�"7 �� ' �. „ ° .,� "'��� ' ���T"r 3�■ f.unscrvat�on Ovcrlay
�—� — � .1 �_f ��L r�It��. �'�� � rJb -I�-j _
�� - E� �, "� �'`��i� City Limits -
�_ .�V - . ���.y '8t�lifd� M .
-�.a�4t+5 ���� '�'"t
-��"� / �. . �c�_:- � _- �' �� � �„ . � � w.�•. ,� Deviations OverlappingADUs(x27}
,� w
- .r� •^ � . � � � �C]�-� . NumOvcrlapping Deviavons(x208)
�.�y �'�P.,taV . - � •) �t, c;r^_ Y. Y��'f�� y��$ �:�'F � I���iii.�iriinF;:11)IIti�
S �F
� ",� ��� f j '�`� � � �� �
.,. , ' ►'� � -�.�..�.�„� � �:✓r� , o �sa i soo ;,��:
�,.a���.n.��haev�cisa ���,�, � :F..�� �t �.: . Feet l� �
°^M�`�
31
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, :���
Demolition of Existing Structures
Besides general code provisions, demolition of existing structures was the most prevalent code-related
topic discussed with stakeholders, neighborhood groups and the general public. While the current
environment has restricted the demolition of existing
"Why should I continue redeve(oping in structures until a building permit has been secured, this can
downtown when it is faster, easier ond severely restrict redevelopment efforts within established
less expensive to develop west of town neighborhoods as property owners want certainty with
and 1 don't have the headache of respect to approval and timing of issuance of such permits.
demo(itions,"said one local developer. The reason for the conservative approach is to prohibit
another episode of demolishing a valued, historically
significant building, such as the -��� i , � s � a: � �
�. � � � < < � .�g y
former Lehrkind Brewery. � ' � a< k ! " � � � �� � .=,\
� : �� ; r,��,1� � �,� � ���� �:;� �� V�
However, this has not precluded or � ` ; � �
deterred other property owners from "`� '� � �`�1��.� 1 �
,.m _ ., _ �� � 1 �
demolishing contributing structures ; '��'� t= �� �� „;, �. � ; a.i� _
within the NCOD. In fact, during year � : - � � ���. �i`�� � i s " � �I �� � --
2015 at least two contributing � � •�1 -1`� � � � ��
structures - contributing to an existing � �I � �; �i s . � �� � � �_� ' y ;;
historic district or a potential historic ._ V`� � ' � I �
� i
district - have been demolished �,, i� � �� #� �� R 0 A D �� � � � . o � �-
without appropriate permits and "'"=•-- � CLOSED
approvals. �� '"°� .;��, ���.����.:.�' ` �.�� �1°'�
'; `. ;� :t�f/.tl� .,..
The conservative approach (especially - ____� � _____ _
as relating to non-historic or non- _ - -
contributing buildings) has actually Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Demolition Begins on Lehrkind
begun to deter developers and property Brewery wall,"April 21, 2014
owners from new development. More
than 60 percent of stakeholders noted:
1) Developing outside the NCOD on undeveloped parcels is much easier and faster
2) Costs tend to be more expensive within the NCOD because of the COA process, length of time to
secure approvals and uncertainty with building and demolition permits
3) Complexity of construction and land massing in already developed areas
4) Code provisions are written to encourage green field development rather than infill
Obviously, the original goal
of the NCOD was to protect
historic structures and the "�'d prefer to develop within the NCOD, but it is much, much easier to
legacy and roots that have do so outside the district especially when 1 don't have to wait for city
provided the foundation for approvals regardinq whether structures can be demo(ished. It's all about
Bozeman to become the time. Waiting hurts our bottom dollar thus making it more expensive to
city it is today. That is and eventual renters and owners,"said a regiona( development company.
should continue to be a
priority for Bozeman's
urban core. However, certain structures that do not contribute to historic districts or have little to no
historic integrity should be allowed to be demolished to make way for new, creative development.
32
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:�=��
Some development professionals were and continue to be encouraged by the recent redevelopment
efforts within the NCOD noting that Bozeman is transforming into a more sophisticated city. As noted in
one neighborhood meeting, residents were not
against future development and the demolition '�There is a positive energy right now in downtown
of buildings. Rather, residents wanted to be and 1 hope the city can capito(ize on preservin� what
more informed of upcoming projects and the makes Bozeman great while baloncing the need for
potential impacts - good and bad - future future redevelopment"- NENA neighborhood meeting
projects would have on their property.
As noted in polling data from the second public meeting, opinions relating to demolitions were sometimes
conflicted, but the general consensus was that the demolition process should change. While these
numbers are not statistically significant, they do reflect a general consensus expressed throughout the
neighborhood meetings. The four most prominent comments received about demolition include:
» City should allow demolition without permits for certain structures
» City is preserving wrong type of housing
» Inability to demolish non-contributing structures
» There is a lack of new units replacing structures past their useful life
An ordinance change addressing the demolition issues is currently being developed and will be published
for public review in early 2016.
Parking and Access
Parking was analyzed to determine the effects of either reducing or increasing parking standards
throughout the district. As noted earlier, only five percent of requested deviations pertained to parking
issues. Parking reductions for ADUs were mentioned 26 times throughout stakeholder and public
meetings. The small percentage of parking deviations requested and relatively few comments received
about parking reductions suggests parking for small-scale, residential development may be appropriate
when considered on a case-by-case basis.
However, in speaking with the Downtown Partnership and
One business owner stated, "The more the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) board,
rooftops I have to draw upon for parking reductions and access to parking lots were a top
commerce, the more my downtown priority for ensuring continued commerce in the downtown.
business is (ikely to succeed." While parking standards for residential units may be
appropriate, some downtown businesses (retail in
particular) noted that further reductions for studio or
efficiency units may help spur development of additional units and densify downtown. In 2004, the City
significantly reduced parking requirements for the B-3 zoning district. Construction of the Bridger Park
public use garage in 2009 provided an important resource for all of downtown's use.
Parking varied from 60 percent to full capacity for both on-
street parking and dedicated parking lots; however, on- The recent 2014 Downtown Bozeman
street parking was more fully occupied. In some cases Parking Study noted on-street parking
certain block faces reached 100 percent, while off-street rates exceeded 60 percent throughout
parking lots, especially outlying lots, did not achieve full the day and approached 80 percent at
occupancy except for the Armory and Willson lots. certain times within the urban core.
The 2014Parking Study further states, that "while the
results of the occupancy rate analysis did not indicate any problems at present, it is possible that issues
may arise in the future. This is particularly true if downtown tourism traffic continues to grow." With
33
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
the recently completed high density developments along Mendenhall and proposed development along
Lamme, parking will undeniably continue to be a premium for infill developments. The Study further
notes, "While adequate parking capacity still exists in the downtown area to absorb these peaks at
present, occupancy rates (and possibly dwell times) should continue to be monitored in the future."
Parking adequacy is a frequent subject of public comment on development applications and is likely to
continue to be a "hot topic" going forward.
Currently, the City has three parking districts within portions of the NCOD - shown in Figure 11- to help
manage intensive demand for parking and impacts to adjacent properties. As more high-density projects
develop within Bozeman's urban core, more districts may need to be created to help alleviate parking
demand and manage where additional vehicles should be parked.
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and City Notification Processes
The most prevalent non-code issue - those items not dealing with zoning, subdivision or development
code - was the City's COA process and general
notification process. Notification procedures and
general education about the NCOD for future Near(y 50 percent of all comments re�ordin� the
property buyers were common concerns. In NCOD pertained to improvin� the COA process to
addition, an overwhelming 90 percent of make it more transparent on why certain projects
stakeholders and polling data from the second �^'ere approved or denied and(ocations.
public meeting indicated that the notification
process should be improved so neighbors can search online for adjacent properties with a COA or
subscribe to a feed notifying them when a COA is approved or submitted. The City is in the process of
developing electronic tracking and project notification systems which will address some of this concern.
In recent years the City has implemented improved procedures for the processing of COA's. While some
property owners still perceive the process as cumbersome based on previous experiences, current trends
suggest higher efficiency and reduced review times.
Air BFtBs and VRBOs
The use of properties for Air Bed and Breakfasts (Air B&B) and Vacation Rental by Owners (VRBO) within
the district were identified as a concern during neighborhood meetings. Two prominent issues were
identified: 1) the "revolving door" of people or lack of neighborhood cohesion and 2) parking issues.
While not specifically addressed within Article 15 or 16 of Bozeman's UDC, vacation rentals are required
to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) per the City's zoning code in some zoning districts and are a
principal use within the R-4 district.
As noted, most neighbors do not want to dictate what other property owners can and cannot do within
the district as it relates to running a B&B type business; however, mitigating the impacts of such
businesses includin� noise, parking and the constant change of "neighbors" should be addressed.
Neighbors did not feel comfortable enforcing city policies as they did not want to create strife. Rather,
they would prefer if the city would put effective measures in place to enforce the code relating to these
uses and ensuring people have the required permits. In addition, the effect of these uses on affordable
housing may displace renters because VRBOs tend to have higher payin� renters, but it does provide
existin� owners some revenue support and thus may make their property affordable.
34
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
Figure 11: Bozeman Parking Districts in Relation to the NCOD Boundary
li� I� — �''���- _ _____ �.i _ � _ _�r�� �r I�I_I �.� , I�\,
i� ,i, ir �ir 'T' � '�` ii ,� � I� I
ii �,i � i� �� I n� � ��I ��.,��_���_i - .�i .�I I �-i � �,
i �I _i� i �i � r �I�� I ;�r � � .��� �,.' _
�i; ,�'� '�'� '�i ,�� I I ��I ��I I_ �� ;� eI � ��
I i i >I > i -� - ,
� � n � � I ,
I� �I��i�d..��.�1� � IQLI�� II ��y �'��r II�. ��- �; I ,� -'�=��
�; =;1' �' _ '�L7L�1 _'� � -C�� -lu�o���_�J'� ,� ,�
'��� � �� ❑C�� � ��!�■.�i_ _ _I' �� � I ��:::.
�� ,..�
��; ' �''� ��"�i!.�,�.: ���u���.r.��'� �� ���
_-J;;_ -_ x�r��Cj— =l cI��00�1��- �' ;�
-- ����— , i
'� �i ='���� �01 ii�i� y4 V�! �_ ������' ��_J � ;' '�
I � i �,�I� ��i ';� �—��� `I I ' I _ ��_ ���a� _I ��—�� ;' -
, � �I; , _I�i' �!�,,I��Is T i� '��� �� =���� �i I� �_ ��I �� �% �
— , ,i�i� ,� � = i, , � — �� ; c
� _�� i�,�� ,r ��!��� ����=�� JI ,�� , ��
:;�— �,.��,
� � _ � � -��'�0�JL.J_.� �—��-��� �i�— - �,�,..�'
N��� - , �, � =� ; �
_ JC��O ❑��r�.7D�LJ_'L—'� I ; ��'
� i�� i � '�
�I i ,
� � �1�,.,�,.
-_ � ��0❑ ❑0❑���� �.t�, ,
'' `�����'� - � �'I - %
>, :�I = I �I
� i' _ I ❑D�����.,..a,.u�r �, j'
�� �,���I �i��i ���—� � � i � -
�� ..I _ _ �I z� ��.�OCi�I ����. _
��= _,, � -�,i --- ���❑�, ;,.�e ���.
,_ I ��� I ���- � n ;1 i! 1� '�'�,
�,. _�— �� i __.I �l��❑ ,��� —�L.__ - ��
— 1 , �4�❑��� - -_- ��
Legend _ �-i � � � `� II
❑I.:����I
` aark��e o�sa��c� _ -_-=�� ^ I �I
- �v esHs Res denrai oinrmt I � + I � ..,�. £ �i =
�^I_ NMSUResdenfalDistricl c � -- I— I� "� z
1 Hour I��
Nz�o�� � — �
� Parking Lots ' , J
\::
I
- �,. i,%�
2Hour Exce tB Permlt) - _ ,
( P Y
� �
F��
� + ZHourlPertn'tNotRequ�iredl I "%' I 'I �
I. � �
Park ng Garage I �/ ��
II
— — �� ---- ��` —�— ��. � .M.,. ���
City of Bozeman Parking Districts
35
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Best Practices Summary
Historic Regulations Considered Ease of Use (Scale 1-5, 5=Easiest)
» Austin TX ------------------------------ 4
,
» Fort Collins, CO ------------------------------ 5*
» Portland, OR ------------------------------ 3
» Salt Lake City, UT ------------------------------ 2
» Santa Fe NM ------------------------------ 4
,
,> Spokane, WA ------------------------------ 1
"The Fort Collins, CO regulations are undergoing an update similar to what the City of Bozeman is working
on with their NCOD regulations. The comment section of the Fort Collins update site lists many of the
same comments related to the Bozeman's NCOD.
Common Themes
» The addition of solar panels is allowed provided that they are not visible from public ways.
» 50-year old structures qualify for inclusion as "historic" with a review for integrity.
» All reference the Secretary of Interior Standards yet none actually include the standards in the
regulations other than by reference.
» All create an advisory board to assist in the review of applications for modification and the
inclusion of structures and sites to be covered by the regulations.
» Structures and sites that are "contributing" to the district are classified as "historic".
Unique Ideas/Concepts
» The ability to convert uses (Residential to Commercial) provided that no exterior modifications
are made to the structure.
» The creation of a nomination process to include a property or site for protection under the
re�ulations (requires owner notification, participation and in one case concurrence).
» The creation of a funding source to actually provide cash incentives to owners of property to
maintain and upgrade qualifying sites and structures.
» Illegal demolition or willful neglect resulting in demolition of a historic structure or site results
in a three (3) year ban on the issuance of a building permit.
» The use of cash and covenants on properties to encourage participation while affording additional
protections beyond zoning.
» The creation of sub-districts (usually along the boundaries of existing historic districts) with
modifications recognizin� what makes one area of town unique may not be so in another part of
town.
Major Drawbacks
» Austin, TX was very aggressive regarding enforcement some of which are already codified in
Bozeman such as requiring projects to rebuild or tear down materials that were not approved.
» Santa Fe, NM has a great document and framework that works well in a community with more
than 400 years of history. Like Austin, much of their regulations would not be appropriate for
Bozeman.
36
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
» Fort Collins, CO has many of the same alleged problems as Bozeman and it does not appear that
many of the proposed changes will resolve the issues.
Best Practices from Cities Studied
» Move preservation authority to the Historic Preservation Officer, or Historic Preservation Board
or Community Development Director and not with the City Commission.
» Provide an expedited review process for non-historic/non-contributing/landmark properties.
» Maintain a listing of "non" properties to avoid using valuable staff time that could be applied to
historic preservation/permitting.
» It is not the intent of the regulations to "manufacture" historical properties or sites; structures
are products of their time even if that time is 2015.
» Provide for a change of use (Residential to Commercial, for example) provided that there are no
changes to the exterior of the structure and such use complies with zoning.
» Provide real incentives to encourage historic preservation; Portland uses covenants to provide
the necessary protections.
» Regulatory prohibitions including massive daily fines; Austin, TX fines can be $1,000/day.
» Prohibition on the issuance of a building permit for three (3) years for violations of a permit or
demolition via neglect or illegal demolition has some merit.
» Create sub-districts to encourage different building types.
» Redefine design guidelines to encourage mixed uses, provide buffer edges, protect important
public views, avoid historical misrepresentations, respect adjacent historical buildings and
recycle existing building stock.
» Allow significant structures to be relocated to receiving areas that could assist in providing for
redevelopment or revitalization.
» Tiers of permits (for illustrative purposes): Administrative - 15 days; Administration plus Board
recommendation - 30 days; Commission Appeal 60 - days.
» Post notice of decisions on City website and reduce the appeal time to 15 days.
Summary
The most important Best Practice is the concept of creating sub-districts within the NCOD and specialized
re�ulations with goals and objectives created for each sub-district. The other avenue is to create local
historic districts with specific design-oriented districts that address the character to neighborhoods
similar to Portland and Salt Lake City. Austin had the best approach to encouraging mixed-use
development while still respectin� and preserving historical structures. Bozeman would be well-suited
to draw upon Austin's design guidelines when updating their own guidelines.
Most jurisdictions placed Historic Preservation as a higher priority than it has been in Bozeman. The
Historic Preservation program in Bozeman is in a critical transition and will need to become a higher
priority if the City wants to be comparable to the cities studied. As noted, experience with having a
specified historic preservation officer with formal training and education with historic architecture and
consistency with keeping the preservation officer on staff were the norm rather than the exception with
all these cities.
37
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Neighborhood Context and Infill Case Studies
This section has been incorporated to investigate "what if" scenarios for new infill development. These
examples are not meant to represent any future intent for these sites, but instead, what the potential
impacts of redevelopment might be relative to existing zoning, height and setback requirements, etc.
Each of the five selected sites includes an overview of the site and its context, as well as a description
of potential zoning conflicts, diagrammatic suggestions for redevelopment and the impacts that type of
development may have on the existing neighborhood.
North Fifth Avenue and West Lamme Street
SITE
The intersection of 5th and Lamme and �` Y " � �
�
�
the surrounding properties fall within the , � � �� � � `�
� � � � �
NCOD Boundaries. From mid-block �.':��v ; �"��, � ' ,�'�� �_�� � �, � ,���?
between 5th and 7th Avenues to North 3rd � ;���''� ��"� , �Y�,�- � �x, x'�"'
Avenue and between West Beal Street and ;.
. � ��
the alley between West Lamme Street and ; '�'"�:� ; � :� '
Mendenhall Street is a relatively small � ''t _ =--�" ` f`=- � �,,� ��•'
, r„
pocket of R-4 High Density Residential � p�p�'"� - += j t �
.
zoning. To the west, south and east are ���'�`-� '� ' � ��� �� t��, ��
business class zoning districts and to the �� '1-� �� "-- ' �`� ;e9;,.., �•
north is an R-3, Medium Residential " � ���'', < . �
:�„ . ���:� � �+►•+, .,
zoning district. A quick windshield survey ._ .��,,,-,, �„ - � ��: . ,�,M:.,.�.�-'
;'s�.�;��� ,� �. �-: � ��
of the area clearly shows primarily single �, �.�
or low density household properties. The — - _ �,.� .`��"'�"'*� ""' -
� ,��z ��;�
map of Eligible Properties Certainly Existing properties showing massing and features near 5th Fr
distinguishes this as a potential historic Lamme
"hot spot" while not presently a National
Register district. Even though the housing
a.. '1�:i�r►� � .-i.,�+�.,t '
stock is not particularly of any high ,; , �_�,,�s �"'-'
d •
architectural design period, this collection � " : _
of houses from the early twentieth century + � -
�.:� �
clearly demonstrates development � '�`� '
patterns and a vernacular style of working
�-. .s.
class housing for this period. �'
f
CONFLICTS/SUGGESTIONS ' - �
R-4 zoning near Mendenhall and 7th may _
be appropriate as this location to `
encourage higher density residential
development with walkability to Infi(( example location with zoning overlay
downtown and close proximity to public
transportation and businesses. Based on the development patterns of the area, this type of development
and massing could potentially have a negative impact on the historic character of the area and would be
visually in conflict with the current massing and scale.
Other than the NCOD guidelines that are currently in place and the available historic inventories for
these buildings, there is nothing to preclude this area from that type of development and change.
38
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
/� , _, Two parcels at the southwest corner
':,�� of the intersection are currently
,�� � ���� vacant and ripe for a higher
��� - �-, _ ,,,�,� intensity multi-level development.
�' , ��''� ��� If circumstances allowed,
�� _ _ ��' ��` immediately across the street an
r=�(�? `'r �' entire three block area at the
� _ _���_ _ northwest corner of the intersection
F�_, "''_
�+r � could potentially provide a
� E� ' �? sufficient area for a large multi-
� - �
`� � ,� • �. household complex and associated
.� ' .
-�! �+! .. ' ` . . R _ "'� parking. The question would be, at
� � `__ ,..� � what expense to Bozeman's history?
� �,. ` '� ' . ��
�� _ � . . This location presents the conflict
Buildin�massin�at 5th £c Lamme Bozeman is currently pressed with -
how to provide affordable housing in
___�. �_� an appropriate location, seek
� / ., ` — `�, development which reflecCs the
� �� �=� � designated zoning, yet maintains
��� � �" �� �� the historic built environment.
, �i� ��� I ��. .l� _ �����
� _. , , Sometimes this is not possible,
, ,— �- ,, �- , i� requiring a clear community
' �� �,, i ��� � ��- � understanding of the importance of
\� " � historic preservation moving
� forward.
� � PJe.
/y�.r
R-4 Teardown 8� Infill
_ .
Small scale Infill showin�massing in relation to properties
�,
� � �- r =
� . �,r, f�.,
�Oi ����' - , ,
�l� '
�` _
, .
/ _
PJe.
y�,r
\ �
� _
R-4 l�eardown & Rebuild /_�
Infill showing massing for larqe-scale project in relation to properties
39
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
North Sixth Avenue and West Short Street
SITE
Located at the southwest corner of
the intersection at North 6th Avenue ���
and West Short Street is a large ,�_ ;
vacant area occupied by a parking �,'�,��
lot. To the south is generally low � °'�
density housing. Across the street �
are the building and grounds for :, _ ��- ``
Whittier School. Immediately to the -`,.�i�;, -- - � �' - -; _
west and across an established alley - - - - -----
are the rears of commercial � -
� -
establishments fronting North 7th �`°'- �-- - -
Street. - ;� -_ -
�,::
The site is located within the NCOD � � �- � -- -
and is zoned R-3. To the west along Current site at N 6th Ave ond w Short St
7th Avenue is classified as a Class 1
Entryway Corridor, and B-2
(Community Business District) . �, I
zoning. The site and none of the ---=
immediate area falls within a
designated National Register ��
historic district and few if any
historic properties exist in the area
and remain un-surveyed.
CONFLICTS/SUGGESTIONS '` =�� ` -"� - � � - '
:.'�.. l—-
R-3 Zoning for this site allows for, ,
"residentia( medium density... of �� - �.
one to five-househo(d residential 'i�'C
structures near service facilities r�
within the city. It shou(d provide for
a variety of housing types to serve Infill location with zoning overlay
the varied needs of househo(ds of
different size, age and character, whi(e reducing the adverse effect of nonresidential uses." Directly to
the west, beginning at the alleyway, the zoning classification intensifies to B-2, and follows generally
along the North 7th Avenue corridor.
The R-3 zoning classification is representative of the variety of residential housing types and densities
found in the area. However, the site and its location would suggest more of the commercial context and
development intensity of 7th Avenue. This site serves as an ideal transition area from residential to
commercial and a good potential location for further expansion of the North 7th Avenue corridor, even
though its zoning classification suggests multi-household development.
40
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
� Using the existing NCOD guidelines,
� � �� ;�� the property would fall under the
�� �':`��► �s.� � Design Guidelines for All Properties,
�/��' � .�`� � � � Guidelines for Residential Character
� ' �
�" �� � � i4' f'z+ ,,� -i � �.:�� Areas as well as Guidelines for
� � � , Commercial Character Areas as both
�' _ � •,.=
, � �� ` building types occur in the immediate
� ,. � context.
��,.,. ,�„= �� - , � � �
This is an example where underlying
�� � _ - zoning and the adjacent Entryway
' ��
`�.
��' F,_�:� �"`_,.•, "� Corridor Overlay district sufficiently
� � Y � '� guide development. Here the NCOD
� '� boundary seems arbitrary and seems
� `' � to serve very little purpose as no
Building massing at N 6th Ave and W Short St historic resources are impacted and
there is no district in the near
'� vicinity. In this particular case, the
_ ~!�, --� guidelines have very little merit to
" � the context as there is marginal (if
�---- — � �„ ���� > any) historic context to protect. This
._ � ' area may be served well with more
�' desi n based uidelines.
t��;�� v�,.,. '�►y,�� � g
1 �,� _
,.�'°`� -- As is demonstrated in the block
�, '- -- diagram, the side yard setbacks have
,�k_..,� ��~ the greatest negative impact on the
`' - - adjacent smaller-scale residential
B-2 .� �, .,,��' properties.
�.'
Maximum Height
Setbacks
Infill example usin�8-2 provisions ot N 6th Ave and W Short St
� _ ;::�
. - - �x,,. - ,
--- °��-
_ ,- -- :��
`- � .:••• �- - ��
_ ::.�..
`\... . -
\ .
�
R-3
� Maximum Height
Setbacks
Infill example usinq R-3 provisions at N bth Ave and W Short St
41
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
South Eighth Avenue and West Alderson Street
SITE
Located southeast of the intersection at West ,
�-�.
; ,...
Alderson Street and South 8th Avenue is an ; =x�' .
open grassy area bordering a church to the --- ,,� � .�, �
south. The four parcels are zoned R-4 '� - �� '= "" r `::
(Residential High Density). To the east is the ,` '�'
Cooper Park Historic District with a lower , ` _ ����
�-- ;.� _
intensity R-2 zoning classification. The MSU �,::�,�;� _,� ,i � �y
Historic District boundary is a half block to the �� ,,,�;:�4„ ��l
south. Diagonally across Alderson Street is ���` :��`` � ' �`` �� �""���
Irving SchooL =-
�
Zoning for this site allows for, "high-density
residential development through a variety of Vacant ground at the southeast corner of West Alderson
housing types within the city with associated Street and South 8th Avenue.
service functions. This will provide for a } � ����} � ��
variety of compatible housing types to serve �= ��;, ���� Y �
the varying needs of the community's �� � -,Y , � ��,. 1�' � z �
� �
�A � ��,��t U
residents." Permitted uses include apartment � ��,-�� `�•.� �i .,��"�� ; ��
k�,�- �
buildings, community residential facilities '�� � �,� � ''�F�� `
(such as a community group home for persons � :�; � � � �
� -,_ N�� . ' _
p,� � ,
wi t h disa bi li ties, or a license d a du l t fos ter ,;� �..� � , �;� �
care home, or assisted living facility, etc.), `°� `' �� � ��,,
_ ,�� `
cooperative household, day care centers, _ �I �
group day care home, and other authorized ='� p � _ I ,_ '_;', ��
U52S. � ��� �'1-�� '�`e
I'"`� ' '\ ?Ts.��
Christus Collegium Church at South 8th Street near MSU.
<��" �,."�"F�,�
w' ,�, ;;.;`�.fi�"'r,i,*�;Vs,�..
� � ,� ��� �� ���,r��.
��'' ! ��..
�,' .+..
��=' f�:
I ", � _ u ��� ��
�� t: — ��� �� _ _ , _
- -� }� 'S, �
. /� � � �,,,�:
- - " � .� -�' r...,
..LJ,.�,..... .. , . :._ _�. . ... r ."•'T� r .- . .... �s .. .. . __ .-sT�f.«,..
Infill location with zoning overlay View lookinq east from South 8th Avenue at the
intersection of West Alderson Street and South 8th Avenue.
42
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�,
� ��l�_� _ CONFLICTS/SUGGESTIONS
- �,_��j ��-�- �,
lr�� _l„-�_ �'_�--�-�' _ R-4 zonin� bordering the B-1 district of
- - `�i►� -
f{�` � - -�-- - � �� - College Street is appropriate zoning for
- � ? �,���'� housing students close to campus. The
__ �.� : ���"�'-
I :�- open lot, although currently serving as
� � ����� green space, is a prime loca tion for hi g h-
..__,�-_..� �
�.- ��, . .�� density residentiaL Adjacent to the
� � - �
� �. r._-- ��� church, the R-4 zomng allows various uses
�� �, � ' - �� which also could potentially support the
,.�� ` _ - s.s. mission of the church. With Cooper Park a
�� �`.�' y� few blocks to the north and the small
��� .t :� commercial uses of the B-1 to the south,
.�� - _ higher density residential would be well-
"� ��- — � � suited for workforce housing, affordable
Current building massing at 8th and Alderson housing, or student housing - all of which
__, , have a demonstrated need.
�y
- -� � � � - J Using the NCOD guidelines as they exist,
-�.__, _ � �D
�= �� ��" !� � the potential development of this vacant
�
` �'� = " � �a �"�,..I...� � � , ;�.
,= _, ; lot would require careful design to fit
� -� { �� �"'��t� � � within a varied architectural context.
s�� �����0� ,
-"��,_ Materials, periods of construction and
'` �� scale all add the varied streetscape.
� � - The site has a potential to develop as two
t, . � . - s
` ��`� � , "°' � � separate buildings meeting setbacks or
't � could be developed as a medium-density
residential use close to campus.
�����
Infill example of building massing using R-4 provisions.
West Story Street and South Grand Avenue
SITE
�; ' �`"�.�-
Located in the Bon Ton National Register ��,'
Historic District at the intersection on the T + '�j�����. .,, ' i
_ :_�
northeast corner of West Story Street and South ___ `_�- _� ,�;� '� � �
Grand Avenue is a fine example of a historic, ' �` �` ���,x �;�",
„s :�� , �
Queen Anne styled home. Immediately �
adjacent and to the east located next to an �`'_�-�' �� ' ��� � r
alley is a relatively non-descript simple
�:,.
vernacular one-story house dating from the � ���,
1950s. The house, while well cared for and in � ,��� � �� ��.`
�ood condition, would not be considered K " ,� � g��: � �� � �"*
contributing to the era of significance of the � ���`„°`� �"` �'� -�- `
ti:d�'IY"s. �.,.ii:5s . .ca[.�:::"� �.:�:vY:��' -
historic district. The aforementioned houses Vernacular, non-descript house in eon Ton district.
both fall within the
43
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
NCOD. Both are within the Bon Ton
Historic District and both fall within �
an R-4 zoning classification
(residential high density district). The
disparity is immediately adjacent to
the east, and also within the
boundaries of the Bon Ton Historic
district is a high style Colonial Revival
residence located on multiple large
lots and its zoning classification is R-1 - - - - - -
(residential single-household low
density district).
.. � i F:-� -.- -_,.�� -- -
. _ .-- _ - � � -
CONFLICTS/SUGGESTIONS mfill location with zoning over(ay
In accordance with the NCOD `.� -��'� �'
Guidelines, the 1950s residence would �� �.� � - ^ �, .. `. -*
need to follow the Design Guidelines _ � �` �`�_ �� " � :=�i����
for All Pro erties, Guidelines for � " . - �
p "��,�-::.. -�--� - � ���"�.�-;
Residential Character Areas and �' �.. �, . :" z .,;
District Specific Descriptions and � �' ' _ �
; �-•�-,
Guidelines. If the adjacent land �,� -'���- - �
became vacant and the owner of the � � � v �Mi^�!E'-��
1950s ranch made a decision to ;s"' ' I �''k +,,,� �; ���
acquire the property and to demolish ` � -+ :�
�:"` -
the existing non-contributing � -_ '_ + �s ��
structure for new development, there . � ` �' - - -�� `�.� .�''F�, �'�` �
would be little from a zoning position - - - _;�- ,� ��`-
to discourage the high density 'g' 'a ��'
►�_� '".:�'��. �`' '.�_.,. ..
residential (multi-story apartments) �
in that location despite its obvious Current building massing W Story and 5 Grand
conflict from the established
residential, low density context. ; '
� �-� �,
In this area, an R-4 zoning pattern is �'� � � ' �
inconsistent with the current . `� ` �' �f
character of the area. Permitted p;�� � � �
�, �:
... p D� .._ � ,..
. .:, _ �'��..
setbacks, height and lot coverage - r, ' �:: �,
�_.. �
would stand in stark contrast to the ��� �'� �:> � ��,
' '' I
I ,..
surroundings. This type of high %'� �
,..,.
density development, while �� `'�
_ � � ���_s
._ .�
permitted, would likely have a _- � �-- ``' , `�- . � ;;y
negative impact on the character of ��� � ;;��`�%'
the area. The solution would be to �� � �.�,:� � � �
rezone the property or at the very � ��"� '1' °.��
least develop stronger desi�n YV°
�uidelines to ensure context sensitive Infill example of building massing using R-4 provisions
design. The context of the area is
generally single-household homes.
44
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, :,�.;,���
South Willson Avenue and West Koch Street
SITE
. v c�� i; �.y` f-
Between East Curtiss and East Koch •�- �' +'� _
, � - .,,s$ �„� �
Streets, along South Willson Avenue, is a �,;'- ;,� ��� - ,.• '�c ` . �,a � � ":�,�>;: �
unique grouping of contemporary � � � � �,; 6�,� ,,. �� �� i
(c.1970s) multi-household buildings ��;�- , '� '��%,� a,��t„+��� y .,� `.'
� �:,.
located within the Bon Ton Historic � � ' ;���� � .�+• • a �°
District, and the NCOD. A vacant lot ; � r�---- '� 1��'�
� ,:, , �
separates this apartment complex from +�- ,� ,;,��'„` �'-�� �����""" • ' ':
�� ';.�� �``,
an historic, but contextually isolated .�� ;A � �.�;��� I� 1� , �c:
house in the Queen Anne style at the � �� �� � '`'"' ��""""� �= I�' �
� \� A � � �
corner of West Koch and South Willson. , r�� � .
The apartment buildings and house are � �F� ��.
currently zoned R-4 Residential High r > �:� �� t `,� , a � - ,,;, :
Density. It is bordered by two different �`'' ;'; �� � f £��='` 4 ��y,�"��'�;;��,. -
zoning districts: R-2 (Residential Two- ������'�`'�''_^����-����'�.
household medium density district) to Historic house at the corner of S Wilfson and E Koch with
the East, and R-1 (Residential single-
apartments to the north
household low density district) to the
West. In the proximity and to the north � ��� ��;��., J
the zoning classification reflects the ��� ' "
commercial character of the area B-3 � '�" ��� ��
(Central Business District). These vacant i .
parcels could be considered ideal for "`�`�
� ��� �_
development. �'-= =��� � � �
;-�
Zoning for this site allows for, "high- �����j; ..� � ` � \, ��
� �. t ,�'
density residential development through o-
�S ' : "�,':,��t�� � `���� .�i;
a variety of housing types within the city -t� - • �..-:<- � `� -
�
�� , ,�:-� ;..�,� .��' = - ,,F Y
with associated service functions. This �,,�- ,„ , -
will provide for a variety of compatible �°��"�_. =� '_
housing types to serve the varying needs - =� � �'� � — =
of the community's residents." Open lot with potential for infill deve(opment
t'�w�� '.��_!_�.��_�.� ��.i��� ����A� �. 1r i i -��'�'r -
Infi(( location with zoning overlay
45
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
CONFLICTS/SUGGESTIONS
� �' �_ .. •_ ��
, -/, ' �.� �'• An R-4 zonigg pattern borderingP the
�"'� •: - -���� business zonin districts that make u the
, �� %� �-- � city core (Downtown, Main Street,
�
r `� j � ��, , �-' ' Mendenhall, Babcock, etc.) is logical and a
� - . /„ "-�'�% :� =` sound concept, especially as it serves as a
.<<{,
� _ � buffer to a lesser density residential
� � �. district. It is contrary for two reasons,
�' � . � >�. ,� however. Residential high density zoning
. �� conflicts with the general historic
- • - - - development patterns of the area. The
^�� I ; � '��,� current NCOD District Specific Descriptions
' '" state about the Bon Ton District: "Because
Current building massing at Willson and Koch of this combination of both vernacular
architecture, which is similar to that found
elsewhere in the city, and high style
architecture, which is found nowhere else
in the city, the Bon Ton District possesses
�a ,� - a character that is unique, but that is
�°'"��`�� : � ...,.
;�.� nevertheless consistent with the character
G "� �. �.�`` of the two bordering historic districts. The
�, � �� B o n T o n H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t i s t h e r e f o r e t h e
_ „�;,s� centerpiece of a vast historic, residential
— ,i , �- � area in Bozeman.
` �''� � �,/''� 5����G The NCOD guideline also notes the similar
� `:.'�'��.� ''�'" "°' building setbacks, similar building facade
� '�'' widths and lengths, alley access, the
� -. ` presence of secondary buildings at the
��� rears of property and front porches as
���`�,:,,^ —o� defining characteristics of the district. It
would be difficult for a new apartment
Infill example of building massin�using R-4 provisions building to meet these criteria.
Second, the NCOD guidelines also recommend that the identified district characteristics are reflected in
the building design when constructing a new building, including use of wood and masonry, and simple
rectangular building forms with sloping roofs. Because of the foreign nature of an apartment building
within the district, these criteria would be difficult to accomplish, despite the adjacent apartment
complex which could easily be identified equally as the single household residence when considering
context.
46
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�::���
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided are listed by the tasks as outlined within the original scope including
infill development, affordable housing, historic preservation, design guidelines, NCOD boundaries, city
processes and code provisions. The goal of this evaluation is to provide attainable, implementable
recommendations based on data, public input and local stakeholder involvement.
The recommendations are listed so that the City can determine which, if not all, recommendations to
implement. The recommendations as taken in their entirety are believed to provide the greatest benefit
to preserving historic structures and areas, encouraging infill development, providing affordable dwelling
units and streamlining the development process within the NCOD.
NCOD Boundary
The NCOD's current boundary was chosen based on the 1957 US Census boundary for the City of Bozeman
but did not take into account specific properties outside the boundary at the time of implementation. It
has not been modified since its inception in 1991 and hence, is outdated and provides no logical boundary
for conserving potential properties. The original boundary did not include an analysis of what potential
properties may be historic or worth conserving. As such, the boundary should be modified to reflect
changing development patterns and an aging housing stock in areas that may qualify for local or national
historic districts.
It is recommended the phasing out of the NCOD occur over a five (5)year period to allow for the necessary
ordinance changes, organization of neighborhoods to determine significant neighborhood characteristics
and associated guidelines for renovation and new development. Existing National Register Historic
Districts, which would remain as National Districts, should be the priority for adoption as locally
designated historic districts. New areas which meet the criteria should be adopted as local interest or
City staff time allows. It is suggested that unless individually listed buildings on the National Register are
highly significant to the community, they should be a lesser priority for local designation except as
incorporated as part of a local district.
Initial Chan�es to Boundary
After speaking with the North Seventh Urban Renewal Board and City staff from the economic
development department, the eastern NCOD boundary along North 7th Avenue should be scaled back to
exempt properties fronting North 7th Avenue to ease redevelopment of this arterial. The corridor has
few, if any, contributing structures to a potential historic district. The new boundary should be along
North 6th Avenue from Peach Street to Mendenhall Street with two exceptions moving the boundary to
5th Avenue:
1. 5th Avenue from Mendenhall Street to Main Street
2. 5th Avenue from Peach Street to Short Street
Long-Term Removal
The NCOD boundary should also be removed after five years after transitioning into other district types.
The intention is to allow enough time for neighborhoods and property owners to create Design Districts
or Local Historic Districts. The properties not included within either a Design or Local Historic District
would be exempt from additional design �uidelines. The end result would be to provide areas within the
current district to grow and develop by ushering in new structures that display today's architectural
elements and form. Historic districts will still remain in place and new local districts should be created
within the five-year time frame to preserve up to five potential new districts. Removal of the NCOD will
require both zoning text and map amendments.
47
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
The costs and time for changing the boundary and enacting local historic districts and design districts
will need to be budgeted; however, the new Neighborhood Coordinator's position may be able to offset
some of the costs associated with creating and implementing new districts. Additionally, several of the
code changes proposed below can be incorporated into the UDC update project that is currently
underway. As noted in the Historic Preservation recommendations, a full-time historic preservation
officer would also help alleviate additional costs and planning staff time. Lastly, at least three
neighborhood groups volunteered to help construct and develop boundaries and design guidelines as
needed. The City could implement such recommendations through the Inter-Neighborhood Council and
encourage the presidents of each neighborhood to work directly with the Neighborhood Coordinator
position to develop the initial criteria with planning staff filling in as an advisory role.
Historic Preservation
Local Historic Districts
To complement local Design Districts and "The concept of historic context is not a new one; it has
to encourage the formation of new historic been fundamental to the study of history since the 18th
districts, local historic districts should be century and, ar�uab(y, earlier than that. Its core
created. While not as rigorous as national premise is that resources, properties, or happenings in
historic districts, local districts would help history do not occur in a vacuum but rather are part of
alleviate the "holes" within the current �Qr�er trends or patterns." - National Park Service
NCOD boundary once it disappears.
Potential new districts areas are shown in Figure 12 and are based on the 2015 reconnaissance survey
completed by City staff in determining whether properties were eligible and their status of contributing
to a potential historic district. Areas shaded in red are potential future historic district areas within
Bozeman's urban core; two areas of particular interest are the MarLin neighborhood area and the Langhor
Park neighborhood area.
» In a phased approach, adopt locally designated historic districts based on National Register of
Historic Places criteria (National Register), existing districts listed on the National Register, or a
district which has been determined potentially eligible for the National Register by the State
Historic Preservation Office, but not yet officially designated.
» Establish appropriate boundaries that best define the district to be protected.
» As part of a public process, through a Historic District Preservation Plan, identify those elements,
components, characteristics, that make the district significant to the City of Bozeman. This
should be clearly stated in a statement of significance. Develop district guidelines to protect
those elements that distinguish the district as significant.
Historic Primary District (HPD)
INTENT
The HPD would be an overlay district not dissimilar to the current NCOD, which identifies S01 standards
and a preservation plan document for each HPD. The�oals is to preserve, protect and guide development
in areas determined to be locally significant (generally eligible, or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places); to provide recognition of an area that was generally developed over a particular period
of time (era of significance) and represents a particular development pattern unique to its era of
significance; and to allow case-by-case determination of the most appropriate land use and development
standards based on the historically intended purpose for the area. Development would occur in
accordance within standards identified through the adoption of a Historic Area Preservation Plan
including design guidelines for each HPD.
48
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
Figure 12: Potential Future Historic Districts Based on Eligib(e Properties
. ,.'^.1 ,.1�.. '.�1 �`'".�� .:,. �fr�_. .J. . . �..; . .'�\` P —J � . ..'.a:": . ��
�, Cultural Resource Study 2015 ��- �� ��r� � ��, �� '€� '��,-'� 7 ���-
,�� _ r , � �� .�� .
d Eligibility Shown hy Magnitude of Uensity � "��.
+' �r � •i. . 4 / 4 � ���' �.
�.' . , �,�..,�� .. I_.. ��,� 1ri . r � 4 i.
'., . ' ' . �.„����„ ��� .
� , .,���,��.... ��,„ ,__ - �.� �
T . f , i I.�� . -� . �
t � , �,. �u.ulrlY�u�u. .� ,,.�,. � .
�� � �l`:�, � ���� _� ,,, ,_,.,_ . � :,.����:,� ._i�ry Mill . . .
7 _ ■ 1 ,�r.t�
K j� 4�FF� _ - R�irt,ma�i[�cwri-y � �:��7a����
��{�` �e� � ,�y�{• �� , ,H � .,�_,
���1-d�d.�1�.a.�M� ", r _ . ..'ri
�
-es'i� ,�.. .�ir ...�.- � �� � -
t �'-r.�', ;-� . .....
t
x . Norlh Traiy Avc��ui . a�
¢ � _
a .� . � �f�� . �.�.�
��i.� . �` . _ ..
'�,`F��t F ,.�,.,�,� � _ � ,. " 'F� 'd ��� � .aF �
�V E ' . .� ' "sd'_ ' :
�
� ' . .Y� � �' ., �
`
�„� • .� �_ n,,., ,�� . �,,.��. . ,���.� .. � •�.'4w.y •
�
� .�.�..:�..� , � . �" :
■ '
�M' �:,� W � ��,
� � � �M.1111SL•�•C'1��,� _�� l�' -�'_ . w
� :. J.. � J ,��1:1" �.
�.,�.�,.��. � � �. ��dlcyPl ��r �_� �.
� .� E, . .;.*y '1` .
�� �,+.;:. ����� ti ��u n�.,�y�s� �u�ni��i� � � ._ ��c ,�' �'�
� s
��?4 �.�uopc�Pa�lc � �.� .��+w'.: ,.�
+�������'R�i.i itl'1 +��..
Rd••,.
., �,��., , . , .i�.�� ' ', i�41 11tA�RM�' . ��..
V
' . ' � �� •� - -
. ���.� �31111��T1111 �:.� ...u..
� �Sa
� ���.� ti�� tl L� +:�7,1� � _ . a�a �°e��.. �. . ��ro.�' .
� �_� �:�r a� � .
�. � �MtiU - �...� � � � ����.t' ...�� ���� ���
� '� •,At ^�-� :. '� -'�
r f g -.t
:��� ' � :;r. . k �• t�., .
F�L+ '" ' is.�1 s _' - A� � �,a
� � - �. � L :� `• ,.
�;eR �", �' yi ri a'�?'. :..�,; ��F'r�•±�"=
t./ r'" �" � ,�, �� . � �� �l,s � •,
���� �, ,— . o.... �.. .�.�„A� �_�.� ��'}� � � � �.�._� ���.,.,. '�'
'_:;"x� � ._ � ti, ��., �+�,� - � . .
� ;�. � .,. ;fii���-_�� �> �, , `
4.;��
.�r.:�. . ..1 . . :�.4� ..i'�.�`. . . � ,!'r ac� s�„ a,W�2 �
, a� r �„�. � ��1�,,"" .. .��,
� ,9' ���,. � � �:H47 � ' . ,,'_:'�' �,.,.,... "���� �.�.o E..
� ��I ��� 4f � «'.. �}' '4{' ��� � ��.��,�,
I1 �, F "�` �� \� t�a.� �`j g '}:�' �� �
��Y� `;�s 1!'� rt� '� Y�a >i �,�� � " �c � , ���t-i(' � ` �'7
� i�� �R� � �� .::�"��^ i,��.6�. ,�'� Y "�
���1� ��,���!' �� �`' � ���r , '_�
� . ,'�. �r.: �:
=i� � �' '� Legend
' S
- C'�`���'.... ��'� rr�'� ' ' � � IIi.St�iric�i.cTrict.ti
. '✓!, �.,f� ' /� ���7 i, � 4�: ., . . ,!'t
. , .., ., . �il . .;:;� . . �::�� (:onservationOverlay
. ' „��� ` �.. {,
.( Nn[c:Valuc Rangeti arc 6raduateJ by Dcnsiry u(]00[0 9,000 � . � . City I.imits
Gligible Properlicti Per Syuare Milc. - '• . N , .
/ ,
r�rt�r- �.°.�; ^ . !� f�.. . 1�,'' i�.�0� .1.'000 2.000. ��.
'r��,Mcrvs2r� W n.Cirv.r;Te �3i5oo�w�s.�f., ��� i, i n��u.r y .p�.�����✓ r -i7 e .A - Feet
v.
49
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
The following language is an example of what the stated purpose and criteria for a HPD could entail.
PURPOSE
To preserve and protect identified historic resources to the City of Bozeman for their cultural and
architectural significance.
CRITERIA
» Included a building or collection of buildings (district)which generally meet the criteria for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, but may or may not be listed.
» Have local cultural or architectural significance to Bozeman and its development.
» Demonstrate clearly identified boundaries which represent the area of significance.
» Include a preservation plan which has the following components.
» Include a statement of significance (History).
» Identify design and development characteristics.
» Contain an inventory of contributing and non-contributing resources.
» Prepare guidelines addressing renovation, new construction and demolition.
» Identify appropriate permissible modifications based on existing zoning.
» Assemble an ad hoc committee - property owner delegates and historic preservation officer.
Historic Buf fer District (HBD)
INTENT
The HBD would serve as a buffer zone and would be included as part of the HPD overlay zoning language.
The HBD would be defined as a one block area from the established HPD boundary; if the buffer area
overlaps another HPD, then the Historic Primary District guidelines would supersede the HBD �uidelines.
The goals is to provide a buffer area around an HPD generally to preserve its integrity through a transition
of controlled development, but with less restrictive design guidelines and only as the guidelines protect
from a negative impact on the HPD. Potential district boundaries are shown in Fi�ure 13.
Examples might include discouraging a foreign development pattern, building orientation or setbacks, a
building mass that detracts from the scale and massing of the HPD, etc. HBD guidelines would be less
concerned with alterations, modifications or additions changing the features of the building if the general
overall form was maintained. The area defining the HBD would be identified at the same time as the
boundaries are established for the HPD. The following language is an example of what the stated purpose
and criteria for a HBD could entail.
50
�
.., :
. �
rrr; !
�
(-�,'.'� �: .� . . O
ii. .. . � .,�'I.t 4�._�� . .��.. ....
Recommended Areas �� l���� - �" °� � _�� � • ~
���,� � � . .,; ITI
for Potential Districts ;�, -��:��� ; �
�. _ : �� _ f ,�,
December, 2015 ���� " � ' � �
. ks, . �� � � 1.,� �
, � "`` ,� �.:� n.
• ,, ��,���. S� , _ ,
� '✓� � � �- ��St' � � ?1 � �
'�. ►3 ��; y",:_ �yY=�'. 'r�. /�: -r. � � ° �
� ��J � � • �«r�., d
;�'::{�� ti.�:��; � `d;y;�.f"U.t�. � �-�: O
�j�i�tjj.�lr ..�<i ti
!a)1k j' tf +'.°wf'::-.,
Existing Historic Districts � , �,�,;� 0 o Vilage � .=���- � `" l 0
, ����r•' � � � , �'r,-��a v
� ���� ,� f ,;�. ,.�{+� o
�> m
„� J:o s C:fU�lp d�,r.. — !��•� ��r�', 7
� �
� _ --�--�� - _ _� s�.
Gatewa s � �
y . West Gate�� East Gateway �
�-- —��_ �.
' .�;, I ,_ ; ' t� �
:•�_ .. � pil .�� . �;�� �
�i`�-_ �� . ��'r. n
Buffer District y� . �'� '- • �� °
e� �a � � � �,
s y; `� tn
��lf!'�E,- " .. . ... �� n
p�p� d �.{ � t '� � $' �,,.-��q�,
�pp���I-� aty`.. 1�1.., L�a�:'� (�
OrG�t ��. r �'` •_ - n�
�,, n � ` , ._,_ , , .
� t,, O
Potential Historic Districts � �� ',►�-' > ,`�,� . �
�.,.>, __ ,-,�j'' , - m
���` F , :� �� � a
r � +�. , f . t .... �; !;
� ■, � �, ; � �� �� � �`� �` ��';
Design Districts �• �-a�''�� t���;� ,� � ��� ..
.t � � a- „ R��-.F`�� r ; } '��,`t`.
'; ' rs , r. �,���::_
� r ���"p:> l�'P-'
. �., . . _.e`.
r
, i���'.�,r J I
" r
`�T'� ' i�'�� I
�■��� NCOD Boundary � . . ' ;_,� '� . � ` �� ;, � y..
� . . " ��, .. �'u"�3� .�+~�a.. . ..:�lYV`OR�lY�. .. ..
*j
�
i
�_
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
PURPOSE
To provide a transition zone or buffer area between a locally designated historic district and surrounding
areas of development.
CRITERIA
» Established as part of a HPD preservation plan.
» Includes a one-block radius to the next street from the Primary Historic District boundary.
» Abutting HPD supersedes any HBD.
» Review of guidelines would only pertain to massing, height and setbacks and only as a negative
impact on the HPD.
» Identify conflicts with existing zoning which would have a negative impact on the adjacent HPD.
Historic Preservation Program Implementation
There are four key components to the implementation and success of a new preservation program for
the city of Bozeman. What has been in place for almost a quarter of a century has done well in preserving
our historical and cultural resources. Over this same period, however, much has been learned,
redevelopment is beginning to expand beyond Main Street and the needs of the community have changed
and are changing. How does preservation move forward while protecting the intent of the Community
Plan and the NCOD?The following outlines the incremental steps to a new program which takes the next
step in respecting and preserving those historic elements which define our history, yet allows for progress
into the next century without losing that which defines the city of Bozeman as a great place to live and
visit.
1. Implement Code Revisions outlining the new program.
2. Update historic property inventory and continue to do so every ten years.
3. Initiate Neighborhood Consortiums.
a. The groups would lead the development and adoption of Historic District Plans, including
defining boundaries and providing input regarding historic district guidelines. Garner the
support and assistance from outside preservation partners including Extreme History,
Montana Preservation Alliance, Montana Historical Society, etc.
4. Redefine the Certificate of Appropriateness Process.
5. Develop Leadership.
a. Establish neighborhood presidents/organizations, redefining the role and duties of the
Preservation Officer in accordance with Certified Local Government requirements,
providing staff support from the Neighborhood Coordinator position, and codifying
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB) participation in COA process.
Implement Code Revisions
The City of Billings and other communities have codified their historic preservation program similarly to
that outlined above. There is no need to spend time or effort on creating an entirely new code. There
are certainly elements of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC)which may be refashioned and incorporated,
but further investigation into other City municipal codes across the state and the country where
preservation programs have demonstrated success would make the task much easier.
52
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
Update Historic Property Record Forms
In 1984 the City of Bozeman partnered with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office to conduct a
large-scale survey to identify historic properties. The project created about 2,200 Montana Historical
and Architectural Inventory forms identifying date of construction, original owners, architectural style,
historic significance and it contribution to a potential historic district. That data is now over thirty years
old. During that time span, preservation and restoration, demolition or substantial alteration have
impacted those survey results. The NCOD guidelines rely heavily on the 1984 surveys to determine a
review approach when work is proposed. An update to the surveys is critical in next steps for Bozeman's
preservation initiative. Other areas of potential historic significance should also be surveyed and
documented. Regular survey updates should be conducted on a ten year cycle, or as part of a cyclical
update program.
Initiate Neighborhood Consortiums
A strong historic preservation program is best when the strength of the neighborhood is behind it. While
professionals with education and experience understanding the criteria may be beneficial in determining
an area as historic, it often is the neighborhood stakeholders who may be best to define those
characteristics which make their particular district unique. In many instances the architecture and
development patterns of an area define its significance. In other areas the significance of the district
may be determined by its cultural importance coupled with its built environment. Often it is those
characteristics and features that were the draw for living or doing business in that particular area.
The neighborhood consortium in a collaborative process, and with the guidance of professionals, can be
the leaders in helping to define boundaries, identify the unique characteristics of the district as well as
areas of significance, and develop the guidelines to direct renovation and new construction. With the
support and assistance of numerous local and state preservation partners, each designated local district
will have its own preservation plan. This is not dissimilar from the existing NCOD Guidelines - District
Specific Descriptions (Chapter 5), but would be significantly expanded.
Redefine the Certificate of Appropriateness Process
Repeatedly throughout the public input process, at numerous public meetings and at meetings with
boards and individual stakeholders, it was heard that the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process
was perceived as inconsistent, lengthy and expensive. Contributing to this perception is the lack of public
education of the process, the perceived ambiguity of the �uidelines, the lack of consistency in COA
determination, and limited direction sought out from City staff.
On numerous occasions attempts have been made to streamline the process, removing the need for
particular items of work to require a COA or adding staff reviewed approval for insignificant items. Both
measures were beneficial, but did those changes accomplish all that was needed? Various communities
in Montana and other states offer other solutions for the process. The primary idea is to encourage
appropriate renovation and new development in accordance with an adopted preservation plan. How
might this "carrot and stick" approach best serve in preserving the integrity of the various historic
districts? Proposed below are two options for amending the COA process.
Foremost, incentivize appropriate renovation. As reviewed by the Preservation Officer, if a COA
application is complete and the proposed work is in accordance with the preservation plan, then a COA
can be issued quickly and efficiently. If the proposed work would constitute a chan�e, whether it is in
the renovation or new construction, and with a potential impact on the Historic District, a public process
with public notice would be required with review by the designated review authority. Only an appeal
process to the City Commission would allow further consideration of a denied application under a public
process. This process would provide for three types of approval, three escalating fee structures, and
three lengths of review.
53
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
As the preservation program develops, consideration should be given to COA review by the BHPAB of
those applications with a substantial impact on an historic resource or district. This has the potential
for relieving some of the burden of staff's time, provides review by a body of individuals qualified in
historic preservation and representative of the community, and encourages more neighborhood input.
Pending direction from the City Council, the BHPAB would likely need to meet at least every two weeks
so as not to slow down the review process. The BHPAB within its established by-laws has served in various
capacities over the period since its inception. In some years the focus is education, others policy, other
programming, and yet others a combination. The makeup of the board requires a high level of education
and experience in historic preservation, a licensed architect or landscape architect, neighborhood
constituents and at-large members. With this composition, the board is set up to provide informed yet
objective decisions and recommendations for applications for COA. To date, they have not been utilized
in this capacity. Delegating a higher level of review authority to the BHPAB gives credence and purpose
to this dedicated group of preservation advocates. At-large members offer an additional level of
objectivity to the process.
A COA approval is only as good as its ability to be enforced. If a COA is issued and the work completed is
not in accordance with the approval, or if work proceeds without an approved COA, then the violation
must be corrected or the process becomes invalidated. Enforcement and consistency in determination
at all levels is necessary to underline the significance of preserving the historic resources for the
community and future generations.
Develop Leadership
A strong preservation program will require leadership within each district. Neighborhood presidents
and/or neighborhood liaisons serve as the first point of contact for direction and information. The City
Neighborhood coordinator may be best to establish strong neighborhoods and neighborhood leadership.
The leadership of the City Preservation Officer is critical to implementation of the process and the
education of the community. The "one stop shop" of the Preservation Officer is relied on to provide
historic information, guide applicants through the COA process, educate stakeholders through
appropriate renovation approaches and technologies and offer guidance for appropriate infill and new
construction.
Affordable Housing
Data indicates housing is not, and likely will not, be affordable for purchase below 100% AMI within the
NCOD. Several factors account for this including proximity to downtown amenities, historic integrity of
certain neighborhoods, neighborhood character, increased time and costs associated with redeveloping
and renovating older structure as well as added review costs and time. While few large-scale projects
will be targeted for redevelopment due to land costs, uncertainty regarding demolitions and difficulty in
acquiring parcels to construct large-scale projects, the City can and should implement incentives to
encourage affordable housing and infill within the NCOD.
Infill will be the single, lar�est contributor to reducing housing prices as the current market, especially
within the NCOD, does not have enough supply to satisfy demand. Four real estate professionals stated
that there is simply not enough supply within the NCOD to ease housing pressures. ADUs can help alleviate
some pent up demand, and additional housing units through redevelopment are needed. However,
because Bozeman's urban core is nearly 100 percent developed future infill projects will be challenging
as they will be required to meet context sensitive design, which can but may not add additional costs.
Incentives for Affordable Housing
As noted throughout the second public meeting and neighborhood meetings, the vast majority of
comments focused on incentivizing affordable housing rather than making it mandatory. The study for
54
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Recommendations for Regulatory Changes to Support Affordable Housing Development contains several
incentives that could be implemented and were well-received during public input sessions.
Figure 14 shows the results of public sentiment for incentivizing affordable housing within the NCOD. The
most palatable incentive was allowing small-scale development on lot sizes of 2,500 square feet and
reducing setback or lot width minimums. Parking reductions were not favored for projects on Mendenhall,
Main or Babcock.
Figure 14: Public Views on Affordable Housing Incentives within NCOD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
Implement
Inclusionary �
Allow Small- Zoning
Scale 17/
Development
33%
Market Dictate
Pricing
Reduce 25%
Development
Review Fees Create Housing
17a�o Incentive Fund
(AHF)
� 8%
While incentives can and should be used to encourage affordable housing, the most applicable elements
for areas within the current NCOD should be targeted for infill projects. Some provisions speak directly
to infill development while others are targeted for green field projects outside Bozeman's core; thus,
only applicable incentives for "built environment" projects were included.
» Impact Fee Deferral
» Waiver of Subdivision and Permit Fees
» Reduction of Parkland Requirements
» Density Bonuses
» Reduced Lot Size
» Reduce Parking Requirements
Infill Development
coa
To encourage infill development, regulations pertaining to the COA process should be eliminated. Design
districts or local historic districts would replace the need for a COA. As long as properties within either
district (Design or Historic) follow the design guidelines, then the need for a COA becomes obsolete.
Areas within the NCOD that are not located within a desi�n district or local historic district would be
exempt from design guidelines and a COA.
55
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
A site plan with architectural renderings would still need to be submitted with the site plan and checked
against the district's (historic or design) guidelines much like the zoning is and landscaping is checked
against current UDC provisions.
ADUs
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) should be encouraged to stimulate more infill projects on developed
parcels. Ground-floor ADUs should be permitted as long as the structures meet the minimum zoning codes
such as lot coverage, building height, setbacks and FAR. The City should remove the code provision
requiring such units to be built above garages.
If ground-floor ADUs are not permitted, then at a very minimum, the sidewall height for ADUs above
garages should be changed to five feet (5') to allow for more flexibility with design. Also, the additional
lot area required by the UDC should be changed.
1. Allow ground-floor ADUs
2. Reduce additional lot area for ADU to zero (0) feet within district
UDC Changes
As noted earlier, the NCOD is comprised of small lots especially north of Main Street. UDC provisions
pertaining to infill should either be changed to reflect the unique physical constraints for Bozeman's core
or expand the use of deviations, which are also addressed in further detail. Infill can only occur if the
development code allows such action. With the exception of parking reductions, few other code
provisions actually incentivize infill development.
SPECIFIC CODE CHANGES
In addition to the UDC recommendations provided earlier, the following code changes should be
implemented to encourage infill development with the NCOD.
1. Implement FAR for all districts and follow a recommendation from the Downtown Plan
a. Specific FAR regulations for B-3 would be the highest priority with residential districts as
secondary
2. Reduce parking requirement to 0.75 spaces for studio/efficiency units in B-3 district and 1 space
for all other districts
3. Reduce parking requirement to 1 space for one-bedroom units in all districts
4. Remove parkland dedication requirement for structures adding one (1) additional unit
5. Reduce additional lot area for apartments for each dwelling after the first to 500 sq.ft.
6. Update the zoning map to reflect existin� built environment as compared to what should be
planned and how that potentially impacts the character of current historic districts.
a. E.g. some portions of R-4 zonin�within the Bon-Ton Historic District contain low density,
single-household homes while portions of B-3 contain single-household homes while areas
of R-2 contain apartment buildings.
Design Guidelines
The existing NCOD Guidelines serve as a strong foundation in Bozeman's preservation program. Many
other Montana communities look up to the ideals, progress and strength of the overlay district protection.
Bozeman's leadership in the area of historic preservation has served as a great model for others. With
an opportunity to reassess and evaluate the strengths and weakness of its current program, Bozeman has
56
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
an opportunity to set the stage for the direction of historic preservation for the community but also
become progressive leaders in the state.
An updated approach to Bozeman's preservation program will require calculated, yet intentional steps
to accomplish a stellar program that honors Bozeman's roots yet opens the door for progress. The goal
for future guidelines is to develop district guidelines to protect those elements that distinguish the
district as significant. Potential district boundaries are shown in Figure 13.
Design Overlay District (DOD)
INTENT
The DOD would be a separate zoning overlay district and different than historic districts and entryway
corridors. The goal is to preserve a particular "character" or development strategy with a clear purpose
and intent. Each district would have a separate document
with boundaries clearly identified. The purpose and intent
would have to be very clear and again, each "design district"
would have its own guidelines as a separate document with •`�.
boundaries clearly defined and referenced in the code. Each
neighborhood within the NCOD is unique with its own
architectural, cultural and neighborhood elements that make _
these areas vibrant places to live. No two areas are the same. �=�„
What may be appropriate for northeast Bozeman (mixed-use r�� °,��'�
residential) may not be appropriate in south central Bozeman ` � --- "
(Victorian homes). This district type would address in _ ��_;
particular those areas of the City, similarly to the intent of = d+� ' _
the Entryway Corridor Guidelines that are of highest visibility � �'
and are meant to represent the core values of our community. r1
� --- .,-_,:... -_
The guidelines for a DOD might include massing, construction '��
materials with a demonstrated longevity, design which Lork Mote( is a potential outcome from
represents the area but also reflects innovation, green building implementing DOD
features, respect of public space and/or green space, signage and streetscape appearance. Two areas
for DOD designation may include the developing commercial areas adjacent to MSU campus and the B-3
halo area around Historic Main Street.
The following langua�e is an example of what the stated purpose and criteria for a DOD could entail.
PURPOSE
To provide an overlay design district for the purpose of achieving a high level of design and consideration
of particular areas, features or districts that have had or are intended to have a particular purpose (e.g.
gateways, brewery district, university associated commercial pockets, historic signs, historic parklands)
or a defined nei�hborhood character.
CRITERIA
» Contain a minimum of eight "standard size" blocks.
» Follow similar protocols for Special Improvement Districts with respect to voluntary formulation
and 51 percent of all property owners a�reein� to district boundary and guidelines.
» Clearly stated intent and purpose for the Design Overlay District.
57
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �:-��
» May or may not meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places but is of local
significance or importance.
» Identify characteristics to protect.
» Establish Design Guidelines to achieve the desired outcome for the intent and purpose.
■ Massing, streetscape attributes, material pallet, signage, respect to open/green space,
preserving sightlines or view-sheds, and lighting.
» Define boundaries or list of resources to include in district.
» Create ad hoc committee - property owner delegates, planning staff and neighborhood
coordinator
Other Districts
Structures and buildings within the NCOD
boundaries have been afforded protection through
design guidelines. Outside the district boundaries, � �1
this is not necessarily the case. What is the effect
when a unique or irreplaceable asset outside the �
boundaries is affected negatively? t
Whether in agreement or disagreement over the � ��, � w
loss of the iconic Mid-Century Modern Billion Auto
showroom (previously located at the intersection �
of 19th Avenue and Main Street), the advantage of
the protective veil of the NCOD would have been -
a codified public process of consideration prior to � ,
the building's demolition. Bozeman should -� ��
�
address those buildings or areas that have been � :
determined eligible or are potentially eligible for �� � i� �
the National Register and create a process for ' �'� , �.- —:i ��, '
consideration for their substantial alteration or '�� �
demolition. A reconnaissance survey of the entire Si�no�e ot Lewis & Clork Motel could be
City limits for potentially eli�ible properties would preserved with new�uidelines
be a first step, even if only flagging properties for
demolition purposes.
The restrictive boundary of the NCOD has done two g�'��h
�o��
things - it has provided protection within the -�,� � � p � A ,,,
boundaries for those "historic structures" and - --
"streetscapes" that needed it, yet conversely ��� A���,..
placed higher scrutiny for some that didn't. � '�
Consideration should be given to areas which are ��, i,_�y��� '��,�{,9���'� .•:�
now meeting the threshold of 50 years- particularly � "���`!�.,,,;�'�'
.i � f . ' �� 1 � ` . .
the Mid-Century Modern period. Bozeman has � . '- n ,
numerous buildings from this period that deserve a • �' _
closer look now or in the near future before they �=- ..�__..__�_,_._,� _ � �- ---,.__
are lost or compromised to unsympathetic Former J.C. Bi(lion outo dea(ership was locally known as
development. rne "spaceship"demolished 2012
58
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
As an example: Bozeman saw a strong period of development
during the fifties, sixties and seventies. The Lindley Park - - �
Neighborhood just north of the hospital has a large �
concentration of high style mid-century modern single
household residences reflecting the more suburban ,
development patterns of the time. Other areas fall into this � '``� ^
category of "hot spots" as shown in Figure 12. Presently there l
is no mechanism to expand the protections of the NCOD to
accommodate new areas or additional districts meeting the
criteria for National Register designation unless an applicant
submits a zone map amendment.
There is yet even further potential to protect other elements " ' ' J`''; _
of the Bozeman community that reflect the intent of '� `,
preserving the integrity of historic structures or streetscapes. -
Historic signs are a perfect example. The loss of local landmark
signs such as the Baxter Hotel neon roof mounted sign or the
Lewis and Clark Motel Monument sign, or the rotating horse on be preserved with new guidelines
the Bangtail Shop, would result in the loss of identity,
community character and certainly history. A historic sign inventory and protective National Re�ister
Thematic district might even be given consideration. Another opportunity might include the specific
works of local architect Fred Wilson. As a local district with its own preservation plan, the significance
of each of these unique or irreplaceable assets would be clearly identified and guidelines created to
preserve those special characteristics that have the potential to be protected for elements distinctive to
the city.
There are additional mechanisms in place through provisions in the BMC besides the NCOD which
incorporate design standards for new development in areas such as Entryway Corridors. These standards
promote a high level of design integrity particularly for those areas that serve as entry points for residents
and visitors alike.
UDC Changes
Bozeman's urban core predates zoning and subdivision laws, whereas newly created lots for typical
"green field" development fit seamlessly into the existing development framework of the UDC. That is
not the case for properties within the NCOD. Because the NCOD is comprised of the original town plat of
Bozeman, which was platted using small parcel sizes with some lots as small as 2,500 sq.ft. with 25-foot
lot widths, UDC provisions should either be changed to reflect the unique physical constraints for
Bozeman's core or expand the use of deviations. While the original intention of platting such small lots
was not for individual use, the aggregation of such lots has been restricted by the built environment. As
noted earlier, at least 37 parcels within the NCOD could be further developed if code changes were
adopted.
Implementing the recommendations listed will provide more flexibility within zoning and code provisions
and allow Bozeman's design experts - architects, engineering, planners, landscape architects and
contractors - to develop original concepts that can meet market demands while abiding by nei�hborhood
context and design guidelines.
59
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
UDC Chanqes Pertaininq to the Current NCOD Boundary
The following changes within the UCD should be implemented until DOD or HPD are created within five
years; however, it should be noted that the recommendations should not be used to deliberately alter
projects within historic districts as those areas have specific code and design requirements that should
be used to preserve Bozeman's history. The City could also create a form-based code that help alleviate
several of the issues resulting from having "special considerations" for properties within the NCOD. Upon
five years, these relaxations would be removed and replaced with underlying zoning or DOD guidelines.
» Remove minimum lot widths for all properties within the current boundary.
■ Minimum lot size and setbacks will determine building envelope.
» Minimum lot size should be 2,500 square feet for all residential districts regardless of use.
» Front, side and rear yard setbacks should be reduced to the average setback for properties on
that particular block if less than the standard minimum setback.
■ The property owner requesting the reduction would need to document the existing setbacks
for parcels on the block with the help of a license surveyor.
» Increase lot coverage to 50 percent for R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts for all uses.
» Increase lot coverage to 60 percent for R-4 districts for all uses.
Deviations
Deviations tend to have a negative connotation when used within the NCOD. The intent is to allow for
property owners to mitigate physical constraints or extenuating circumstances from structures that
predate zoning and subdivision. Therefore, the term "deviation" should be eliminated and replaced with
a positive term such as "Permissible Modifications" that denotes design excellence and allows a property
owner to creatively solve an issue.
Furthermore, while the City tracks deviations used within the NCOD, the data is not easily accessible to
the general public. An organized spreadsheet uploaded monthly with the following information would
provide the general public information on which exceptions are allowed and which are denied.
Additionally, City planning staff could then easily sort, calculate and analyze the most common requests
and determine if the requested exemption should be codified into the City code so as to reduce staff
time in reviewing items that should be permitted by code. A sample spreadsheet is provided.
Table 4: Example DevelopmentlDeviation Tracking Spreadsheet
2014 Colege St Z 38.08 050.A.1.b ZO 14 143% Yard setback Approved
2013 100 Tracy Ave 3 Sec. ZO 15 140% Watercourse Denied
38.08.050.A.1.b setback
60
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
Demolitions
The intent and continued presence of the NCOD should be to encourage historic preservation of existing
structures that actually contribute to a potential district. Structures that are past their useful life or
have been significantly altered and do not contribute to a historic district should be allowed to be
demolished without first receiving a building permit. The intent is to encourage new, innovative designs
and not to restrict property owners from redeveloping their parcel. However, if a building is deemed to
be contributing to a historic district, then a more strict review with specific criteria must be met prior
to authorization for its demolition.
To help facilitate this recommendation, the City should begin utilizing the recent cultural resource and
historic inventory that was completed in 2015. The information contained within this study can and
should be used to educate current and future property owners about the potential impacts it may have
on their structures including both commercial and residential buildings.
Air B£tB and VRBO Uses
While Air Bed and Breakfasts and Vacation Rental by Owners may be required to acquire a conditional
use permit (CUP) before beginning their business; this does not always occur as noted in several
neighborhood meetings. While little can be done to encourage residents and business owners to abide by
current land use regulations, the city should implement an anonymous online notification tool to report
potential uses that may be operating without a permit.
The intent is to limit neighbor-on-neighbor altercations and tension between adjoining property owners
and focus the attention to business owners having the correct permits to operate within the district.
Residents did not want to prohibit such uses within neighborhoods, but rather ensure adequate parking
and mitigation measures were in place prior to receiving a CUP.
61
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
Implementation Matrix
Matrix Key
• = Lead entity responsible
� = Secondary lead and support role
ACTION ITEMS IMPLEMENTATION SOURCE RESOURCES
Priority Recommendation P�annin� City Preservation City Nei�hborhood Consultant SHPO- Cost Time
Staff Manager Officer Commission Coordinator Other
Remove NCOD
� boundary in 5 � p � $7,500 1 year
years
Interim boundary
� change to exempt � O O O $2,500 4 months
N. 7th
Determine
appropriatelocal O • O O SO 6 months
� district boundaries
(HPD)
Update eligibility
� surveys across � p � $20,000 2 years
entire NCOD
� Codify HPD, HBD
and DOD � O O O $10,000 1 year
dassifications
� Create new design
guidelines for O � � � $35,000 1.5 years
HPDs, HBDs E�
DODs
� Develop Historic Small
Preservation Plan $15,000 1-2 plans
for National O • O O � � Large per year
Register districts $35,000
� Revise ADU
standards such as � � � $4,000 9 months
ground floor ADUs
Ft sidewall height
� Codify demolition
changesto � � � p $2,000 6 months
encourage infill
� Codify language
for Permissible � � $0 3 months
Modifications
(aka deviations)
� Coordinate �t
implement
affordable housing � � � $3,500 Ongoing
incentives across
plans
� Implement
proposed UDC
changes for small � O O $7,500 5 months
scale development
62
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � ���
ACTION ITEMS IMPLEMENTATION SOURCE RESOURCES
Priority ReCommenddtion P�anning City Preservation City Neighborhood Consultant SHPO- Cost Time
Staff Manager Officer Commission Coordinator Other
Establish
neighborhood
leadership for O O • Q $0 6 months
existing historic
districts
Update
building/eligibility $5,000 2
surveysforcurrent � � � $40,000 districts
local districts per year
Establish building
survey procedures � � $0 6 months
based on SHPO
standards
Implement an
online public � � $5,000 6 months
informational COA
document
Implement FAR
changesto • Q $10,000 1 year
encourage infill
Implement
neighborhood � � � $0 1 year
enforcement
program
Maintain City's
Historic
Preservation � � p $0 Ongoing
website as
community"go to"
Nominate new
local historic � � $0 On�oing
districts
63
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
APPENDIX 1
Public Engagement Process
The public engagement process will be completed upon final comments from City Commission on
December 14th. To date, the public engagement process contains meeting summaries and results from
polling data, dot-matrix boards and general comments from both public meetings and neighborhood
gatherings. It also includes general recommendations from various citizen advisory boards.
Schedule of Public Events
3/26/15 Kick-off ineeting with City Staff
4/9/15 First public meeting, Project Introduction (City Hall)
4/23/15 BHPAB meeting
5/14/15 Intra Neighborhood Council meeting
5/28/15 Second public meeting; Keypad polling (Baxter Hotel)
7/21/15 Downtown BID Association/Historic District Meeting
7/22/15 Downtown TIF Board Meeting
8/6/15 NSURD Meeting
8/11/15 Neighborhood Association Meeting (NENA)
8/18/15 Neighborhood Association Meeting (SCAN, UNA)
8/26/15 Neighborhood Association Meeting (Marwyn-Lindley)
9/1/15 Historic District Meeting (Cooper Park)
9/1/15 NURB Meeting
9/9/15 CAHAB Meeting
11/5/15 Third public meeting (Beall Park Center)
11/23/15 CAHAB presentation and recommendation to City Commission
12/1/15 NURD presentation and recommendation to City Commission
12/1/15 Planning Board comments and recommendation to City Commission
12/14/15 Presentation to City Commission on final recommendations
Summary Comments from Stakeholders and Written/Verbal Comments
To be updated 1-day prior to the City Commission meeting to allow all comments to be calculated before
the final presentation.
Public Meeting #1 - Issues and Solutions Matrix
Public participants were asked to comment on initial issues and provide solutions in general terms;
however, the columns do not necessarily correlate with each other. E.g. "lack of deviations" issue does
not correlate with "attend to traffic impacts . . ." solution.
Issues Solutions
Inconsistent architectural styles in BONTON Middle density and mixed housing so not to
district. City encourages modern styles that
do not fit "snobify" historic districts
High density moving into single family and q«ow demo
then becoming high end
Lack of deviations Attend to traffic impacts before approving high
density development
How development will impact preservation
of historic districts. How to protect historic Eliminate min lot width and area
residential neighborhoods
64
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
A demolition of a historic home without Adequate penalties to property owners who
permit. break the rules
Ground floor ADU Make it "slam dunk" to add egress windows
Bring back deviations/relaxations-merit-based,
Inconsistent application of "rules" for bldg. not hardship --get rid of regs that may not be
--traffic management --concerns with necessary - min lot size -large parking spaces -
increased infill -put applications online. Invite comment by
email
History of NCOD - is it still a meaningful
overlay? Are the parts the various historic
districts - greater than it's whole? And with
different needs in terms of aesthetics, Notify neighbors within a reasonable radius
growth and development considerations. I When COAs are issued
hope there's a lot of opportunity for
community impact. Good meeting - well
conducted, you were open, knowledgeable.
Thanks
Difficult to do infill --slow --expensive --
inconsistent --unnecessary regs hard for Look at demo codes. Allow more demos
neighbors to participate
It's important not to confuse the concept of Green roofs. SF should be balance lot coverage.
"consistency"with that of design Ex 500sf Green roof would equal a 580sf
preference/individual taste reduction in lot coverage
Ground floor ADU - increase housing supply! More public awareness of issues as they relate
to homeowners, not developers
COA applications and approvals are not
communicated to nei�hbors. We find out Reduce lot size requirements for 2nd dwelling
that after the fact when inappropriate units and/or ADU
changes have already occurred putting
pressure on the city to remedy.
1. Residential density to be encouraged. 2.
NCOD guidelines too general to apply well Provide property owners with a self-evaluating
to the entire area. 3. Code requirements or self-reporting survey with application process
need evaluation - revamp to encourage a. to try and highlight differences.
mass transit b. Bikes, walking
Please reinstate the deviation (or similar
process) for new construction in the NCOD
Inconsistency - big folks under regulated
little folks go through hoops -- the time
table for project seems very ambitious
timewise
Obstacles to improving (without expanding)
poor structure -- Min parkin� requirement
create needless cost/obstacles
65
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
Publ ic Meetinq #2 - Keypad Poll ing Resul ts
�? ,f. � - . • . . � trio
_ _
a
Are you one of the following:
,� 1. Property owner within NCOD
r�: �. � 63°�
2. Design professional
, �` 25°�
� �� � 3. Developer/Contractor
�.
o°�
4. Agency (not for profit)
o°�
5. Government
6%
6. Concerned citizen
6%
�; ;:;� � ' • : . • � tY'10
<
Where do you live?
�'�'�; 1. Within NCOD �3°�
_;�.,
' � 2. Outside NCOD in Bozeman
--�.oa
� �t 3. County
4. Other 27°i
a a
,c�`op o4�ao Jc,� o`e�
c �
0
1�f. Op C
2�
ae
.,"
0
66
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:
f ,:f: � - . • . . � trio
_ _
a
Of those that live or own a property in the
_ NCOD, is the parcel . 93a,
���.
V� ��- 1. Residential
.- � 2. Commercial
�i .�'
�- 3. Other
��i
oi
�
a� 3 r�
c` p
eesa `o���
.f. � - . • . . � trio
-
a
How long have you lived in Bozeman?
'}=,a 1. 0-5 years
`-�.w�-
• 2. 6-10 years
�� � zor
�� y 3. 11-20 yea rs
47%
4. 21 years or more
13%
20%
■0-5 years�6-10 years�11-20 years�21 years or more
67
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: - � . . . � trio
a
- Rank the issues from highest to least priority
�� � 1. Lack of deviations
3 °o
2. Setback/lot size/zoning 2 �a
. " �" � limitations ' 21°� 22�
�� � �i �" .
"' 3. COA process too complicated
4. Insufficient COA notification
for neighboring properties
05 `o� �ca
�a�a� � � 8F�\� a�c o`�
�.�,0 yCCa'� �oo .;&
.ye�� e�' Pc�
s ��' c,�
�° PQ �C
�a� L� J�E�
<j CS
�, ,f. � • . • v l,rio
a
Rank the issues from highest to least priority
;}�,,a �
�-�,�_ 33°� 1. No ground-floor ADUs
�� � 36°� 2. Lot coverage limitations for ADUs
� � orADUs
68
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: - � . . . � trio
a
- Rank the issues from highest to least priority
�� � 1. NCOD boundaries too small 33°i 3 °� 31°i
�
2. Design guidelines too broad
. " �" � and general to be effective
� � �i �'
"' 3. Inconsistent architectural
styles in Historic Districts
�„
� aDa. ��5:
a`'&s o° `��0 6J`a�a
o�oJ�a e`c�5 94 y�¢
a `
�LO y� ec
�s�c c�4
0
�c`
�, ,f: - � . . . � trio
a
Rank the issues from highest to least priority
':}=,,a 1. Infill incentives are deficient
0
� �'�` 2. Parking standards prohibit z aa 31 � 2��
, ,=�.� � 5/
infill housing
' � � 3. High housing prices forcing 16°i
young families out of districts
4. Affordable units are not being
constructed �` ��� �� ��
e'`�° �c� V,,° .c�
ea o o� ne
�a� Pr 4tio� �o
e�` a�a�� Q�� Sa�
,c` aca c�' o�
S4� .0„ r°S� ay�e
c
Qaw a�r Py,,A
69
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: - � . . . � trio
a
- Rank the issues from highest to least priority
�� � A. Demolitions without permits
z � a
B. Inability to demolish non- 220� 2 ° z3i
. " �" � contributing structures
� � �i �'
�' C. Lack of new units replacing
structures past useful life
D. Preserving wrong type of
housing y °�
Qe�F oc�:• ��a�' �o�s
ro� c ��6 0�
a e
.a��'�` °��� ���e� ����Q
F, J o
°�� �¢, c� O�.d
0
Oe ca��j a`o c Q`¢�¢�S
�, ,f. � • • • . V tri0
a.
- Do you have other issues that were not
- addressed?
-}�,
;.�=
' �>�a°�� 1. Ye s
.=�
� '� 56% Z. NO
70
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: . . � - - - - � trio
Q
If the NCOD were to be replaced, what would
� , be preferable?
,�-: �
3 % 3 °0
1. "Mini" Districts
� y, . - �
-; . �i � 2. Historic Districts Only 19�� 19�i
�' 3. Zoning Only/No NCOD
4. Keep NCOD as is
5 ., o .
�si'f' Oc �C•O �a
�^.�Q 4tF \�� �L�
JCC �{r� �QC\`, gQ'Q
C �
,j," ,VoC
� �:C.- . . • � � � � V l.l 1 O
Q
If the NCOD remains, do you think the boundaries
, should be enlarged, remain the same or shrink?
-}�,
�.�=
' 1. Enlarge NCOD
���� � 29%
' ' � � '
2. Keep current boundaries
36%
3. Shrink NCOD
36%
71
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: . . � - - - - � trio
Q
Should different design guidelines be used for
- multiple areas with NCOD or should a general set
� .
��� � of guidelines be used across the NCOD?
y . �` _ _ ��
1. Implement different guidelines /
� �i �' � ,,, , , ,� �, ��..
4���
53°� �
� _`�;
�s
��e m�piem��mne,�o g�'�eer�e.._xe�oneut of guldNlnes
� �:C.- . . • � � � � V {.i io
Q
What type of deviations should be used more
: frequently or brought back? (Choose up to 3)
-}�,
� `'�`- A. Lot size/width reduction
=�� � 3 °o
-, . � ,� . B. Setback reduction oa
C. Height/massing increase 21°°
D. Lot coverage increase 1 °�
i �a
E. Design criteria
a� �s� a ��
e� e° �°¢ s``9
.;a` "�'� 'c� ' �c``
�
\ yL` \�,'� 6'e d`
:�
S` ��a S`
72
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: . . � - - - - � trio
Q
What incentives should be used to encourage infill
� development within NCOD? (Choose up to 3)
,�-: �
_ Fast-tracking "vacant" property applications
� ` �.' � 3s�i 2. Fee reductions for infill properties
� � �i �'
-.:.
1s�io 4. Lot size, setback and coverage reductions
18°i 5. ADU permitting process made easier
5°i 6. Demo of non-contributing sites w/o building permit
�, ,f: . . � - - - - � trio
a
To encourage affordable housing in the NCOD,
, what should the city do? (Choose up to 3)
-}�,
� �,�_ 1. Implement inclusionary zoning >—�����.
Let marl<et dictate pricing 176
�� �� .. ���33%
� � ! � ' 3. Create a market-place incentive
�
such as AHC fund / ZS%
4. Waive deve', ���- - r �� f, ,� -�,.,,� ��%
review fees
■Implement indusionary zoning
5. Allow small-scale lot development Ctetmarketdlnatepddng
p �} ■CreateamarkM-placeincmtivesuchasAXChnd I
(G.g. ���oo Sq.l l. min) ❑�NaNedevelopmentand6uildingrrWewfres
■Allow small�scale lot development(e.g.2,500 sq.h.min�
73
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, �.:=��
:�
; ,f: . . � - - - - � trio
Q
- What other solutions do you want to discuss?
�.
,�: �
1. COA process improvements
3 °o
' y. �.- � 2. Design guidelines
� �� � 3. ADU elements/Other 2s�r z5ro
-...
4. None, its dinner and I'm hungry �s�i
fi \�y re ���
� a yo` ,�o
,Fd� :a°�'� �� ca s
d J� `'
���� Pp a��
OP
` c,��
�o
74
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ,„, . , ��,�, ;����
Dox Matrix Results from Neighborhood Meetings
NENA Meeting
Bozeman NCOD - NENA
Question Yes No Depends
Are you okay with increased density in the 6 2 8
neighborhood?
Sticky notes
"Duplexes are OK, but no apartments - too much
traffic for an area that is already developed"
"High density that is planned well is fine. City of
Bozeman needs to address overall parking needs
If "Yes", where would you prefer higher density? of downtown including neighborhoods"
"High -rises are OK, but they should harmonize
with the neighborhood. And there needs to be
adequate parking."
Yes No Depends
Would you be in favor of creating a historic 3 4 5
preservation district in your neighborhood?
Do you think the NCOD boundary needs to change? 2 4 0
Would you favor creating design guidelines specific 4 6 2
to your neighborhood?
Should there be an extensive review process for 6 2 1
projects deviating from specific design guidelines?
Is affordable housing an issue in your 10 1 0
neighborhood?
Does the current COA process need to be changed? 1 2 2
Sticky notes
"it should have teeth and enforceable. Content
If "Yes", how so? is OK though"
"Diversity! Old, new, big, small..."
"funky, middle-class, eclectic, downtown,
changing rapidly"
"our neighborhood is funky and traditionally has
What are the defining characteristics in your been 'the wrong side of the tracks'. I like that. I
neighborhood? like the rundown shacks mixed with nice homes.
But now we have bazillion dollar condos, 3-story
mega houses and perfect landscaping. Who the
hell can afford to live in this neighborhood now?
The constant sound of power tools is
everywhere."
75
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
"- single family dwellings, with a mix of styles --
small commercial and retail"
"unique, older, historic homes. Safe for walking.
Has a great community and historic feel. Relaxed
driving and walking through. As you take the
views away and add more traffic - people get
crabby!"
SCAN Meeting
Bozeman NCOD - SCAN - Dot Matrix Responses
Question Yes No Depends
Are you okay with increased density in the 4 9 1
neighborhood?
Sticky notes
If "Yes", where would you prefer higher density? " Subdivide the deep lots - story mansion lawn."
Yes No Depends
Would you be in favor of creating a historic 10 3 1
preservation district in your neighborhood?
Do you think the NCOD boundary needs to change? 5 1 2
Would you favor creating design guidelines specific 11 3 1
to your neighborhood?
Should there be an extensive review process for 10 1 3
projects deviating from specific design guidelines?
Is affordable housing an issue in your 5 8 3
neighborhood?
Does the current COA process need to be changed? 9 1 2
Sticky notes
"needs variance process that is flexible and more
creative" "ditto"
"staff needs to be more service oriented - - -
If "Yes", how so? aesthetic decisions should not be controlled by
one person"
"supportive neighbors - - easy access to
downtown and university"
What are the defining characteristics in your "history, small and large dwellings, mixed -apts
neighborhood? condos, SFD"
76
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, :�.��
UNA Meeting
Bozeman NCOD - UNA
Question Yes No Depends
Are you okay with increased density in the 0 3 3
neighborhood?
Sticky notes
If "Yes", where would you prefer higher density? "Ok to build using infill/vacant lots"
Yes No Depends
Would you be in favor of creating a historic 1 3 0
preservation district in your neighborhood?
Do you think the NCOD boundary needs to change? 0 1 3
Would you favor creating design guidelines specific 3 1 0
to your neighborhood?
Should there be an extensive review process for 4 1 0
projects deviatin� from specific design guidelines?
Is affordable housing an issue in your 4 1 1
neighborhood?
Does the current COA process need to be changed? 2 1 1
Sticky notes
"COA more stringent -//- character becoming of
If "Yes", how so? an "off-campus" housing area! :OS"
"COA and design guidelines should be separated.
Design is personal choice on ones personal
property"
What are the definin� characteristics in your
neighborhood?
SCAN - UNA Combined General Responses
Question: Response:
Trees on Boulevard
Appropriate setbacks/side yards
Should the NCOD boundary be changed to reflect Dark Sky
individual neighborhood character?
Open space/lot coverage
Maintaining Character vs. stifled creativity
Yes, expand on boundary or create separate
specs
The NCOD affords some level of consistency but Create a "unified" historic district overlay
does not include UNA, do you want UNA included in
the boundary Incentive program - process vs finance --
expedited
77
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
UNA/SCAN - Arch and Development patterns
"Opt-in" for neighbors with incentives/support
---> Invite people so they are willing
What type of infill projects are appropriate for this qDU - Requirement to live-in
area?
Parking standards and enforcement
Design with clearly defined for relaxations
---> check and balance with public
Are the guidelines sufficient to preserve existing
structures and guide new development?
Incentive driven process - Historic
What city processes including the COA need to be Residential Parking passes with in district
refined? --->Tracy and Koch
Online/List-serve meeting with ability
Bozeman Creek - LinMar Meeting
Note: Participants did not fill out the dot-matrix board but rather wanted to discuss specific issues.
Bozeman Creek - LinMar General Responses
Question: Response:
Walkability
Tree lined streets
Should the NCOD boundary be changed to reflect "community cohesiveness"
individual neighborhood character? Trail connections
Keep NCOD
Fundamental Goals - objective
Downtown district - main st
---> poor design - avoid this
What type of infill projects are appropriate for this area? Concern with commercial development
---> Parking issues
------> Cider House example
Are the guidelines sufficient to preserve existing Variety is great: use and design
structures and guide new development? Eclectic - 30's, 50's - when to "freeze"?
Notify earlier
What city processes including the COA need to be refined? Digital = 2 x notify
Tree protection
Miscellaneous Items ---> Carmel CA
Affordable Issues
78
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
---> 19th Richest City
Rental Issues
---> Zoning
---> Enforcement
Solar Access
---> Gardening
Cooper Park/West Side Meeting
Bozeman NCOD - Cooper Park - Dot Matrix Responses
Question Yes No Depends
Are you okay with increased density in the
neighborhood? 4 $ Z
Sticky notes
If"Yes", where would you prefer higher density?
Yes No Depends
Would you be in favor of creating a historic 4 1 2
preservation district in your neighborhood?
Do you think the NCOD boundary needs to change? 0 1 4
Would you favor creating desi�n guidelines specific 4 2 0
to your neighborhood?
Should there be an extensive review process for
projects deviating from specific design guidelines? $ 0 1
Is affordable housing an issue in your neighborhood? 2 4 0
Does the current COA process need to be chan�ed? 4 1 2
Sticky notes
If "Yes", how so? "allow accessory dwelling units in back of main
structures"
What are the defining characteristics in your "characteristics and small, architectural homes,
neighborhood? not mega-bill the lot homes
Cooper Park General Responses
Question: Response:
Yes - new structures are not meeting
Should the NCOD boundary be changed to reflect nei�hborhood character
individual neighborhood character? Front porch - guidelines stipulate costs and
rehab
B-3 zoning vs. Residential
What type of infill projects are appropriate for this qffordable housing - existing neighbors
area?
---> Fixed income residents
79
� .�� . B�ZEIVIAN IUCOD
. ��,,, . , ��,�, � -��
---> Incentives = grant, TIF, mortgage
------> Emeryville, CA
Are the guidelines sufficient to preserve existing New - turn of century - architecture
structures and guide new development? ---> avoid, keep "traditional"
Notice Requirements - Improve
What city processes includin� the COA need to be
---> Online, 200 sq.ft (up arrow) = 500 ft ex.
refined? COA - Golden Rule = $$$ Impacts
---> Materials = Reduction
Blight Issues - N 7th TIF
---> Expansion of Boundary
Reduce "Over-Regulation"
---> Conflicting regs zoning/subdivision
Miscellaneous Items Tax-Assessment: Values with increased home
prices
Solar Access - Sunlight
Increase property tax
Decrease tax on renters/businesses
Alcohol = firecracker ordinance
80