The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About005 Revised 2019 NCOD Review FI NAL NCOD POLI CY DI RECTI ON JUNE 2019 � �"- ' � '� .�� ;�_j-- 4� �-• . 1 _�-� , -'� _,�..� ....,r�.,. _.-i`„-.. —"� �� .�'-• t- j %`�� J ' — _ ��'�. �'• _ n� , �^�_ .,�-- ; 'Y� -• ' � . •_�.�`. . . - - � .,-- ' � _� . ,' —=r— ' � O / 1 `• •' �.��• �~ i i.'...' ... _�� 'L,- � �:. . ��-' :l:�� ;� :_ �-= , 'r } :� .� `_ � � ,.��- �.. . .- - , . j . �_: ,� �;;� - , ,. }�.� _ �: . -. _` � 'fl ' ' �r�'� �; 'f" - 7'[� �� ± . �� .�! � �. �k �� !��' � .�_ ♦ � '__ - � _ _. . .I _ - ` �!� � �0��r • � -� \ - �tis • '�.... , .� ., ` ,� - � l - � _ ,,, l � � ,, �� -� � I , � ; „ - .. _ ,,�'•��: �_ ,� �r�.2_� , " -` , ` :.s,._` � �' � } v � ';C - :�� ; � . �,, y_ ,� � sP-. , � ` .��1�-r;; t'�j_ � ,�� y, �l-� � � w �!� -• '�-:,..r /, f� .� � -� T � - -A� ♦ /� ..�. yp..� , � ;f J � ' � �'s {�..��y�� j � �� Jr � .�F.:� �� '�•7 � ��. � �.Y �� • _ . ,/ ��T 'f I �. • . I � � � •��1 �Ii► � p ' .., '. 7 / t '�� -.a �� • 1 ��wly. - �.I9�`� ��- . . i t�i � y �� _ ' �- � � -- �.+�' ;�c`:��— . „ _ ` .�' ' _ ' _" �+► - �� '�� `� °�n� � ;''� ` ��„�� a ` � .s ' � . � J -� * f� 3 .1� a ' •�' � �`/ - — � � . �J ' �� - • " _ __ . - y � _. `�j` �� ' // " , , •�.� ..� � t y . �� .� / ��r .� � ." "L �� ' . �� _' + 7 �/ y�r�� ' �• R'7"'L — J r ' 6I- �_�—_ _��' �,-��*-�_�-'� :'� � � . " �1' �' r -- �� '' �` �. � ' . F 3 � �'�.� - �.� . _ . , _ ! ,,...�f f , al ��►- � � � / '—i �-� ",�.:: � jf � , , , __ _�, �: /�!. J j^ l � � � �'�' f - ,, , . :�-. � ' �l��' � � �� .J'�'-�� — � �� - -:r►�.� � ,-�:.�: �..s , �� ,. �' r - ' . __ �.. (� ` �� . S- -�+t`! �'► , -� � _ /� y J � c7 •i I �� 4 � � � ' i , / —= '�'~�' /=. � . ��-� - j��J� � BendonAdams � � - ~� .�-- � ORION • � PLANNING+DESIGN � . � � � � , �: � , �.� - s� l� �,,� � !( :� � !R j;; ��e�,-'�; !a�-'�� 1�''� �f"fi�i y ,�' 70�J'IIW]p�11:.�f1��4„��1 1 � ^ � 'r � �iG I ��. — �7� � �:.�:�. �..,. .. . � .'i ��I'11��p r,�F � C ��,�� ' '�� ,' (aJ/�)t�°• , , � ' � 3 �f ' ` i ' �';�j�f � '��• �� ' � ��Rl�_ry IL'L11 I 4� i`�'n.A�l µ �.t ��, - ti �•«- \ �� (• �, � `.� ��>.LM.}ll��; 1 r �.• � I � � � - r�� _ �s �r.�� }. ��; s r i .,_ �Yj�`�i , ,��.�f� '"�1� ;. ,��j�i� ,�� M '��•�'� ` .� -� �� . '9 �� 1.\S� �� K d 1'�"�/��Ai�, ��i��; 1;1 � � -- ,t. - �:�-�;1 i� `�;- .r� •��3. f��t,, ,_ � ` ' , . , — �1 `j, '•�}_� + ",,.�, r �i � . s� .::� �,._ — - �,. �— � � � � � Prepared for the City of Bozeman. HISTORIC PRESERVATION + OUTREACH TEAM ZONING COMMISSION BendonAdams George Thompson Sara Adams, AICP Paul Spitler Chris Bendon, AICP Christopher Scott Reilly Thimons BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Cyndy Andrus, Mayor Chris Mehl, Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham Jeff Krauss I-Ho Pomeroy CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Marty Matsen, Director Chris Saunders Phillipe Gonzalez HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD Michael Wallner, Chair Jeanne Wilkinson Chelsea Hooling Jennifer Dunn Eric Karshner Crystal Alegria Victoria York PLANNING BOARD Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Laura Waterton Jennifer Madgic Paul Spitler George Thompson Gerald (Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge —� +�r �� i: i , rPi��.�.. - il9 ► �; ' u �i ,,,i�•,../y„ . , � ��c:" � ��,�1��'fi��;�WI�'.�-:dq��' �, ,� ti , �� I��a ,�l�:,i,��%� ''J � �a ��.,1�►Fr'_ ' � ,�� f . r.-�i.ly,� ` 1 � � � jl n.//� .�� i � �w�,�� I�� '� {� �i��.. 1� �,��, � i n' + � � •�. � ' � � ,,,, I�_ i- , n ;��c.. i . � . . %1� � I y ' U 1�� i •I y _ .� 1� � =...� ��, ' " i I •,, � i '. . �1 1'� .' '.� I � ' } � � 1 . .y�, I �� ,f� '�� l{1�V� �(�� t_ � ,�� u ��"�-�s �.li��.�� . ��i�/.�j� _ _' , �.�� 1f ' �� p l� -'-�1�1'!� y y . '11/�.'Yy,t�I��iR`—,A\+,�� 1�� j� � "._ '�', _ J� .,s � ' �� •K.,S�'�- �j�`'4=,;1� ,�;z� , n. . , � � � , , �- _ -=�.. - ��r�.�, �::� r -_ � � � � . Unless otherwise specified, all documentation contained within this report has been aggregated and recorded through materials received during outreach initiatives. Direct quotes and transcriptions are emphasized in italics. Data includes all comments recorded by facilitators and participants during noted outreach activities. While the majority of data was captured digitally, it is possible that errors may have occurred in the transcription of hand-written comments.This would have principally occurred due to interpretation and the nature of the notes captured in the engagement activities. The Consultant has taken all care during the transcription process, but unfortunately, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during the engagement activities have been captured in this report. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed herein represent those of the engagement participants. BendonAdams is committed to protecting the privacy of all participants who participated in the engagement process and has published comments anonymously unless otherwise presented as formal public comment to the City. BendonAdams LLC www.bendonadams.com —� ' I ` ,�.�.� , ;�� f,. I air/'/��u. I / i� � f � J I�r�i I �I i��i��j6 '-� � 1��°'- f ,'�I�h..'fVtiJ 111lf'�J':�;5111�t � �,� r � ;I � ��'cY �fr rY,�l/� � :��..� 1 ,i�.. .. �, _ �1 ��'��. �,.� ��I/, � S � � �• . � � , _ '�'. i� �� I ',�A;'�� _ •7�, �„r , , . � �+.. �. 1 . . , '��`� � � .�� .'( . ' UMILr'', . .I � i,.j � c .I� i_ 1 "J/. __ _ � � �1.11` �fp��y:.�NiN,� IM �. � �� 1, ��jy '.lf.l\��ti�.Il11U�1� . 'I �'/�I�� _ _ — ±ti._:� ��al��,,�vl��;a%, �'1�" ;� � . . �, � � ' -�'.i 'Atw.,t�,t.. j 't:<;{�, �'7-- - n. '._ °:'d'6 . '� ' . � .w,._�' . . . � ,.. ,._� - _en. . �r�� K1��` � - ._ � i � �� CHAPTER 1 PROJECT TIMELINE ..................................................................................................... 6 1 PROJECT TIMELINE � 1.1 INTRODUCTION g 1.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 9 1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 1.4 WORK PLAN 12 1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS 14 1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS 18 CHAPTER2 NCOD ............................................................................................................................. 20 2.1 PURPOSE OF NCOD 24 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY 26 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES 30 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 31 CHAPTER 3 STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM �� 32 3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 37 3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES 38 3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS 39 3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES 41 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 42 CHAPTER 4 RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT .................................................................................. 44 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS 48 4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT 52 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 53 CHAPTER 5 STREAMLINE PROCESS .............................................................................................. 56 5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC) 60 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 61 CHAPTER 6 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 62 6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 66 � � . • � � � � • ' �l •�. � • � 1 . . f �� ' . � - , � ' � � f . i' » • .. t . ..� � ,� � , ' �� i � '�-� � 1 , . � � , � . .� � .,._„.. � � �� ` i • � � � � • .�.+ � � � r �� . 7 `i � . �-�L �� • � '��- .•� t � 1 �� ti � � � � ��I.idrr+� � .� .�,�.._ � 1 • � ,�� I w � ; , � ��.' � _ ,�� , � � . � r i �� , , � i� , � .�� ; . � � f�� , , � . �/ �� / /• I �� " � • 1 7 � r♦.�J�. f �� r �• , �-� / • '� 7-_'� r�s � �� • r ._ • ,�. M•�• � .�:�-- �� ,.; 1�� I t �" , , � f �� I - �. .. "� . - � i .� �. , � � � � � _ _ ., . � . The consultant team (consisting of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducting extensive public engagement to best understand the community's needs and preferences regarding historic preservation,the Neighborhood Con- servation Overylay District, historic district boundaries, and future development. Below are high level findings from Community Outreach Phase I and Phase II. A full summary of findings can be found in Appendix A. TRIP #1 12 community events DRAFT #1 SUMMARY #2 '_ DRAFT soliciting feedback in- Initial draft recom- Outreach summary of Finalize recommenda- cluding historic tours, mendations based all feedback received tions and alternatives Staff and Board meet- upon analysis of ex- during Trip #2 will be based on input from Trip ings, small group meet- isting conditions and pubished online in #3. Outreach summary ings, listening booths,an community feedback conjunction with the of all feedback received architectural survey, and published for public raw data public com- from Trip #3 will be pub- a public open house. review. ment submissions. lished online. � � � � �� BACKGROUND SUMMARY #1 TRIP #2 TRIP #3 WORK PROGRAM Research on existing Outreach summary of Feedback from four Present outreach re- Final document is conditions within the all meetings and feed- large format commu- sults and request provided to the City NCOD and develop- back received to date nity events, and Staff policy direction from of Bozeman including ment of outreach pro- and publication of raw and Board meetings, City Commission to complete outreach gramming. data and analyses on- will provide further inform a final work summary and results Community wide sur- line. clarification on policy program. Hold a pub- from all events, and a vey on status of NCOD. direction. lic open house to work program outlin- inform the public. ing next steps. 2O1H $TRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 1.1.6 DRAMATICALLY INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND CREATE ACCESS TO ALL CITY DOCUMENTS. �P.2� POLICY 1.2 BROADEN AND DEEPEN ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN CITY GOVERNMENT, INNOVATING METHODS FOR INVITING INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS �P.2� � ! � . � .. I� _�..�;. . - . . . . , Bozeman's decision to adopt a Conservation Overlay District that includes the areas between designated Historic Districts was a gutsy solution in 1991 that made Bozeman a pioneer in preservation of neighborhood character, scale and context. The result 27 years later is well preserved historic districts and neighborhood character that supports a sense of place and a sense of pride for the community. Interwoven within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is the majority of Bozeman's designated historic districts, with two historic districts located just outside the overlay boundary. Recent projects had residents,city staff,and review boards questioning the effectiveness of the Neighborhood Conservation Over- lay District (NCOD) and whether other planning tools exist to better reflect community sentiment. The Bozeman Community may have differing opinions on the means and methods, but goal is the same: Bozeman is a special place worth protecting. The NCOD has been in place since 1991 to protect neighborhood character, historic districts, and historic landmarks. The his- toric preservation program goes beyond the NCOD to foster the knowledge of the city's heritage, and cultivate civic pride in the historic built environment. The 2015 NCOD Audit recommended removal of the NCOD by 2020 and replacement with a series of design overlay areas and design guidelines to promote contextual and compatible development outside Historic Districts. The recommendations from the audit have been reviewed and taken into consideration as part of this project. Based on current community sentiment, it was felt that an objective review that focused on a comprehensive understanding of the NCOD and the historic districts was the best approach.This report summarizes community outreach findings and final policy direction from the City Comission. __.... - � ( � f - M �. � 11� � ' ' _ �,�� ~ '- �`!1 � 1 r ' . � �, , � , �:r�v .� � ' • , . + � - �.r . � _ ' ` wf _ .�li! � � �� 1 �� , I � � ) I '` ��. _ � 1 / � •� � � � This document contains the final adopted policy direction,community feedback, and areas for future discussion. The first page of each Chapter contains the final adopted policy followed by the adopted workplan.The adopted policies are further incorporated into each chapter narrative to provide context and background. Some of the adopted policies include "tools for future discussion" that are based on recommendations and alternatives that were presented to the community throughout the project. City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations contained herein. Correlations between the documents are noted throughout the document. The entire report reflects many of the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 Strategic Plan,the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan, and the adopted 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, as noted below. 2O1H $TRATEGIC MASTER PLAN POLICY 4.1.B DEVELOP AND ALIGN INFILL POLICIES. �P.6� Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure.This report is part of the infill conversation. POLICY 7.3.E HIGH LEVEL POLICY CONVERSATIONS. �P.11� Develop a structure to foster regular, ongoing dialogue on innovative ideas and information to assist the Commission with high level policy deliberation and decisions. 2009 COMMUNITY PLAN CHAPTER 1.3, GOAL G-2 IMPLEMENTATION. �P.13� Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this plan are effective,fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis. CHAPTER 4.3, GOAL C-4 DESIGN GUIDELINES. �P.50� Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direction in design and review of residential and non-residential neighborhoods without unduly constraining architectural style and innovation. Chapter 5.3, Goal HP-1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION. (p.57� Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community's identity, history, and quality of life. � i � `� f . 1 � � . � �. � _�..�,. �� . . . . . - On April 8, 2019 final recommendations were presented to the Bozeman Mayor and City Commission during a regularly sched- uled meeting. In addition to the draft report, a workplan that categorized the recommendations into short, mid and long term goals was presented. The Commission formally received the report, considered recommendations from the Historic Preser- vation Advisory Board, the Planning Board and the Zoning Commission, and adopted actions to be implemented as a work plan. The adopted directives and workplan are listed below, and are included at the beginning of each chapter of this report. The report provides background and alternative recommendations that evolved through the NCOD and Historic Preservation Program Review project. Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to distinguish the two separate goals within the NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preservation Program will also apply to landmarks and historic districts outside the boundary of the NCOD: 2.1 1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman's significant history; and 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. Do not significantly change the NCOD boundary. 1) Remove North 7th from the NCOD. 2) Move boundary to Front Street as proposed. 2.2 3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potential boundary adjustment- with moderate level of survey for some areas. 4) Prioritize areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potential boundary adjustment. Identify the areas for the formal architectural suvey. Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Down- town, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that 2.3 support connectivity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transitions between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characteristics of each area and context. 3.1 Phase-in a local historic preservation program. 3.2 Explore a variety of incentives incentives for historic properties owners. Engage with historic property owners to ensure incentive relevance and clarity. 3.3 Allow HPAB recommendations for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB review of demolitions as a way to ease into review authority. 3.4 Create historic preservation (HP) standards and guidelines. ^ I � ' f f � _�..�.. �� !■ . • � . - 4.1 Study of the B-3 transition zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority. Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts. Gather more 4.2 data after the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more data after the ar- 4.3 chitectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. 5.1 Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. 6.1 Strengthen existing project information channels and work on push notifications City-wide. Develop a plan to have public meetings priorto application review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noticing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum 6.2 standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. , �,� . . � . . � SHORT TERM M I D-TERM LONGTERM Conduct extensive outreach Adopt local historic preservation program with Bozeman specific rules to desig- with historic nate landmarks, districts, process for exterior changes. Locally designate National Register (NR) property owners on possible incentives. properties with owner consent. Explore a variety of incentives for historic properties Process for HPAB recommendations for historic projects and projects within a and historic districts. Develo uick reference uides for a historic district. P q g p- Begin process to nominate new NR listings propriate repairs of historic properties and boundaries for NR historic districts. Start HPAB review of Adopt incentives for historic property owners. demolition applications. Write cant�xt papers on Bozeman's ver- , Begin process to amend NR listings and nar.ular buildings identified in survey Create historic design standards and guidelines for historic districts and land- boundaries for NR historic districts. but not eligible for National Register marks that align with updated Sec. of Interior's Standards. Training for HPAB members. Architectural Inventory- historic districts and landmarks (build on recent inventory of downtown buildings. Windshield survey- neighborhood association areas and areas outside of established neighborhoods.. Develop preservation plan Map review process and ideniify Analyze zone distrirts: redundant requirerr�ents and areas ID where dimensional re uirements and boundaries corflict with with HPAB to identify preser- of overlap for projects within the neighborhood character/future vision, or historic district boundary. vation goals. NCOD: i.e. Article 5, Site Plan Re- view, Project Review. Require input from established neigh- borhood associations on large scale Exempt the NCOD from duplicative review processes and replace with context ro ects and ossibl rezonin a li Adjust NCOD boundary based on derived standards and guidelines. p J p y g pp - results of building survey: Amend zone district requirements to relate to neighborhood (or his- cations. * N. 7th all out. toric district if applicable) character(either existing or future vision). * Use Front St. as northern edge. Strengthen existing pro�ect infor- Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character mation channels and work on push area north of Downtown, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. notifications City-wide. Define neighborhood character. There should be general guidelines that support connecti�rity between the areas, Create transition specific standards and guidelines that are context create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transitions based and replace Article 5 standards (where it is redundant)for between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special projects uvithin NCOD. characteristics of each area and context. Develop a plan to have public meetings prior to application review with im-pacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noticing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. Gather more data after the architectural survey, scenarios, and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to under- stand zoning, mass and scale. _ _ ,� ' #�� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � � � ^ I � ' f f � _�..�.. . . ��- �- . � The consultant team (consisting of BendonAdams and Orion Planning+ Design) was tasked with conducting extensive public engagement to best understand the community's needs and preferences regarding historic preservation, the NCOD, historic district boundaries, and future development. Below are high level findings from Community Outreach Phase I and Phase II. PHP�SE I COIVMUNITY OUTREACH In July 2018,the project team spent two weeks in Bozeman engaging with the public at 12 different events.The events includ- ed small group meetings, a historic tour, board and staff meetings, listening posts, an open house, and a windshield architec- tural survey.A project page hosted by the City of Bozeman was also launched containing project information, upcoming dates, feedback summaries, feedback data, and opportunities for public comment. Over 150 participants joined small group meetings, listening posts, attended the community meeting and participated in on- line surveys. A high-level summary is provided below: Phpse 1:Jul y-August 2018 Concern Many participants expressed a concern over recent development projects, specifi�cally the size, scale, and • design of particular buildings within the NCOD. This .�� generally pertained to the areas directly adjacent to Main Street that are seeing new higher density development. , ` Some participants expressed an interest in creating 150+ transitional 'buffer areas'. participants Regulations While there were mixed opinions on whether the current regulations are 'too stringent' or 'too liberal' 54% Female 46% Male g0%are Bozeman on development- participants felt that Historic Districts Residents should remain 'strictly regulated'while areas outside the Districts but still within the NCOD should be treated 'with moderation.' 2% Aged <24 Pace of Development The majority of participants felt that the pace of recent 11% Aged 25-34 development in eozeman has been 'too fast'-and would � � like to see the project review process slowed down to � allow for a more robust public participation process. 21% Aged 35-54 � •-. . Many felt that slowing down the process would ensure a focus on historic preservation and thoughtful, compatible 33% Aged 55-64 development. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICIES 1.1.B, 1.2 1 � � � ) � ��. _ � • 1�' ! � � PH�SE I I C.OIV�/IUNITY 011TREACH The project team returned in November of 2018 for the second phase of community engagement which encom- passed four large format meetings, two open houses and �00/ two live polling sessions.These were followed by an inten- � O sive online survey. �45+ Participants � Our team presented the draft policy recommendations published in the October 23, 2018 draft report (available previously at www.bozeman.net/city-proiect/ncod-review and partic- pqI�ICIpqT2d ipants were polled to show their level of support for each of the proposed recommendations and policy alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Over the course of a few weeks 145 community members participated in the live polling sessions, the open house 51% 47o/O 2% poster voting sessions, provided open comment via post- cards, and the online survey. � F Below we have summarized participant demographics and the high-level community sentiments: �= _ - � � � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � � � � � �� r � :.- �, " ��,i' �� • r� . —_ l �1 ' ..� ��' �� 'f�Ar�� 1 •�1�'� ' �''��11��a •.. _J , a�! � � N��q• � , I ' •..�i;~.`::-� .. . �- .�uu��in� 3 $ % � ; - �' aged 35-54 . ,�. ^ I � ' f f � _�..�.. . . ��- �- . � the City and could potentially create inequity between con- temporary and historic properties. The majority of those - polled selected phasing-in a stronger historic preservation t� .` ,,.- .�� program with incremental steps in-lieu of implementing �� ` changes simultaneously. - ._-� _ �. '� � ��y While the majority of participants were interested in HPAB �;:� ` �,�;_,. ,� becoming a decision-making body, there was a vocal faction �� : � that felt there were other ways to strengthen the program. - r�, ��, ;� r _ Over 80% of participants showed moderate to high support � ' for creating standards and guidelines for historic landmarks � '�� _. ; and historic districts. - , - - :_ - �' ! , r " Zoning+Context - In conversations with participants, there appeared to be �� low support for adjusting the B-3 Zone District to allow for increased transitional requirements outside of those found within the UDC. However, across the two polling sessions NCOD:Purpose+eoundary and online survey, the majority of participants showed The majority of participants supported retaining the NCOD, moderate to high support for exploring how to better to stating that they felt it has been effective and it would be align the southern boundary of B-3 with low scale residential easier to 'tweak' the NCOD than to start over. Some partici- neighborhoods to the south. pants were interested in exploring replacement ofthe NCOD with design guidelines. It was felt that design guidelines Participants felt this opportunity would help to preserve might help new designs fit into existing context. the mass and scale in historic districts and reduce conflict Participants expressed moderate to high support for creat- between new developments in existing neighborhoods. ing standards and guidelines specific to different areas and neighborhoods. Participants expressed moderate to high in- Participants expressed concern over stifling downtown terest in retaining the current area of the NCOD and were development and pushing development into areas outside of supportive of making minor changes immediately-many felt the Main Streetarea.Participantswere particularlyconflicted that sigificant changes warranted an architectural survey. in how to approach adjustments with a fairly even spread polling in favor of creating a transitional zone, incorporating Historic Preservation additional site design requirements within existing zone There was a high level of support for strengthening edge requirements, and incentivizing redevelopment along the Historic Preservation program with the majority of North 7th Street. participants feeling that it would aid efforts to preserve Bozeman's unique history. There were some participants that expressed concern over increased regulation and While participants felt that aligning zoning with historic review processes becoming convoluted, but the majority did districts and neighborhoods would create more consistency not see any negative impacts to strengthening the program. in development patterns, there was no consensus on the best approach. There was a high level of support for expanding incentives for historic properties, and a request for further detail and examples. Some felt that it might create additional costs to 1 � � � ) � ��. _ � • 1�' ! � � Process+Information Participants were highly in favor of a more streamlined �� v, , " , �r;�� ;;'��; process and wanted more detail on what this could look like Li�'` ;.�,. � i i on the ground. Many felt that exploring how to streamline - current reviews would create a more predictable process C that is easier for applicants to understand. � .., � _ �_ :F Some participants felt that requiring a binding review � _,%�� + � _ process from the Design Review Board might be an option ,;�'�- „ to streamline reviews. ._..a �� —� � . �• . � Participants across all meetings and feedback opportunities ` , ,, �,1�.;-•` p; expressed an interest in having more specific thresholds o '''�,�` _ � �N _ for how and when project information is shared with both _— �� neighbors and the public. Many were interested in building upon existing channels and potentially adding texting alerts ry:,_ or increasing the information on development notices. "°" BYTHE NUMBERS The depth of data across all project activities provided the The Bozeman community is very passionate about historic project team with great insights into community sentiment preservation; we engaged with a number of stakeholders, and diversity of opinions regarding how to balance the future community groups, property owners, historic preservation of historic preservation policy and growth in Bozeman. specialists, developers, architects and designers, and University faculty. Participants were very engaged The initial data set from Phase I provided clear direction for throughout the project and below we have provided a more the development of draft policy recommendations which detailed summary of the outreach program, engagement were then vetted by the community in Phase II before being levels, and data: presented to the City Boards in February for further refine- ment prior to adoption by the City Commission in April 2019. • 21 meetings and events • 25+ public comment submissions • 174 online survey responses • 267 event participants • 98 activity and survey questions • 350+open comments • 635 windshield property surveys • Over 20,000 unique points of data across all project activities 1 � I �� I .��. � ! ►�1 I' — �1� 1 � Both the windshield survey and the neighborhood character number of stories, roof typology, chimneys, porches,window survey are tools within a comprehensive tool box that are typology, entrance features, materials of principal buildings, combined with outreach results and best practices to ultimately and detached secondary buildings. inform specific recommendations in the report related to ONLINE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER SURVEY design guidelines and standards, the NCOD boundary, and the historic preservation program. In order to prioritize the districts and neighborhoods within WINDSHIELD SURVEYS the NCOD, an online neighborhood character survey was developed that garnered feedback on the specific questions Windshield surveys are a useful tool to gain a broad such as "which 3 [Districts] have the greatest mass and scale understanding of architecture in a large area. Patterns, challenges with new development?" and "on a scale of 1 — similarities and differences in architectural style become 10 what is the importance of historic preservation in these evident through data results that can then direct more detailed neighborhoods?" surveys, appropriate design guidelines, and begin to define specific neighborhood styles. The online neighborhood character survey asked participants to describe each area with one word to define neighborhood Volunteers, Bozeman staff and the consultants completed a character, inform future design guidelines, and to help focus windshield survey of 635 properties north of Main Street during the City's future survey work to areas of immediate concern. a week in July 2018. The NCOD area is very large and there was not enough time to complete a windshield survey of the entire �/�/hile the neighborhood character survey is a helpful tool, district, much less a time intensive architectural survey of the it has limited capabilities: for example, areas between designated historic districts. established neighborhood association and historic district boundaries are not included in this study. It is imperative that Surveys focused on roof forms, trees, fencing, landscape, these areas are surveyed to document basic neighborhood characteristics. -�► � �. ,� , �9 :� A F i ,, ` < A S � ^ . �.I _ '� 1� I, +��{/� �,,�� - �� P�� _ a � ^ .f� , _ ��T I 4 - .� � t ,� - r, :/� � 1 -' ' I � � _ . � . 1 � : ' I �' —_,_ ` � � � �� . � K - :4 I � �� - {�.'J -�.ti J ' r- ��s��. �:.. -;;.. -a�. I • � -_ � '�i � � '�'_�� , ',, — ..;c� ..k•'S� - � . ' ,.e �'''�[i �J � �� , �:. `� - _ -- _ _ . ' 1 = Ir ,;� �4,..�,, � r f n�a. �.�1P + � r�l . � � _� � � I , .a�•t`.c.a�-:' � ;;r3. � i� . � 'r-. � - � ,�. „ 1�•� � _a-... iM1?.*� � � `�� .• �`y.� � :,.;::s"� . � 1 � I �� I .��. � ! ►�1 I' — �1� 1 � The neighborhood character online survey was incorporated into a prioritized list of neighborhoods and historic districts for future architectural survey work, which will drive potential future boundary adjustments to the NCOD and to historic districts and possibly inform future design guidelines specific to neighborhood character. Priority areas are based on survey and community feedback, background and zoning analysis, and professional expertise. HISTORIC DISTRICT PRIORITIES NON-HISTORIC AREA PRIORITIES WITHIN THE NCOD Q o Bon Ton � Areas between historic districts and neighborhood � South Tracy/South Black ° association areas L Lindley Place � South Central ° Cooper Park Historic District 'o Cooper Park (non-historic district area) L � *note: Main Street was recently surveyed � Bogert Park � � Northeast _ � = University �- Bozeman Brewery � � Story Mill � � South Tracy Ave. � �o North Tracy Ave. � Lindley Park/Marwyn Lindley � Marwyn Addition — potential future historic � Bozeman Creek � district � � � ,�.s. " :�: .�:. � � � � �'�"` � �. , ,��r. � � � � �' _ "i ` � ��r� � � �r�.� �� •- €�� . � ��a�� I-�... � , � ,�� - '\�`�,� �,. -� � - \ - . `r��,�� - � � - .'l� \�6�.'<�!►�� l �r �� .� - I �l��w1� �� ' i '�_'� �,,�..N.� t f _ ��►�� ,.�-„; ,s �v i f _ �`�ir'�` a,� _ . .� i �� - ' ;��y`� �" � - i + � ` �.. :=� ' � �v��: � � _�..�...r. . � � \�' l �-----`� 'i_`.��+p�� \y. �,� , � "_ - - ` -, ..YF,S�''s-=r•o,�y� �� ,�-. �� _� i ! �� h` � , ��'�� ,�;'�' Y! z r `�\�` y�I' - p ��. C � �,� �� , c � ' �� V�A�i� � �� . � ' �� A�� . � . i � � 1 ��1�� , ' ,1� 1�_ ��_ '�-�� ♦ ' � ��`,� �� ,- '�� ,�1 . , :� � 1 ,\�1\.��b' . - v �} � I ��\��A�! 1 _a_ ^ '--� --'----_• �f i ��p ��\ 1'�,1" ._ 1� � i � �_� : :._ � ' . _f�� .. � . � � -.� '�I - r j � / / = �j�t�- '` � _ - _ - �. f' . . � `- ' �-.r I_.' .t,` �A ' _'_- � _ __ __r _ - �� . . _ �'�, _ _�_ i i , . M t .�►_ [ ' __ '_�-�� r .,� - . � - � -� �� ' �-_ � . _ _ _-.,� .. �_a.p_._:�. . ` ' "� , . `c_�' �� " . . � 1� . �.r i�: I . '�1� ; ` � _ _ � � __. .� _� --- � _ _ -- �� . __ _��..:�.1�a_ _.W,_..._-- -�„��'g.fl' .l��.w.�a._�__=,.a a � � � � � � � � � � � � � . • � �' � ��1��:,' 1 .. � _ �1� � � '.�� ' y. r � . � . � ' � Y� '� �� i . , \ � � � �► ,t, �,, �r-�■ , � �*�i� . � .�, � ; , � � i �I�," � 1�_�_�f� � � �, � 1;�,��!�; ;� i i t ,�r �-�� I � . - ,� ,��: . �, ►� �� - ;�;� � .�~, � ', � : _ "�-�� ,�, ;� � , � , � , ' 1 .� 1 ' � . �' , ., �. � - .�'�+� � -�� ,� �-- �� ..��•�v� ��11� � 1,�'� � � � � �� ,� 2.1 NCOD PURPOSE Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to distinguish the two separate goals within the NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preservation Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis- tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD: 1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman's significant history; and 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY Do not significantly change the NCOD boundary. 1) Remove North 7th from the NCOD. 2) Move boundary to Front Street as proposed. 3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potential boundary adjustment- with moderate level of sur- vey for some areas. 4) Prioritize areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potential boundary adjustment. Identify the areas for the formal architectural suvey. 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS+ GUIDELINES Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Downtown, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that support connec- tivity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transitions between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characteristics of each area and context. � �' � ► �i:�[,^�-�,i�,t ►� I , ' -s 1� �� .r. i� ' ' �r •` 1 � ,�i�� , ' Y/ { I+ I�� ,� \. �� , 1 , _ �� , ,� �� ,� �� . � � I/ ��R��' �-,-��j 1 i ,1� �.�� 1 I � � � � i�;"r �, � � � 1 11 '_ �_ ,- `-� '��;�) �� y, 1�:1 �h �+. ` ;'� /y��1 c-r • . - �� 7 � r � '�'e- 1� •t\ 'i`'1�1 � ��1 � �. �� ,�1 , SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Architectural Inventory - historic �districts and landmarks (build on recent invent�ory of downtown buildings). � .. ...�._..._.�. �u. ��y - ri��riuur riuuu dssuc,iduOn ared5 driU dred5 uu�5i�ae ui eSLdIJIISfIeU �� neighborhoods. Adjust NCOD boundary adopt local historic pr�eservation pro- based on results of gram with Bozeman specific rules to building survey: designate lanclmarks, * N. 7th all out. �istricts, process for e�;terior changes. * Use Front St. as northern edge. �T Define neighborhood � Create neighborhood character de- � character. sign standards and guidelines for North of Main, South of Main, and downtown. �'. �� .� � .�v;1 _,I�� .� _ ' 1 � t� � �A'� ' �� ( r .., � � 1 �� , �.� , � �� '- � - �; � f �r�� , ��, �� . � ��,,�';,;;-;�; � � � i ��r , '�.�.�, � � � "�'�'r 7'��7: �� , � � 1 I 1l+i,` •z� i.� �.�t'r i ��i�,�� . . � �� -�� -� � , � '' ^� ��'r ��- � �r�� . �'�� The NCOD was adopted in 1991 in an effort to preserve historic districts by protecting the surrounding areas between the dis- tricts. While the City of Bozeman is preparing for future growth, the effectiveness of the district has been questioned. Based on community input and current neighborhood character, the NCOD has successfully protected the unique character of Boze- man's neighborhoods; however, recent developments and changing community priorities highlighted the need for a tune up. The stated purpose of the NCOD in the Bozeman Municipal Code is to"stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial ar- eas." The concept of the overlay is to influence development between the historic districts and to protect the neighborhood char- acterthat defines Bozeman. New construction is encouraged to relate to surrounding historic buildings and neighborhood context, and demolition review is required for buildings within the overlay. While adjustments are recommended to differentiate between historic preservation and neighborhood character, the purpose and intent of the NCOD remains very relevant and important. The NCOD requires a design review process for all properties that propose alterations, demolition, relocation,or new construction within the overlay district. The NCOD has evolved since its inception to include design regulations and zoning changes; however the original purpose of the NCOD remains unchanged and perhaps more important today in light of Bozeman's expected popu- lation growth. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District I �ti., , �`.. AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS A LOCAL ZONING _ : � ."� �- • �`:, TOOL THAT PLACES SPECIFIC REGULATIONS _ ""'"'" ��'• OVER AN EXISTING BASE : �, .,:,` ` , . � : : < _ � � ; g a _� � % I ZONE DISTRICT. _ ' - - _ _ � - - _ �- r : _ � '�� ; " _...�_� a ; � �,.� _ : � ��.r ..�._ , _ , , ,,�._. _ � - �..�.�: : : . ,;. '�'-� � ��-�` '" °' A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN AN OVERLAY ._w�..�., .,:- � ,..��,..,, ,„. ,. ` �__Bo�,_,.�„ s, ; DISTRICT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO MEET ! ^�^""' ° BOTH THE BASE �UNDERLYING� ZONE DIS- , ' „�� ,• M �"'`' TRICT REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE �""" , _ Y s ; .�� 6 "` j SPECIFICS OF THE R � . :. s.1e c..�• � � ,., . . � • _ _ "" " OVERLAY DISTRICT. ., .,,,� OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARE COMMONLY USED {� NCOD , ., i•;'.:, �,,,. „ , ,, _ a TO INFLUENCE THE DESIGN OF NEW BUILD- � '" • . , , INGS OR TO DEFINE AN N !M[ma0wotounAOyW r..�- . GryNfbtNxY1 . .. . _ ,,y,,,�,,,,`n`�"�;"'""' „�y�:��` ' . '�.�'�" HISTORIC DISTRICT. � H,...,,� �,�� + " � i ' ,�„--. .m_�,... _ , „o, _ , o o�>> o., o.� ,.a<. .,,��. � 14' � .� �, r ' � '1 ' � \...., / �� I �� : �!�� . r - Y a/ . \ . � � I � � � , ! �� , � �/ �,� �t1 � �'� T��■ � � � ' ,�, ��>�+ ,i� �� .,. �� ! i :'� � �- � �� ; a :,, , � ��r�� .. � � �� . �� ' � ' I �_, � .- � �: ,�i :'� ,�, ` �, , . .,; �'��: ��<� ��. ,4�,,,i � � � � . _ .a� ,' Y� 'r �' p �1�� +�� ':' �� . ',3��- 7 �, -' �rd��•'. . �', �'��i � � `I- •s •� � �'�� WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: When participants were forced to choose the most important Retain the NCOD. aspect of the NCOD, most voted that it is to protect Bozeman's historic buildings. Regulating the size and scale of new buildings Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to was a close second. When asked what the NCOD does well, par- distinguish the two separate goals within the NCOD: ticipants responded that the NCOD brings awareness to neigh- borhood context and character, and historic preservation. 1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman's significant history; and The overwhelming response from participants was to create different regulations for historic and non-historic districts with- 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. in the NCOD. Neighborhood character and context would be the focus of the non-historic districts. The community indicated Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preser- support for treating historic districts with 'strict regulations' and vation Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis- non-historic districts within the NCOD with 'moderate regula- tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD. tions'. 1) Historic Preservation Program. A Historic Preservation "The NCOD is flexible,protects neighborhood quality of life Program needs to stand on its own outside the umbrella of the NCOD. Historic preservation is a City-wide initiative. and block character/streetscape, thus supports economic Disassociating the program from the NCOD enables preser- engine of community." vation of historic building and historic districts outside the "1 am very much in favor of maintaining the current NCOD NCOD. The historic preservation program will have its own until a proper historic assessment can be purpose, regulations,guidelines,and review process.As part completed." of this program, the current Historic Preservation Advisory Board will shift to a stronger advisory role which authorizes "There are areas in the NCOD that should not be restricted the Board to review and approve certain historic preserva- per the NCOD and areas where the NCOD or something simi- �on projects. lar should be implemented." 2) Neighborhood Conservation (or Character) Program. "(The NCOD]preserves eozeman's sense of place and char- The Neighborhood Conservation program will apply to the actersoitdoesn'tbecome "Everywhere, USA." non-historic neighborhoods within the NCOD. This program will also have its own purpose, regulations, guidelines, and review process, and will be implemented by the Design Re- view Board. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.1.B COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS 3•3,4•3 � 14' � .� �, r ' � '1 ' � \...., / �� I �� : �!�� . r - Y a/ . \ . � � I � � � , ! �� , � �/ �,� �t1 � �'� T��■ � � � ' ,�, ��>�+ ,i� �� .,. �� ! i :'� � �- � �� ; a :,, , � ��r�� .. � � �� . �� ' � ' I �_, � .- � �: ,�i :'� ,�, ` �, , . .,; �'��: ��<� ��. ,4�,,,i � � � � . _ .a� ,' Y� 'r �' p �1�� +�� ':' �� . ',3��- 7 �, -' �rd��•'. . �', �'��i �� i�� 1�� The NCOD boundary was originally based on a census tract and does not follow a clearly defined geographic or physical feature other than the rail- MoNTaNa STaTE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF- road tracks at the northeast corner of the NCOD. Zone districts, the Story FICE REQUIRES CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Mill Historic District, and established neighborhood boundaries straddle the LIKE BOZEMAN TO MAINTAIN AND TO CONTINUE NCOD edge as itjogs in and out of neighborhoods.The decision to adjustthe TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC PROP- boundary must be defensible and based on an analysis of existing conditions. ERTiEs wiTHiN irs�uRis�icTioN.THE BozEMaN An architectural inventory would provide this basis. MuNiciPa� CODE STATES THAT THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAY BE REVISED AS ADDITIONAL CUL- As noted in the 2015 NCOD audit, a comprehensive architectural inventory TURAL RESOURCE SURVEY WORK IS COMPLETED. of the NCOD has not occurred since the 1980s. Because there is no current historic inventory, the City of Bozeman requires applicants to submit an ar- chitectural inventory form as part of an application to redevelop or demolish AN ARCHITECTURAL INVENTORY IS A DATABASE their property. After documentation, a bUllding ITlay b2 appl"OVed fOY de111- THATSPECIFIESINFORMATIONABOUTTHEHISTO- olition and replacement regardless of historic significance. In addition, over RV, USE, EXTERIOR FEATURESANDARCHITECTURE the past decade various groups, including Montana State University students OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. THE DATABASE and a City of Bozeman intern, have completed preliminary inventories of the �DENTIFIES ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL, srarE oR NCOD. While very helpful,the dataset is not consistent and does not replace LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND the need for a comprehensive architectural inventory. �pENriFiEs Eu��e�uTv FOR iNc�usioN wirHiN a NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. A complete architectural inventory of all buildings within the NCOD (approxi- AN aRCH�rEcruRa� INVENTORY CAN ALSO BE mately 3,100 properties)would most likely take a year to complete and could USED TO DEFINE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES cost well over$300K. A historian who specializes in architectural inventories gASED ON DIFFERENT FEATURES SUCH ASARCHI- is recommended to garner data that is accurate, consistent and complies TECTURAL STYLE OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION with Montana Historic Property Record forms. DATE. We completed a cursory evaluation of the un-surveyed properties located on the northside of Main Street. The goal of this exercise was to record archi- A wiNvsHiEiv su►tvEv is a QuicK oa�EcrivE tectural details on each building, and to identify patterns that define neigh- ovERviEw oF a LARGE AREA THAT PROVIDES borhood character. This information can be tied to existing parcel data and GENERAL DATA. IT IS CALLED A WINDSHIELD used to establish neighborhood patterns and characteristics that may iden- suRVEv BECAUSE ir is USUALLY COMPLETED tify areas for future consideration as a historic district or identify prevalent FROMAMOVINGVEHICLE. THISTYPEOFSURVEY characteristics important to a neighborhood. For example, in the surveyed �S USED TO PROVIDEA GENERALASSESSMENT OF area 80%of the homes have a gable roof as the primary roof form and about A COMMUNITYAND TO COLLECT DATA ON CHAR- 50% of the homes have an open front porch. acrERisrics THAT IDENTIFY AREAS FOR MORE DETAILED STUDY. �. (�� " - � � � l ' � 1 w ! � I ~ 1 �� ! ' � r � ...�� ` � I � �� / I � � I� I � � •' ,� ' 1 ' _ � ,; %ti � �Y� �','� �t� ,��,, �r�� I I I I � �i, M�t�� ' � � � '/ j, • ;� � 1 �i�+ �,s„y � I � . '°�I � I��' �f� : :rk �' � � I �l 1� z . �� '. � ( � ' ��i� � � -�� ' "' ��r,1��' . ��l �!/'' 1 � i�� ''11 �,1� 'f� Y� �•. �� -k�� .� 1 ' , — �'�' . \ 4:� ,��,� il�'� \ � �� The purpose and value of an architectural inventory is three-fold: it informs the NCOD boundary; it provides the basis for the local historic preservation program; and it creates the foundation for new context driven design stan- dards and guidelines. WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Most respondents feel that the current NCOD boundary is Retain the majority of the NCOD area. accurate or needs to be expanded. Participants overwhelm- ing voted to refine the NCOD for specific neighborhoods. There is no compelling reason to significantly change the Many respondents recognize and support the need for a NCOD boundary at this time. Determinations to modify the complete architectural inventory of the NCOD and surround- NCOD boundary should be made with factual information ing areas before adjusting the boundary. obtained through architectural surveys. The City may also choose to focus energy and funds on completing a compre- hensive architectural inventory of the entire NCOD prior to "NCOD was designed and created to protecthistoric implementing design standards and guidelines (discussed be- areas and neighborhoods;it works as a cohesive area that low). An updated architectural inventory is paramount to the defines the characterof the Bozeman community." function and success of the NCOD, and the preservation of historic properties and neighborhood character. An architec- "(NCODJ strives to consider the historic value of eozeman tural inventory distinguishes between historic and non-his- neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the toric properties and districts, and sets clear expectations for planning process." property owners, neighbors, staff and review boards. "Revisions to the regulafions may be helpful to As noted in Action 4 on the following page, incrementally sur- address noncontribufing buildings, however, the survey of veying the NCOD may be the most feasible approach to creat- historic resources within the Cityshould be updated to en- ing a comprehensive architectural inventory. sure the confinued preservation of historic resources that _ ,__ may not have been considered historic at the time of the � �� / previous survey." ,_ �-.-_ _ '�; �w ��'�'„ �—" _ � ��-. "1 am very much in favor of maintaining the current �� ;-� ' , - , NCOD unfil a proper historic assessment can be complet- R , ^ ed. Given that many of the structures within the bound- �"- � '� !'� � ` ary were not eligible as historic properdes at the time of � � � � the last inventory, it is imperafive that the inventory be ` �' ��.• ,� complete and updated before the NCOD boundaries are � -�� changed or reduced." __ � , ' � STRATEGICPLANPOLICY7.4.D .Y':,°` - � � � �� ' , - - f �► � ( � r ! � - R� � , �� w� � � �� . i / r - Y / i-/ . � � � � / � , • '�� , • I� �� y��i7/� , • �� t�� i�� , \ r�, � I I .a.'••�}i,�! � _ . � l .- � . � �, � � . :,, , � �.r . d:,. �� .��` : � , � � ; , , � _ ` i!,`, . '� '�. �t�l , � ; ��. � ,� �,� �� F �1��, +' (� •: '`��I — --Y7'x9�- � ,a�'• - y�il�� - — � i•,�7 �� :l�'� � � ��- . ADOPTED ACTION: 1) North 7th Street is all out of NCOD. 4) Prioritize areas to incrementally inventory to provide The North 7th Street corridor should be either all in,or all out, of basis for potential boundary adjustment. the NCOD. Bozeman City Commission directed North 7th Street One approach to an architectural inventory is to prioritize to be all out of the NOCD. Regardless of the NCOD, both sides of sections within the NCOD. For example: the street should have the same design regulations. • Historic Districts. • Areas between Historic Districts. Historic eligibility of mid-century buildings along the North 7th ' North 7th Corridor. Street corridor has been raised by some community members. ' Areas along the edges of the NCOD boundary. However, this is not a reason to include North 7th Street in the NCOD - the primary purpose of the revised NCOD is not to Prioritized neighborhoods, areas, and districts are found in protect historic buildings, but rather to protect neighborhood Section 1.6 of this report (page 18). character. The implementation of a historic preservation pro- gram that extends beyond the boundary of the NCOD would pro- vide protection for eligible buildings if requested by the property owner and approved by the Bozeman Commission. 2) Minor adjustment to the north end of the NCOD •=�`"'',"'�''� ." r, ' '""' � �.+� ,_ � �? �Y��i 'k" ,Y �' s: ,;.�.�'� � v f The gap area at the north end of the NCOD cuts through a field/ °.,+�i� .� �;�� . .. �i,�__.� �r.�o �•• � �' d � .► R.,�-� wc.�,T •� �. ... parking area as the terminus of the district. A minor adjustment ��f�� 'r��„E�,�� !T',r; - # .i;�aj: r � t o t h e b o u n d a r y i n t h i s a r e a t h a t f o l l o w s N o r t h R o u s e S t r e e t t o '��;;�= � �t E�r ;�'` � � '_ �,�i .', i the intersection with Front Street clearly delineates the NCOD �,,x�,�',s+;X ;►`��'''' r �:- �� ;_- - boundary and avoids future confusion about review process and �L .''°• 1�-�� '� ,��-r' �-� f '` :�; ; �..�:. . ��,; � jurisdiction. �• �:-�� , ,� , Fr "'Jl�.__ �� '� , - . :�.�� ,'.r � ;c t - -'� -� , �'1 �`,-� - R„,,.... Actions 1 and 2 will have a significant impact on the under- , "�� r �"� �"�'� ��; � .�•�"°`r �`' standing of the NCOD boundary and the implementation of new �r�� -_ 3 _ - '' �--� -:,.,?';•' • _ re ulations recommended in this document. These two recom- � �' r � - � ��''�""� 9 �'.:- - - �^��-?3� �u mended adjustments can be made prior to a comprehensive ar- '�. : ��-'-�s��'t'"� ��,`� ,�'i� '� - '" ,.�.�r. ( chitectural inventory. ��;;i�;";��'�', ' �, � ' � t -- -�' .,,-/�•�;�,Y ' , '.�,;,,�; __�.. � �-. �/" . ' 3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potential �, j ��' - �� ' ` . _,_�' ; �-:t. boundaryadjustment. ,��_ / �'+'� �� ' ' ��.��:� —,.�._ A windshield survey is a useful tool to narrow the scope of an ar- ;' "''"' ' . �� chitectural inventory and to highlight significant neighborhood =�t;�1,� ',' J�.e��:�A �.�,,'; r, '-�'�'� �i�✓ .•4.J� ,.fl�i;�;� I patterns such as open front porches. - C�b��1s��'��-�F� a.."�...�:;,.►i�" �-'m,�� h'��-, ( ��• � �. �" :�� INCLUDE FRONT ST. ` ',� •,� � :Ir:�._r� E k :�.�.' .�e�, � - , ±�� '�-"�i �' ' ' \,�'� u - � �r � �. '^�C^�r�!!�� ' :F .-� . . � ,r. � . r�,. - - `�i�� .i��' `��/G�7�!r' Y '" ,...:. r r'�� , � � ' r :�►� � ±�"'.�, � ' �r{.� �� - . ��, , ��:. � ^ ' •`� ,�,�� - - � ' n� r 17;� � , ��< , �� ' _�� '� -: , .- ` 'r � � � '�'" ,- , ' ':, ��. . •.�;; `.� ;�.��c.a �� I �,I .'__ r 4rI � - J�I r�y '� `� ` . � !� r� • ' � .� � T � M ��.f. �- -. .r� 1_ �( ��f.�! �r. ' � � � & � 'f 1 � ��# — .��,.�. I � � � ....��l.d w i '�'�. ��,_T� =t C _.'J�. - ''��'y� ..,� „4:�'�--�'��t �{'i'( . 1 .9 � �6!''��T" ��{,� �� ..�.�, { ��. }.�y� .�r f._ r� '1 -_��r �'_ � �� ' . -��1��. ��N��' ��'i.�� \ , .� s� �� ;• �f � • � - '_ � _, � 'F� � �} S 1` .w -N/Y� �r .r-=s�- �_ , ��f1 �' � ��r�• f ��.�Y�� f+� .�� Ffrw+'�� v 3� i:Q,.fc, � 1 r �>1�'• -�* ,�n" ,�.(.- r � +a' � ,�,, �r _ ]�y �� `� -•� � c „'��Tv.�G'�' S.n, �f' -.a,r :�'".��ngy� �.J �-�.�r� ,�rt: 1� f•iF. �� +./. ', ��t�- I',� �" Y a1 ''� :+�',��r'r.�"� �C� '_�.�-i �%��1l9 �"'��! ly '�. 5��. ` � '��+ =r � k �. ��' .� � ,.�' <I.�1 �, , ...�, f` '�"� a. `i� f �., M�� f �If: I�'" t� 1 t! :j"y ..t�ri�� r J,' '�,�rt�f� � f j i-��..t" i � .� , �* > �.T _ �,u�c.9 t �` .1 . Z .,, ,► • .-'� �'�. H 1 r �. �"� '�p�4�� - 1 ,� K' .P y'4 a'+C,� ;,��'� r . ..;.�s f T. � �i �,� wa,� .� *. � �� _'-�� , �y'��' � �t �+� �r � r�� t � � - - � - , ';'� .�r R�- " �<�+��'i�.�{-�yrf'f��1'+�•st ��'�� '� .�f'°•��f�,• '«��'�'.�1Fi �.�Tf�ir�,' I� S ' ..� � ,Y �v � �� r-� 14i E• r i 'r ' • � �� •s'J� . o•.�tq f� ��i• � � � �� `+f� dr � � {. �"��,[.� ��S #��'•� � �ii . �r�'� 7 w P s �,1 � '�r � � ��( �; ��' : �� i�` �`�,.� } r`� Er. .�<!s f -:F� �i/.,�� (. . A r1 �t�'".�'�:��i.�i� ( i.. �-- . ��' . 1� .� ,�Vf• ,T )�r t �E.'n';- '��t � � � � , y f.� i �.�� r'i.'. ^�'�d�r�' ��,;�� 1 ! .. S iF`...� T 'wi 1�sl4,:f � ; �� r t P �' � � I REM�4/� iV. ��F'9 � �Y`�.�`..�1'»�b / ;�� '�.��,,,�' i';�c' �-:� ��+' " S�i� -r--"i'-�9' ��'-. �'+�� i, I; i: r � . ��1 r- , � "�r ?". � �'��.*':a£ c 'Q; .k��++ i , ;�� ,,i«.+t'��'6'�'i �� . ,� �`�' .f�'j1� `�.fi" �� +�7 �/. u r,�1� T � a � � i; f. � 1 i a ir i1 j -�, �, �� ,��f s�:�f�,�°� _- ��;,��,�'��y}.��`�F� `s�� !yC r��9�Y r .��i� #. } �i' T--�,+, `� �r hf f i, r�: . � �r � �E ��i s�7� �'.��`'y�.��; -o'�'• �+ ar�l�.�`.�;'��.'Y�l� ,:� 1� F'��f ,�',' ` i -� - � � ,1� �.. ��.c • �. . ��„r <`� f e ♦ �'�s - v�`� � ' ;`�'°� i ► 9;t� � . G• �� i �, {� r ,�+�� y;S:�' ��'«�C'r�7 �,': 4 r s�' rl'i� _ � 1 � .'' �r �{ .�1 �f _ I�r�+ �.-��-?'�'�� ,!`{�±�,'��.�,��F, ,��',�• �� :�� #+" =a I��:•.'��"F:3`_�[�� r�;��,� �.,��J'�`� _.: - � �'� ' '� .Y1 �.T"'�'.3 .�A�fT��.+.�� J,�i'�f�,� '{r�'�t`":7rii1�jr.�e� �!- �p��°y'.'r'g f r�' '{-`'�-._-.�r-;..�f °j` _ `�� -- � 1�•r 'y� , y�y.r ��j�F-��•��'11 :j�_� a.7.:�9:R��ly'•�. r-� t 'r_ �y� p � } i y � _ ri �� _• �,''; ' iM` �i�,e ' {j{' •��+�1p�lyr� .,�s 1�� y�.�a � ' J �j.(' � �k��2� �i .('.�i�.. �t�Y, ,, � ,r + � � �� 1 �� '�s� ��a. ��,� +:��,`.��J�� I ry�}�ft��} i eu �� 3`�,.�� yY�,.�I- w�. � �»`�"�Tl �I '� � , ♦ ,� +�. t'ri� i��f�, .�i 'X.�!i�� I�E��R°�r��s`'�y� �� F�'�..� ��;�^'{' 4 ��fi7,1�� I � . t� •� ��- ' 'e,.) �: ur^��,,,��,�R ^P, / s}+�� ' - .e!''' �f i ' -��:,,t� �,�.,��t �r � '�. .L � •hl, v ,:i ��`vJr(;? ��-h'��'�fs`�s�e�r,i:it��aks_�� ,�f4:A�s"- � i;-,�L1:r�4�y'# ".�f ?I'�`'�;G�i'�r�j i..� �`',�I :i��. � ,� f�'r r� ` �-ii�''• � Y..� �,,-1'SF i'�' y ?`�,��'r�j�y�l'{.. '�£s1� t Y � �, �.�t�'rt= • � �'�+.t�� t�!` �s".� l� .'�' �y ., i.. , �F J'S r +i i �'�� ^r� •� I�u• v � � y .r�� t ;?�.� D�, "�yt��s�rl� �. �� r.5��r�y:� ��, �a f,�, �i�t , ti.�r ,.. t 1 ��c ��y..}r� r, . i.a��vt►,"�r • � ' ,+ r, ^ e�� '�� '¢yA* � 7�ff f r �`� E:1�� s.��jr f C � +F�d�i,�►'i '.�1�.��s +y�y��p t3,•'i �•� �. 'f�'�L�r�-, S ,r�.,^; ��r 4 �: t•k- t�� .Z"� +L.'. �J ty{ ,►t_ 1 , �t, A t.1 4� ({¢y�!�� '�. � �) S�4 r � � r rf �r�p b j�4. ;� i � .,�jR �"`'.�w r S - f�j {�� r � ^�'a�`^`^'�'��-��.'i;. � �i. �� FrJr(•j;Z��'T,�d��y}�1 � Y"�s;t� p � , ��, rt�•'��p-.;fy -��:� '. , `i��:�� ,.i �•... �..rw �:- ' �"�� r��{ ��Ff�� ♦ f�r�-j ��Y .�.i�� f'Z �+r"��'i� �r 1� � i i � ti� ,vfi�.� '4� � �- -�177C'l.'a� . �i�" J � �.i �. :�!! r�i�� ,r.� ��.�v':�" .�41f( �.t��,iH�:�� ,t �•�' ,r,{��•� M1 �Y +��t�y��1+ l... t ��.�� j�l�. �r... r-^P �S�+t .• � �� p � , �t i�{�,vy.f'y� .rt.Ol+aq e �r, r.n a � ,.,� �1>sa.i � �: i i.r' '�'�� . �} ,� '�+ ^'V, ��{, !�' r�� • (Yrl.l.�id �*r''L�" 'E;' w�� L�f� �,�l ��: �r.{ r t. S�''•F�r�: 4�''1y d%:�� '` i ^s,�,+ -��L �� A��.- . �^ ��T � �.� f�1� .1 �'t� I. ' �� ,.fi (j�t1�+ �'��F'f� f r/ p �r ; � -- r'r �(f � � �� ,( � i � �' S-: ';' .�;ile � � �r. � �t w� � �� •'!� ,�'y�� yY� -7qi,_•�� rl��w i��}t '4'.�v f"��..�e�M�,.�,�t�{r�<.:l a�r .K•.yY� (.`' F_�l,�.� ,..;��.Y�r. �5 ►�t.r J v`c'� �e��i'P' � S�' � '� � i � K4�7Y; � �' ¢-_• � '� . ,.�IV.�1 �+t�•��✓�-.,4��'.fd.17�t'.�t �•' � �r* `f�'�.�7 �d�h,,�yl7s��cryi iJL��.�'`r��`.r.�i ,t'- ��;��:.Z'f` � ��. r .�.�. �►""W�� A �� ."��' a�� v�� i �r F�r rai'�Y ��, • I-�i' �•. ' i t �i j•� ,y. � � '� � .�� / �� *J��{'�� '�',��. --'-�uj+� �tr(^ .,, � ;.��t� f�� l.♦ d t� ��. � s I f 3 -�,�5<i �ii t �,�.C�X:c i s, • r;_ "',��i+� ', •z r, �} '. '' f � �;1�N , ��+�TF�:��s �t :i� .., se�E-w..�n.• s; `� y, �.r � �. .-t�' s 'S y�t ��y�,t w . , t3�'r �.�r1 { � �. •� j�3 �� '•{��'��4'��?!�p- [ �p ��sx �� .�Yr*t, ��V'°l��+� �'F��s°t' � x�`.'7�� ' �'� � � i "°' �":�` �,��'i. ' . .i d �: .t��.tw€�� i r .t` '�:j �'4X p:1:�'' g.�. 1 �.t` ��,�� y�a!`i.' � 'v'rr„"�' s �i � lY �"'. F��(.�•, f1. '�r,� w�"� ��'_� ,��[� .-_v7!�- r�! '�" �' �r ."�.r,�'r�4 ,�y ;� �.v i�'fi��f 'y' ��ft i�.�ir�J�C', �,�.�1�'�. . .. _ .�+5'rr..;'� .� .a.'�1_ #, �j„�� o�R-„� +�.+�tr'S � ' ` - ir�� ,�, ,��r '��f�� - p �/f�' �''f�►.!,�:J��,� �. , t.�.f.,, 's� ��j��i"' �. -��+ yr� '3.( �y.f�-�- � (_�,1�. :fi� �X{•� f �'� "?�t � ��sy}�� ,,{,+ 1 c � - � - ��1M�M�:'��'�"�� 4'�r._' •� � �' ,i . 1,'��" TA��rR'JY + �:J�w 7"I �.*r.L. �i'�t' ,�+�..� �,4� • - I�1 ��j.� �� , � . ,ti.� a ' ' � - .. s �'i _ v:� �%�'� �� F F r�.r� � r! Y,}4 r Yl.a ? �, ��r ��3� �� ,T �' �; k � .w uy'4'f.`� �-�} 9;c�+TaV,��,� �' '�_r x �� '� / ,� ..L�'' °;rt ;' "�"� �. �G" . � r.is .•r � .[ s:,ij,� �� a ��t,(,>�!' � :�1.'��w=�j�! F�.-t.-' r 4�i;r � i _� a ',�R� '�1:�� ' ;. � h s.• + rts�.T,Q�,Y;��'�rr �s��t ' �q;:w o�� ; �;wa � •'� r - - -- — �'� �� . ��Y�jr �-(.�a�a'' ,�`+��f,��',f�+ `��Q:a,;.l, t.,,��T,I`�. �•�; _.: �:,.�. �k�� Nr� w��'=�,.,, ?�:�f i �� ': ,�-� LEGEND � � , , ,�. , � 1� � ` ;r� � , � ,� € . r �✓ � . i� a�i� Cy-'p��/ r�.1 , �a� 7 > r,�� _ ..��:;��, , y:��fi S��t�." '�,✓ �fii ��;�+�;� ,�``��•��'�t,,,*� yt � � �� :�� , :ii' P`J' �''S�• a-. '+,,.1.!-�i�, ��.��t;eLty+�� :' ,�,,��,� , �iiiiiit NEIGHBORHOOD CON- ��f9._ � 5,#---..`'� ��.��,y..� yr��if� i; ;!ti.�.�� +,,,OIr v. ��.j;�b.,,: i .i'y�J+,•�iy) . �L � _ _ .i.:. '� ha � � _. ' � � p �`� , �A. r {•• ;�` �j.,�" � �!.:. `,a��+,��'� • , ��►�' i� ( > .`rt 4 fd+f"-�'`�� f��r�J �� _�;� _ = SERVATION OVERLAY � x. ��d r yiiiiiim . -r`'� 'I ��" r � " .�.'� � �r7'4;'. �,.Y�'.x � � �,' �>`".' � - 9 �. DISTRICT BOUNDARY � � � � i'. .'�� g..-.1�s}�•w � �� I�` r �� r� .��;�J��.#��%i�F��i��'�f'ti _ l _. � fi ��-��r'��`�Y��'� �-'` .r„ .�m ,�.��,: .,.5.. .!�:: �� 3. �,�►' K�, �,�'I i.� I - .it`a � �,,�s�ip♦ �+Jj�,�/ 1�� `y ADJUSTMENTS TO THE \ � � �.� k.,'. {�� y�Yi. t'i'f r ..�.� �` -�I�I� ,� � ��` ,1�.�� _►{�s .��.+� :.,�'pel�r�� S �,,��:f �. : ,Y�t�,s �- NEIGHBORHOOD CONSER- .�__,�t. �-� . �"� �'�� ;Y'��.;. '� ,�r�',t$'i�� ( I�� '� VATION OVERLAY DISTRICT ��►�.�.�_� � _ L"y1� r�l � '�.' � �I �"'�'d�'�i�+�'`.� � '� - � t: �� ; �'. �.i' ��j/� _ ..�;a ��r �. r,� ��; - � .�� '`� �(` '��,� .yl � t' f.: t- _ -- � �� 'jt�� S'- o .i4?'f"'� .�. .. - .. . _^- - +�a ` o o '�'� +1'Mr�A{�1!f� ��-�r`�f- =��K _ ,O��r�r �,� ._".��..�t.X��1��'�.�: , n�'�:��:!-s e'�`-� '� -n�!rY��•�� 4' � .� �, � ' � '1 ' � \�..., / �� ; �!it� . _ r Y a- \ � � . � � � 1 , � ��►� �% ' � �/ �,� '�� '� �� ' ,�, ��>�+ ,i� �� .,. �� ! i :'� � �- � �� ; a :,, , � ��r�� .. � � �� . �� ' � ' I �_, � .- � �: ,�i :'� ,�, ` � �, , . .,; �'��: ��.� ��. ,4�,,,i � � � � . , .a ,; Y�� p �1��, +'�� ':' � ,I ',3�y'��- 7 �, -' �rd s'• �'. {'��i �i i�� 1��,� �, �, �1 , � �1�� i , �,� , The NCOD has design guidelines, updated in 2015, that are organized by use (residential or commercial) and treat the NCOD homogeneously without much differentiation between neighborhood character areas. More recently, sub-chapter 46 was cre- ated to specifically address development character, style and form in the B-3 Commercial Character Area. Design standards and guidelines encourage contextual development and work in concert with zone district regulations. A healthy mix of requirements and more flexible recommendations typically results in creative solutions that support and highlight important character defining features of each neighborhood. WHAT WE HEARD: Creating design standards and guidelines is strongly recom- Community feedback provided clear direction that the NCOD mended, but after an architectural inventory, or at the very can do a better job defining and differentiating neighborhood least a windshield survey, is completed and zone districts character and encouraging more appropriate mass and scale are evaluated. A comprehensive architectural inventory adjacent to historic districts. Participants also responded that highlights patterns, architectural characteristics, and overall diversity of architecture and flexibility of design are areas for neighborhood character that direct neighborhood boundar- improvement within the NCOD. ies and inform an appropriate mix of requirements and rec- ommendations for each area. In speaking with community members and an assessment of existing conditions, there appears to be support for a more There is an opportunity to incorporate the outcomes of the flexible, innovative, and design-oriented approach to new Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and the Communi- buildings north of Main Street, and a more conservative, tra- ty Plan as they relate to neighborhood character and future ditional approach to new buildings south of Main Street. The vision into a new design standards and guidelines document majority of Bozeman's historic districts are located south of that balances new development and growth policy initiatives Main Street, and Bozeman's historic industrial areas are north With existing neighborhood context. of Main Street which may explain this preference. ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: � - -' �_- ;:vu' �;in1� �':'';:�, a� ..� �I��r1q tt� Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are - - `� ;�� K�� ucooao� divided into a character area north of Downtown, a char- _ � � � "'e�" acter area south of Downtown, and Downtown. --- �;� . -- � %1�_ �� , � � � �� --� v There should be general guidelines that support connectivity ^�� — ��" sm'� =�� y� � between the areas, create a common thread between neigh- _ • , pport transitions between neighborhoods. � ��` � � borhoods and su !� ' • . Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special charac- �� . , + teristics of each area and context. � �' -� s� '�� ,�� .� ~- Within each area, special standards are developed for blocks � � adjacent to historic districts or historic structures. Appropri- -� � - � � ate uses should be addressed within each chapter. Dividing �- � � the design guidelines and standards into north and south of Downtown, and an area specific to Downtown, recognizes dif- STRATEGIC PLAN POLICIES 4•1•g, 4�4 ferences between architectural styles, the history of industrial COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS 1.3, 3�3, 4.3 development in the neighborhoods north of Main Street, and DBIP GUIDELINE P.30 differing sentiment toward 'appropriate' neW CIeVelOpment. DBIP RECOMMENDATION P. 112 � 14' � .� �, r ' � '1 ' � \...., / �� I �� : �!�� . r - Y a/ . \ . � � I � � � , ! �� , � �/ �,� �t1 � �'� T��■ � � � ' ,�, ��>�+ ,i� �� .,. �� ! i :'� � �- � �� ; a :,, , � ��r�� .. � � �� . �� ' � ' I �_, � .- � �: ,�i :'� ,�, ` �, , . .,; �'��: ��<� ��. ,4�,,,i � � � � . _ .a� ,' Y� 'r �' p �1�� +�� ':' �� . ',3��- 7 �, -' �rd��•'. . �', �'��i � �� , � � ��r�� ,�1 ,� City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.1.B DEVELOP AND ALIGN INFILL POLICIES. (P.6� Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. POLICY 4.4 VIBRANT DOWNTOWN, DISTRICTS &CENTERS. (P.7� Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers—including higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas. POLICY 7.4.D STRATEGIC MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS. (P.11� Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City's capacity to deliver services. 2009 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3, OBJECTIVE G-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT. �P.13� Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. GoA�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-1 LAND USE. �P.32� Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efFiciently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. GoA�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-3 LAND USE. �P.33� Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical con- nection represented by this area. 2019 DOWNTOWN B02EMAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN GUIDELINE. (P. 30� Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residential neighborhoods through con- text-sensitive development. RECOMMENDATION. �P,112� Create downtown design guidelines. � .�,��.,,��, y -`� �igr,f `�,� ' �'�„t;��ti„';. ; , , `�Y1 �1��1F�4 � �3 ��,`� 7q F� '�`�' 1_� , .. '' R� � ,' 7• , •S. � i �+ �r c - � `� � ! A ; Y�1 '�'v. �� `�* �:, '�j�i`�' },'; 'a, Vw.-'f ` � � w.- i � �� . �.l,.Y� � n ,,�, �� L, f �Q .s 'y, � .j.�r,., `ti i i- - .-:y:� i. � =�� v�- .� � � . . "+{ ,/ � r��/`, ►��: �r �i-: �`. � � . �`y � '• ,� '�, - � - t"�'°� � � ,� .y' � ,j�� -{ i C, � � 'li i �° I 7� rJ '�' � �` �.�� + i �� :; T�ti 'K�1' �x � ;, �y �. ',,�1#' , �f. . � ''�` ! ,,;'� ��- , � � 'r'� � . � �� I � ,� •. � � � �'-� i� � I �'' ' ,rty'i ► .,, �� r _� � - 4 � �K ' +� c � ..��3 I I � � �'t�"� ,,� ''�� < ' _� ��t i/., i!� ,r,:�z I I I I I � �,l '. 41,�•t ,, r' r r, �:, r•'/� � � !.�fT��lj, •� ,\ It• °�, ��'� i ♦ V•�»J r ^1 �� II� � .,.�r� �. ,G �,.� , , � - 4 A. I �I I� I j`: r 1�� • . � �' -+Y"t �*' , i .�}� u. � � � I�I 't� ''�-�� -�� _ i - ,•.-� - �- - °�� , � �� i�� -.� ��4'" . {,��+��.;� �� ;��, . �,. «' I� I 1 ' � _ �_.- �� ' � �1' . .r'' ;�- �� t'��ac,• `"'� 4�� % I I�I II II �. ��' � vr � — , _'� � . � �Y�G�jf. w �. ° '� � ^ _ 1 I � � � .� 'ti4�t �' ` " , =�z:/�!'� V � c� ,�� /� �I � �,� '�' ,.v• � �,' - � i .�,-' '� � i�� I �,'�'�ti��:,� ��, '�: �� '-��: 1� `� - . - ' � '` � �� ` � �� 7_ ��,�_ ��E'�:'b.�.'��-� `�.' �� ` ��n�� ,� �� I i I �I ...�;, r + - .� _ �;� ."?l 6 iI� II I �I� ( ( I� I I(I �:�, � ` �' •+ �i��'.�� : ., �l 1,1 `�I ��I I,��I� 1� �`� ; � =�,,�;.` ,�., � _ ,,��;�:f,'�'_�� -<'.��,=;� '�=�'�. ``�: �n �� I '� I I I I�`I' ! � � . _ - 4• : '� t . . , I I I , ,� J � �k « . :� i i� �� I �,��I � ♦ ��t.rr , �+�r�� .� �,c ��` .i ,�� r �y�� 7t''f� �IM7s w � '1� �� '� �� ` �r.. '.�`_`,,� - 'F'� �: , ; •b,y �� r � �I I r� � I '• ,� ` � �� ,� � �' �ii� �� I � � � I�I , �,,� ��F,� �,� � �,� �.�-�'t , .s�� :,� � �'��'I il � � �� i��I ��I� �I ,�I� �� :��. t��, ��—_� a �,:�,=�!��` `��-=�� I !�r, r� '� !I�� I�I�I � I i��,►II� lil,�� : e _� .:� ,. �1=:� � � ` � �R-.� �� ►, I ► � �. �► I � �, I�� , �;�,��, �, :�'�, 1 � `` I� �` I� � � I _, I , `''''�� -� � �`� I � � �� j=�—�; �;,,' r ,��,� � � � f I �il� , i �;,�"�., � •,�. I ► � u �- r � ; . �� ,�J� '�'��I�� ( �� (�� '1'��,►�'��t'�!�' .�a '��^��l"°'�' - . t \'.� � �II II I I I I I'�` I�I�,�� + ;.�;'\"j�y�_ rr�� x* � �ti�•"l� �+ i� ` �III I� I� IIIIII � � i . .�.� •i_- �I. ,.�. ��' �� I �I � _ .�`` ,� I�� I ` I I I I�,��III , �� - , ' <�" �"' ' 'K'�.;�� ,�� k , ,,�,�III I �I � � .-� _ , �- , ,, . �, ��" � � i I I� ��i� � - - �-�� , �� .,�.� -�. �'� � � � �� .;; �,- , � . _ ill I I� ► .�� ; , .� � I � �� , � -� ; � i � ► � ��1 �� .�"� - ► r y - _ �, �<;: �� ►�i�Illi i � ��I��,►I� , � � � {> > r ,.. � �. � �� ..�.z ` =�+r _ ` �I I I I��I I I I I`�I II��' ` y�! , .ci `�! _ ` 7 rf , �� <<`.Xi , � �� {�� i� �� 4.. : �-,4'�l ' �� . ,� �,YA �� ~,; I `. ,,, , -��,. t� .� ,a, �y, , ,_1. � ^ I�I��I � I I� I�I III I` `� ��P`?�' ' �� - �' � F '`*�� - y ,� I i III II I I r- ��. 1 � ��}+,�. �j. • `��' : -�t+ -�_ �. i �.: '_ .� � � l� � � ��i� i I '�.,�� . �-� ` i. ( I � ,li • �' ` '� ♦ �'�'i�' }11� �I i - �� :R��1��j;• ��`_:� � f r � . , '. - - - � �• , w_�►,� �_'� ��_�.�i �� -+ `i�_''xi Ir. I — — � � � � � � \ + � � � � � � � � � . . • ��` -!�� `� � r_ ��.t_ ' f '1�'� e` - - - � � -.� � A �i �.. .r •{ 'v' �4 �.: � � �� ' �•• �_ J" �l �r. •�:,-:i'a '��r:�--.. yl.,�t� w.• ` � ..� �• _ � •»- s •� 1 , , r ' • - �— ."•„'. ' - G� . �. i R� � s ~'"+t" f.�r'�.-�� y�� _ � ..-i l��x'�z. � ;".`�.. . . w � �' �c y l� �r�( � 1 3 ' _ �j^� ��-. .� �y ' �:u �� .� c�. �� !• ' " ,�y�� +,�S, ` ` �- ; ,w��a1�j,� `� � � �%� 1 ,'.�. 2, '�'�' ^I �Y t � t,- i ��` � 'I �..� �j , ir� ,�' � �?,:. � � � -� _ � �� r •1 �'c. , r.I - � -i � � , �t ! h i ' ��K: �J . _:�� ... _ '� �� !!� �, � � � � � � ' � ' � ' �� 3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Phase-in a local historic preservation program. 3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES Explore a variety of incentives for historic properties owners. Engage with historic property owners to en- sure incentive relevance and clarity. 3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS Allow HPAB recommendations for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB re- view of demolitions as a way to ease into review authority. 3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS +GUIDELINES Create historic preservation (HP) standards and guidelines. , � . - I�.�; ,�� S��' a-f • �. � �' �"�--v� h 7 �' --- -� r.iYk S�, j��'. �,�..� ..'41�� +• �. JS �•. •�.-� .4 � ..— -. .--- --__. — _ __ \' `( _� i\ -fp�[ ' ~ �. rF-�� f.: �L�� ,-� � L ��-'� � ��. '' •• • ��,Y�"".�{"-_ �._,� �!` `• ��'• S�f• j': , �-2 �s��' • `'��1' �:� . . '� `; `� YY � �` �,�' �� +��.3!--A j� a^r . , ,. .� T. _. � _ 7 ,,�1't•c ,�r, f_ -.r s ��"'' j'*j(�'-,+r� "� `�' , �,�� '�a• �_"+�S' _ ,�s=` -�. ��"i �"' ,�,. � �� Y � i Y ,� � i � - �� :s_ � ,��_ �� r.�� - ' - � :� � A v � . �� '� �'a�_1�., , � � Q; � �, ��'�'� , �■I��i �' ��'�► � r11� :-� SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Training for HPAB Members. ` �.. - Sta rt H PAB review of demolition applications. � Process for HPAB recomrnendations for Locally designate National historic projects and projects within a his- Register (NR) properties toric distric�t. with owner consent. Develop preservation plan � With Hp4R to ��2i�llfY � preservation goals. Begin process to nomi- Explore a variety of Adopt incentives for his�toric property nate new NR listings and incentives for historic prop- owners. boundaries for NR histor- erties and historic districts. ic districts. � � Conduct extensive outreach with historic property owners about pos- Create historic design sitandards and Begin process to amend �p sible incentives. guidelines for historic disi:ricts and land- NR listings and boundar- marks that align with ies for NR historic dis- updated Sec. of Interior's Standards. tricts. Develop quick reference guides for appropriate repairs of historic properties. � -- .., i�� .,� "��.�,�1 . � `r� � � � r�t' .. �.t ��` 'P'r'd; - - � . s� : y �,�4f�a� .�', !•,' • � �s.: �,.�',a � � � „ �� , �1 � �' " . .�rt��- �'�• -[- ♦ �� r _, �_-^ cr �" ��„�' - _ ,� ..fi �- ^v � i'. ~+�. ff t I`3 "�•� ;�• 'y.� ��,•��`�41`�+r � �`� . �.�r�_ � yN +r�yl►-. �..�► � ��- ~.'� `y.- - - �. '�i'`. •� •. ��fy1,I�� • ' `� . .. ,_ � �. 4'�, rY• •'r .�' : � �,.r Y f. B� .� ..�' • '� r Jl�� 's •'y � 3 Y�- � I I,� I - _�`}� � � � l �� -t' A +�� ti. r.I I � r. . _.,;' � ,� . . ', .,�1 �- __ ' � �� `_.•� _ �i _ ' �` � �,s � • � �� .� •�, �,�T•T��.-1. Historic preservation is not a one-size-fits all practice. There are guiding principles established by the Federal government, but it is up to communities to determine the appropriate preservation approach locally. Communities with a strong inventory of historic buildings oftentimes implement a customized local program that protects the vernacular historic buildings that do not always qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. Vernacular buildings are a style of architecture that is specific to a local area. While na- BozEMaN Has 46 HisTORic tionally significant properties represent broader historic importance, BOZ2111an�S IOCaI Vel"- BUILDINGS INDIVIDUALLY LISTED nacular creates a sense of place and pride for the community. Locally significant buildings ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND that represent the evolution and development of Bozeman, important local people, OI" IITI- 10 NATIONAL REGISTER HISTOR- portant community events, may not qualify for State or National Register listing but can be IC DISTRICTS. THE NATIONAL equally important to defining unique local character. It is up to the Bozeman community REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IS to determine what is important through a local preservation program that focuses on local ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL history, addresses development pressures, and recognizes a sense of place for current and PARK SERVICE. future generations. Buildings are authentic,tangible pieces of history that are irreplaceable once they are lost. Bozeman has a voluntary historic preservation program with an advisory Historic Preservation Board. According to the Municipal Code, a property is considered historic if it "is listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places, designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey, considered a contributing structure within a National Register Historic District or local historic district, or is deemed eligible by the City of Bozeman to be listed on the National or State Register of His- toric Places individually or as a contributing building within an adopted or eligible historic district" Currently,there are parts of the Bozeman municipal code, such as local designation or local historic district status, which do not have specified review processes or criteria to be implemented which can a barrier to a local historic preservation program. � _ �r� � �, ,'�'��,: ,: . �� .�=-� �� a � � . �_^ � }. :,� - � "�.� ''� . �;:." ; - ,� fr � �: .� � li � - � . , .,�.Y. Y i�r = _ - _ j �i i • � - _ _-� _-- � ►�., , — � � � y t .. � �: ..`„��,� 4_- �: c.. �d°is- � � �� tk„1: •x:.�' . ,. i.: ,� ��1 � �! � �� -�� _ _ � . �,�. �.-�� , -� .- _ .: _:� -�_ F � ��":� � t� � _ .a _ ,,� ;� - - � ;�l( 4�-��'�t. � �:� �� .� - —- — -- — ,. �` �_L �, 4 -�} r }Y. J - :e f� t-'� wi � . -�' �t�. - i��. 'ik � �.: � ,� � `'! � - .�w_ �'�` �- ,, j ,� _ 1 . �;''��.-.. ��'� �� S� y, r- _. �== e�-_ r - � ;�/'� � _ ' _ '' �� ° ; .1+.,+t` . - ' �a�j � - �:. - � f t _ � �.� R � -F,�`.. ,'-t.r ;` ..' '. ... yK t�• r�. 4�.._ ��.-��' e ._ ��i.r. , � - �.��j��.� - �y ~ ''` •�� . l� �. �( %��►-. _ �'�A ''� � .- '�� ,!' �di."�'Z.i .� ��.'�.��r.��`. \ - :y i � �}• � " d.' se` y'�;t . � �� 1 �E, 4 I 1,� ..a� "i � .,j e.�., _..�� _� `� ` — - ii "R'i"I�SiI _'\ . _ -I � ��1 s � b i � � • � � � � . • � - • �-�•, There are 46 nationally listed historic properties and eight his- toric districts within the NCOD (two historic districts are out- what is the National Register of Historic Places? side the NCOD). These districts and historic properties were designated based on 1987 architectural surveys. THE NATIONAL REGISTER IS A LIST OF INDIVIDUAL SITES, BUILDINGS, OBJECTS, OR DISTRICTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRAT- Bozeman also has significant post-World War II architecture ED SIGNIFICANCE TO THE HISTORY OF A COMMUNITY, STATE that is eligible for National Register listing, aS Id2ntlfied by DI- OR THE NATION AND ARE WORTHY OF PRESERVATION. ana J. Painter in a Montana State Historic Preservation OfFice architectural context paper. In addition, the Marwyn Addition THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IS AN HONOR- has been identified by local groups as a cohesive neighborhood ARY DESIGNATION THAT DOES NOT PREVENT DEMOLITION OR Of ranCh Style ITlld-C2ntUry r2SICIentlal bUllding5. It IS hlghly IIICe- SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS. PROPERTIES ON THE REGISTER ly that the actual number of eligible historic properties both MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN TAX CREDITS. pre- and post-World War II, will increase with a new architec- tural inventory. Regardless of eligibility, the creation of a new �r.� � National Register Historic District or an individual National Reg- - ister listing requires consent from the landowner(s). _�, ��*<; Since Bozeman does not have a current architectural invento- � �' ry, a property owner is required to submit a historic inventory � �� '= ';� �r form to the City of Bozeman as part of an application for rede- 'c: � _ velopment within the NCOD to document any potential histor- ( �� • r ic importance before alterations or demolition is undertaken. r� The onus is on the property owner and on Bozeman staff to J � `. � document and evaluate the building either just before or at �if�� - - � t he same t ime t ha t a deve lopmen t or demo li t ion app lica t ion " �r l'r � � � -- � � � is considered. This places the immediate aspirations of a prop- - - _ _ - erty owner in potential conflict with the community's desire to — — _ ._.I pl"2SeYV2 ItS hISt01"y. First eaptist Church. Photograph courtesy eozeman Public Library,https:// cdm15018.contentdm.odc.org/digital/collection/p16013co1145/id/86/rec/15. ... ...... � ¢ , �� n �� , 4' — • `� '�— -w�"—"-."` �_� � - - u ,� ` � �u��Jmi �--�� ' .� � � ., �I?�� .j'�� ' ''i' .j. � I . � � , r �`.�i`��a� �� '�� I � 11 ,1 ' , , , '`` 11 � l �.' i �-�. _ �" � �,,�� - ,- �� z�-- � �•- ��..� �` + _ �~� _T -� l� `1W � � q � ♦1'� `� - �,�� rrFl'�_ Bozeman Downtown,courtesy of City of Bozeman. � :;�.,i,� K� 4h, o� _ � ,r� � � _ __ �. /'�•�► � ,},, -��'�'�" Y � ��o� - y� .r� .�,a,,- �� . - �.� � � ��• �iti 1�, t Y � + ��`+� �� - �� #.,, ♦ . � tr � C- -. ��. . , -,`�. - - ;�� _ - .- �� - ' .r,� .� �. - � " i �a+d .*� ~ �c 3!.�;�i% 4�: ''�... s. ..�''a:e��`" -z•� 3 ?`�ry„ . ..: - � yK ,c ,s•►�� _/�'^ - s 3 .' . �,� � � .\ ' '!. �47.�•a y' - _•k" �.' ..x,- =. _ �� ,� � : J "'�'� � iii� _ .�d' �� ' � i' �� O' �- ��.� � � •��a, � r �` �' y� ��' � �f � �� 1 — - .a�s%.' z ` ' .,�, ��, d�,;. ' .� � - • ` � , _� • ,r �. '' �,� �,�. . ; F% . ��'�v .�._ � �111RI �� _.�� — �� , a � ` + �, . . � ' � ', � � � � The Bozeman Municipal Code does not include criteria to designate local historic landmarks or local historic districts, and does not protect a historic building or potentially historic building from demolition. Maintenance standards are included in the Bozeman Code; however the standards are universal and not specific to historic properties. Standards for upkeep and maintenance are inte- gral to a successful historic preservation program and should outline specific requirements to protect the longevity of a building and avoid demolition by neglect. For example,a historic building may be required to patch holes in a roofto slow structural deterioration. WHAT WE HEARD: Historic preservation is the most important aspect of the NCOD. • Adopt local designation criteria and incentives that Historic properties should be protected against demolition, only apply to National Register listed properties, and development regulations within historic districts should with owner consent. Test out a local landmark pro- be strict. Support for an updated inventory is important to the gram on nationally designated properties to deter- community, not just to define the NCOD, but to also identify and mine whether a local program is attractive to prop- to protect significant buildings. erty owners and the community. • Clear standards, objective criteria for landmark des- "(The]NCOD was designed and created to protect historic ignation, and protections for designated buildings areas and neighborhoods;it works as a cohesive area that are integral to a local historic preservation program. defines the character of the Bozeman community." . Demolition criteria could be weighted depending on location. For example, stricter requirements would "�The NCOD]strives to consider the historic value of eoze- apply to eligible properties within a historic district man neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the as opposed to moderate requirements for eligible or planning process." historic properties outside a historic district. • After completing an architectural inventory, write ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: context papers on Bozeman's local vernacular build- Phase-in a local historic preservation program. ings identified in the survey that are not eligible for National Register status, but are important to Boze- The program would apply to all local historic districts and lo- man's history. cal landmarks regardless of the NCOD boundary. • Develop handouts for historic property owners that offer quick reference guides to repairs based on na- • Develop a preservation plan that articulates community tional standards for historic preservation. Offer free preservation goals with an implementation agenda. consultations for historic properties to promote and • Decide as a community what is important to protect inform maintenance and upkeep. and then ensure that historic resources are protected • Explore a conservation easement program or build- through stricter demolition criteria and specific mainte- ing rehabilitation fund to help maintain significant nance standards for historic properties. historic properties and prevent deferred mainte- • Up-skill HPAB members with historic preservation train- nance. ings focused on reviewing projects against criteria and improving recommendations. The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions offers trainings specific to hISt01'IC bOdl'd5. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 1.2, 7.4.D COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 8.3 , 1r ,o-`�. � � _ '" ._:,i � �,� � r ��w<,�' �'�- � �.� -X . �.,• a �' . '� *��,�. -- _ — - . �� `. n�k}T t, . ;t*+J' �'. -� f.� ' J,A � �t "�' �y ��T .��r t -- � ,t - . -`�,•,�� yn .t �-� .• � � '; i� `. C _ al�4 _ " _ - -. . � �i ` .�.''_4' ••�Lt " . ��y-A. .'�K�^' 14�v t-•.,. , . � J - �� . . . � � � ..� +rj� 4�,. �'�7`-_ � �1.� 3. ti�,r,��='� �`�. �� -ti�,_S.- ..,t ,�Y �\��tr �� '�,� ;, � �l�r• ••` .3 i�t` ' ` ♦- ►' }"s A� � ...�-�'.'�" �.�.' ;... �; 2 �;�-� 2 r f. - r r� 3V 1 � ,�� j" !�!'-,.�� .� . •��.: �". �. , :� �t - - - • ��'_i 'h �� . ` � . .�\ .�._ •� .�,� ��-�� TJ _r� -- �:i �..-. �'' ��W'f . • • � A voluntary landmark designation program can be very successful when there are reasons to designate a property. Incentives for historic structures encourage designation by balancing the additional layer of design review and required maintenance associated with historic status. Incentives can also compensate a property owner's sense of responsibility and outright additional costs of pre- serving an historic resource. Finding an appropriate balance takes time and finesse to determine appropriate incentives that benefit property owners and do not negatively impact the community, neighborhood or other citywide goals. WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Historic preservation is indisputably supported by the com- Explore a variety of incentives for historic properties owners. munity. The community's connection and dedication to pro- Engage with historic property owners to ensure incentive rel- tecting their local history through buildings were a common evance and clarity. thread in the outreach feedback. The Municipal Code already allows deviations for historic "Our historic neighborhoods are a treasure. Only Disney properties which may be a meaningful incentive for some builds places like this anymore. Growth is happening, but property owners. Each project has a different set of param- take care not to ruin something so unique." eters and a different bottom line that can tip the scales to- ward voluntary designation or demolition. A list of incentives "The NCOD and especially the historic neighborhoods need that provides a variety of options for different projects and a to be preserved and not overwhelmed by new, large scale, merit-based program to earn the benefits is recommended. unattracfive development." Finding an appropriate balance between carrots and sticks, regulations and incentives, is the key to a successful voluntary historic preservation program that relies on property owners being willing participants. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.1.B COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL$.3 SAMPLE INCENTIVE PROGRAM: THE CITY IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING SUPPORTTO PROPERTY OWNERS TO ASSISTTHEIR EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN, PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THEIR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. RECOGNIZING THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE VALUABLE COMMUNITY ASSETS IS THE BASIC PREMISE UNDERLYING THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND PROGRAMS FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND DISTRICTS. EXAMPLES OF INCENTIVES OFFERED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES INCLUDE: 1� ABILITY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL REQUIRED REVIEWS AT HPAB FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCESS. 2� POTENTIAL FOR THE CITY TO PAY A PORTION OF THE CITY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. 3�A TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PROGRAM TO TRANSFER FLOOR AREA OFF-SITE. 4�A CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM OR BUILDING REHABILITATION FUND. ,t 4, ;�; �MM��y�� _. S �` ,r;� a ;� r. � �� f'.,i%�. �-rv• ��. � :��. u�� t��F!7G�`�� ! '� '"� .' �.,- : s _ -�y; -�r�Z',,. ,a�.�� , ♦ � •� •�. _ t � r . . ET- �� - ;�� •= - . 'j � ' � �• ' r` � � r.� � � � i . "�f{ �: • _ 1 ' ►, +.-d -Ar o'-r t�� , ;. '` . �� ' .t 1 �r � f,- .�"'��'=. .� ` •�- / � r�+rT .''�"r?t�_ �'t '�.a�G ��. ' _��.,� �' ��S fr� �'' '�� y y � �- ��k'ii. � �-� ..;� �.' ,,. 9` .y. }, �I - _ � Lt�'�.. � � L '��. � •w.. . �� F:. �� a• . �. Q.�- � ��- . , �1- : ' F '.�;� . ��. �� t .J, .�'��.� � .q� - ►. ..�:.'t �' `� • y;: • • • � Under the current review process the Planning Director approves the majority of historic projects,while the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) may provide recommendations. Currently there are about 100 Certificate of Appropriateness applications a year which are reviewed by staff planners—the Historic Preservation OfFicer acts as an internal referral agency. It is important to relate the scope of a project to the level of review. It is equally important to not over-regulate new development. Over-regulation can be a barrier to historic preservation projects and to voluntary landmark designation. One way to tackle this issue is to create a clear set of review criteria with thresholds for different levels of review by either Staff or the HPAB. WHAT WE HEARD: The review process is seen as ambiguous and inconsistently venue to comment and learn about the project. Other avenues applied. The small groups expressed a desire for clarity and to communicate with the public that could be considered as consistency in the review criteria, and for a better opportunity part of this alternative are listed in Chapter 6. to comment on projects. In addition to required recommendations, HPAB could also have the ability through a majority vote to require a project be "Separate historic preservation from neighborhood preser- reviewed by the Bozeman Commission rather than the Plan- vation since they address different issues and needs." ning Director. "Give clearer direction and quantitative review parameters TOOLS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION: for decision makers." In the future, consider HPAB as a decision making body. A key component to the historic review process is to authorize the "Review criteria more geographically based with reason- Historic Preservation Advisory Board to have final authority on able quantitative evaluation criteria" certain projects, rather than just a recommendation. This cre- ates a venue for formal review of a project during a public hear- ing. Board trainings are available to help HPAB differentiate ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: its role as project advocate vs. board reviewer. This approach Allow HPAB recommendations for historic projects and for allows the Historic Preservation OfFicer to focus on long term projects within a historic district. Start HPAB review of demo- goals such as the development of a local historic preservation litions as a way to ease into review authority. program. HPAB is a required referral agency for historic projects and any A noticed public hearing and formal review process with clear projects within a historic district. Definitive thresholds need design guidelines and review criteria that are evaluated by the to be developed to determine the appropriate review body. Historic Preservation Board with a recommendation by the His- Minor development of non-contributing properties within his- toric Preservation Officer is a more inclusionary, predictable, toric districts, single family home, and/or small additions (i.e. and oftentimes participatory process. less than 250 sf) to landmarks are examples of thresholds for a lesser review process than a new large mixed use building within a historic district or a large addition to a landmark. STRATE�ic P�AN Poucv 7.4.� HPAB recommendations would occur at a public hearing where notice is posted on the property to allow the public a .F !�. 1 �4 - " ,/'' *q'��' . .��`a•��~ f• ��`i �_�,� ' .. �` ,j ■ . -� �� _. j — _ {� 1`. ' _- � 1� � � i� _�•. -f'��..'.'r " �'C=- �xF.; 2`-r"_+.r� � _:1. . , -— .I�-��'` /{� =.'��i", ��hT" ' w� � ..a, 1' p -�`�"�',?��;� : �; �••r'-.� .s•y- ._ � .� - t yu ,r., � � "i • - - � - - � � � � � � � HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSIONS—A SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY Many states grant cities the authority to establish commissions with broad authority to make recommendations, spend funds, hire professionals as needed, and approve exterior modifications and new construction in established historic districts. The following is a summary of such commissions in select states indicating their authority to grant certificates of appropriateness. Two states included in the summary specifically authorize staffto grant minor Certificate ofAppropriateness(COAs)with appeals heard by the commission, although other states, especially those with home rule, may not allow staff level authority. . � . . NC Historic preservation or groad X X Statute district commission SC Board of architectural Broad—set by X X Statute review zoning ordinance ME Historic district com- groad X Ellsworth, ME mission Historic preservation IN Broad X South Bend,IN commission SD Historic preservation groad X Statute commission ID Historic preservation groad X Statute commission Narrow—did not WY Historic preservation find any city with X Casper Code commission HPC approval Cheyenne authority Historic preservation WA Broad X Spokane Code commission Historic preservation Overview of state and UT Broad X local districts commission Statue CO Historic preservation groad X X Mantiou Springs Denver commission Code Historic preserva- OR tion/ resources com- Broad X Admin Rules Independence mission NV Historic resources groad X Carson City Code commission Reno Code � :;�.,i,� K� 4h, o� _ � ,r� � � _ __ �. /'�•�► � ,},, -��'�'�" Y � ��o� - y� .r� .�,a,,- �� . - �.� � � ��• �iti 1�, t Y � + ��`+� �� - �� #.,, s . � tr � C- -. ��. . , -,`�. - - ;�� - _ . � � � - ' .r,� .� �. - � " i �a+d .*� ~ 3!.�;�i% 4�y:� ''�... s. ..�''a:e��`" -z•� 3 ?`�ry„ . ..: - � y < ��• � �Y . . ' '!. �47.��a y' - _•k ��' ��Sa, =� i K , � �� `t ��'1 .� � �� !' ..>> '► O. S�� +.�� '.i�. \ �.a, ' f 7 ''•� _ }� _ �' �� °�' j � _ - r �`� � � n�• ', tp,:� � _ , . �'�' ' � � .i _ `.� �r + �jl�i� ,�iC.��,5+1 _.'� '• a� �' `��.�� • � � � � � � � � � � � � The existing Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District document, adopt- ed in 2006 and amended in 2015, address both historic preservation and new development throughout the entire overlay concur- rently. A chapter is devoted to rehabilitation guidelines for historic properties and each historic district is allotted a few specific design guidelines. There are general design guidelines for the entire NCOD, and general suggestions for residential development versus commercial development. This document has served as a good foundation for the NCOD; however, an update to create a stronger distinction between historic preservation and neighborhood character is overdue. The existing guidelines and any future standards and guidelines must be based on the recently updated Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Neighborhood character and historic districts should be ad- Create historic preservation (HP) standards and guide- dressed separately within the NCOD with special care given lines. to transition areas between historic districts. Historic preser- vation of all designated historic districts is important to the The HP standards and guidelines should specify appropriate community. contextual alterations, remodels, and new buildings for each historic district. Standards will be requirements (with the abil- The Main Street, Story Mill, and the Bon Ton historic districts ity to request a deviation) and guidelines will be recommen- have the greatest mass and scale challenges with new devel- dations. The HP standards and guidelines will build upon the opment. Based on this feedback, updated design standards principles of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which and guidelines need to specifically address mass and scale will still apply, and will provide more detailed direction for each within these identified historic districts in addition to poten- historic district to specifically address historic significance. tial zone district boundary changes. "The NCOD and corresponding regulations are the reason The HP standards and guidelines will be separate from the de- we have the charming eozeman of today, and are neces- sign standards and guidelines for non-historic properties and sary to retain this charm." non-historic districts within the NCOD (discussed in Section 2.3, page 30). Creating the HP standards and guidelines is rec- ommended after an updated architectural inventory is com- pleted (see Section 1.6, page 18 for prioritized list of historic districts to be inventoried first). The architectural inventory may result in the expansion of exist- ing historic districts and will likely highlight character defining features and massing concerns specific to each historic district which should be addressed in the hp standards and guidelines. The hp standards and guidelines need to be relevant to existing conditions, reflect good historic preservation practice and en- courage appropriate future development. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.2 COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS 1.3, 3�3, 4�3 �� " '':Y'`*1 4' �'� ;�'�,liS�--� �` - 'r+ '„a. �� - - �' J4� 4��' �� ' - Y r',. -�. � ,� !l "' ';;ti.� �.� �.;a�' c.�, t- _c � s J' _ . ��'e�. :y- � _- _ . �* � - _' � .- I .�r ir�F; - . .�: { �� -r ct � 's � � � ?/ a"ti � � � .� . .� S� S R• ,3. �:b/�,q 'Y �'� ..;`. � .�r �r� ,f• "..��. �;�."�� '� '7L-"� _ _ _ _ - :•. `+" - ;"� '. - ��n► •{j�'�6. �.?;� . , i''y'-r` _.s. ,► �' �"1r.+= ',�� `f �• =,, , r,�� yi i 'y- k � T.: ry� ,�,- i �,�� , -� i _ _ �,` �. ,,.�� , __. 'rw_ ��. } �� YJ ?f\ ,.- _ _.. ,_ , �! ��'y:A�7 � � � �� 1 City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2O1H $TRATEGIC PLAN Poucv 1.2 (P.2) Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the commu- nity and stakeholders. POLICY Q.1.B DEVELOP AND ALIGN INFILL POLICIES. �P.6� Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. POLICY 4.2.D UPDATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES. �P.6� Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District(NCOD)guidelines for historic preservation in downtown and other com- mercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote continued investment in the city's inventory of historic structures relative to ongoing infill and redevelopment. POLICY 7.Q.D STRATEGIC MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS. �P.11� Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City's capacity to deliver services. 2009 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3, OBJECTIVE G-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT. (P.13� Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. Goa�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-1 LAND USE. (P.32� Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efFiciently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. Goa�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-3 LAND USE. (P.33� Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connection represented by this area. GoA�4.3, OBJECTIVE C-1.2 COMMUNITY QUALITY. (P.47� Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development Goa�4.3, OBJECTIVE C-1.4 DESIGN GUIDELINES. (P.47� Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City's visual qualities within neighborhood, com- munity and regional commercial areas. GOAL 8.3, OBJECTIVE ED-3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (P.76� Recognize the importance of quality of life elements in attracting and developing economic activity. 1 ` �� =�i..� '��T�, 4 ,~��`� ' `��`� .;:��r�, .r , .� ... � .. _ y`�� . • . _ • � i � '�. I' _ �v� `..I I"I �.. q�:j.;;� �� - ��!��'� r,• �/ � ,I ' ! � V�{` �� ',��'�� i.,��,�l �.�� I ��,,�� j �� } ��,-. � "� �i� ! I� i�� ;� � �� %� ' ��. �� l �'' l '- ,� ; � l 1 � I ,I I � �'� � � I , � .. �- , � �� ,, �,�,.;��-��} �,��1��; ��,, k ��, ;��1�,�-��}�� ia� �� ;��;�'�� , '�� 'v: ` ,� � ,� '� � i � � J i � � I r - �� I �.��`'� '!�( �*` _ �� y�, �� -� 1- i �-� 's'�ti-;i��-��,1� ��,� �} �, . � � }�;��1��1►��; I 1, 1-� �}�I�� ,� ;��- �, �,,�.., .��.� � , 1 �• 1 , �� '�� }� �� f 'f�� I �� / , ,; � y' .�. .�• - ,� ; ,,, �, ;�� - -� � E � � � � � �� -�- : � �� ' ''�n��,;�j�1 � � ��111��-��(l��-�1��l1— ; - ,�"�`•� `�- �:h:�� L� � .,. �� -}— � 7 � � -� � � ,' , , � � '+- �-, � 1` 1 � �- , ]-� - .:; ��-, �1 ' , ,'�1 ��''� l� I �i I i,I' ` �� 4��{� � � ' -- . �. � � _ , � _ � �� II I .`1E 1 �� '�} ' �� .. `� , ,�,_ ,�� -��_ �_�l i 1 .� , � ',_ � 1_ , � * ��. i � � i"i�-i � ,�I �� Ii � � µ � �'� /. { . —M, _ I �-/, ',,*,� � _ �� ,,_�,� �� , , ;� ,� , � , _ . , ., �+. � �; 1 •Vw_ 11 1� � �� ' ;%/ �� ' �, . ,�� , �� ,� i1`�� . I ' / � - 11� — � • ��1 �_ ! 1 I� � �'�4 ` ,.I�'�I�� I ' � ` • I �` I � � - � •, - .�; � ` 1 4 i � I — - �. �` '#� , . , , - - ` �► , ` � �:. � , � �� ` - � , y, ; `�.. . ` �• YQ" 1 ` l • '�'_ � , � . ��! \ � , y`-�'•__' � � . . t �'' _ A ,ti�►`` ,�t' ( — -. — - - � � - ` •?t � � =' � . � � '' ' " � _ ` ". _ . —_ - � � - . _-`.�'� C _-- "_ -� . '�__r�� . �_ . . -t 1y:_ —.._ 3 t_ � - _ _F.1��a'��\-. . �1 ■ '"' _ _ -. .�<z„,� _ �yti� � -` -1�� -•�� - � - - 1 1 - � I � � � �. !.}�s �. �,� � '� _� � .,,. ••- � " � � :` �'�' :`� '� � . ' — - � �_� , r i� — _ � � r _ � �, r .� Y, � � - � - e� . � ..7^A "�w _{� ".4� ' ♦ � � � ^ '^Y •� C _ � }'r� �.�. _ _� ._ . � . - :' '__- -� - �. - ; �,r4: _ . . _ ,-.'. �1 - _-_-- r�. . . _ .-� .-,. _ . — - -_ . - _�_., .-> -- -- — ••� ��--�� - _ . ._�,=_� � �. . .. ... ., ... ._.-_ � . � , . , .. ----� _ . ,..- .�.n " -' .7 - � �`. _ ' _ .-_�_. ` ' . :, � _ .- -,. - �:J ' ��1��i�1��i�l��l��i1�1 1�� \I�1�,1��i,� 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS Study of the B-3 transition zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority. 4.2 RELATE � Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to relate to the existing zone districts. Gather more data after the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. 4.3 RELATE ZONE G� ...�� .., .._..��... �rs: Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more data after the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. �K� � ±.' � � .} 5�` � - --. _ - - y. -f , : _� ,` ,�+� a}. ��C� 't � _ .. _ .' �.� � : .� - 1 -�: �� _� � �i I � _ - --- r— _ "t� �q.� � �-''. � ::: - — - `"'' :"g� �, :�-� _ - . «� - � , ; , _ C �; ��' - - 1� '� r' �-� �' ��` - , - '>.� �. � �� — -- —� "� � __ �- s� -- - _ � � - -- -� _ _ _ � � ,, ,,, . . : ,< _,! .. : - � -� — -_ . :- —_ - � � __V _ _ _ � .` �■��r� \L',��`.��►\�� — - SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM � I Amend zone district require- Map review process and Analyze zonE� districts: ments to relate to neighbor- identify redundant require- ;D where dimensio�ial requirements hood (or historic district if ments and areas of overla� and boundaries coriflict with neigh- applicable) for projects within the NCO�, borhood characteri�future vision, or character i.e. Article 5, Site Plan Revie� historic district boundary. (either existing or future Project Review... vision). —� Create design standards and guide- Create transition specific - lines specific to the B3 zone district. standards and guidelines - — - that are context based and _ , - Reference �nd align replace Article 5 standards — -- _ ' design standards and (where it is redundant) for � __ - guidelines with th�� adopted DBIP. projects within NCOD. , � Gather more data after the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are complete�d. Use tools such as 3-D model- ing to understand zoning;, mass and scale. , . . �, , `� _. ;,� ,'- r.,�' , �'�. .��h `�I�i.�•. ^�� ,'�+: ' .K' " _ t ��' '%y. � . �'.. :�r �'. , . Ms 'fi: ;.r'� � C`��:,.��: �� - - - - - Y -� � i -.,... � '�3 �. � � - , {`4 , `�� •: L, =� � � r �.s�- i� . _ Y. �,'.R - �� _-_ � 1�.+ � � �.� �� 5� ^,.i`i.' Y �' � i j' ' - � ___ � _ q�r. � '� �� - i . . �'�l - - —{� ' _ , -- _ - ',:7. 'n ��..._� _. -'__ � .�.�, ' . . ..% . . .. _ ' ' ,;�, �� '___. �-- _ ' • ' _ L � - ..: -.. .. .S' .. __ `4 ....� -r ..-�.-: 1 _ - _ �;� - �J _ .� _.._.'__ ,� _ .'�.' . - ..� . , . .._r . __— .-._ _ � �'\��i��,��J��1��`i�� The Bozeman community places a very high value on neighbor- mix of design overlay and buffer overlay districts to promote hood character within the NCOD. The purpose of the NCOD, and to support neighborhood context. However, it is virtually as a design overlay for both historic districts and non-historic impossible to create design guidelines that make a new,tall, districts, is only part of the story. The NCOD discussion is not multi-story building relate to a single story bungalow. binary—there are many otherfactors at play. Recent discon- tent around tall projects adjacent to small scale residential The abrupt height and mass transitions between historic and neighborhoods highlights a potential disconnect between the non-historic districts has influenced negative community dimensional allowances such as height, setbacks, and floor sentiment toward the NCOD and an overall feeling that the area of the zone districts and appropriate contextual develop- NCOD needs to be improved. ment within the NCOD. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 7.4.D The NCOD uses the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preserva- CoMMUNiTv P�aN Goa�s 3.3 aN�4�3 tion and The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to DBIP RECOMMENDATION P. 110 inform new construction,and the 2015 NCOD audit suggests a DBIP RECOMMENDATION P. 116 '�21 a►j-s' ...+ .. � � t�� . fi � �- � � �f .' l .K:.s � : ��,�r�, ��tr � 1 � � r�6".S� /!"�r1►�eL,.rk . 1 r�, '.�� ;,�1 �� n. � !t^�, � rI �i��i tr a L� � i '*,a? r.�',f.Sit��p r�. L� . '�''P'��°it 2 4 "7��°'��.;.i:s t _ �"'�",1� *��ir:��S��e''�'�l#`,�f,�,�}�i�a��E��4 �,��.�� R� k� � �'K�4��r t 1�,�!•.~ r,x�*' ��+{��t'�E`�� > df'•...v�'4' '�f'�e`.1G%�`I�:��?1..��i�y_L��f�,�{ ��J�"i`, Y w'��{ .�� y� �� .��. � �.�.�Y v��.�` 1C y`��.� '�__� y . �L{�\1 � '�rlv''!",i t i ( �.�. � �' �y� � � ' i1`t. P�' � S � ✓ �� r � .� .��.�!-.�� 6�>,�f';., � ,�' � �- t.�►. , `�" r��> .�- �i Q -a.[S�-'�'��`1r�� f.,y�.r �}� ,�y��[�� I� ��}r� � � '� f��J ��;, � j � �F J'� w, ..a�'Vc r' 9T�?r�l1��4.A1.'�ji�J ff��I�� i�?f^ � � *5�--iC�; t. . �"!�4±i�i�� • �� ,. ' �.�.r - ' 1 _', ( _�f .. �y7' �• �1►*,�e.�'��iM�r�� "��'C Yi ' :✓ . �'�{f � ��.+,i I�l.�r�.T` M�.� 7�''�� r ' y� �;ti"' J_"� � t lssr _ ��<dE:��,I�;tl.�� . ' �..'r+(``?-� �' J �' '�"��.`��I��C �.�"�;� r�-�_ ��#" ;�y2 .� ?�,�''� '� . ' � . � �� .-"`�''y� 7� ,�n,; '? , �' .fi,�r �• r .,� �': ( �,ic.��' �'� S ''�'��y ; � -Ti• �r. �:n�v ��1 �,,� ,,,��;3"J�`� I��.:� ` � �:��.��{^�;�`�(,,,t�, ..�l..f� ;;'1�•'.' -- °� �r�f�;L'I -..j � ,s- cr� ,�Jq� k �� s, . L'��'�+�t�{,'J' .5�% �.�1',��( � �! 'y'' "'�lt'� ��"�,`tt� -f.� �:l�Sr+..slrt I 1 f�'r;r�� ;4 � ` �#c��,,q_� �'.I ' � 1.! r 7( �r v '- . . . -.— �'�(tY� s��+ ��J y,� �� z �: �ti��{v.� �l �'I':��,�? k '� �r.r"��-t�/M#a � Jlt.3� �;Y��,,�' ':IY �t' 'Y�' ,��Ittr'�!'��1V I }.�� ;•y 11 �. �. � yi '� ��$��i�t r'• �/ -.e '��i.t`��.�� 4 ��•� t��f� 'j. �•�' tT� ..� � r •_al �} r {r � / ��; .t J�{ � �j 4� 1"r��"�i�'.�'Sjr ,�,t'�� ;'y_ - . �. - . , / i �•�y ��' ��''`-(_?� '"�•.��,�a� }�'� .. a �. �- �.'. ��/ �•'�A 6� F,�',.;Y+''fl'� ''4�.' ��i..�.��.. '_j:,` E .s �'�7r J''��'.��;�..�#'�s � �.:L� ' / ;,�,�'�'. F , ,�`ft�:,� , �' �� .{� � `� �� :19��fa�t� �-��" r`�''ri �K�J�l,��,�-yf""' .�, / �t r -;, � ��+?� `i �';' •t' 4: �k.' q �,�. c i?. � ,,j /, i j �� ' -. - r . �" ` �'' � { �� La�;��f:��;�� .a�� _ � .,�F LEGEND %F> t'f.,. . r . � �� R 1 '; �.� ,� � "s � v i'r, ',R F � � ��`r, �" �� ''�.�'f °�J' ' �"' �irr NCOD BOUNDARY ��'��!t J��i / ' t� � t Y � i ��s r;� �,'c`�� -P' `" ;�r�st�r�: / � F��t�r�{�-�=�� . NORTH TRACEY 4-- F'' '� � � s�r J a'�� T'' e� ',r� ��r� +.�r.'c•;•. •..�;�•'' �!y�/ 'F,�"'�1�,.��r�,.ti�<.''.+ �� . LINDLEYPLACE y.� `e �..�'�� " S� / �"�'-. . t ¢v y� y��i� � . 4� �' n ` � ��G��p �m-� e � ' , � / {�.�+r-r � �j t f'7 �i�'i�,`�,�y�� . BO N TO N � �; • 'r�KC� � + �'� ��.cyli�f+ , i. �s. .�.r,.!r > .-'L � ► ."t,�:�j'i �.r � �'�� , ��!�'/ �i"��1T � �ys°�� ;jRy� . MAINSTREET �+��y._ _ � -`a'. �R�4'�'i'�.}'�� .� �� t"� ��. ��y�'° � ��(� �1' � . . ,:� . ��-,�'�t rc;��¢�' �:: e�'� .7 �! �I +1 �L��.�_�' M S U � ,� �s� : / � : :�� , ti � �� / � ` �� '`� SOUTH TRACEY� :'�� , t� '-�� '' �:.�w� ��!� s+'+�';�' _� ��a. . • � � �;�� SOUTH BLACK wI +r "�� • f�.;� � � � I � ,� •� � '�n 7 r i � � - � _ � :�' -,� ': i- � .- � � - �� A _ "� �� - � •�•w ! .J.M � -:l ;� " , . - a'.� _ ._ , ♦ r — - �� J�. L,. _ •.� IC• j�� '.� � l_ —�t.' , . — .t�� 'i .y -_ l r ___ [-�— +•-�- � _ r�: 1 Y3. . �r�'� _ ,�_�.. —� � , , � 1 ,� � ,� The historic districts, residential neighborhoods and mixed- B-3 Downtown Business District and its relationship to the use downtown core found within the Neighborhood Con- established historic districts and overall NCOD boundary servation Overlay District represent some of the most de- became an important part of this evaluation, based on sirable real estate in the city, elevating redevelopment input from stakeholders and community members. potential and prompting serious consideration — and con- cern — regarding infill development in the area. Some of The intent of the B-3 zone is 'to provide a central area the existing zone districts located in the NCOD have allowed for the community's business, government service and cul- for development over time that is not always characteristic tural activities with urban residential development as an of adopted historic districts or non-historic neighborhoods. essential supporting use' Encouraging mixed use devel- This disconnect between traditional zoning practice and opment with a healthy balance of business, civic, cultural neighborhood character results in projects that may meet and residential uses are central to a healthy downtown the code (and the existing form and intensity standards) district. In other communities, allowing urban residential but are not always responsive to the surrounding neigh- uses as part of a high density downtown district has un- borhood, prompting frustration and distrust toward infill intentionally created situations where the highest and best development, especially within the NCOD. use of a property is top-shelf residential developments. The Downtown Bozeman Partnership is currently working Within the scope of the NCOD project, the focus is to on an updated Downtown Bozeman Improvement plan address community concern over mass, scale and densi- that will address the B-3 zone district and areas for infill ty issues that impact neighborhood character within the and higher density development. In addition, the Bozeman district. In order to do so, an evaluation of the zone Community Plan is being updated which will also pinpoint districts present within the NCOD boundary was necessary areas for growth and development and will reflect long to understand how existing standards influence develop- term vision of the community. ment within the district and pinpoint opportunities for greater compatibility and stronger implementation. The ` � I��- J�� 'i �� ,L ` - ' ' , ! _ 4� '� .. _� �. - - -l. � -�t, -�l� -.r',C;� i,, a � r' �, �!.. • =• r - - (( - -� # + ' r ,''�� 1 ` � y I - J- _ � � . . .'+ ` • ` �I �� .) i� � �� k• ! ' �'�♦ � ' �r � 1 ��-T x�'+� :t, � �� f�� ♦ �� ..' �• - � V�:.f'J�.. rS.� ', ,.►�',` ' �, �r 1 � - � - . '�.,• : !_.�i��;�- � — � . . � ,!, T'.`. �� . , �` � � �� '.�l � �t� � � ��' �� ! s I �' ��,-�'� , I �4 � ; {, y: � t � " •a � `+�� • �,,, 1 3�- �. -� �• - .�� J_�.—_ =`� •,'!' • � • , "!. .\ I �s�/� j'"'� � - __-��—`.._. — ' � �S. � X �I 1•_� ,�i!��r ."K, prNnto��;n ��: � =� r= - � � -� - " -�;-.�� '..E_ - 't�. - � ,^.,.,�.• � r' . ,�,� ��, � - - 'l ., _. _ - � � � I ^r�= , � ��I►r I. ��I.�� : _ _- �.� 'fi: ;.r'� � C`��:,.��: �� - - - - - Y -� � i -.,`.�.. .`� '�J� �• `C ` - - ��.� �4 � i:'l °�, =� � � r �.s�- i� . _ Y '�•�li�, ;�� j _ � _� '�' � � .; ",F. ^<i�, � .- ' ` '�i� - __ � ',��;�� - � � - i ��` _ _!� - 3. �: N_ ' — �— � �_�.,, . . .: . � �, � - -- '�. . - L . S� -- �� _.._ � _-.-: i _ - �,� —� _ _ .� -- - . ;- -- � , _~ — _ � � � �� ,� The B-3 'downtown district' zone highlights an opportunity issue within B-3 and properties immediately adjacent to for a softer, context-appropriate transition between higher residential R-2 districts, but may not go far enough to density and taller buildings and small low density neighbor- address neighborhood character beyond mass and scale or hoods. A sensitive solution is required to meet the goals consider infill in a holistic manner that looks beyond that and intent of the zone district while balancing historic and immediate edge. neighborhood preservation of the areas that abut the B-3 boundary. To further complicate this balance, the Main The B-2M 'community business district-mixed' zone district Street historic district is located in the middle of the B-3 is a new district adopted in 2017 that is a hybrid between zone. Allowable building heights along Main Street are B-3 and the more suburban B-2 zone district. The stated lower than height allowances outside the historic district intent of B-2M is to function as a vibrant mixed-use dis- and within the B-3 zone. Different height requirements trict that accommodates substantial growth and enhances within the zone district recognize historic context along the character of the city. B-2M zoning is presently located Main Street; however, this pushes taller buildings toward along the western boundary of the NCOD, between Main low scale residential neighborhoods located to the north and Peach Streets, and may serve as an opportunity zone and south. Setback and height restrictions established by to capture future infill development within the district. the application of zone edge transition areas address this I B-3, B-2M. I RS, R-1 I UMU,&R-5 R-2,&RHM I districts I districts I �o' -----�� Maximum I Building I I scory s ,�' Height .� � ```�` I I .� Story 5 I �� I I �.� �� V Story 4 I y� I Maximum height 36' I V �� (i'parapet) ° �. in R-1&R-2 districts (9/12 or greater roof pitch) — � � I �------------------------- Story 3 11'floor to floor � � - o I 12 � a 10� Story 2 I 1 T Floor to floor � I - I ro I �Q�_�� 5,_Q„ I Story 1 . 15'floor to floor . �I (Reference Lot Width:60') (50') �� Excerpt from Bozeman Municipal Code,Section 38.320.060.-Zone edge transitions(within Division 38.320 Form and Intensity Standards). wI +r "�� • f�.;� � � � I � ,� •� � '�n 7 r i � � - � _ � :�' -,� ': i- � .- � � - �� A _ "� �� - � •�•w ! .J.M � -:l ;� " , . - a'.� _ ._ , ��,{ r• - —— _ Ti�'�,-, _ I�• - � . . _ �� _ . •.�� l_ —�,�.' _. . - '.il�. ,i .y -_ l r ___ [-�- +•-�- � _ r�: 1 Y3. . �r�'� _ ,�_�.. —� � , , � 1 ,� � ,� WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Locating new infill development anywhere within the NCOD Study of the B-3 transition zone should be a mid- or long- received moderate community support; however majority term priority rather than an immediate priority. support was for outside the NCOD or along the 7th Street corridor. This is consistent with the City's recent up-zoning of There is some acceptance by the community that new the 7th Street corridor to accommodate additional density and development is going to happen in the NCOD. Results intensity of development. from pointed questions on where developments should occur, as well as our assessment of the massing and char- It is important to note the different perceptions around acter of existing development within the NCOD boundary, what constitutes infill. For some people infill is large high informed our recommendation to rethink the B-3 District density development, and for others infill is all new de- boundary within the NCOD. How this boundary is re- velopment regardless of density or size. High density devel- considered could be approached from multiple directions: opment can also take on different meanings among residents. from modifying the boundary of the B-3 district to better For some, high-density means an intense concentration of uses, align with existing historic districts, to creating a new mixed both vertically and horizontally, reflective of larger urban areas use district that serves as a transitional zone between B-3 like Denver, Seattle or Portland. For others, high-density could and the residential neighborhoods, or expanding upon be any use or development more intense than single-family res- the existing zone edge transition requirements to better idential; in a city the size of Bozeman sometimes any new or address form and character in these transitional areas. additional development feels higher in intensity than what cur- rently exists. Using streets to delineate the boundary creates a physical break between zone districts. The established neighbor- "Lack of buffer zone between new development and exist- hoods and historic districts located to the south of down- ing neighborhoods is hurting the community of the neigh- town dictate a very clear boundary between traditional borhoods which is difficult to see unless you are living in the neighborhood development and the B-3 zone; our recom- neighborhood. Our neighborhoods are not just brick and mendation, regardless of any of the options presented, is mortar we are people. The hard line between commercial for the City to consider aligning the southern B-3 district and residential zoning needs a buffer." boundary with the existing historic districts to the south of Babcock Street. To balance an adjusted B-3 zone, incentiv- izing redevelopment within areas zoned for B-2M along the North 7th corridor should be considered to take ad- The Bozeman Community Plan is currently being revised. The vantage of recent upzoning in this area and the desire to see final document will provide context and future vision for this additional infill along this corridor. decades old discussion around increasing density downtown and protecting the essence of the Bozeman community. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICIES 4.1.B AND 4•4 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3 DBIP GUIDING PRINCIPLE P.30 ./" _� � . 1�l'� � .-. _ - � -� Y'�� .� -�' 7�• ��, � � - _ , � .i:� �' �� ' � � . �f • �� — '�� " � I' — . � �� ' Y •�� . � — � � f`� - — . '�\w .J+ — R ..d w�. �� - . - F":I . � + � - — - �: - a��t',:., - � � j. - r'� _� . . _ � _ _ '6i � :' - ��4` r --� —� �1..,a. �. __- - _ _� � +- � T ! �i: _'�: — �- - -- � - � , � � �� TOOLS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION: Tools to consider in the future are provided as options that address the ' delicate balance between incentivizing infill and supporting historic pres- � ervation and enhancing neighborhood character. B-3 . - -��c►ua�yN,�r - 1) Create a B-3 transitional zone (B-3T)for areas located beyond the core �G� downtown district. "' B�� "_ " " This could be an overlay district or separate zone district (B-3T) that t. � would apply to properties located between Babcock and the existing B-3 � boundary to the south, and Mendenhall and the existing B-3 boundary to / �/ �� the north. The intent ofthe existing B-3 zone would remain in place,with / � � �/ massing, scale, site design and other dimensional requirements adjusted �•� `�s� to better align with a transitioning commercial, mixed use to residential, mixed use neighborhood. Design standards and guidelines developed to maintain the character of the area would further refine where and how infill development would occur within this zone. � �yF. 2) Incorporate additional site design standards within the existing zone edge transition requirements. Similar to the recommendation above, but working within the existing municipal code framework, additional site design standards could be in- �CoClc IC ��? corporated within Section 38.320.060 of the City's municipal code ad- dressing compatible transitions between high density and low density � 7 districts. Fa�ade articulation, transparency, construction materials, roof '� ' type, landscaping and other design requirements could be incorporated � _ -��.--�.r-- - in addition to existing height and setback requirements - to further define the character of the transition zone and extend it beyond imme- diately adjacent properties. �, � 1 3) Incentivize redevelopment along North 7th through TDRs. /` 1 V Using a combination ofthe above options establishing a transitional zone 1 / i� -�. ^. , along the B-3 "edge", encourage infill development within the expanded � � _ .� NCOD district along North 7th Avenue by allowing developers to shift i ' °i,;' density from the transitional zone into the B-2M zone. This may be ac- g3 complished in concert with a slight expansion to the B-2M district's east- M�� , — >v ern boundary, depending on the guidance and direction resulting from ! the City's community plan update, landowner input, and the adopted ; ',� ,�, ;,,�'�:�� downtown plan update. '�'"'" � j �.,,, wI +r "�� • f�.;� � � � I � ,� •� � '�n 7 r i � � - � _ � :�' -,� ': i- � .- � � - �� A _ "� �� - � •�•w ! .J.M � -:l ;� " , . - a'.� _ ._ , ��,{ r• - —— _ Ti�'�,-, _ I�• - � . . _ �� _ . •.�� l_ —�,�.' _. . - '.il�. ,i .y -_ l r ___ [-�— +•-�— � _ r�: 1 Y3. . �r�'� _ ,�_�.. —� � ��\/�r�,��i��7�\��l��+i,�� Zone district analysis is not exactly within the scope of the NCOD project; however, there are definite areas of overlap in terms of The National Register of Historic Places describes the Bon mass, scale, and neighborhood character. Bozeman is current- Ton Historic District as"eozeman's fi�nest examples of histor- ly working on a community plan update and a downtown plan �c residential architecture, spanning from the early 1880s to update that will most likely address changes to the zoning map. the mid-1930s, constitute the bulk of the 228 buildings in the Bon Ton Historic District" Disconnect between zone district boundaries and neighbor- hood character occur throughout the NCOD, most notably with- in designated historic districts that have a defined and cohesive architectural style. Approved projects within the B-3 zone dis- trict directly adjacent to designated historic districts, highlight �p�IT�� Q'�OVNUA{Z-�f • a.� incompatibility between neighborhood character and dimen- ., sional allowances within a zone district. � � d��. R 1 B' � � R-0 The Bon Ton, Story Mill, and Cooper Park Historic Districts have {�^''� ,? F7'3 ' more than one zone district within the historic district boundary �— I -for example, the Bon Ton Historic District has R-1, R-4 and B-3 �"� �_� PL1 zoning. Allowed heights in the R-1 Zone District (36 ft. max) are k- lower than the R-4 Zone District (44 ft. max), and significantly lower than the B-3 Zone District (70 ft. max outside the core). �. The historic buildings within the Bon Ton Historic District range from 1 story to 2 1/2 stories in height on average, whlCh IS slg- WHAT WE HEARD: nificantly lower than a 44 ft. building allowed in R-4. Through our analysis and discussion with participants the Main Street Historic District and surrounds was identified as Numerous zone districts within one cohesive historic district having the greatest mass and scale challenges with new de- can be frustrating for residents, property owners and Bozeman velopment. staff/review boards when a project meets zoning allowances but does not relate to the historic context of the neighborhood. Many participants reference recent tall developments in the This places a strain on the review process and can result in new g_3 zone adjacent to residential neighborhoods, as evidence development that degrades and erodes the cohesion of the his- that the NCOD needs to better protect neighborhood char- toric district. acter. Rather than design, the review process, or neutral op- tions, participants selected the size of building and the scale Changes to the zone district map should be considered in con- of new development as the biggest issues with new develop- cert with the community plan and the downtown plan updates. ment in the NCOD. Zoning amendments should also be informed by other commu- nity wide goals such as infrastructure updates for new construc- gased on community input, we found that there is overall tion, on-street and off-street parking needs, affordable housing community concern with the pace and size of new growth and needs, and many other growth and development topics. development throughout Bozeman. Specific concerns within the NCOD ended up relating largely to projects approved un- der the B-3 zone district and Design Guideline Subchapter 4B which is specific to the B-3 zone. ./" _� � . 1�l'� � .-. _ - � -� Y'�� .� -�' 7�• ��, � � - _ , � .i:� �' �� ' � � . �f • �� — '�� " � I' — . � �� ' Y •�� . � — � � f`� - — . '�\w .J+ — R ..d w�. �� - . - F":I . � + � - — - �: - a��t',:., - � � j. - r'� _� . . _ � _ _ '6i � :' - ��4` r --� —� �1..,a. �. __- - _ _� � +- � T ! �i: _'�: — �- - -- � - � , �ar�:��r_11��•.►i��ti��:��iti�[�l�_�:►11�:� ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: (HISTORIC DISTRICTS) (NON-HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS� Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to relate to Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood the existing zone districts. character. Gather more data after the architectural survey and design Gather more data after the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. After an updated architectural inventory of the NCOD is com- New design overlay districts and neighborhood specific design pleted, determine whether existing historic district bound- guidelines are not the singular answer to the mass, scale and aries need adjustment and identify eligible future historic incompatibility issues voiced by the community. To success- districts within the NCOD. Consider historic preservation in- fully address the concerns in non-historic neighborhoods we centives that off-set any "down zoning" that may occur when recommend a multi-pronged approach that starts with align- zone district boundaries and dimensions are adjusted. ing dimensional requirements and allowed uses in the NCOD zone districts to neighborhood character and the future vision TOOLS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION: for each neighborhood. Design guidelines should be consid- 1) Explore adjusting the historic district boundaries to relate ered after an architectural inventory or windshield survey ofthe to the existing zone districts. NCOD is completed and after zone districts are amended. If an architectural inventory is not feasible at this time, bound- ary adjustments can be made based on current information TOOLS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION: and a windshield survey. However, adjustments to the historic 1) Update the form and intensity standards to better address district boundary must not jeopardize the integrity of the his- concerns about mass and scale. toric district by including areas that do not have a high level of The form and intensity standards are form based code that significance and do not contribute to the historic district. On Were recently adopted by the Bozeman Commission. Note: it the other hand, historic districts should not exclude important may be premature to update the form and intensity standards historic properties in order to align zone districts with historic that have not been adequately tested. Sample case studies districts as this would be counter-productive. This alternative could shed light on the applicability of the form and intensity may involve amending the National Register of Historic Places standards and whether Alternative 1 is an appropriate option. historic district designation unless local historic districts are adopted. 2) Update current design guidelines and add design standards to better address concerns about mass and scale. 2) Develop an historic preservation overlay zone in place of New design standards can encourage thoughtful design ele- amending zone district boundaries. ments that reduce the perception of mass and scale and can This approach applies cohesive design standards and dimen- require architectural elements, such as front porches or large sional requirements within a historic district, and is similar to street facing windows, that relate new development to sur- the Main Street historic district which is located within the B-3 rounding character. New design standards and guidelines for zone district. Within the B-3 boundary, different dimensional neighborhoods are addressed in Chapter 2 of this document. standards apply to properties inside the Main Street historic district as opposed to outside the district. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4•4 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3 DBIP GUIDING PRINCIPLE P.30 �. ,'''>>�rc " y,�,+'`.� � � � � � u �i. " � i+�r..d` q '�� , ` ,. T I � 1 Y�' ;` �.J� � � — � .��— � �J f !• ^ � l � ��a' �!� ' . I- � _ _- � � �` �.� ,—� �`• i ' . . 1�4 — - ,.4.. -�_ �" � -- - s . -S� __ `r ..� —� _�r� _' t' � .� _ -..�;. ') — _ - �--� - —t . �•� .— r. _ .._T .--- -`- - � � ��■��,�I��l��i��,ll�.,,,'�111■I�1�i�i�1��,,� City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.1.B DEVELOP AND ALIGN INFILL POLICIES. (P.6� Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. POLICY 4.4 VIBRANT DOWNTOWN, DISTRICTS & CENTERS. (P.7� Promote a healthy,vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers—including higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas. POLICY 7.4.D STRATEGIC MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS. (P.11� Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City's capacity to deliver services. 2009 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3, OBJECTIVE G-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT. (P.13� Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life with- in the planning area. Go,4�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-3 LAND USE. (P.33� Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connection represented by this area. GoA�4.3, OBJECTIVE C-1.2 COMMUNITY QUALITY. (P.47� Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development. MAY 2019 DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE ��MORE THAN A MAIN STREET�� (P. 30) Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residential neighborhoods through context-sensitive development. RECOMMENDATION P. 110 Adjust the B-3 District Boundary to Eliminate Land Use and Scale Conflicts. RECOMMENDATION P. 116 Explore "Gentle" Residential Infill. w ,,, ,. � '.1. 5� = :�r L � .•' i. ,\ � /' �+ . ii / . �': �.'• , •��-�,• '' / � '` ._�,•,`�� //%/ . "3.ti��.� �� n� � ' � r k! ��t,�~`F � �� " �� -�-�=��'y � . �4=��.,q �'� �'a'.�-S�.�. •.. .. _ -,:-�—`•:--s�_ �. , -, .�`�'.-.�;r: - - ._ +:Z.', `r." ` - �, . . � ''•e� .� f � �• 'r• t� \ . ��•j.�•`h •R r µ.��A..___Oir•.'��^��i � .t��F�'�•,•r ,.� �+�.t�'�: s- .;;,i,. ,,•- '�!,-,,;��, :�.,.;�.�� _ . :,;. - ..� ;�, ■ 3r N �Y`� ` •a �,Y� •`�� , ��: � =i�.�l ,�`�� `� .v�` `�' ' � �-sr �ti•, ,.:' ',� - • _:w.I�I , �. ►+! �- - --- -- i � ��F .. . �� •:r_ - _ Jt a . �•�� :'V - �' � � . �_1a�ti=` = . • "� . . �++;'`�+'< � ..�- .��- �! ' i�� 'l � ,= .;.'+ '.� � ,c f�1�'S�4. ' , �� ' .�.� r �� ;�`' � �� . _ �� . .@,,,�;: ; ► -- - __� �j C r.r�" _� .S; f � - ��, ��'r. \. � �� 1 `R,� f ��► W , •.s�.'M � �. `1- .-,°�,�� • �� w� , �. j ��. �� - L' n�r.: - �;- �- '. ._ � .,�,�... .; . ,� � - � 7 � .• .i• � � .. �.y , 1 � . � � � _ . �. . ; ' � . ' ��: ,�. ' �` • � � ;�,z, "� -: � `- � r:. , . � r� , • *\ �, � 1 � ` / � � � � � . .r.�'� � v t(� �. . r'" .�' , � '`�9r!�e'� � `� � • ',�•* ' - ��."t7r � ,� �b, � � `,� I��i , f • -, • ^ .' `' �- _' r I . . w�� .+�jr � � .r.�_ �' � c �� ~ j:�v � � .� `+,� ♦' � i.,�,-;,f i `' ../` • � �J.��I _t'��_ . [' ;1�I'•�, '�~�� ' �'• _ ` �_ � ' �; .. �� I "Gy - h� ♦ �_� ^� �� - S � _ -- ' � _ _ _—� _ _ - �� __�� — - T ��I� � � . � } .�j�� - � - _ a �' �• . � ~� �•�.� � � � /� .,, � /, �� / -� �� _` � �} •�+,�",,. ' ` �"" � Y � r.. •`�. ; � � ,r \ .:,: — - "� '� - - � - . i_ ,� -+ -•s t � —- r i ��• ' � �e-' ; � .�' - :c ��7��r 1��J��l��r:��'�`.1�11�l �\I�l�\I l�.\� 5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC): Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. . ' �, ��. t � . � � /"� �..` � : 1 , <� :,..�:�,� \ •,�. :- - . . - � r � ;. � � i / '�"� � �` �•, . ��- t ! ►—�— � / / � 1" — I'� \ SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM ��- � ��;.�,,: ,.��,,� �. , .,, . , :� • Exempt the NCOD from duplicative �- ,�;� .. >_:< . � ,;.� .�. review processes arid replace with � � -��,f� - context derived standards and guide- �- -�- ''�� , lines. a:-- _ ¢: ;-' � _�i'� .. ..,,: =� ' i /,S= _� �� /. . , , �''` -`•. _� :,...r:,,.., � � � •�. �- _ - _ . -- =� - `'�;�__-' ;- F �Fw ' _ / "`�' �' s` �-, t �'r . • ; � - -�`� - '�f-_ ��Z►`�� r��r��'�►`� There are numerous requirements and reviews that may apply to projects within the NCOD including: a Certificate of Appropri- ateness, Sketch Plan Review, Form and Intensity Standards within each zone district, and Project Design Review to name a few. These multiple layers can create confusion for neighbors. The City of Bozeman developed handouts that simplify application requirements to be accessible and understandable to a wide range of users. The number of differing reviews increases the potential for conflicting standards that need to be rectified throughout the review process. In our experience, this can cause applicants to feel that the process is arbitrary. The Municipal Code has thresholds to determine when a recommendation is required from the Design Review Board (DRB). These thresholds are specific to large de- velopments with 45 or more dwelling units or are a minimum of four stories, and provide a good foundation to build on. Based on community input,there is a desire to address the review process and provide a more concise framework that is easy to follow. .. _ � � .. . _ , . � " .vu3 i � , I - �-�. , ~_�: ' 1�'� '�'_ - r _ �-�.-` . � j� l! ' '� �, I i \ flO1FM4�.� DEVELOPMENTACTION PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY '-1 I I S C31ac� A�U r` --1 1� I(•�JM I _ �� I COA � - � � _ I� -�.90 � � � r� o �.�.�.,,,� � I --- - . ��.� . _. . �� _ ___ _ , �_ _ � � -„ � � � /,� �` �: , r— � -. [ ''i,,,;�,L \ _'. � ��`�� \ �� . --�..- - . � �`. _ �```�� . ~� I �� )• Lt r T` --�� W � ��■\��'_�.�J��a�/Ia�1�Ir�t��'�►��1\.��\�■IE►`y�`.��1� WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Clear review criteria, an understandable process, and a Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. streamlined review are areas that need improvement accord- ing to the small group meeting participants. Placing more Map out the different review processes to determine overlap weight on public comment and Design Review Board (DRB) and areas to simplify and consolidate. For example, explore recommendations is desired; and, relating scope to level of the advantages and disadvantages to exempting the NCOD review process is recommended by the small group meeting from form and intensity standards in zone districts (and pos- participants. sibly other review processes) and instead use context derived design guidelines (recommendations) and standards (require- Overall, participants felt that the review process for new de- ments). velopment is slightly tilted to developers with some partici- pants agreeing that the review process is balanced. Develop review criteria that is objective and allows some flex- ibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulations, de- sign standards and design guidelines. "Let's have developers collaborate with the neighborhood they seek to develop within so that we can get projects TOOLS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION: that truly meet the needs and fit the character of the par- 1) Require a binding design review process with the Design ticularneighborhood." Review Board (non-historic properties). The DRB would be authorized to make the final decision on "There should be room for deviation from existing com- design review, while still enabling the Bozeman Commission munity character, if the proposed building's architecture is to consider a large project for review when certain thresholds world-class, contemporary." or requirements are met. At the same time, lower the thresh- .s�.. ., �ti� 'x; � , � olds that triggers DRB review to include smaller projects to -�;"'�,�s. � ,� balance the recommendation requiring a design review pro- _ �`�'1 , `�� '� cess for large projects. = ;.�•� �`��r/�-F=��-�, � . r,�� ,f ty� , � . }�� .�--• This is a significant change to the Bozeman Municipal Code _ , � ��'f� � � and requires a commitment to training the DRB to apply re- ' t � ' ' � �� view criteria. A large majority of established communities im- �, f'1., . , �� - - v plement a similar review structure with design review boards, +� � � n historic preservation boards, planning boards, and/or zoning ,,,,, ; ' � , boards conducting quasi-judicial procedures to review proj- •. ,,��,,, - ;;;;;;; ects that fall between a staff level review and a comprehen- ,^� � "` � sive review by elected ofFicials. Under this process, planning � `�`'�''� � staff continues to approve minor projects and provides exper- tise and recommendations to the review body during a proj- ect review. STRATEGIC PLAN POLICIES 4•Z•�,4•4, 7•4•� COMMUNITY PLAN GOALS 1.3, 3�3, 4•3 /• ` � �' � { C � .,.7'�L-r. �/ �'lyii;' ` —�` _s � � '`�� *" \ - ' �� , � � � , �� \\; �; � - ' ;- .r � �' - � '�� ,� . _ R~ ' ��'■��J1��+"1�'_��1��\I�r�\\�1�1�1■I��iJ��Jr��\� City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draft NCOD recommendations. Correlations are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN POLICY 4.2.D UPDATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES. (P.6� Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservation in downtown and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote continued investment in the city's inventory of historic structures relative to ongoing infill and redevelopment. POLICY 4.4 VIBRANT DOWNTOWN, DISTRICTS & CENTERS. (P.7� Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers—including higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas. POLICY 7.4.D STRATEGIC MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS. (P.11� Strategically manage community and employee expectations about the City's capacity to deliver services. 2009 COMMUNITY PLAN GOAL 1.3, OBJECTIVE G-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT. �P.13� Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. Goa�3.3, OBJECTIVE LU-3 LAND USE. �P.33� Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connection represented by this area. Goa�4.3, OBJECTIVE C-1.2 COMMUNITY QUALITY. �P.47� Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development. GoA�4.3, OBJECTIVE C-1.4 COMMUNITY QUALITY. �P.47� Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City's visual qualities within neighborhood, community and regional commercial areas. -- --- �__-_--�, '� � — - . .. _ . ;�, � � =� _ _ " :��`�+^� _- y �,:'' I s -- 3`'4,r ..'. w.. �� iV - r^ i - - ry' - . _ .._ ' r ' f- ` % �',. -- -�m , i� �.�. ;� .. �-r--'-r-� r' -— -- ----= I=__-='_-_-" ---=_-_- � , I � '�l�` r .. t . '7:i ►C -- C � �t; �� ,� � ;' '- s'' . �� - � ;� .�, � i� � - - - . .; ; . '~' � '� ' _ .�'��•f��.�f��_ — ,. ..I. . z. �� •t � � •n "' �� ;� �'! �` � �� - � ., � ��,, ' , , . . ;'y �,;��`��;��}'�: , ' . . �c , ��, �� ,;- .:�=_ a��`�� j�t��a��l�l�i�� l " � �Y��„ ,� �� _ �� - �� F*y � ��((�� , � ,,;�� =��r��]��i�� , _ ' ' � �MY�',��^y� �/(�' � • � 1�. 4�r � � ID � � , �`. .� . � , , . :��tt .. , . � � ��,�} y`*�r��;il 1� `A '! � 1�'��" r' + ' �� It _,., ,y �;�;,�' ,;, - � • ��I�� '�� . � r�4?��T��P4r` � . ' � �� '` � �.. 1�1��'r� r� . ';, ► ' : �!� t.� , � -. ' i . �i� . �_��3,�� *,��°��'... 4 . . � � t � � .. . � �� j�� - -�� I �°r �'r ; . `�'.' •�� ; � ��E�� t� i , � �i.. �..., ,� ,,,,, �'' . , _ �; �;�dj, . '�.�. :,i+ , � ; , '�� . :�., � +�. �„a.,�''- ,� ',�f�' '�.�+�'� � �J � f ��y� - - ��;'+i'`��,,',�-°:�� . ✓,' '\\ - ' ,M V i ,1 , � t \ .�y'� � :• .' _� ,�F IP � " ` S4 _ �, `' �-��'«�;;�.:a. - ` '� ��' �� ' - �' � r'' =�� . 'n' � 'I � ` . " . � � � �� I�s•..�. ��_ - . - =i : , � �. -�- ,--�---, t �� , . ,� �_ - � � ., r, � � ��1 .. .f '-' '1� ti � + r :,�' �r, `, � } �� - „ , _ v� �� r �� .� ��,r.- .� t. . �� - . � 1 � �T + y � '� � � � , t..'� � � '� "` � � f�� _ � F _ � ,��. � � ir ` � � y �_ � '�r � •; + � 1 I 1 � � � � � � r � � � � � ! �� . ._.� • ��, --_�--.r.-�.. .. # ��-. . _ _ - . �.:. _ �, � , � ,, ►� `",�_ � a "';, � :,�i ---�� :.'�i _..; ;, - :,• � �r � r - ' r ' � ,��T.�_ ""r _ •- _vii�' i - � ::ri i.■. C ""' ��.�.�� y .,�is� �.rr a w��s�ru�S � ' --'�� .. - S � . � .� �s��.�� • ' �r•, - �\ �• . . � , . • . ,� . . . ��,� � �� . � � _ .1l �l �I l��ll .�.�►'� �1l 1l� �� 6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION Strengthen existing project information channels and work on push notifications City-wide. 6.2 PROJECT INFORMATION Develop a plan to have public meetings prior to applicatoni review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noticing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. � �' . ' � -. " ._ f - �.-Y�1��r�'- '- � a 1' ■ _f � _' ' S�sw�., w 1 , y �� - � � . � � " � - "� � �� ...-� - � - _-,� � 9 �•-+,�:� _ .R.� , � � t ` �� - s' � �'�$. _ � .�.- '� �r _ .,,; �� . -�n, - 'c�.eixi . ,a:. , ��.r.w��* .ai.�-��w� _ ' - , . .�c—��a`�a�1��t f �, ,.�- - � r �� - �-� r SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM � . Strengthen existing project information channels and worl< on push notifications City-wide. � Develop a plan to have public meel-ir.o_ r. ._. __ _rr toni review with impacted neighbor�s. Collect input froi neighbors on large scale projects. A,dd noticing requirE i ments with area radius. Develop n�inimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develol ' '' ' ' that trigger revie�v� ��I' �--�-t � T �•� = � . �., 1�; ��;��, -i- w ��ry �t ,`'+ �.� ��,,,�`' •g;�� 'y : ��_ ._� � xh .�:lk,i- N.,, � ;1�p!i: f ,! ..,...�.�. r �' ..r,-` ,. -'.�i.� _ . �...•., w �. ~ I. �„ r � • , � • _ � \ ar 5 � � . - 1, y� � � — ` S. �� , ^a\ s�_ „� _ t .'4]Iq'��t - a �.^S _,; ; _„ �. ♦ � ' � :�( - _' . ,�t � 1 �.� � �_ ,"�'+"'• _�.. '��i _ � :NII� � 1 �'�7iY1 � . as�a�s■ A . . �i r�.�+r�L'� ��\�� =i�aw�� , . ' - , _ �.�-��a� ��r:tr_�J��'l■I►I 7�,:�►�I��\1 l�,► The City of Bozeman requires mailed and posted notices that include information about the project,contact number,and the date of a public hearing for specific types of projects. In addition, the City of Bozeman is currently working on expanding web access to development project information and advisory board agendas with links to packet material. A Certificate of Appropriateness in the NCOD does not require posting of notice prior to approval; rather,the Municipal Code may require notice be posted on the property that describes the scope of the already approved project. Administrative reviews at the staff level do not have required public noticing prior to the decision. By their very nature, staff reviews are for projects that comply with code requirements and a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued quickly without slowing down development momentum. WHAT WE HEARD: ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Project information is mostly found in the newspaper, on the Strengthen existing project information channels. city website, and through word of mouth. Most participants feel that available information provides enough detail to un- Go beyond the standard posting, mailing, and publishing, and derstand the main points of a project. provide information to the area surrounding the project prior to the first hearing or staff determination. The City of Boze- "ALL of these sources and several times INADVANCE-you man has a robust award-winning GIS Department and web- can't advertise too much" page. The information that is available online includes layers that illustrate projects that are under initial review, on hold, "Send out texts with development/proposal info to folks are within a public noticing, under final review, and approved. within a five block radius." In speaking with the community and reviewing the website, "Continue to utilize GIS in a useable format so the public there is an opportunity to work within the existing GIS layers can see proposed projects early in the process and have a to add additional information. Examples from other cities in- chance to comment." clude a summary of the project proposal, more detailed appli- cation status, and associated permits. "Neighbors directly affected deserve a direct communica- tion." Options to explore: • Working with GIS Department and web administrators on how to integrate additional information into the existing �� - I ` GIS layers and website to make detailed project informa- �• � Gw^sGiova��. .i I '_'I )J � .�, . `°'"'" �Zofs> . ► x tion more readily available to the public. _ i,�tl�.i�i�.i.... � — _a_Fr..iP.ilioe:A�_«_ � Case Number. LUR2017-00078 � � = Desviption: NONCONFOFFIING USE �� ' ,,,,,,=. RE��Etvfo��,�:oo�tdoo. _ • Educational campaign through City social media channels rinsine patios(total of 963 square ew ,ee�,asso�;dtedw;tha�eW discussing where to find planning project information. --� - restauranF use in the Village - "' ""^'e�� . Shopping Center(Shine �Run i ��F,��.�_� Restaurant R Gathering �WOrkfIOW StatUS Place).The proposed hours �R,�9 Click on arrow to the lek of the Review 7ask to see additional results and cominents. of operation are 11 a.m.[o � il p.m.seven days a week. - The larger patlo area is �► =-ppLca-�o�Sukmca] a., �''>p�. W ellm�i ��t ezisting and+vas formerly ' nen n.e„�:.,�.�.;, ..7► Roucice �ry �� used by Alba Restaurant ,rcoiorado Nill � ard`lol[a Restau�an[. � F��.I�:t r,�; - Zoam ta " ;En-,i uV. �► P'e eP�auu_ __�", _ ..-_••. Ea;tAurc.a:� — - hlt�_.�6�. _ _ " City of Boulder,GIS,Development Review Cases. City of Fort Collins,GIS,Citizen Portal. r� �' _�alise•-� � r � .��..r. ._ �.r..,r , 4.�.• } , ' . -. � - -�.,- � � `� � - . i � 1 �.� "__ �� • . - e,�1 +.� �' �� • � � � - " � -- _:r ' i , , �..'� :� . . :�.+4 a 1� . `'9-S�{1�1 "C��{ � '�l.. , "„"`-=.. it ' ��f1. -�Td�ii1 a - . . . . �rrr�� w�� i ��r�t�_��l��lZ��l��Il�� ADOPTED POLICY DIRECTION: Options to explore: Increase opportunity for community awareness through no- • A required meeting prior to application review with the ticed public hearings. neighborhoods impacted by the project. Pushing more projects and review authority to the DRB or • To take it a step further, required input from the neigh- HPAB will automatically generate a forum to gather informa- borhood association on large scale projects could be ex- tion during project review and may result in more community plored. For example, in Pitkin County Colorado, specific awareness of ongoing projects. areas within the County have formed caucuses that are required to provide a recommendation to the reviewing body on large projects within their area. ``�, l.f --_� . �'� Y _ _t-__ . ��-�� _ .:`_,.� � �' ,: f _ �, ,�'r` ;' . ,,,,,;,''`` , _ _ , � `,� � !__ _-- ,,,,<<'` � << ' I / ``��`� / �-<<t<<,,<<<<« - - «<«��"<«<`"` .— � � --� �i , � ��. << ,u<<<lt` � ! � " '"� � I. «i�ua`'`"�� -r �r I �_I1- f'_�-1 1' � 1r- � <«<t<«<< r. . � �-y 7_-j � i y �� i �__,1- - <<µ.�`` r � �—� "1!,��1—_ - ««,<<«� � '' '� �' 1-' '� 1 ,:��" � �' _ _ '_ , - f- — ir `� : ��' r� -��. _�.- � � �r � y-�-_ ,- 7 �!. l ' ( --- � �� ' _'-, 1"_r '_ ' ; � 1. �__- � i , � , . \� � - I _J,1=1 _ I ��" - -r • � i � Y ��1 l f �_� I , � �� i�, . - � � �-�� - , . ;_� �- y -, � _ - - , . 1_. � - - � `�� " y i�_-rf ,,1,`�,11� � 11<<��,1`�', - �-�, � ��Ll l l l l�� _ = -s=„�1`--J.rl-'`` ��