Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-26 - InterNeighborhood Council - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call meeting to order - 4:30 p.m. B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Approval of Minutes D.1 Approve Minutes from April 9, 2026 (Kiely) E. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board F. Special Presentation F.1 Bozeman Neighborhood Connection (10 minutes)(Zollars) G. Action Items G.1 Update INC Bylaws (30 minutes)(Crumrine, Kocioleck, Osman) THE INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA INC AGENDA Thursday, May 14, 2026 This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 669 900 9128 Access code: 960 8158 0066 I move to approve the regular meeting minutes as submitted. This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Inter- Neighborhood Council. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. I move to adopt the amended Inter-Neighborhood Council bylaws. 1 H. FYI/Discussion H.1 Integrated Water Resource Plan Update (10 minutes)(Boyson) H.2 Commission Liaison Update (15 minutes)(Fischer) H.3 City Liaison Update (5 minutes)(Kiely) H.4 Neighborhood Written Updates & Follow-Up Questions (10 minutes)(INC Reps) H.5 The Study Commission and the INC Charter Written Update (Webster) I. Adjournment For more information please contact Emily Kiely, ekiely@bozeman.net This board generally meets the 2nd Thursday of the month from 4:30 to 6:00 Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232. In order for this Board to receive all relevant public comment in time for this meeting, please submit via the Public Comment Page or by emailing comments@bozeman.net no later than 12:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Public comment may be made in person at the meeting as well. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Emily Kiely, Community Engagement Coordinator SUBJECT:Approve Minutes from April 9, 2026 MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the regular meeting minutes as submitted. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Minutes from April 9, 2026 UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 2026.04.09 INC Minutes.docx Report compiled on: May 8, 2026 3 Bozeman Inter Neighborhood Council Meeting Minutes, 04/09/2026 Page 1 of 3 THE INTER NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES April 9, 2026 A) 00:00:05 Call meeting to order - 4:30 p.m. 00:01:03 Absent: Bozeman Creek B) Disclosures C) Changes to the Agenda D) Approval of Minutes D.1 00:02:54 Approve Minutes from March 12, 2026 2026.3.12 INC Minutes.docx Motion to approve: Beth Boyson 2nd: Angie Kociolek All in favor. E) 00:03:21 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board F) Action Items F.1 00:05:56 Adopt INC Bylaws (30 minutes) AK ZO KC FINAL DRAFT showing tracked changes from Aug 2024 version.docx Angie shared background on why the INC bylaws are being updated and what has happened to-date to get to the most recent draft bylaws. Angie and Kath walked through the changes that have been made and explained voting. Emily Mason suggested adding that the Secretary-Treasurer will be Acting Chair in the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair. 4 Bozeman Inter Neighborhood Council Meeting Minutes, 04/09/2026 Page 2 of 3 After more discussion about quorum and representation, INC reps decided to table voting and discuss at the May meeting. 20240717 INC bylaws given to me by E Kiely.doc F.2 01:00:21 Discuss Neighbor and Staff Award (15 minutes) Emily Mason shared about wanting to recognize a special neighbor or staff on the yearly basis. The group discussed the time it would take to do this. They also talked about making it less official and using a formal resolution to honor the neighbor. It was suggested to take this idea to the neighborhood level. G) FYI/Discussion G.1 01:08:30 Communication Best Practices for Neighborhood Associations (15 minutes) Beth Boyson asked to speak about communication tools and Nextdoor. Patrick asked, what more can the City do? Ann shared that her neighbor created a "how-to guide" and will share out. Michelle suggested the Engage page. Jenn asked more about What's App. G.2 01:22:50 Integrated Water Resource Plan Update (5 minutes) The first meeting of the WAC – the Water Advisory Cmte has taken place on Monday, April 6. The WAC combines the two committees of Public Advisory and Technical Advisory. WAC reviewed the 643 self- selected (meaning not randomized, but rather people who volunteered to participate) responses to the Community Survey Overview. Reliability of water service was ranked highest in importance. Recreational opportunities was not a high-ranking priority. WAC is reviewing 40 different concept alternatives for water use and preservation, including possibly restoring the Sourdough Reservoir, purchasing more shares in the Hyalite Reservoir water supply, dredging the Hyalite Reservoir, and continue to identify opportunities to optimize the use of Lyman Spring. All alternative and their ranking can be found at the Engage Bozeman page: https://engage.bozeman.net/iwrp G.3 01:28:55 City Liaison Update (5 minutes) New project on Engage Bozeman: NCOD Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The first Community Open House is scheduled for Monday, April 13 at the Bozeman Event Space (14 S. Tracy Ave), stop by anytime between 6-8pm. Walking tours scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, from 3-5pm in the Northeast Neighborhood and Wednesday, April 15, from 9-11am in the South Central Neighborhood. Another new project: Urban Forest Management Plan. First public event scheduled for April 28 from noon to 1 p.m. online Please register on Engage. Subscribe to the Engage pages to receive email updates. For Neighborhood updates: INC will vote for officers at the June meeting. Please consider if you'd like to be chair, vice, or secretary or want to nominate anyone. Annual reports will go out the first of June and are due the end of June. 5 Bozeman Inter Neighborhood Council Meeting Minutes, 04/09/2026 Page 3 of 3 G.4 00:47:03 Commission Liaison Update (10 minutes) Deputy Mayor shared that at the April 14 City Commission meeting will be a work session on traffic and pedestrian safety. On April 28, City Commission will discuss priorities. He shared that there has not been a call from three commissioners to discuss the interim zoning at a commission meeting. Patrick questioned why they couldn't still have a public conversation about it. Jenn ask Deputy Mayor to give a follow-up to neighbors. Michelle wanted to hear from the city attorney. Jim gave more background and asked commission have a conversation around it. Angie made comment about the INC Commission Liaison be a ally to INC. Angie mentioned the letter being saved in the INC folder. G.5 01:33:37 Neighborhood Written Updates (5 minutes) Kath shared about the construction happening in the neighborhood since summer. Mark talked about the language submitted to the Study Commission for neighborhood charter language. Mark asked if Beth would be interested in revisiting subcommittee work. He also talked about the transportation master plan. He also shared the Jon Henderson joined their meeting to talk about the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan. Angie shared NENA is meeting on Monday and that Commissioner Sweeney will be talking about the Landmark Program and that others are invited to join. Jim talked about hearing from Community Partners Collaborative, the consultant for NCOD. Patrick talked about putting more pressure on the Commission regarding the interim zoning. H) 01:49:47 Adjournment For more information please contact Emily Kiely, emily.kiely@bozemanmt.gov. This board generally meets the 2nd Thursday of the month from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Andre Zollars SUBJECT:Bozeman Neighborhood Connection (10 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:Andre Zollars joins the Inter-Neighborhood Council to share about the grassroots group, Bozeman Neighborhood Connection. The idea is to rebuild the fabric of Bozeman by connecting people at the lowest level - neighborhoods. People connecting with people is the surest way of increasing communication, offering support and ultimately building resiliency and strength. Think of the free library that is prominent around Bozeman, and then take that a step further. Imagine within a neighborhood: a tool loaning program, ride assist program, baby/dog sitting emergency assistance, food/garden sharing, hobby groups created, social events planned, disaster relief assistance and sharing of items like generators. The list can go as far as our imaginations and desired connections allow. Now, take this idea and add in an administrative/communication structure that can cross-level support and relationship building between neighborhoods. That central administration can ensure help for struggling neighbors who lack what is needed, by garnering supplies from neighborhoods that are flush. Really, we are building small communities within Bozeman and reconnecting with our small town Montana roots where taking care of your neighbor is a paramount value. We believe that we can push back against divisiveness, by simply offering connection and looking out for the well-being of our neighbor. The Bozeman Neighborhood Connection website tells a bit about us and offers a place for folks to sign up. We are also on Facebook under Bozeman Neighbor Connection. 7 UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Gemini_Generated_Image_2wjmz12wjmz12wjm.png Gemini_Generated_Image_9q9t359q9t359q9t.png Report compiled on: May 7, 2026 8 9 10 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Kath Crumrine, Marwyn Lindley Angie Kocioleck, Northeast Zehra Osman, Valley Unit SUBJECT:Update INC Bylaws (30 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:I move to adopt the amended Inter-Neighborhood Council bylaws. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Here we present a proposed solution in response to the vibrant discussion during the April 2026 INC Meeting Bylaws agenda item about section XII. Representation and Voting. There was no clear direction but we heard some advocate to increase the quorum or keep it as is at 1/3. As a reminder, the 1/3 quorum was carried over from the 2024 version of the INC Bylaws. We propose to raise the meeting quorum to be a majority of all delegates of recognized neighborhood associations. See Sec. XII D. in highlighted yellow. 1. Rationale Research back to the 2013 version of INC Bylaws states: “A quorum, which is required for the conduct of any INC meeting, consists of a majority of voting delegates of recognized neighborhood associations.” *Note: Currently, not all recognized delegates are allowed to cast representational votes per their bylaws. 2. We can only miss three meetings anyway so theoretically we should be attending most meetings. 3. MCA 2-3-202 states, “quorum is generally defined as a majority although specific agency bylaws may define it differently.” 4. A higher quorum reduces the risk of inadvertent quorum. 5. There was a question as to whether a higher threshold for quorum would make the City Commission take us more seriously. 11 So, practically speaking with our current total of 15 recognized neighborhood associations, this would raise our meeting quorum from 5 to 8. Voting, however, is dependent on whether it is administrative, representational, having to do with removal of delegates or related to Bylaw amendments. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: AK ZO KC FINAL DRAFT showing tracked changes from Aug 2024 version 4.15.26.docx Report compiled on: May 7, 2026 12 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 1 City of Bozeman Inter-Neighborhood Council Bylaws I. Mission A. Established by City Charter and recognizing the value of citizen involvement and the importance of neighborhood relations through effective and timely communication, the Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) is committed to ensuring safety, quality of life, environmental responsibility, knowledge, and guidance to Bozeman’s neighborhoods. The INC fosters a sense of cooperation and understanding between neighborhoods to increase the overall health of the community. The INC provides information to the recognized neighborhood associations and may make recommendations to the City Commission and City staff on city-wide issues as requested and /or deemed necessary by the INC. II. Vision A. Our connection to pride in where we live rests, in part, on the relationships we share with others in our community. We envision the City of Bozeman as one in which every citizen feels informed about changes in their neighborhood and community. and Thus, citizens are empowered enabled to share their concerns and ideas with fellow citizens and elected officials and in which governmental agencies at all levels set the example of good stewardship and support for their citizens’ citizen-led efforts. III. Definitions A. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division these Bylaws, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. “Administrative vote” means votes related to the organizational business of the INC including but not limited to approval of minutes and scheduling of meetings. 2. "City agency" means and includes all departments, bureaus, offices, boards, councils, liaisons, task forces and commissions of the City of Bozeman. 3. "City liaison" means the designee of the City Manager responsible for administration and enforcement of the responsibilities of the City of Bozeman as defined by the City’s Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance. 4. "Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC)" means the council composed of delegates selected by each recognized neighborhood association. 13 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 2 5. "Recognized neighborhood association" means an organization formed by residents for the purpose of maintaining and/or improving the livability and quality of their neighborhood, formally recognized by the INC, and therefore the City of Bozeman, and subject to the provisions of the City’s Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance. 6. "Non-recognized neighborhood association" means an organization formed by residents for the purpose of maintaining and/or improving the livability and quality of their neighborhood. A non-recognized neighborhood association is one which has not yet met the minimum standards for recognition as set forth in the City’s Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance or has lost its recognized status for failing to comply with the minimum standards as set forth in the City’s Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance. A non-recognized neighborhood association has no representation on the INC. 7. "Neighborhood group" means a loosely organized, non-recognized group of residents formed for the purpose of maintaining and/or improving the livability and quality of their neighborhood and that demonstrates an interest in forming a recognized neighborhood association. A neighborhood group has no representation on the INC. 8. “Neighborhood Representational vote” means a vote cast by a delegate intended to represent the official position of their neighborhood on, including but not limited to, a specific position, policy or project. IV. Authorization and Organization A. The INC is established by the Bozeman City Charter, adopted by the Citizens of Bozeman on December 7, 2006 and effective January 1, 2008. B. The INC fiscal year begins 1 July of each year and ends 30 June of the next year. C. The INC is an advisory board to the City Commission. The INC shall be composed of one delegate selected by each recognized neighborhood association and shall provide a forum for recognized neighborhood associations to come together, share information, and make recommendations to the city. The INC shall also provide a forum for non-recognized neighborhood associations, neighborhood groups, and city agencies to communicate with recognized and non-recognized neighborhood organizations and groups. V. Officers and Duties A. The INC shall maintain the offices of Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary-Treasurer. The officers must be designated appointed delegates (see III. A.3.). 14 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 3 1. The Chair shall be responsible for the operation of the INC and its officers pursuant to these Bylaws. This shall include setting meeting agendas, conducting meetings, representing the INC at official functions, appointing sub-committees, and generally overseeing the business of the INC. The Chair shall have the primary responsibility for leading the long-term and short-term planning efforts of the INC and shall also have specific duties as spelled out elsewhere in these Bylaws and assigned by the delegates. 2. The Vice-Chair shall, in the event of the absence or inability of the Chairman to exercise the office, become Acting Chairman of the INC. 3. The Secretary-Treasurer, in partnership with the City Liaison, shall be the official custodian of the records as required by the Bylaws of the INC. The Secretary-Treasurer shall produce all written, electronic, or other modes of communications as requested by the Chair or delegates. 4. The Secretary-Treasurer shall have custody of all monies belonging to the INC and maintain an accurate accounting of all receipts and expenditures that have been generated through the INC. The Secretary-Treasurer shall provide a financial report to delegates at meetings as deemed necessary by the Chair and affix to the meeting minutes. The Secretary-Treasurer must be one of the officers who shall sign checks or drafts of the INC, if utilized. There shall be three (3) authorized signatures on the bankcard, if any, and two (2) authorized signatures on each check, if any. VI. City Liaison Duties A. The City’s Neighborhood Coordinator staff position serves as INC City Liaison. The City Liaison is responsible for providing counsel and support services to the INC and other duties as codified in municipal code sec.2.05.1220. Such services may include assistance with agenda creation and distribution, general communications, newsletters, grant writing, activity planning, leadership training, public relations, outreach efforts, general information and referral, creating surveys or polls to be distributed to neighborhood association members as a means to inform their delegate’s vote, and other technical assistance as requested. The City Liaison shall record and maintain the minutes of all INC meetings. The City Liaison shall work with the Secretary-Treasurer to ensure accurate records of the INC are maintained. VII. Executive Committee A. The Executive Committee shall be composed of all INC officers, the Chair of any standing committee(s) of the INC and the City Liaison. B. The Executive Committee, as a collective body, may act on behalf of the INC between regular meetings on any matter determined urgent. Any such action shall 15 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 4 be reported at the next regular meeting of the INC and none of its actions shall conflict with actions taken or policies formulated by the INC. VIII. Committees A. The Chair, with a successful vote, may appoint standing committees or subcommittees to help conduct the business of the INC. A standing committee deals with ongoing business whereas a subcommittee works on discrete tasks with a defined purpose and timeline. Each appointed standing committee shall choose a committee Chair, who shall serve as a member of the Executive Committee. B. Committee Chair(s) shall report to the INC. These reports shall be entered into the minutes. IX. Elections and Officer Terms A. Elections of INC officers shall occur in the final meeting of the fiscal year held in the month of June. with the exception to the 2013 year. B. A nominating committee may be appointed by the Chair to propose, for the final meeting of the fiscal year, one or more eligible candidates from the INC for each office for the coming year. Nominations should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to INC elections, when possible. Nominations shall also be accepted from the floor. All candidates must have accepted the nomination and be a qualified delegate of the INC. C. The INC shall elect officers by a successful vote. (For more on voting, see XII.) D. Voting shall be by secret ballot if there is more than one (1) candidate for office. E. The ballots shall be maintained by the Secretary-Treasurer for sixty (60) days and shall then be destroyed. F. The Secretary-Treasurer, in partnership with the City Liaison, will obtain the names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and terms of office of newly elected INC officers. G. Newly elected officers shall be installed in the first meeting of the fiscal year of the month of July. H. Terms of office for INC officers shall be a recommended (but not mandated) maximum of two years. I. The Secretary-Treasurer, in partnership with the City Liaison, shall maintain a list of recognized neighborhood association members interested in serving as a 16 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 5 delegate to, or officer in, the INC. This list shall be consulted when a delegate, or delegates, is needed to fill a vacancy and/or when officers are nominated. X. Removal and Vacancies of Delegates and Officers A. Any elected INC officer may be removed from office for good cause. Removal shall be debated by the INC and shall require a two-thirds (2/3) quorum of all voting the delegates of the INC in attendance at the meeting when the vote takes place. A simple majority is required for officer removal. Notice of a vote for removal of an elected officer shall be included in the call to meeting and listed on the meeting agenda along with the location, date and time of the meeting. The City Liaison will inform the neighborhood association of the removal. If a vacancy occurs outside the normal election process, candidates for the unfilled term shall be nominated from the floor and elected at the next scheduled meeting following the vacancy. Anyone elected to the vacated office shall serve for the remainder of the original term. B. Any INC delegate may be removed from the INC for good cause. The same rules that apply in XA. apply here. Removal shall be debated by the INC and shall require a majority vote of the delegates. XI. Procedures A. Unless otherwise determined by a successful vote of the INC, the body shall conduct a minimum of one regularly scheduled meeting each month. All meetings are open to the public and subject to the State of Montana’s open meeting laws. Cancellation or rescheduling of any meeting, or scheduling of any special meetings, may occur at the discretion of INC. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be held at such a place, date and hour as may from time to time be fixed by consensus. Notification of all meetings to all delegates may be given in person, via e-mail, via fax, over the telephone, or hand delivered to a delegate’s usual place of residence at least three days before the time set for the meeting. Notification shall also be given to the City Clerk’s office. B. The City Liaison shall prepare a schedule/agenda for each meeting in consultation with, and for approval by, the Chair and Vice-Chair and other neighborhood delegates as needed. Said agenda shall be made available to the entire INC and the City Clerk’s office at least three days prior to each monthly meeting and shall include the date, time and location of the meeting as well as discussion topics. Agenda shall be hand delivered to a delegate’s usual place of residence, delivered electronically via email or via fax. C. The Chair shall preside at all meetings; the Vice-Chair shall preside at meetings upon request of the Chair. The Secretary-Treasurer shall prepare the minutes of the monthly or special meetings. The minutes shall include a list of attendance, 17 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 6 including neighborhood delegates, guests, and members of the public, and a summary of all business, discussions and actions taken. D. Amendments and changes to the Bylaws may be adopted during any regular meeting following a two-thirds (2/3) vote of delegates and provided that the revisions are submitted to the INC along with the agenda in advance of the meeting. Amendments shall be ratified by the City Commission. Date of amendment approval by the INC and City Commission shall be recorded under the section “XVIII. Effective Date” of these bylaws. XII. Representation and Voting A . A quorum, which is required for the conduct of any INC meeting, consists of 1/3 of delegates, with a minimum of three delegates. B. Unless otherwise specified in these bylaws, an INC vote passes by a majority of attending delegates at any INC meeting. A. Each recognized neighborhood association shall select appoint one delegate and an alternate delegate to the INC pursuant to neighborhood association bylaws and communicate the names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of the delegate and the alternate, in writing, to the INC Secretary-Treasurer and the City Liaison. B. Each designated appointed delegate has one vote on the INC. In the absence of the designated appointed delegate, the alternate delegate to the INC may exercise the same rights and privileges afforded the designated appointed delegate until the absent delegate returns or a new delegate is selected appointed by the recognized neighborhood association. Only one vote from each recognized neighborhood association may be cast. Delegate, or alternate delegate, vacancies to the INC shall be filled within sixty (60) days of the vacancy. C. A delegate to the INC unable to attend an INC meeting may provide written authorization to the INC Secretary-Treasurer for an alternate delegate or other INC delegate to vote on any matter that may come before the INC at that meeting. The written proxy authorization shall state the name of the authorized delegate and be signed and dated by the absent delegate. A proxy vote shall be fully documented in the minutes of the meeting. D. A meeting is held if there is a quorum. A quorum consists of a majority of all current delegates representing recognized neighborhood associations. Voting is also subject to the quorum rule of a majority of current delegates and a majority vote of delegates in attendance is sufficient to approve any item unless otherwise specified in these Bylaws (see XA- B. and XVII.). 18 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 7 E. All INC delegates are granted the right to participate in and cast administrative votes. F. Neighborhood representational votes taking an official position on behalf of a neighborhood association shall accurately reflect neighborhood positions and votes cast pursuant to neighborhood association bylaws. Neighborhood representational votes intended to inform the official position of the INC require a majority vote of all voting delegates. G. Both administrative and neighborhood representational INC votes pass by a majority of attending delegates who cast a vote (whether in person or virtual; or their authorized proxy) during any INC meeting. Per Robert’s Rules abstentions are not counted toward voting quorum or results. H. The INC shall establish and follow a clear method for reporting to the City actions which accurately reflect neighborhood positions. When the INC presents an official position on an issue the City, the INC shall identify how a decision on the position was reached pursuant to Sec. 2.05.1210 D, including but not limited to the INC vote composition and any survey or poll results. 1. by majority vote of the delegates; 2. by majority vote of the attending delegates; 3. by a 2/3 vote of the delegates; 4. by consensus of the attending delegates; 5. bya poll of the general membership of each recognized neighborhood association with documentation of vote results; or 6. by vote of recognized neighborhood association membership at a general or special membership meeting with documentation of vote results. XIII. Attendance A. Regular attendance of all meetings is considered crucial for neighborhood contribution to the INC and is a requirement for membership. No more than three absences within a one-year period may occur, without authorization from an INC officer or City Liaison (understanding emergencies arise). Attendance shall be recorded by the Secretary-Treasurer at each meeting and included in the minutes. XIV. Conflict of Interest A. Any delegate or alternate delegate, who has, may have or expects to have, a pecuniary or personal interest in a nomination, proposal, recommendation or undertaking related to the INC’s general role and responsibility as stated in the Mission, shall publicly declare a potential conflict of interest and attempt resolution through discussion among delegates. If the conflict cannot be resolved, the delegate or alternate delegate, shall recuse themselves from debate and abstain from a vote or votes on that issue. Pecuniary interest shall be defined as the flow 19 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 8 of financial resources, loss of resources, or savings of resources which may result from the action of a delegate. Personal interest shall be defined as any interest in the matter which would affect the action of the delegate other than a financial interest, and other than an interest because of membership in, or affiliation with, but not employment by a social, fraternal, charitable, service, educational, religious, governmental, health service, philanthropic, cultural, or similar nonprofit institution or organization. XV. General A. The rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the INC, and all committees and subcommittees in all cases to which they apply and do not conflict with the specific provisions of these Bylaws or any special rules that the INC may adopt. B. If any part of the Bylaws or the application thereof is hereafter held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder shall not be affected thereby, and only the affected portions are declared eliminated. C. No INC delegate or alternate, officer, representative or spokesperson shall assume any financial liability of the INC. D. Officers of, and delegates to, the INC shall not represent the INC on any issue unless authorized to do so at a regular meeting of the INC by a majority of the delegates. XVI. Non-discrimination Clause A. The INC shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, religion, creed, political belief, mental or physical ability, or veteran status in admission, access to, or conduct of its meetings. XVII. Amendments to Bylaws A. Per code 2.05.1210F, amendments to the INC Bylaws requires a 2/3 vote of all INC delegates (not just 2/3 of delegates in attendance) in support of the proposed Bylaws Amendments to move them forward to the Commission for Ratification. These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the delegates, at any regular INC meeting, provided authorization to amend the bylaws has been directed by the delegates at a preceding meeting. Notice of a vote to amend the Bylaws shall be included in the call to meeting and listed on the meeting agenda. Amendments to the Bylaws may be adopted during any regular meeting so long as any proposed revisions have been submitted to the INC and published with the agenda in advance of the meeting. 20 INC Bylaws – proposed draft March 27, 2026 9 B. Bylaw amendments approved by the INC shall be forwarded to the City Liaison within ten (10) calendar days of approval for submission to the City Commission for ratification. XVIII. Effective Date A. These Bylaws were formally approved by the INC delegates at a meeting held on the 11th day of December 2007, at 7:00 P.M., at the Beall Park Recreation Center in the City of Bozeman, County of Gallatin, State of Montana and signed by all the attending delegates of the INC, representing a majority of neighborhood associations. B. These bylaws of the INC as officially and formally adopted on the 11th day of December, 2007, shall be effective January 1, 2008, upon final acceptance by majority of the City Commission as presented for ratification by the City Commission on December 17, 2007 and approved by a vote of 5-0. C. Amendments to these bylaws occurred by a 2/3 vote of the INC on the 9th day of May 2024 and presented for ratification by the City Commission on 12th day of August and approved by a vote of 4-0. D. Amendments to these bylaws occurred by majority vote of the INC on xth of April 2026 and presented for ratification by the City Commission on the X day of X 2026 and approved by a vote of XXX. Documentation of INC Approval: _________________________________________________ INC Chair Attested to by: __________________________________________________ INC City Liaison 21 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Beth Boyson, PAC IWRP Member and New Hyalite View INC rep SUBJECT:Integrated Water Resource Plan Update (10 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:Beth Boyson was selected to be the INC rep on the Public Advisory Board for the Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP) and will share an update. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: May 7, 2026 22 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Douglas Fischer, Deputy Mayor SUBJECT:Commission Liaison Update (15 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Standing item on INC agenda - the City Commission Liaison provides an update of pertinent information for INC Reps and Neighborhoods. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: May 7, 2026 23 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Emily Kiely, Community Engagement Coordinator SUBJECT:City Liaison Update (5 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Standing item on INC agenda - the City Liaison provides an update on Neighborhoods Program work, Engagement at the City, and pertinent information for INC Reps and Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods Annual Report template will be sent out on June 1 and are due June 31. This is required to remain in good standing as a city-recognized neighborhood association. Sec. 2.05.1180 No. 11. INC Officer Elections: "terms of office for INC officers shall be recommended (but not mandated) maximum of two years." All current officers may continue for the 2027 Fiscal Year. If there is interest in serving as an officer, elections will occur at the next meeting (June 11). Consider to host social in July or August in lieu of INC meeting or directly following meeting. Submit requests for room/park reservations and/or printing during summer months. Engagement New Project on Engage Bozeman: Engagement Framework Update. We want your feedback on how you'd like to engage in city project. Complete the survey and share with your neighbors. Urban Forest Management Plan Public Engagement Meeting, May 18 from noon-1pm at City Hall. Presentation on the proposed outline for the updated UFMP and opportunity to share feedback about the content. Bozeman Creek Vision Plan Open House from 3-7pm at Soroptimist 24 Park. Details to come. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: May 7, 2026 25 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Inter-Neighborhood Council Representatives SUBJECT:Neighborhood Written Updates & Follow-Up Questions (10 minutes) MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND:Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association The neighborhood had their annual meeting on April 27. There were two items of concerns from the neighbors in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood, but Deputy Mayor Fischer will be addressing them with the proper departments. One is the watering of the plants at the entrance to the Gallagator Trail on Garfield and the other is placement of the mobile speed limit apparatus in the neighborhood to inform drivers of the 25 mile per hour speed limit. Figgins Addition Neighborhood Association 1. A mountain lion was spotted along the trail that follows the marsh/wetland behind Figgins. FWP came to try to find the mountain lion but could not locate it. Signs were put up warning people to be aware. 2. A traffic calming device request was been approved by the City Streets department. I met with Danae and Taylor in April to discuss the planter, flowers and painting of the traffic calming project at the intersection of Arnold and Langhor. Four families who live near the intersection have volunteered to take the lead in decorating, painting and planting. Danea and Taylor also spent time with me looking at options to slow traffic near the crosswalk on the west side of Morning Star Elementary. They recommended a sign be placed in the crosswalk, more trees to be planted on the boulevard strips and perhaps season parking (summer) on both sides of the street to try and slow cars down heading east on Arnold. 3. Neighbors are starting to plan the annual neighborhood potluck. 26 New Hyalite View Neighborhood Association Annual Meeting coming up on Monday, May 18 at the Library - we are looking forward to an update on the playground. See: https://www.bozeman.net/departments/parks-and- recreation/parks/planning-and-development/cedarview-park-master- plan#ad-image-0 We also have on the agenda: 1. Officers election 2. Communication system info and approval 3. Addi Jadin - Parks and Rec update 4. Expansion of our neighborhood discussion 5. City Commission member or staff Q&A 6. General discussion South Central Association of Neighbors The seven-person SCAN Steering Committee met on 4/27 at Jim Webster's house with Teri Inscoe absent. The meeting went 90 minutes from 4:30 to 6pm. I (Jim Webster) gave a debrief on what had happened thus far with the Study Commission. The zoom call referred to in the other write-up, took place immediately following this meeting. We discussed best communication practices and nothing really emerged although steering committee member Jim Klabunde and his son were going to work further on some aspects of it. Tammy Minge, who will attend for SCAN at the May 14th INC meeting, shared some of her experiences on a subcommittee for SCAN that was specific to the NCOD several years ago when SCAN was functioning with a different group at the helm. Mary Lou Osman spoke of her experience as the SCAN member that attended the Lakota Group's recent Focus on the NCOD Group meeting. Overall, it was a pretty good meeting, but the question remains, "As the city is footing the bill for the Lakota Group's work, how much pushback will they give the city on NCOD Guidelines??" Tammy spoke re issues like parking and how it fits into NCOD neighborhoods and remodeling vs. full-scale demolition.Also brought up was the Bendon-Adams report from June 2019 and how will the Lakota report differ from it? (SEE ATTACHED for the Bendon-Adams report and send it to be included in this packet, as it is excellent! I will encourage all INC reps to send out to neighborhood residents whether in the NCOD or not, as it is informs the reader base of some of the issues out there. This report was put together I was told, at a cost of $50,000 to the city in 2019 and I share this simply as information. The Lakota Group's work is costing the city, $30,000: again, just information. University Neighborhood Association The UNA will be holding their Spring Meeting on May 26th at the American 27 Indian Hall. Speakers include Nick Ross to give an update on street renovations, Alison Sweeney to give an update on the Landmark Program, Deanna Campbell to give an update on the Bozeman Study Commission, Greg Garrigues to give an update on the NCOD Focus Group progress, and Felix Spinelli to give an update on the Story Mansion. There is also a President's Reception for the neighborhoods surrounding MSU on May 26th. The UNA will have quite a few neighbors attending. We have also submitted questions and asks to Matt Caires, Dean of Students, and he will be sending them off to President Tessman and his cabinet. The UNA is thrilled with this incredible show of goodwill on the part of MSU to collaborate with their neighbors. Valley Unit Neighborhood Association - see attached Valley West/Take Lake Neighborhood Association Valley West/The Lakes Neighborhood is growing slowly. The email list is now up to 40 names. Our homeowners association has given the neighborhood association some time to speak at its annual meeting at the end of June, which will hopefully encourage more participation. The Earth Week clean up day was canceled due to snow but a neighbors cleaned up on their own when the weather was better. We still have the supplies and hope to reschedule a neighborhood wide effort before summer. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: April 2026 VUNA report.pdf 2019 NCOD Review by Bendon Adams.pdf Report compiled on: May 6, 2026 28 April 2026 report from the VALLEY UNIT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VUNA steering committee members Alexandra Lewis-Lorentz, Christopher Matzke, Patrick Moore and Zehra Osman had a meeting on Thursday, April 23 to discuss how best to represent the neighborhood and the monthly VUNA meetings. It was decided that Patrick would represent the association in May and June and that Ali and Chris would share the duty in the upcoming summer months, with the possibility of Zehra representing the association in the Fall of 2026. We also discussed the possibility of having a neighborhood pot luck on Thursday, July 23, 2026 from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Valley Unit Park. Patrick put this information up on the VUNA Facebook page and sent out an email to the VUNA mailing list asking for neighborhood feedback on the proposed date. The email also alerted the neighborhood to the fact that the City Street sweeper would be coming through on April 29, as the City does not put up signs in the western subdivisions. The email also updated the association about the City Commission's decision to not have a public discussion about a proposed interim Zoning Ordinance in the NCOD. Respectfully submitted, Patrick Moore 29 1 FINAL NCOD POLICY DIRECTION JUNE 2019 30 2 31 33 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared for the City of Bozeman. HISTORIC PRESERVATION + OUTREACH TEAM BendonAdams Sara Adams, AICP Chris Bendon, AICP Reilly Thimons BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Cyndy Andrus, Mayor Chris Mehl, Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham Jeff Krauss I-Ho Pomeroy CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Marty Matsen, Director Chris Saunders Phillipe Gonzalez HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD Michael Wallner, Chair Jeanne Wilkinson Chelsea Hooling Jennifer Dunn Eric Karshner Crystal Alegria Victoria York PLANNING BOARD Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Laura Waterton Jennifer Madgic Paul Spitler George Thompson Gerald (Jerry) Pape Jr. Mark Egge ZONING COMMISSION George Thompson Paul Spitler Christopher Scott 32 DISCLAIMER Unless otherwise specified, all documentaƟon contained within this report has been aggregated and recorded through materials received during outreach iniƟ aƟves. Direct quotes and transcripƟons are emphasized in italics. Data includes all comments recorded by facilitators and parƟcipants during noted outreach acƟviƟes. While the majority of data was captured digitally, it is possible that errors may have occurred in the transcripƟon of hand-wriƩen comments. This would have principally occurred due to interpretaƟon and the nature of the notes captured in the engagement acƟviƟes. The Consultant has taken all care during the transcripƟon 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 acƟviƟes have been captured in this report. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed herein represent those of the engagement parƟcipants. BendonAdams is commiƩed to protecƟng the privacy of all parƟcipants who parƟcipated in the engagement process and has published comments anonymously unless otherwise presented as formal public comment to the City. BendonAdams LLC www.bendonadams.com 4 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6CHAPTER 1 PROJECT TIMELINE 71 PROJECT TIMELINE 81.1 INTRODUCTION 91.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 101.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 121.4 WORK PLAN 141.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS 181.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS CHAPTER 2 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 32CHAPTER 3 STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 373.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 383.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES 393.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS 41 42 3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 44CHAPTER 4 RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT 484.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS 524.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT 53CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS 56CHAPTER 5 STREAMLINE PROCESS 605.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS ΈNONͳHISTORICΉ 61CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS CHAPTER 6 PROJECT INFORMATION 62 6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 66 5 34 CHAPTER 1 PROJECT TIMELINE + INTRODUCTION 35 1 PROJECT TIMELINE The consultant team (consisƟng of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducƟng extensive public engagement to best understand the community’s needs and preferences regarding historic preservaƟon, the Neighborhood Con- servaƟon 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 FINAL DRAFT soliciƟng feedback in-IniƟal draŌ recom-Outreach summary of Finalize recommenda-cluding historic tours, mendaƟons based all feedback received Ɵons and alternaƟves Staff and Board meet-upon analysis of ex- during Trip #2 will be based on input from Trip ings, small group meet-isƟng condiƟons and pubished online in #3. Outreach summaryings, listening booths, an community feedback conjuncƟon 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 Research on exisƟ ng condiƟ ons within the NCOD and develop- ment of outreach pro- gramming. Community wide sur- vey on status of NCOD. SUMMARY #1 Outreach summary of all meeƟ ngs and feed- back received to date and publicaƟ on of raw data and analyses on- line. TRIP #2 Feedback from four large format commu- nity events, and Staff and Board meeƟ ngs, will provide further clarifi caƟ on on policy direcƟ on. TRIP #3 Present outreach re- sults and request policy direcƟon from City Commission to inform a final work program. Hold a pub- lic open house to inform the public. WORK PROGRAM Final document is provided to the City of Bozeman including complete outreach summary and results from all events, and a work program outlin- ing next steps. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù υ.υ. DكÃ㮑ƒ½½ù ®Ä‘Ù›ƒÝ› ãكÄÝփٛđù ƒÄ— ‘Ù›ƒã› ƒ‘‘›ÝÝ ãÊ ƒ½½ ‘®ãù —Ê‘çÛÄãÝ. (P.φ) 7 Pʽ®‘ù υ.φ BÙʃ—›Ä ƒÄ— —››Ö›Ä ›Ä¦ƒ¦›Ã›Äã Ê¥ 㫛 ‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ®Ä ‘®ãù ¦Êò›ÙÄÛÄã, ®ÄÄÊòƒã®Ä¦ Ûã«Ê—Ý ¥ÊÙ ®Äò®ã®Ä¦ ®ÄÖçã ¥ÙÊà 㫛 ‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ƒÄ— Ý・›«Ê½—›ÙÝ (P.φ) 7 36 8 1.1 INTRODUCTION Bozeman’s decision to adopt a ConservaƟon Overlay District that includes the areas between designated Historic Districts was a gutsy soluƟon in 1991 that made Bozeman a pioneer in preservaƟon 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 ConservaƟon 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 quesƟoning the effecƟveness of the Neighborhood ConservaƟon Over- lay District (NCOD) and whether other planning tools exist to beƩer reflect community senƟment. The Bozeman Community may have differing opinions on the means and methods, but goal is the same: Bozeman is a special place worth protecƟng. The NCOD has been in place since 1991 to protect neighborhood character, historic districts, and historic landmarks. The his- toric preservaƟon program goes beyond the NCOD to foster the knowledge of the city’s heritage, and culƟvate 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 compaƟble development outside Historic Districts. The recommendaƟons from the audit have been reviewed and taken into consideraƟon as part of this project. Based on current community senƟment, it was felt that an objecƟve 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 direcƟon from the City Comission. 88 37 C«ƒÖã›Ù ψ.χ, Gʃ½ ‘-ψ D›Ý®¦Ä G算›½®Ä›Ý. (P.ωτ) Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direcƟ on in design and review of residenƟ al and non-residenƟ al neighborhoods without unduly constraining architectural style and innovaƟ on. 1.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT This document contains the final adopted policy direcƟon, 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 narraƟve to provide context and background. Some of the adopted policies include “tools for future discussion” that are based on recommendaƟons and alternaƟves that were presented to the community throughout the project. City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟons contained herein. CorrelaƟons between the documents are noted throughout the document. The enƟre report reflects many of the adopted goals and objecƟves of the 2018 Strategic Plan, the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan, and the adopted 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, as noted below. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ MƒÝã›Ù P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. D›ò›½ÊÖ ƒÄ— A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®‘®›Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. This report is part of the infill conversaƟon. Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.χ.› H®¦« L›ò›½ Pʽ®‘ù CÊÄò›Ù݃ã®ÊÄÝ. (P.υυ) Develop a structure to foster regular, ongoing dialogue on innovaƟve ideas and informaƟon to assist the Commission with high level policy deliberaƟon and decisions. 2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ C«ƒÖã›Ù υ.χ, Gʃ½ ¦-φ ®ÃÖ½›Ã›Äãƒã®ÊÄ. (P.υχ) Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory implementaƟ on acƟ ons undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objecƟ ves of this plan are eff ecƟ ve, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis. Chapter 5.3, Goal HP-1 H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ PٛݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ. (P.ωϋ) Protect historically and culturally signifi cant resources that contribute to the community’s idenƟ ty, history, and quality of life. 999 38 1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 8, 2019 final recommendaƟons were presented to the Bozeman Mayor and City Commission during a regularly sched- uled meeƟng. In addiƟon to the draŌ report, a workplan that categorized the recommendaƟons into short, mid and long term goals was presented. The Commission formally received the report, considered recommendaƟons from the Historic Preser- vaƟon Advisory Board, the Planning Board and the Zoning Commission, and adopted acƟons to be implemented as a work plan. The adopted direcƟves and workplan are listed below, and are included at the beginning of each chapter of this report. The report provides background and alternaƟve recommendaƟons that evolved through the NCOD and Historic PreservaƟon Program Review project. 2.1 Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to disƟnguish the two separate goals within the NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Historic PreservaƟon Program will also apply to landmarks and historic districts outside the boundary of the NCOD: 1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman’s significant history; and 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. 2.2 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 potenƟal boundary adjustment - with moderate level of survey for some areas. 4) PrioriƟze areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potenƟal boundary adjustment. IdenƟ fy the areas for the formal architectural suvey. 2.3 Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Down- town, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that support connecƟvity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transiƟons between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characterisƟcs of each area and context. 3.1 Phase-in a local historic preservaƟon program. 3.2 Explore a variety of incenƟves incenƟves for historic properƟes owners. Engage with historic property owners to ensure incenƟve relevance and clarity. 3.3 Allow HPAB recommendaƟons for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB review of demoliƟons as a way to ease into review authority. 3.4 Create historic preservaƟon (HP) standards and guidelines. 10 39 1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4.1 Study of the B-3 transiƟon zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority. 4.2 Explore adjusƟng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟng zone districts. Gather more data aŌer the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. 4.3 Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more data aŌer the ar- chitectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. 5.1 Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. 6.1 Strengthen exisƟng project informaƟon channels and work on push noƟ ficaƟons City-wide. 6.2 Develop a plan to have public meeƟngs prior to applicaƟon review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟcing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. 11 40 Adopt local historic preserva Ɵon program witth Bozeman speci fic rules to desig-nate landmarks, districts, process for exterior changes. BeBegiginnprproocsesss totoanamemend NNRR lisƟsƟnngsgsaandnd bobounundadaririesesffororNNR R hihiststororcicddisistrtrictsts..WWrite cocontntexextt papapepersrsoon n BoBozezemaman’n’s s vever-r-nanacculaar r bubuilildidingngss ididenen ƟƟ fifiedediinnsusurvrveyey bubutt onott eligigibibleleffororNNaƟaƟoonanallReRegigiststererLocally desingnate NaƟ Ɵonal Register (NR)propop erƟes with owner consent. Develop quicck reference guidesffor ap-propriate repairs of historic proper ƟesCrCreaeatetehhisstotoriric c dedesisigngn statandndarardsdsaandnd gguiuidedelilineness foforr hihiststroricic diisttricictsts andand lannd-mamarkrks ththatataaliligngnwwiith updadatetedasupdSeSec.c. oof f InInteteririoror’s Standndarardsds. Develop preserva Ɵon plan wiwitth HPAB to idedeƟnƟffy preser-v aƟon goals. TrTraiaininingngffororHHPAPABB mememmberers..Adopt incenƟnƟ vses for historic prpropereryty owners.s.Process for HPBAB recommendaƟ onns for historic pprojecects and projeccts within a histooric district. BeBegiginnprprococesessstotonnomomininatateeenewwNRNRlisƟ Ɵngngs danandbobounundadaririesesffororNNRRhhiststororicicddsistrtricictsts.MMap revieew proceessssaandndidedenƟnƟffyy reudundant reuquiremmenentstsaannd arreas ofooverlap forpprrojejectctss wiwitthin the NCOD: i.e.AArƟrƟccle55,,SSitetePPlan ReRe-viewP,, ProjcecttReReviviewew.Exemppt thehe NCOCOD D frfromomdduuplica Ɵve review processes and replace with context dederirivveddstandards and guidelines. AnAnalalyzyze e zozoneneddisrtrcicsts: IDwwhhereddimensiononalalrreqequiuireremementntiflicssd cnand bbonundadariescon ton flict wiwiththneighhborhoododcchahaaractcterer/f/fututurure e vivisisionon, oor hhisistotoric district boundary.Requrire input from eststabablilishsheded neieigh--borhrhooooddassociaƟ onsnsoon n lalargrgee sccaaleprprojojecectstsaannd posossibly y rerezozoniningngaappppli-ca ƟƟononss.prSStreengngthen exisƟ ngg projojececttininfofor-r-ma Ɵonon channelss ananddwworkoon pupush n oƟ fica Ɵons City-widde.Amend zoneddistrcictreeqquirememenentststtoo rrealate to neighborhood (or his-toric ddistrict iff appliicababele) hchararacacteter r vppl(e(eititeher exisƟ ng or futurevisisionn).Crreeaete33 sets of design sttaandadrds and guidelines that are divided into accharacter araea north of Downtownwn,a characteer r area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There shouldbeldbe geneneraral gguidellininestthat usuppoorocogett nnececƟ Ɵvviytybbetetweween theaarereasas,,createeaa comommomonnthread betweweeen neighhboborhrhoooodsdsanan,,ddsusupppporort t ttrananssiƟ Ɵononssbetweeennneiigbhbororhhoods. Fcocus onnlarge areaeassananddevevenentutualallylyrrececogognizessppecialal characteriisƟsƟccssofoftexteeach area andd context.CCraeatte traansiƟonsppeci fic standardsandgguiuideliinenes ththatataarerecconontetextxt babasesedd ananddrereplplacaceeArArƟ Ɵclclee55ststananddardrds (wwheheereiittisisrrededunundadannt))foforr Crproojeectswwithin NCODOD.Adjust NCOCODD boununddarybbased on results off building suurrvey:**N. 7th all out..* Use Front St. as northeern edge.De fine neighbohrhoood chcharacter.LONGTERMgWWindshield survey - neighbhbororhohoododaassocia Ɵonaarereasas aand areasasooututside of sesttablished neighboorhrhooodds....Startt HPAB review of demoli Ɵon applica Ɵons.Explore a vvariety of inincecenƟnƟvvesesffororhhisistotoriric c prpropopererƟ Ɵeses anand d hihiststororicicddisistricts.Conduct extensive outreach with historic property owners on possible incen Ɵves.Gattheermmororeedadaata a Ōer the architectural survey, scenarios, and desiggnaiuguidelelinessaandndsstatandndardds are completed. Use toolsssuch as 3-D modeling to under-stand zoning, masss andssccale. Develop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to application review with im-pacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add cnoƟ cing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. hAArchitectural Inventory - histsticororiccddisistrtrictsts andnd lanandmarks (build ononrrececenent inveenntoory ofofdowowntoownnbuuildidingngs..AArchitecturalInventoryhihiststoricddisisrtricictssanddlanddmarks(buildtonon rrececenentinvevenntroryofofddowowntntoownnbubuiildidingss121.4 COMPREHENSIVE WORK PLAN41 1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS The consultant team (consisƟng of BendonAdams and Orion Planning + Design) was tasked with conducƟng extensive public engagement to best understand the community’s needs and preferences regarding historic preservaƟon, the NCOD, historic district boundaries, and future development. Below are high level findings from Community Outreach Phase I and Phase II. PHASE I COMMUNITY OUTREACH In July 2018, the project team spent two weeks in Bozeman engaging with the public at 12 different events. The events includ- ed small group meeƟngs, a historic tour, board and staff meeƟngs, 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 informaƟon, upcoming dates, feedback summaries, feedback data, and opportuniƟes for public comment. Over 150 parƟcipants joined small group meeƟngs, listening posts, aƩended the community meeƟng and parƟcipated in on- line surveys. A high-level summary is provided below: 150+ participants A 34% ged 65+ Phase I: July -August 2018 54 % Female 46 % Male 90 % are Bozeman Residents 2% Aged <24 11% Aged 25-34 21% Aged 35-54 33% Aged 55-64 Concern Many parƟcipants expressed a concern over recent development projects, specifically the size, scale, and design of parƟcular buildings within the NCOD. This generally pertained to the areas directly adjacent to Main Street that are seeing new higher density development. Some parƟcipants expressed an interest in creaƟ ng transiƟonal ‘buffer areas’. RegulaƟ ons While there were mixed opinions on whether the current regulaƟons are ‘too stringent’ or ‘too liberal’ on development - parƟcipants felt that Historic Districts should remain ‘strictly regulated’ while areas outside the Districts but sƟll within the NCOD should be treated ‘with moderaƟ on.’ Pace of Development The majority of parƟcipants felt that the pace of recent development in Bozeman has been ‘too fast’ - and would like to see the project review process slowed down to allow for a more robust public parƟ cipaƟon process. Many felt that slowing down the process would ensure a focus on historic preservaƟon and thoughƞ ul, compaƟ ble development. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘®›Ý υ.υ., υ.φ 13 42 1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS PHASE II COMMUNITY OUTREACH The project team returned in November of 2018 for the second phase of community engagement which encom- passed four large format meeƟngs, two open houses and two live polling sessions. These were followed by an inten- sive online survey. Our team presented the draŌ policy recommendaƟons published in the October 23, 2018 draŌ report (available at www.bozeman.net/city -project/ncod-review and parƟ c- ipants were polled to show their level of support for each of the proposed recommendaƟons and policy alternaƟves. Over the course of a few weeks 145 community members parƟcipated in the live polling sessions, the open house poster voƟng sessions, provided open comment via post- cards, and the online survey. Below we have summarized parƟcipant demographics and the high-level community senƟments: 145+ Participants 51% 47% 2% 38% 35-54 25-34 54-65 65+ aged 35-54 80% previously participated 14 43 1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS NCOD: Purpose + Boundary The majority of parƟcipants supported retaining the NCOD, staƟng that they felt it has been effecƟve and it would be easier to ‘tweak’ the NCOD than to start over. Some parƟci- pants were interested in exploring replacement of the NCOD with design guidelines. It was felt that design guidelines might help new designs fit into exisƟng context. ParƟcipants expressed moderate to high support for creat- ing standards and guidelines specific to different areas and neighborhoods. ParƟcipants expressed moderate to high in- terest in retaining the current area of the NCOD and were supporƟve of making minor changes immediately - many felt that sigificant changes warranted an architectural survey. Historic PreservaƟ on There was a high level of support for strengthening the Historic PreservaƟon program with the majority of parƟcipants feeling that it would aid efforts to preserve Bozeman’s unique history. There were some parƟcipants that expressed concern over increased regulaƟon and review processes becoming convoluted, but the majority did not see any negaƟve impacts to strengthening the program. There was a high level of support for expanding incenƟves for historic properƟes, and a request for further detail and examples. Some felt that it might create addiƟonal costs to the City and could potenƟally create inequity between con- temporary and historic properƟes. The majority of those polled selected phasing-in a stronger historic preservaƟon program with incremental steps in-lieu of implemenƟng changes simultaneously. While the majority of parƟcipants were interested in HPAB becoming a decision-making body, there was a vocal facƟon that felt there were other ways to strengthen the program. Over 80% of parƟcipants showed moderate to high support for creaƟng standards and guidelines for historic landmarks and historic districts. Zoning + Context In conversaƟ ons with parƟcipants, there appeared to be low support for adjusƟng the B-3 Zone District to allow for increased transiƟonal requirements outside of those found within the UDC. However, across the two polling sessions and online survey, the majority of parƟ cipants showed moderate to high support for exploring how to beƩer to align the southern boundary of B-3 with low scale residenƟ al neighborhoods to the south. ParƟcipants felt this opportunity would help to preserve the mass and scale in historic districts and reduce confl ict between new developments in exisƟng neighborhoods. ParƟcipants expressed concern over sƟ fling downtown development and pushing development into areas outside of the Main Street area. ParƟ cipants were parƟ cularly confl icted in how to approach adjustments with a fairly even spread polling in favor of creaƟng a transiƟonal zone, incorporaƟ ng addiƟonal site design requirements within exisƟng zone edge requirements, and incenƟvizing redevelopment along North 7th Street. While parƟcipants felt that aligning zoning with historic districts and neighborhoods would create more consistency in development paƩerns, there was no consensus on the best approach. 15 44 1.5 OUTREACH FINDINGS Process + InformaƟon ParƟcipants were highly in favor of a more streamlined process and wanted more detail on what this could look like on the ground. Many felt that exploring how to streamline current reviews would create a more predictable process that is easier for applicants to understand. Some parƟcipants felt that requiring a binding review process from the Design Review Board might be an opƟon to streamline reviews. ParƟcipants across all meeƟngs and feedback opportuniƟes expressed an interest in having more specific thresholds for how and when project informaƟon is shared with both neighbors and the public. Many were interested in building upon exisƟng channels and potenƟally adding texƟng alerts or increasing the informaƟon on development noƟces. BY THE NUMBERS The Bozeman community is very passionate about historic preservaƟon; we engaged with a number of stakeholders, community groups, property owners, historic preservaƟon specialists, developers, architects and designers, and University faculty. ParƟcipants were very engaged throughout the project and below we have provided a more detailed summary of the outreach program, engagement levels, and data: • 21 meeƟngs and events • 25+ public comment submissions • 174 online survey responses • 267 event parƟcipants • 98 acƟvity and survey quesƟons • 350+ open comments • 635 windshield property surveys • Over 20,000 unique points of data across all project acƟviƟes The depth of data across all project acƟviƟes provided the project team with great insights into community senƟment and diversity of opinions regarding how to balance the future of historic preservaƟon policy and growth in Bozeman. The iniƟal data set from Phase I provided clear direcƟon for the development of draŌ policy recommendaƟons which were then veƩed by the community in Phase II before being presented to the City Boards in February for further refine- ment prior to adopƟon by the City Commission in April 2019. 1616 45 1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS Both the windshield survey and the neighborhood character survey are tools within a comprehensive tool box that are combined with outreach results and best pracƟces to ulƟ mately inform specifi c recommendaƟons in the report related to design guidelines and standards, the NCOD boundary, and the historic preservaƟon program. WINDSHIELD SURVEYS Windshield surveys are a useful tool to gain a broad understanding of architecture in a large area. PaƩ erns, similariƟes and differences in architectural style become evident through data results that can then direct more detailed surveys, appropriate design guidelines, and begin to defi ne specific neighborhood styles. Volunteers, Bozeman staff and the consultants completed a windshield survey of 635 properƟes north of Main Street during a week in July 2018. The NCOD area is very large and there was not enough Ɵme to complete a windshield survey of the enƟ re district, much less a Ɵme intensive architectural survey of the designated historic districts. Surveys focused on roof forms, trees, fencing, landscape, number of stories, roof typology, chimneys, porches, window typology, entrance features, materials of principal buildings, and detached secondary buildings. ONLINE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER SURVEY In order to prioriƟze the districts and neighborhoods within the NCOD, an online neighborhood character survey was developed that garnered feedback on the specifi c quesƟ ons such as “which 3 [Districts] have the greatest mass and scale challenges with new development?” and “on a scale of 1 – 10 what is the importance of historic preservaƟon in these neighborhoods?” The online neighborhood character survey asked parƟ cipants to describe each area with one word to define neighborhood character, inform future design guidelines, and to help focus the City’s future survey work to areas of immediate concern. While the neighborhood character survey is a helpful tool, it has limited capabiliƟes: for example, areas between established neighborhood associaƟon and historic district boundaries are not included in this study. It is imperaƟve that these areas are surveyed to document basic neighborhood characterisƟ cs. 17 46 1.6 CHARACTER AREA SURVEYS The neighborhood character online survey was incorporated into a prioriƟzed list of neighborhoods and historic districts for future architectural survey work, which will drive potenƟal 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 experƟse. HISTORIC DISTRICT PRIORITIES NONͳHISTORIC AREA PRIORITIES WITHIN THE NCOD Bon Ton South Tracy/South Black Lindley Place Cooper Park Historic District *note: Main Street was recently surveyedroupG ytiorirP-ghHiBozeman Brewery Story Mill South Tracy Ave. North Tracy Ave. Marwyn AddiƟ on – potenƟ al future historic district 18 Group ytirioPr-MidLindley Park/Marwyn Lindley Bozeman Creek 181818 GroupGroup yyttiirrioioPrPr--MidMidAreas between historic districts and neighborhood associaƟ on areas South Central Cooper Park (non-historic district area) Bogert Park Northeast University rouproupGG yyttiiororiirrPP--ghghHiHi47 202020202020202022020202020202 CHAPTER 2 NCOD: PURPOSE AND BOUNDARY 222220222 48 CHAPTER 2 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 NCOD PURPOSE Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to disƟ nguish the two separate goals within the NCOD. Both programs will work together, while a Historic PreservaƟ on Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis- tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD: 1) Preserve historic buildings that refl ect Bozeman’s signifi cant history; and 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY Do not signifi cantly change the NCOD boundary. 1) Remove North 7th from the NCOD. 2) Move boundary to Front Street as proposed. 3) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment - with moderate level of sur- vey for some areas. 4) PrioriƟ ze areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment. IdenƟ fy the areas for the formal architectural suvey. 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Downtown, a character area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that support connec- Ɵ vity between the areas, create a common thread between neighborhoods, and support transiƟ ons between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special characterisƟ cs of each area and context. 21 49 CHAPTER 2 WORK PLAN ild on recent inventory of downtown buildings). toArchitectural Inventory - historic districts and landmarks (bud Define neighborhood character. Adjust NCOD boundary on results of building survey: • N. 7th all out. • Use Front St. as northern edge. character de-Create neighborhood ardssign standa and guidelines for North of Main, South of Main, and downtown. reas and areas outside of establishedidWindshield survey - neighborhood associaƟon are s.neighborhood 22 SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Adjust NCOD boundary based on results of building survey: * N. 7th all out. *Use Front St. as northern edge. Adopt local historic preeservaƟon pro- gram with Bozeman sppecific rules to designate landd marks, districts, process for exxterior changes. 50 2 NCOD The NCOD was adopted in 1991 in an effort to preserve historic districts by protecƟng the surrounding areas between the dis- tricts. While the City of Bozeman is preparing for future growth, the effecƟveness of the district has been quesƟoned. 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 prioriƟes highlighted the need for a tune up. The stated purpose of the NCOD in the Bozeman Municipal Code is to “sƟmulate the restoraƟon and rehabilitaƟon of structures and all other elements contribuƟng to the character and fabric of established residenƟal neighborhoods and commercial or industrial ar- eas.” The concept of the overlay is to influence development between the historic districts and to protect the neighborhood char- acter that defines Bozeman. New construcƟon is encouraged to relate to surrounding historic buildings and neighborhood context, and demoliƟon review is required for buildings within the overlay. While adjustments are recommended to diff erenƟate between historic preservaƟon and neighborhood character, the purpose and intent of the NCOD remains very relevant and important. The NCOD requires a design review process for all properƟes that propose alteraƟons, demoliƟon, relocaƟon, or new construcƟon within the overlay district. The NCOD has evolved since its incepƟon to include design regulaƟons and zoning changes; however the original purpose of the NCOD remains unchanged and perhaps more important today in light of Bozeman’s expected popu- laƟon growth. AÄ Êò›Ù½ƒù —®ÝãÙ®‘ã ®Ý ƒ ½Ê‘ƒ½ þÊĮĦ ãÊʽ 㫃ã Ö½ƒ‘›Ý Ý֛‘®¥®‘ ٛ¦ç½ƒã®ÊÄÝ Êò›Ù ƒÄ ›ø®Ýã®Ä¦ ƒÝ› þÊě —®ÝãÙ®‘ã. A ÖÙÊ֛Ùãù ½Ê‘ƒã›— ó®ã«®Ä ƒÄ Êò›Ù½ƒù —®ÝãÙ®‘ã ®Ý ãùÖ®‘ƒ½½ù ٛØç®Ù›— ãÊ Ã››ã Ê㫠㫛 ƒÝ› (çė›Ù½ù®Ä¦) þÊě —®Ý- ãÙ®‘ã ٛØç®Ù›Ã›ÄãÝ ®Ä ƒ——®ã®ÊÄ ãÊ ã«› Ý֛‘®¥®‘Ý Ê¥ 㫛 Êò›Ù½ƒù —®ÝãÙ®‘ã. Oò›Ù½ƒù —®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ ƒÙ› ‘ÊÃÃÊĽù çݛ— ãÊ ®Ä¥½ç›Ä‘› 㫛 —›Ý®¦Ä Ê¥ ěó ç®½—- ®Ä¦Ý ÊÙ ãÊ —›¥®Ä› ƒÄ «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ —®ÝãÙ®‘ã. 23 51 24 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE NCOD W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: When parƟcipants were forced to choose the most important aspect of the NCOD, most voted that it is to protect Bozeman’s historic buildings. RegulaƟng the size and scale of new buildings was a close second. When asked what the NCOD does well, par- Ɵcipants responded that the NCOD brings awareness to neigh- borhood context and character, and historic preservaƟon. The overwhelming response from parƟcipants was to create different regulaƟons for historic and non-historic districts with- in the NCOD. Neighborhood character and context would be the focus of the non-historic districts. The community indicated support for treaƟng historic districts with ‘strict regulaƟons’ and non-historic districts within the NCOD with ‘moderate regula- Ɵons’. “The NCOD is flexible, protects neighborhood quality of life and block character/streetscape, thus supports economic engine of community.” “I am very much in favor of maintaining the current NCOD unƟl a proper historic assessment can be completed.” “There are areas in the NCOD that should not be restricted per the NCOD and areas where the NCOD or something simi- lar should be implemented.” “[The NCOD] preserves Bozeman’s sense of place and char- acter so it doesn’t become “Everywhere, USA.” Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½Ý χ.χ, ψ.χ A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Retain the NCOD. Create two programs within the NCOD boundary to disƟnguish the two separate goals within the NCOD: 1) Preserve historic buildings that reflect Bozeman’s significant history; and 2) Enhance neighborhood character and context. Both programs will work together, while a Historic Preser- vaƟon Program will also apply to landmarks and historic dis- tricts outside the boundary of the NCOD. 1) Historic PreservaƟon Program. A Historic PreservaƟon Program needs to stand on its own outside the umbrella of the NCOD. Historic preservaƟon is a City-wide iniƟ aƟve. DisassociaƟng the program from the NCOD enables preser- vaƟon of historic building and historic districts outside the NCOD. The historic preservaƟon program will have its own purpose, regulaƟons, guidelines, and review process. As part of this program, the current Historic PreservaƟon Advisory Board will shiŌ to a stronger advisory role which authorizes the Board to review and approve certain historic preserva- Ɵon projects. 2) Neighborhood ConservaƟon (or Character) Program. The Neighborhood ConservaƟon program will apply to the non-historic neighborhoods within the NCOD. This program will also have its own purpose, regulaƟons, guidelines, and review process, and will be implemented by the Design Re- view Board. 24 52 2525 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY The NCOD boundary was originally based on a census tract and does not follow a clearly defined geographic or physical feature other than the rail- road tracks at the northeast corner of the NCOD. Zone districts, the Story Mill Historic District, and established neighborhood boundaries straddle the NCOD edge as it jogs in and out of neighborhoods. The decision to adjust the boundary must be defensible and based on an analysis of exisƟng condiƟons. An architectural inventory would provide this basis. As noted in the 2015 NCOD audit, a comprehensive architectural inventory of the NCOD has not occurred since the 1980s. Because there is no current historic inventory, the City of Bozeman requires applicants to submit an ar- chitectural inventory form as part of an applicaƟon to redevelop or demolish their property. AŌer documentaƟon, a building may be approved for dem- oliƟon and replacement regardless of historic significance. In addiƟon, over the past decade various groups, including Montana State University students and a City of Bozeman intern, have completed preliminary inventories of the NCOD. While very helpful, the dataset is not consistent and does not replace the need for a comprehensive architectural inventory. A complete architectural inventory of all buildings within the NCOD (approxi- mately 3,100 properƟes) would most likely take a year to complete and could cost well over $300K. A historian who specializes in architectural inventories is recommended to garner data that is accurate, consistent and complies with Montana Historic Property Record forms. We completed a cursory evaluaƟon of the un-surveyed properƟes located on the northside of Main Street. The goal of this exercise was to record archi- tectural details on each building, and to idenƟfy paƩerns that define neigh- borhood character. This informaƟon can be Ɵed to exisƟng parcel data and used to establish neighborhood paƩerns and characterisƟcs that may iden- Ɵfy areas for future consideraƟon as a historic district or idenƟfy prevalent characterisƟcs important to a neighborhood. For example, in the surveyed area 80% of the homes have a gable roof as the primary roof form and about 50% of the homes have an open front porch. MÊÄãƒÄƒ Sãƒã› H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ PٛݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ O¥- ¥®‘› ٛØç®Ù›Ý C›Ù㮥®›— Lʑƒ½ GÊò›ÙÄÛÄãÝ ½®»› BÊþ›ÃƒÄ ãÊ Ãƒ®Äãƒ®Ä ƒÄ— ãÊ ‘ÊÄã®Äç› ãÊ ®—›Ä㮥ù «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ƒÄ— Öٛ«®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ÖÙÊÖ- ›Ùã®›Ý ó®ã«®Ä ®ãÝ ¹çٮݗ®‘ã®ÊÄ. T«› BÊþ›ÃƒÄ MçÄ®‘®Öƒ½ Cʗ› Ýãƒã›Ý 㫃ã 㫛 —®ÝãÙ®‘㠐ÊçėƒÙù Ãù › ٛò®Ý›— ƒÝ ƒ——®ã®Êă½ ‘ç½- ãçك½ ٛÝÊçّ› ÝçÙò›ù óÊÙ» ®Ý ‘ÊÃÖ½›ã›—. AÄ ƒÙ‘«®ã›‘ãçك½ ®Äò›ÄãÊÙù ®Ý ƒ —ƒãƒƒÝ› 㫃ã Ý֛‘®¥®›Ý ®Ä¥ÊÙÃã®ÊÄ ƒÊçã 㫛 «®ÝãÊ- Ùù, çݛ, ›øã›Ù®ÊÙ ¥›ƒãçÙ›Ý ƒÄ— ƒÙ‘«®ã›‘ãçٛ Ê¥ ƒÄ ®Ä—®ò®—烽 ÖÙÊ֛Ùãù. T«› —ƒãƒƒÝ› ®—›Ä㮥®›Ý ›½®¦®®½®ãù ¥Ê٠ăã®Êă½, Ýãƒã› ÊÙ ½Ê‘ƒ½ «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ½ƒÄ—Ãٻ —›Ý®¦Äƒã®ÊÄ, ƒÄ— ®—›Ä㮥®›Ý ›½®¦®®½®ãù ¥ÊÙ ®Ä‘½çÝ®ÊÄ ó®ã«®Ä ƒ ăã®Êă½, Ýãƒã› ÊÙ ½Ê‘ƒ½ «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ —®ÝãÙ®‘ã. AÄ ƒÙ‘«®ã›‘ãçك½ ®Äò›ÄãÊÙù ‘ƒÄ ƒ½ÝÊ › çݛ— ãÊ —›¥®Ä› 쮦«ÊÙ«Êʗ ÊçėƒÙ®›Ý ƒÝ›— ÊÄ —®¥¥›Ù›Äã ¥›ƒãçÙ›Ý Ý瑫 ƒÝ ƒÙ‘«®- 㛑ãçك½ Ýãù½› ÊÙ ç®½—®Ä¦ ‘ÊÄÝãÙç‘ã®ÊÄ —ƒã›. A ó®Ä—Ý«®›½— ÝçÙò›ù ®Ý ƒ Ø箑» ʐ¹›‘ã®ò› Êò›Ùò®›ó Ê¥ ƒ ½ƒÙ¦› ƒÙ›ƒ 㫃ã ÖÙÊò®—›Ý ¦›Ä›Ùƒ½ —ƒãƒ. Iã ®Ý ‘ƒ½½›— ƒ ó®Ä—Ý«®›½— ÝçÙò›ù ›‘ƒçݛ ®ã ®Ý çÝ烽½ù ‘ÊÃÖ½›ã›— ¥ÙÊà ƒ ÃÊò®Ä¦ ò›«®‘½›. T«®Ý ãù֛ Ê¥ ÝçÙò›ù ®Ý çݛ— ãÊ ÖÙÊò®—› ƒ ¦›Ä›Ùƒ½ ƒÝݛÝÝÛÄã Ê¥ ƒ ‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ƒÄ— ãÊ ‘ʽ½›‘ã —ƒãƒ ÊÄ ‘«ƒÙ- ƒ‘ã›Ù®Ýã®‘Ý ã«ƒã ®—›Ä㮥ù ƒÙ›ƒÝ ¥ÊÙ ÃÊٛ —›ãƒ®½›— Ýãç—ù. 53 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY The purpose and value of an architectural inventory is three-fold: it informs the NCOD boundary; it provides the basis for the local historic preservaƟon program; and it creates the foundaƟon for new context driven design stan- dards and guidelines. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Most respondents feel that the current NCOD boundary is accurate or needs to be expanded. ParƟcipants overwhelm- ing voted to refine the NCOD for specific neighborhoods. Many respondents recognize and support the need for a complete architectural inventory of the NCOD and surround- ing areas before adjusƟng the boundary. “NCOD was designed and created to protect historic areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that defines the character of the Bozeman community.” “[NCOD] strives to consider the historic value of Bozeman neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the planning process.” “Revisions to the regulaƟons may be helpful to address noncontribuƟng buildings, however, the survey of historic resources within the City should be updated to en- sure the conƟnued preservaƟon of historic resources that may not have been considered historic at the Ɵme of the previous survey.” “I am very much in favor of maintaining the current NCOD unƟl a proper historic assessment can be complet- ed. Given that many of the structures within the bound- ary were not eligible as historic properƟes at the Ɵme of the last inventory, it is imperaƟve that the inventory be complete and updated before the NCOD boundaries are changed or reduced.” Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Retain the majority of the NCOD area. There is no compelling reason to significantly change the NCOD boundary at this Ɵme. DeterminaƟons to modify the NCOD boundary should be made with factual informaƟon obtained through architectural surveys. The City may also choose to focus energy and funds on compleƟng a compre- hensive architectural inventory of the enƟre NCOD prior to implemenƟng design standards and guidelines (discussed be- low). An updated architectural inventory is paramount to the funcƟon and success of the NCOD, and the preservaƟon of historic properƟes and neighborhood character. An architec- tural inventory disƟnguishes between historic and non-his- toric properƟes and districts, and sets clear expectaƟons for property owners, neighbors, staff and review boards. As noted in AcƟon 4 on the following page, incrementally sur- veying the NCOD may be the most feasible approach to creat- ing a comprehensive architectural inventory. 26 54 2727 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY A—ÊÖ㛗 ƒ‘ã®ÊÄ: 1) North 7th Street is all out of NCOD. The North 7th Street corridor should be either all in, or all out, of the NCOD. Bozeman City Commission directed North 7th Street to be all out of the NOCD. Regardless of the NCOD, both sides of the street should have the same design regulaƟ ons. Historic eligibility of mid-century buildings along the North 7th Street corridor has been raised by some community members. However, this is not a reason to include North 7th Street in the NCOD -the primary purpose of the revised NCOD is not to protect historic buildings, but rather to protect neighborhood character. The implementaƟon of a historic preservaƟon pro- gram that extends beyond the boundary of the NCOD would pro- vide protecƟon for eligible buildings if requested by the property owner and approved by the Bozeman Commission. 2) Minor adjustment to the north end of the NCOD The gap area at the north end of the NCOD cuts through a field/ parking area as the terminus of the district. A minor adjustment to the boundary in this area that follows North Rouse Street to the intersecƟon with Front Street clearly delineates the NCOD boundary and avoids future confusion about review process and jurisdicƟon. AcƟons 1 and 2 will have a significant impact on the under- standing of the NCOD boundary and the implementaƟon of new regulaƟons recommended in this document. These two recom- mended adjustments can be made prior to a comprehensive ar- chitectural inventory. χ) Windshield survey of NCOD to provide basis for potenƟal boundary adjustment. A windshield survey is a useful tool to narrow the scope of an ar- chitectural inventory and to highlight significant neighborhood paƩerns such as open front porches. 4) PrioriƟ ze areas to incrementally inventory to provide basis for potenƟ al boundary adjustment. One approach to an architectural inventory is to prioriƟ ze secƟons within the NC OD. For example: • Historic Districts. • Areas between Historic Districts. • North 7th Corridor. • Areas along the edges of the NCOD boundary. PrioriƟzed neighborhoods, areas, and districts are found in SecƟon 1.6 of this report (page 18). 55 2.2 NCOD BOUNDARY UPDATES LEGEND N›®¦«ÊÙ«Êʗ CÊÄ- ݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ Oò›Ù½ƒù D®ÝãÙ®‘ã BÊçėƒÙù A—¹çÝãÛÄãÝ ãÊ ã«› 쮦«ÊÙ«Êʗ ‘ÊÄݛÙ- òƒã®ÊÄ Êò›Ù½ƒù —®ÝãÙ®‘ã IIÄÄ ½½ç痛› FFÙÙÊÊÄÄãã Ýãã. R›ÃÊÊòò›› NN. 77ãã«« 28 56 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS + GUIDELINES The NCOD has design guidelines, updated in 2015, that are organized by use (residenƟal or commercial) and treat the NCOD homogeneously without much diff erenƟ aƟon between neighborhood character areas. More recently, sub-chapter 4B was cre- ated to specifically address development character, style and form in the B-3 Commercial Character Area. Design standards and guidelines encourage contextual development and work in concert with zone district regulaƟons. A healthy mix of requirements and more flexible recommendaƟons typically results in creaƟve soluƟons that support and highlight important character defining features of each neighborhood. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Community feedback provided clear direcƟon that the NCOD can do a beƩer job defining and diff erenƟ aƟng neighborhood character and encouraging more appropriate mass and scale adjacent to historic districts. ParƟcipants also responded that diversity of architecture and flexibility of design are areas for improvement within the NCOD. In speaking with community members and an assessment of exisƟng condiƟons, there appears to be support for a more flexible, innovaƟve, and design-oriented approach to new buildings north of Main Street, and a more conservaƟve, tra- diƟonal approach to new buildings south of Main Street. The majority of Bozeman’s historic districts are located south of Main Street, and Bozeman’s historic industrial areas are north of Main Street which may explain this preference. A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Create 3 sets of design standards and guidelines that are divided into a character area north of Downtown, a char- acter area south of Downtown, and Downtown. There should be general guidelines that support connecƟvity between the areas, create a common thread between neigh- borhoods, and support transiƟons between neighborhoods. Focus on large areas and eventually recognize special charac- terisƟcs of each area and context. Within each area, special standards are developed for blocks adjacent to historic districts or historic structures. Appropri- ate uses should be addressed within each chapter. Dividing the design guidelines and standards into north and south of Downtown, and an area specific to Downtown, recognizes dif- ferences between architectural styles, the history of industrial development in the neighborhoods north of Main Street, and differing senƟment toward ‘appropriate’ new development. CreaƟng design standards and guidelines is strongly recom- mended, but aŌer an architectural inventory, or at the very least a windshield survey, is completed and zone districts are evaluated. A comprehensive architectural inventory highlights paƩerns, architectural characterisƟcs, and overall neighborhood character that direct neighborhood boundar- ies and inform an appropriate mix of requirements and rec- ommendaƟons for each area. There is an opportunity to incorporate the outcomes of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and the Communi- ty Plan as they relate to neighborhood character and future vision into a new design standards and guidelines document that balances new development and growth policy iniƟ aƟves with exisƟng neighborhood context. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘®›Ý ψ.υ., ψ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ DBIP ¦ç®—›½®Ä› Ö.χτ DBIP R›‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ Ö. υυφ 29 57 Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-χ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χχ) Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical con- necƟ on represented by this area. CHAPTER 2 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟons. CorrelaƟ ons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. D›ò›½ÊÖ ƒÄ— A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®‘®›Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. Pʽ®‘ù ψ.ψ V®ÙƒÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ Ι C›Äã›ÙÝ. (P.ϋ) Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densiƟes and intensificaƟon of use in these key areas. Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— Sãك㛦®‘ MçÄ®‘®Öƒ½ S›Ùò®‘› D›½®ò›Ùù Eø֛‘ãƒã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11) Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟons about the City’s capacity to deliver services. 2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MƒÄƒ¦›Ã›Äã. (P.υχ) Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟng, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-υ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χφ) Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, effi ciently provides public and private basic services and faciliƟ es in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. 2019 DÊóÄãÊóÄ BÊþ›ÃƒÄ IÃÖÙÊò›Ã›Äã PLƒÄ G算›½®Ä›. (P. χτ) Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residenƟ al neighborhoods through con- text-sensiƟ ve development. ٛ‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ. (P.υυφ) Create downtown design guidelines. 30 58 31CHAPTER 3 STRENGTHEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 59 32 Phase-in a locPhase-in a local hisal histtoric proric presereservvaaƟƟ on pron progrogram.am. CHAPTER 3 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Create historic preservaƟon (HP) standards and guidelines. 3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES 3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS 3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES 32 ExplorExplore a ve a variety of incenariety of incenƟƟ vves fes for hisor histtoric proric properƟoperƟ es owneres owners. Engs. Engagage with hise with histtoric proric property owneroperty owners ts to en-o en- sursure incene incenƟƟ vve re relevelevance and clarityance and clarity.. Allow Allow HPHPAB AB rrececommendaommendaƟƟ ons ons ffor or hishisttoric oric prprojects ojects and and ffor or prprojects ojects within within a a hishisttoric oric ddisistrict. trict. StStart art HPHPAB AB rre-e- view of demoliƟview of demoliƟ ons as a wons as a waay ty to ease ino ease intto ro review authorityeview authority.. 60 Start HPAB review of demoliƟ on applicaƟ ons. Develop preservaƟ on plan wwiit HHPPAthhAB too idenƟ fy preservaƟ on goals. Explore a variety of incenƟ ves for historic prop- erƟ es and historic districts. Develop quick reference guides for appropriate repairs of historic properƟ es. embers.Training for HPAB M Process for HPAB recommmendaƟons for ects within a his-historic projects and proje toric districtt. toric propertyAdopt incenƟves for hist owners. tandards andCreate historic design st tricts and land-guidelines for historic dist n withmarks that align r’s Standards.updated Sec. of Interior Locally designate NaƟonal Register (NR) properƟes with owner consent. Begin process to nomi- nate new NR lisƟngs and boundaries for NR histor- ic districts. Begin process to amend NR lisƟngs and boundar- ies for NR historic dis- tricts. SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Start HPAB review of demolition applications. Develop preservation plan with HPAB to identify preservation goals Explore a variety of incentives for historic properties and historic districts. Conduct extensive outreach with historic property owner about possible incentives Develop quick reference guides for appropriate repairs of historic properties. 3333 CHAPTER 3 WORK PLAN 61 3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM Historic preservaƟon is not a one-size-fits all pracƟce. There are guiding principles established by the Federal government, but it is up to communiƟes to determine the appropriate preservaƟon approach locally. CommuniƟes with a strong inventory of historic buildings oŌ enƟmes implement a customized local program that protects the vernacular historic buildings that do not always qualify for the NaƟonal Register of Historic Places. Vernacular buildings are a style of architecture that is specific to a local area. While na- Ɵonally significant properƟes represent broader historic importance, Bozeman’s local ver- nacular creates a sense of place and pride for the community. Locally significant buildings that represent the evoluƟon and development of Bozeman, important local people, or im- portant community events, may not qualify for State or NaƟonal Register lisƟng but can be equally important to defining unique local character. It is up to the Bozeman community to determine what is important through a local preservaƟon program that focuses on local history, addresses development pressures, and recognizes a sense of place for current and future generaƟons. Buildings are authenƟc, tangible pieces of history that are irreplaceable once they are lost. Bozeman has a voluntary historic preservaƟon program with an advisory Historic PreservaƟon Board. According to the Municipal Code, a property is considered historic if it “is listed on the State or NaƟonal Register of Historic Places, designated as a historic property under local or state designaƟon law or survey, considered a contribuƟng structure within a NaƟonal Register Historic District or local historic district, or is deemed eligible by the City of Bozeman to be listed on the NaƟonal or State Register of His- toric Places individually or as a contribuƟng building within an adopted or eligible historic district”. Currently, there are parts of the Bozeman municipal code, such as local designaƟon 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 preservaƟon program. BÊþ›ÃƒÄ «ƒÝ ψϊ «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ç®½—®Ä¦Ý ®Ä—®ò®—烽½ù ½®Ý㛗 ÊÄ ã«› Nƒã®Êă½ R›¦®Ýã›Ù ƒÄ— υτ Nƒã®Êă½ R›¦®Ýã›Ù H®ÝãÊÙ- ®‘ D®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ. T«› Nƒã®Êă½ R›¦®Ýã›Ù Ê¥ H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ P½ƒ‘›Ý ®Ý ƒ—îĮÝã›Ù›— ù 㫛 Nƒã®Êă½ PƒÙ» S›Ùò®‘›. 34 62 3 STRENGTHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM There are 46 naƟonally listed historic properƟes and eight his- toric districts within the NCOD (two historic districts are out- side the NCOD). These districts and historic properƟes were designated based on 1987 architectural surveys. Bozeman also has significant post-World War II architecture that is eligible for NaƟonal Register lisƟng, as idenƟ fied by Di- ana J. Painter in a Montana State Historic PreservaƟon Office architectural context paper. In addiƟon, the Marwyn AddiƟon has been idenƟ fied by local groups as a cohesive neighborhood of ranch style mid-century residenƟal buildings. It is highly like- ly that the actual number of eligible historic properƟes both pre- and post-World War II, will increase with a new architec- tural inventory. Regardless of eligibility, the creaƟon of a new NaƟonal Register Historic District or an individual NaƟonal Reg- ister lisƟng requires consent from the landowner(s). Since Bozeman does not have a current architectural invento- ry, a property owner is required to submit a historic inventory form to the City of Bozeman as part of an applicaƟon for rede- velopment within the NCOD to document any potenƟal histor- ic importance before alteraƟons or demoliƟon is undertaken. The onus is on the property owner and on Bozeman staff to document and evaluate the building either just before or at the same Ɵme that a development or demoliƟon applicaƟon is considered. This places the immediate aspiraƟons of a prop- erty owner in potenƟal conflict with the community’s desire to preserve its history. First BapƟst Church. Photograph courtesy Bozeman Public Library, hƩps:// cdm15018.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collecƟon/p16013coll45/id/86/rec/15. What is the NaƟ onal Register of Historic Places? T«› Nƒã®Êă½ R›¦®Ýã›Ù ®Ý ƒ ½®Ýã Ê¥ ®Ä—®ò®—烽 Ý®ã›Ý, ç®½—®Ä¦Ý, ʐ¹›‘ãÝ, ÊÙ —®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ ã«ƒã «ƒò› —›ÃÊÄÝãكã- ›— Ý®¦Ä®¥®‘ƒÄ‘› ãÊ ã«› «®ÝãÊÙù Ê¥ ƒ ‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù, Ýãƒã› Ê٠㫛 ăã®ÊÄ ƒÄ— ƒÙ› óÊÙã«ù Ê¥ ÖٛݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ. T«› Nƒã®Êă½ R›¦®Ýã›Ù Ê¥ H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ P½ƒ‘›Ý ®Ý ƒÄ «ÊÄÊÙ- ƒÙù —›Ý®¦Äƒã®ÊÄ ã«ƒã —Ê›Ý ÄÊã Öٛò›Ä㠗›Ãʽ®ã®ÊÄ ÊÙ Ý®¦Ä®¥®‘ƒÄ㠃½ã›Ùƒã®ÊÄÝ. PÙÊ֛Ùã®›Ý ÊÄ ã«› R›¦®Ýã›Ù Ãù › ›½®¦®½› ¥ÊÙ ‘›Ùãƒ®Ä ãƒø ‘Ù›—®ãÝ. Bozeman Downtown, courtesy of City of Bozeman. 35 63 3.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 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 potenƟally historic building from demoliƟon. Maintenance standards are included in the Bozeman Code; however the standards are universal and not specific to historic properƟes. Standards for upkeep and maintenance are inte- gral to a successful historic preservaƟon program and should outline specific requirements to protect the longevity of a building and avoid demoliƟon by neglect. For example, a historic building may be required to patch holes in a roof to slow structural deterioraƟon. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Historic preservaƟon is the most important aspect of the NCOD. Historic properƟes should be protected against demoliƟon, and development regulaƟons within historic districts should be strict. Support for an updated inventory is important to the community, not just to define the NCOD, but to also idenƟfy and to protect significant buildings. “[The] NCOD was designed and created to protect historic areas and neighborhoods; it works as a cohesive area that defines the character of the Bozeman community.” “[The NCOD] strives to consider the historic value of Boze- man neighborhoods and individual buildings as part of the planning process.” A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Phase-in a local historic preservaƟon program. The program would apply to all local historic districts and lo- cal landmarks regardless of the NCOD boundary. • Develop a preservaƟon plan that arƟculates community preservaƟon goals with an implementaƟon agenda. • Decide as a community what is important to protect and then ensure that historic resources are protected through stricter demoliƟon criteria and specific mainte- nance standards for historic properƟes. • Up-skill HPAB members with historic preservaƟon train- ings focused on reviewing projects against criteria and improving recommendaƟons. The NaƟonal Alliance of PreservaƟon Commissions offers trainings specifi c to historic boards. • Adopt local designaƟon criteria and incenƟves that only apply to NaƟonal Register listed properƟes, with owner consent. Test out a local landmark pro- gram on naƟonally designated properƟes to deter- mine whether a local program is aƩracƟve to prop- erty owners and the community. • Clear standards, objecƟve criteria for landmark des- ignaƟon, and protecƟons for designated buildings are integral to a local historic preservaƟon program. • DemoliƟon criteria could be weighted depending on locaƟon. For example, stricter requirements would apply to eligible properƟes within a historic district as opposed to moderate requirements for eligible or historic properƟes outside a historic district. • AŌer compleƟng an architectural inventory, write context papers on Bozeman’s local vernacular build- ings idenƟ fied in the survey that are not eligible for NaƟonal Register status, but are important to Boze- man’s history. • Develop handouts for historic property owners that offer quick reference guides to repairs based on na- Ɵonal standards for historic preservaƟon. Offer free consultaƟons for historic properƟes to promote and inform maintenance and upkeep. • Explore a conservaƟon easement program or build- ing rehabilitaƟon fund to help maintain significant historic properƟes and prevent deferred mainte- nance. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù υ.φ, ϋ.ψ.— CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ ό.χ 36 64 3.2 DEVELOP INCENTIVES A voluntary landmark designaƟon program can be very successful when there are reasons to designate a property. IncenƟves for historic structures encourage designaƟon by balancing the addiƟonal layer of design review and required maintenance associated with historic status. IncenƟves can also compensate a property owner’s sense of responsibility and outright addiƟonal costs of pre- serving an historic resource. Finding an appropriate balance takes Ɵme and finesse to determine appropriate incenƟves that benefi t property owners and do not negaƟvely impact the community, neighborhood or other citywide goals. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Historic preservaƟon is indisputably supported by the com- munity. The community’s connecƟon and dedicaƟon to pro- tecƟng their local history through buildings were a common thread in the outreach feedback. “Our historic neighborhoods are a treasure. Only Disney builds places like this anymore. Growth is happening, but take care not to ruin something so unique.” “The NCOD and especially the historic neighborhoods need to be preserved and not overwhelmed by new, large scale, unaƩracƟve development.” A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Explore a variety of incenƟ ves for historic properƟ es owners. Engage with historic property owners to ensure incenƟ ve rel- evance and clarity. The Municipal Code already allows deviaƟ ons for historic properƟ es which may be a meaningful incenƟ ve for some property owners. Each project has a diff erent set of param- eters and a diff erent boƩ om line that can Ɵ p the scales to- ward voluntary designaƟ on or demoliƟ on. A list of incenƟ ves that provides a variety of opƟ ons for diff erent projects and a merit-based program to earn the benefi ts is recommended. Finding an appropriate balance between carrots and sƟ cks, regulaƟ ons and incenƟ ves, is the key to a successful voluntary historic preservaƟ on program that relies on property owners being willing parƟ cipants. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ ό.χ ݃ÃÖ½› ®Ä‘›Äã®ò› ÖÙʦكÃ: T«› C®ãù ®Ý ‘ÊÃîã㛗 ãÊ ÖÙÊò®—®Ä¦ ÝçÖÖÊÙã ãÊ ÖÙÊ֛Ùãù ÊóěÙÝ ãÊ ƒÝÝ®Ýã 㫛®Ù ›¥¥ÊÙãÝ ãÊ Ãƒ®ÄヮÄ, ÖٛݛÙò› ƒÄ— ›Ä«ƒÄ‘› 㫛®Ù «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ÖÙÊ֛Ù㮛Ý. R›‘ʦĮþ®Ä¦ 㫃ã 㫛ݛ ÖÙÊ֛Ùã®›Ý ƒÙ› òƒ½çƒ½› ‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ãù ƒÝݛãÝ ®Ý 㫛 ƒÝ®‘ Öٛîݛ çė›Ù½ù®Ä¦ 㫛 ÖÙÊò®Ý®ÊÄ Ê¥ Ý֛‘®ƒ½ ÖÙʑ›—çÙ›Ý ƒÄ— ÖÙʦكÃÝ ¥ÊÙ —›Ý®¦Äƒã›— «®ÝãÊÙ®‘ ÖÙÊ֛Ùã®›Ý ƒÄ— —®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ. EøƒÃÖ½›Ý Ê¥ Iđ›Äã®ò›Ý Ê¥¥›Ù›— ®Ä Ê㫛٠‘ÊÃÃçÄ®ã®›Ý ®Ä‘½ç—›: υ) A®½®ãù ãÊ ‘ÊÄÝʽ®—ƒã› ƒ½½ ٛØç®Ù›— ٛò®›óÝ ƒã HPAB ¥ÊÙ ›ø֛—®ã›— ٛò®›ó ÖÙʑ›ÝÝ. φ) PÊã›Ä㮃½ ¥Ê٠㫛 C®ãù ãÊ Öƒù ƒ ÖÊÙã®ÊÄ Ê¥ 㫛 C®ãù ¥››Ý ƒÝÝʑ®ƒã›— ó®ã« 㫛 ÖÙʹ›‘ã. χ) ƒ ãكÄÝ¥›Ùƒ½› —›ò›½ÊÖÛÄã Ù®¦«ã ÖÙʦكà ãÊ ãكÄÝ¥›Ù ¥½ÊÊÙ ƒÙ›ƒ Ê¥¥-Ý®ã›. ψ) ƒ ‘ÊÄݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ ›ƒÝ›Ã›Äã ÖÙʦكà ÊÙ ç®½—®Ä¦ ٛ«ƒ®½®ãƒã®ÊÄ ¥çė. 37 65 3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS Under the current review process the Planning Director approves the majority of historic projects, while the Historic PreservaƟon Advisory Board (HPAB) may provide recommendaƟons. Currently there are about 100 CerƟ ficate of Appropriateness applicaƟons a year which are reviewed by staff planners – the Historic PreservaƟon 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-regulaƟon can be a barrier to historic preservaƟon projects and to voluntary landmark designaƟon. 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. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: The review process is seen as ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The small groups expressed a desire for clarity and consistency in the review criteria, and for a beƩer opportunity to comment on projects. “Separate historic preservaƟon from neighborhood preser- vaƟon since they address different issues and needs.” “Give clearer direcƟon and quanƟ taƟve review parameters for decision makers.” “Review criteria more geographically based with reason- able quanƟ taƟve evaluaƟon criteria” A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Allow HPAB recommendaƟons for historic projects and for projects within a historic district. Start HPAB review of demo- liƟons as a way to ease into review authority. HPAB is a required referral agency for historic projects and any projects within a historic district. DefiniƟve thresholds need to be developed to determine the appropriate review body. Minor development of non-contribuƟng properƟes within his- toric districts, single family home, and/or small addiƟons (i.e. less than 250 sf) to landmarks are examples of thresholds for a lesser review process than a new large mixed use building within a historic district or a large addiƟon to a landmark. HPAB recommendaƟons would occur at a public hearing where noƟce is posted on the property to allow the public a venue to comment and learn about the project. Other avenues to communicate with the public that could be considered as part of this alternaƟve are listed in Chapter 6. In addiƟon to required recommendaƟons, HPAB could also have the ability through a majority vote to require a project be reviewed by the Bozeman Commission rather than the Plan- ning Director. TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçٛ —®Ý‘çÝÝ®ÊÄ: In the future, consider HPAB as a decision making body. A key component to the historic review process is to authorize the Historic PreservaƟon Advisory Board to have final authority on certain projects, rather than just a recommendaƟon. This cre- ates a venue for formal review of a project during a public hear- ing. Board trainings are available to help HPAB diff erenƟate its role as project advocate vs. board reviewer. This approach allows the Historic PreservaƟon Officer to focus on long term goals such as the development of a local historic preservaƟon program. A noƟced public hearing and formal review process with clear design guidelines and review criteria that are evaluated by the Historic PreservaƟon Board with a recommendaƟon by the His- toric PreservaƟon Officer is a more inclusionary, predictable, and oŌ enƟmes parƟcipatory process. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— 38 66 3.3 HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS - CASE STUDIES H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ D®ÝãÙ®‘ã CÊÃîÝÝ®ÊÄÝ—A SçÃÃÙù Ê¥ Açã«ÊÙ®ãù Many states grant ciƟes the authority to establish commissions with broad authority to make recommendaƟons, spend funds, hire professionals as needed, and approve exterior modificaƟons and new construcƟon in established historic districts. The following is a summary of such commissions in select states indicaƟng their authority to grant cerƟ ficates of appropriateness. Two states included in the summary specifically authorize staff to grant minor CerƟ ficate of Appropriateness (COAs) with appeals heard by the commission, although other states, especially those with home rule, may not allow staff level authority. Ýãƒã› CÊÃÃÊÄ Bʃٗ T®ã½› S‘Ê֛ Ê¥ Aç- ã«ÊÙ®ãù SƒÃÖ½› AÖÖÙÊòƒ½ Açã«ÊÙ®ã®›Ý ¥ÊÙ H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ D®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ Sãƒãç›/EøƒÃÖ½› R›‘ÊÃÛė ÊĽù COAs AÖ֛ƒ½Ý ãÊ Sュ¥ D›‘®Ý®ÊÄÝ NC Historic preservaƟon or district commission Broad X X Statute SC Board of architectural review Broad—set by zoning ordinance X X Statute ME Historic district com- mission Broad X Ellsworth, ME IN Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X South Bend,IN SD Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X Statute ID Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X Statute WY Historic preservaƟon commission Narrow—did not find any city with HPC approval authority X Casper Code Cheyenne WA Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X Spokane Code UT Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X Overview of state and local districts Statue CO Historic preservaƟon commission Broad X X ManƟou Springs Denver Code OR Historic preserva- Ɵon/ resources com- mission Broad X Admin Rules Independence NV Historic resources commission Broad X Carson City Code Reno Code 39 67 3.4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS + GUIDELINES The exisƟng Bozeman Guidelines for Historic PreservaƟon and the Neighborhood ConservaƟon Overlay District document, adopt- ed in 2006 and amended in 2015, address both historic preservaƟon and new development throughout the enƟre overlay concur- rently. A chapter is devoted to rehabilitaƟon guidelines for historic properƟes and each historic district is alloƩed a few specifi c design guidelines. There are general design guidelines for the enƟre NCOD, and general suggesƟons for residenƟal development versus commercial development. This document has served as a good foundaƟon for the NCOD; however, an update to create a stronger disƟncƟon between historic preservaƟon and neighborhood character is overdue. The exisƟng guidelines and any future standards and guidelines must be based on the recently updated Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic ProperƟ es. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Neighborhood character and historic districts should be ad- dressed separately within the NCOD with special care given to transiƟon areas between historic districts. Historic preser- vaƟon of all designated historic districts is important to the community. The Main Street, Story Mill, and the Bon Ton historic districts have the greatest mass and scale challenges with new devel- opment. Based on this feedback, updated design standards and guidelines need to specifically address mass and scale within these idenƟ fied historic districts in addiƟon to poten- Ɵal zone district boundary changes. “The NCOD and corresponding regulaƟons are the reason we have the charming Bozeman of today, and are neces- sary to retain this charm.” A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Create historic preservaƟon (HP) standards and guide- lines. The HP standards and guidelines should specify appropriate contextual alteraƟons, remodels, and new buildings for each historic district. Standards will be requirements (with the abil- ity to request a deviaƟon) and guidelines will be recommen- daƟons. The HP standards and guidelines will build upon the principles of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which will sƟll apply, and will provide more detailed direcƟon for each historic district to specifically address historic significance. The HP standards and guidelines will be separate from the de- sign standards and guidelines for non-historic properƟes and non-historic districts within the NCOD (discussed in SecƟon 2.3, page 30). CreaƟng the HP standards and guidelines is rec- ommended aŌer an updated architectural inventory is com- pleted (see SecƟon 1.6, page 18 for prioriƟzed 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 exisƟng condiƟons, reflect good historic preservaƟon pracƟce and en- courage appropriate future development. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘ù ψ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ 40 68 CHAPTER 3 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟons. CorrelaƟons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù υ.φ (P.2) Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovaƟng methods for inviƟng input from the commu- nity and stakeholders. Pʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. D›ò›½ÊÖ ƒÄ— A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®‘®›Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. Pʽ®‘ù ψ.φ.— U֗ƒã› H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ PٛݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ G算›½®Ä›Ý. (P.ϊ) Update the Neighborhood ConservaƟon Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservaƟon in downtown and other com- mercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote conƟnued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures relaƟve to ongoing infill and redevelopment. Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— Sãك㛦®‘ MçÄ®‘®Öƒ½ S›Ùò®‘› D›½®ò›Ùù Eø֛‘ãƒã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11) Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟons about the City’s capacity to deliver services. 2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MƒÄƒ¦›Ã›Äã. (P.υχ) Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟng, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-υ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χφ) Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and faciliƟes in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-χ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χχ) Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟon represented by this area. Gʃ½ ψ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ‘-υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Q烽®ãù. (P.ψϋ) Update design objecƟves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development Gʃ½ ψ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ‘-υ.ψ D›Ý®¦Ä G算›½®Ä›Ý. (P.ψϋ) Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualiƟes within neighborhood, com- munity and regional commercial areas. Gʃ½ ό.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ›—-χ E‘ÊÄÊî‘ D›ò›½ÊÖÛÄã. (P.ϋϊ) Recognize the importance of quality of life elements in aƩracƟng and developing economic acƟvity. 41 69 CHAPTER 4 RELATE ZONING TO CONTEXT 70 Non-HisNon-Histtooric Disric Distrtricts: icts: Consider aliConsider aligning zgning zone disone dis trict allowtrict allowances with neighborhood chances with neighborhood chararactacterer. Ga. Gather morther more e dadatta a aaŌŌ er er the the ararchitchitecturectural al sursurvveeyy and and desidesign gn gguidelines uidelines and and ssttandarandards ds arare e ccompletompleted. ed. Use Use ttools ools such such as as 3-D3-D modeling tmodeling to undero underssttand zand zoninoningg, mass and sc, mass and scale.ale. 4343 43 4 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS Study of the B-3 transiƟ on zone should be a mid- or long-term priority rather than an immediate priority. 4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT Historic Districts: Explore adjusƟng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟng zone districts. Gather more data aŌer the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. 4.3 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT 71 44 Map review proocceessss aanndd idenƟ fy redundaanntt rreeqquuiirree ments and areass ooff oovveerrllaapp forr rroojj cts withinn tthppeechee NNCCOODD:: i.ee.. ArƟ cclle 5, Site PPllaann RReevviieeww,, o ect R . PPrr j evviieeww ... SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM districts:AAnnaalyzzee zonee al requirementsIIDD wheree ddimmeennssiioonn flict with neigh-aandd boundarriieess cconnfl future vision, orborhood chaarraa ccttee rr// f boundary.historic ddiistrriicctt Amend zone district require- ments to relate to neighbor- hood (or historic district if applicable) character (either exisƟng or future vision). Create transiƟon specific standards and guidelines that are context based and replace ArƟcle 5 standards (where it is redundant) for projects within NCOD. ards and guide-Create desiggn s taanndd B3 zone district.liines specificc to tthhee B nd alignRReef erenccee aan ards anddd essiiggn sttaa nndd a adopted DBIP.gguuiiddeell iinneess wwithh tthhee data aŌer the architectural survey and designtGGatthh eerr mmoo rree d dards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D model-edgguiddeellinn ess aanndd sttan o understand zoning, mass and scale.giinngg tto Map review process and identify redundant requirements and areas of overlap for projects within the NCOD: i.e Article 5, Site Plan Review, Project Review... 44 CHAPTER 4 WORK PLAN 72 4 RELATE ZONING TO LOCAL CONTEXT The Bozeman community places a very high value on neighbor- hood character within the NCOD. The purpose of the NCOD, as a design overlay for both historic districts and non-historic districts, is only part of the story. The NCOD discussion is not binary – there are many other factors at play. Recent discon- tent around tall projects adjacent to small scale residenƟal neighborhoods highlights a potenƟal disconnect between the dimensional allowances such as height, setbacks, and floor area of the zone districts and appropriate contextual develop- ment within the NCOD. The NCOD uses the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preserva- Ɵon and The Neighborhood ConservaƟon Overlay District to inform new construcƟon, and the 2015 NCOD audit suggests a mix of design overlay and buffer overlay districts to promote and to support neighborhood context. However, it is virtually impossible to create design guidelines that make a new, tall, mulƟ-story building relate to a single story bungalow. The abrupt height and mass transiƟons between historic and non-historic districts has influenced negaƟve community senƟment toward the NCOD and an overall feeling that the NCOD needs to be improved. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½Ý χ.χ ƒÄ— ψ.χ DBIP R›‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ Ö. υυτ DBIP R›‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ Ö. υυϊ LEGEND NCOD BÊçėƒÙù NÊÙã« ãك‘›ù L®Ä—½›ù Ö½ƒ‘› BÊÄ TÊÄ Mƒ®Ä Sãٛ›ã MSU SÊçã« Tك‘›ù / SÊçã« B½ƒ‘» 45 73 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS The historic districts, residenƟal neighborhoods and mixed- use downtown core found within the Neighborhood Con- servaƟon Overlay District represent some of the most de- sirable real estate in the city, elevaƟng redevelopment potenƟal and prompƟng serious consideraƟon – and con- cern – regarding infill development in the area. Some of the exisƟng zone districts located in the NCOD have allowed for development over Ɵme that is not always characterisƟ c of adopted historic districts or non-historic neighborhoods. This disconnect between tradiƟonal zoning pracƟce and neighborhood character results in projects that may meet the code (and the exisƟng form and intensity standards) but are not always responsive to the surrounding neigh- borhood, prompƟng frustraƟon and distrust toward infill development, especially within the NCOD. Within the scope of the NCOD project, the focus is to address community concern over mass, scale and densi- ty issues that impact neighborhood character within the district. In order to do so, an evaluaƟon of the zone districts present within the NCOD boundary was necessary to understand how exisƟng standards influence develop- ment within the district and pinpoint opportuniƟes for greater compaƟbility and stronger implementaƟon. The B-3 Downtown Business District and its relaƟonship to the established historic districts and overall NCOD boundary became an important part of this evaluaƟon, based on input from stakeholders and community members. The intent of the B-3 zone is ‘to provide a central area for the community’s business, government service and cul- tural acƟviƟes with urban residenƟal development as an essenƟal supporƟng use.’ Encouraging mixed use devel- opment with a healthy balance of business, civic, cultural and residenƟal uses are central to a healthy downtown district. In other communiƟes, allowing urban residenƟal uses as part of a high density downtown district has un- intenƟonally created situaƟons where the highest and best use of a property is top-shelf residenƟal developments. The Downtown Bozeman Partnership is currently working on an updated Downtown Bozeman Improvement plan that will address the B-3 zone district and areas for infill and higher density development. In addiƟon, the Bozeman Community Plan is being updated which will also pinpoint areas for growth and development and will reflect long term vision of the community. 46 74 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS The B-3 ‘downtown district’ zone highlights an opportunity for a soŌer, context-appropriate transiƟon between higher density and taller buildings and small low density neighbor- hoods. A sensiƟve soluƟon is required to meet the goals and intent of the zone district while balancing historic and neighborhood preservaƟon of the areas that abut the B-3 boundary. To further complicate this balance, the Main Street historic district is located in the middle of the B-3 zone. Allowable building heights along Main Street are lower than height allowances outside the historic district and within the B-3 zone. Different height requirements within the zone district recognize historic context along Main Street; however, this pushes taller buildings toward low scale residenƟal neighborhoods located to the north and south. Setback and height restricƟons established by the applicaƟon of zone edge transiƟon areas address this issue within B-3 and properƟes immediately adjacent to residenƟal R-2 districts, but may not go far enough to address neighborhood character beyond mass and scale or consider infill in a holisƟc manner that looks beyond that immediate edge. The B-2M ‘community business district-mixed’ zone district is a new district adopted in 2017 that is a hybrid between B-3 and the more suburban B-2 zone district. The stated intent of B-2M is to funcƟon as a vibrant mixed-use dis- trict that accommodates substanƟal growth and enhances the character of the city. B-2M zoning is presently located along the western boundary of the NCOD, between Main and Peach Streets, and may serve as an opportunity zone to capture future infill development within the district. Excerpt from Bozeman Municipal Code, SecƟon 38.320.060. - Zone edge transiƟons (within Division 38.320 Form and Intensity Standards). 47 75 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: LocaƟng new infill development anywhere within the NCOD received moderate community support; however majority support was for outside the NCOD or along the 7th Street corridor. This is consistent with the City’s recent up-zoning of the 7th Street corridor to accommodate addiƟonal density and intensity of development. It is important to note the different percepƟons around what consƟtutes infill. For some people infill is large high density development, and for others infill is all new de- velopment regardless of density or size. High density devel- opment can also take on different meanings among residents. For some, high-density means an intense concentraƟon of uses, both verƟcally and horizontally, reflecƟve of larger urban areas like Denver, SeaƩle or Portland. For others, high-density could be any use or development more intense than single-family res- idenƟal; in a city the size of Bozeman someƟmes any new or addiƟonal development feels higher in intensity than what cur- rently exists. “Lack of buffer zone between new development and exist- ing neighborhoods is hurƟng the community of the neigh- borhoods which is difficult to see unless you are living in the neighborhood. Our neighborhoods are not just brick and mortar we are people. The hard line between commercial and residenƟal zoning needs a buff er.” The Bozeman Community Plan is currently being revised. The final document will provide context and future vision for this decades old discussion around increasing density downtown and protecƟ ng the essence of the Bozeman community. A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Study of the B-3 transiƟon zone should be a mid- or long- term priority rather than an immediate priority. There is some acceptance by the community that new development is going to happen in the NCOD. Results from pointed quesƟons on where developments should occur, as well as our assessment of the massing and char- acter of exisƟng development within the NCOD boundary, informed our recommendaƟon to rethink the B-3 District boundary within the NCOD. How this boundary is re- considered could be approached from mulƟple direcƟons: from modifying the boundary of the B-3 district to beƩer align with exisƟng historic districts, to creaƟng a new mixed use district that serves as a transiƟonal zone between B-3 and the residenƟal neighborhoods, or expanding upon the exisƟng zone edge transiƟon requirements to beƩer address form and character in these transiƟonal areas. Using streets to delineate the boundary creates a physical break between zone districts. The established neighbor- hoods and historic districts located to the south of down- town dictate a very clear boundary between tradiƟonal neighborhood development and the B-3 zone; our recom- mendaƟon, regardless of any of the opƟons presented, is for the City to consider aligning the southern B-3 district boundary with the exisƟng historic districts to the south of Babcock Street. To balance an adjusted B-3 zone, incenƟ v- izing redevelopment within areas zoned for B-2M along the North 7th corridor should be considered to take ad- vantage of recent upzoning in this area and the desire to see addiƟonal infill along this corridor. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘®›Ý ψ.υ. ƒÄ— ψ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ DBIP ¦ç®—®Ä¦ Öٮđ®Ö½› Ö.χτ 48 76 4.1 INFILL TRANSITIONS TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçٛ —®Ý‘çÝÝ®ÊÄ: Tools to consider in the future are provided as opƟons that address the delicate balance between incenƟvizing infill and supporƟng historic pres- ervaƟon and enhancing neighborhood character. 1) Create a B-3 transiƟonal zone (B-3T) for areas located beyond the core downtown district. This could be an overlay district or separate zone district (B-3T) that would apply to properƟes located between Babcock and the exisƟng B-3 boundary to the south, and Mendenhall and the exisƟng B-3 boundary to the north. The intent of the exisƟng B-3 zone would remain in place, with massing, scale, site design and other dimensional requirements adjusted to beƩer align with a transiƟoning commercial, mixed use to residenƟal, 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. 2) Incorporate addiƟonal site design standards within the exisƟng zone edge transiƟon requirements. Similar to the recommendaƟon above, but working within the exisƟng municipal code framework, addiƟonal site design standards could be in- corporated within SecƟon 38.320.060 of the City’s municipal code ad- dressing compaƟble transiƟons between high density and low density districts. Façade arƟculaƟon, transparency, construcƟon materials, roof type, landscaping and other design requirements could be incorporated – in addiƟon to exisƟng height and setback requirements – to further define the character of the transiƟon zone and extend it beyond imme- diately adjacent properƟes. 3) IncenƟvize redevelopment along North 7th through TDRs. Using a combinaƟon of the above opƟons establishing a transiƟonal zone along the B-3 “edge”, encourage infill development within the expanded NCOD district along North 7th Avenue by allowing developers to shiŌ density from the transiƟonal zone into the B-2M zone. This may be ac- complished in concert with a slight expansion to the B-2M district’s east- ern boundary, depending on the guidance and direcƟon resulƟng from the City’s community plan update, landowner input, and the adopted downtown plan update. B-3T? B-3T? 49 77 4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT Zone district analysis is not exactly within the scope of the NCOD project; however, there are definite areas of overlap in terms of mass, scale, and neighborhood character. Bozeman is current- ly working on a community plan update and a downtown plan update that will most likely address changes to the zoning map. Disconnect between zone district boundaries and neighbor- hood character occur throughout the NCOD, most notably with- in designated historic districts that have a defined and cohesive architectural style. Approved projects within the B-3 zone dis- trict directly adjacent to designated historic districts, highlight incompaƟbility between neighborhood character and dimen- sional allowances within a zone district. The Bon Ton, Story Mill, and Cooper Park Historic Districts have more than one zone district within the historic district boundary -for example, the Bon Ton Historic District has R-1, R-4 and B-3 zoning. Allowed heights in the R-1 Zone District (36 Ō. max) are lower than the R-4 Zone District (44 Ō. max), and significantly lower than the B-3 Zone District (70 Ō. max outside the core). The historic buildings within the Bon Ton Historic District range from 1 story to 2 1/2 stories in height on average, which is sig- nificantly lower than a 44 Ō. building allowed in R-4. Numerous zone districts within one cohesive historic district can be frustraƟng for residents, property owners and Bozeman staff/review boards when a project meets zoning allowances but does not relate to the historic context of the neighborhood. This places a strain on the review process and can result in new development that degrades and erodes the cohesion of the his- toric district. Changes to the zone district map should be considered in con- cert with the community plan and the downtown plan updates. Zoning amendments should also be informed by other commu- nity wide goals such as infrastructure updates for new construc- Ɵon, on-street and off-street parking needs, affordable housing needs, and many other growth and development topics. The NaƟonal Register of Historic Places describes the Bon Ton Historic District as “Bozeman’s fi nest examples of histor- ic residenƟ al architecture, spanning from the early 1880s to the mid-1930s, consƟ tute the bulk of the 228 buildings in the Bon Ton Historic District.” W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Through our analysis and discussion with parƟcipants the Main Street Historic District and surrounds was idenƟ fied as having the greatest mass and scale challenges with new de- velopment. Many parƟcipants reference recent tall developments in the B-3 zone adjacent to residenƟal neighborhoods, as evidence that the NCOD needs to beƩer protect neighborhood char- acter. Rather than design, the review process, or neutral op- Ɵons, parƟcipants selected the size of building and the scale of new development as the biggest issues with new develop- ment in the NCOD. Based on community input, we found that there is overall community concern with the pace and size of new growth and development throughout Bozeman. Specific concerns within the NCOD ended up relaƟng largely to projects approved un- der the B-3 zone district and Design Guideline Subchapter 4B which is specific to the B-3 zone. 50 78 4.2 RELATE ZONE DISTRICTS TO CONTEXT A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: («®ÝãÊÙ®‘ —®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ) Explore adjusƟng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟng zone districts. Gather more data aŌer the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. AŌer an updated architectural inventory of the NCOD is com- pleted, determine whether exisƟng historic district bound- aries need adjustment and idenƟfy eligible future historic districts within the NCOD. Consider historic preservaƟon in- cenƟves that off-set any “down zoning” that may occur when zone district boundaries and dimensions are adjusted. TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçٛ —®Ý‘çÝÝ®ÊÄ: 1) Explore adjusƟng the historic district boundaries to relate to the exisƟng zone districts. If an architectural inventory is not feasible at this Ɵme, bound- ary adjustments can be made based on current informaƟon and a windshield survey. However, adjustments to the historic district boundary must not jeopardize the integrity of the his- toric district by including areas that do not have a high level of significance and do not contribute to the historic district. On the other hand, historic districts should not exclude important historic properƟes in order to align zone districts with historic districts as this would be counter-producƟve. This alternaƟ ve may involve amending the NaƟonal Register of Historic Places historic district designaƟon unless local historic districts are adopted. 2) Develop an historic preservaƟon overlay zone in place of amending zone district boundaries. This approach applies cohesive design standards and dimen- sional requirements within a historic district, and is similar to the Main Street historic district which is located within the B-3 zone district. Within the B-3 boundary, different dimensional standards apply to properƟes inside the Main Street historic district as opposed to outside the district. A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: (ÄÊÄ-«®ÝãÊÙ®‘ 쮦«ÊÙ«ÊʗÝ) Consider aligning zone district allowances with neighborhood character. Gather more data aŌer the architectural survey and design guidelines and standards are completed. Use tools such as 3-D modeling to understand zoning, mass and scale. New design overlay districts and neighborhood specific design guidelines are not the singular answer to the mass, scale and incompaƟbility issues voiced by the community. To success- fully address the concerns in non-historic neighborhoods we recommend a mulƟ-pronged approach that starts with align- ing dimensional requirements and allowed uses in the NCOD zone districts to neighborhood character and the future vision for each neighborhood. Design guidelines should be consid- ered aŌer an architectural inventory or windshield survey of the NCOD is completed and aŌer zone districts are amended. TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçٛ —®Ý‘çÝÝ®ÊÄ: 1) Update the form and intensity standards to beƩer address concerns about mass and scale. The form and intensity standards are form based code that were recently adopted by the Bozeman Commission. Note: it may be premature to update the form and intensity standards that have not been adequately tested. Sample case studies could shed light on the applicability of the form and intensity standards and whether AlternaƟve 1 is an appropriate opƟon. 2) Update current design guidelines and add design standards to beƩer address concerns about mass and scale. New design standards can encourage thoughƞul design ele- ments that reduce the percepƟon of mass and scale and can require architectural elements, such as front porches or large street facing windows, that relate new development to sur- rounding character. New design standards and guidelines for neighborhoods are addressed in Chapter 2 of this document. Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘ù ψ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ DBIP ¦ç®—®Ä¦ Öٮđ®Ö½› Ö.χτ 51 79 52 CHAPTER 4 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟons. CorrelaƟons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ψ.υ. D›ò›½ÊÖ ƒÄ— A½®¦Ä IÄ¥®½½ Pʽ®‘®›Ý. (P.ϊ) Develop, adopt and align city policies for infill and redevelopment, economic development and public infrastructure. Pʽ®‘ù ψ.ψ V®ÙƒÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ Ι C›Äã›ÙÝ. (P.ϋ) Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densiƟes and intensificaƟon of use in these key areas. Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— Sãك㛦®‘ MçÄ®‘®Öƒ½ S›Ùò®‘› D›½®ò›Ùù Eø֛‘ãƒã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11) Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟons about the City’s capacity to deliver services. 2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MƒÄƒ¦›Ã›Äã. (P.υχ) Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟng, and enhancing the overall quality of life with- in the planning area. Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-χ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χχ) Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟon represented by this area. Gʃ½ ψ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ‘-υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Q烽®ãù. (P.ψϋ) Update design objecƟves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development. Mƒù 2019 DÊóÄãÊóÄ BÊþ›ÃƒÄ IÃÖÙÊò›Ã›Äã Ö½ƒÄ G算®Ä¦ Öٮđ®Ö½› “MÊٛ ã«ƒÄ ƒ Mƒ®Ä Sãٛ›ã” (P. χτ) Protect the character of the Main Street Historic District and enhance the residenƟal neighborhoods through context-sensiƟ ve development. R›‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ Ö. υυτ Adjust the B-3 District Boundary to Eliminate Land Use and Scale Conflicts. ٛ‘ÊÃÛėƒã®ÊÄ Ö. υυϊ Explore “Gentle” ResidenƟal Infill. 52 52 80 CHAPTER 5 STREAMLINE PROCESS 81 5555 5 ADOPTED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS ΈNONͳHISTORICΉ: Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. 82 565656565656 CHAPTER 5 WORK PLAN SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM 56 Exempt the NCOD from duplicative review processes and replace with context derived standards and guidelines. 83 5 STREAMLINE PROCESS There are numerous requirements and reviews that may apply to projects within the NCOD including: a CerƟ ficate of Appropri- ateness, Sketch Plan Review, Form and Intensity Standards within each zone district, and Project Design Review to name a few. These mulƟple layers can create confusion for neighbors. The City of Bozeman developed handouts that simplify applicaƟon requirements to be accessible and understandable to a wide range of users. The number of differing reviews increases the potenƟal for conflicƟng standards that need to be recƟ fied 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 recommendaƟon 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 foundaƟon to build on. Based on community input, there is a desire to address the review process and provide a more concise framework that is easy to follow. 57 84 58585 5.1 NCOD REVIEW PROCESS (NON-HISTORIC) W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Clear review criteria, an understandable process, and a streamlined review are areas that need improvement accord- ing to the small group meeƟng parƟcipants. Placing more weight on public comment and Design Review Board (DRB) recommendaƟons is desired; and, relaƟng scope to level of review process is recommended by the small group meeƟng parƟcipants. Overall, parƟcipants felt that the review process for new de- velopment is slightly Ɵlted to developers with some parƟci- pants agreeing that the review process is balanced. “Let’s have developers collaborate with the neighborhood they seek to develop within so that we can get projects that truly meet the needs and fit the character of the par- Ɵcular neighborhood.” “There should be room for deviaƟon from exisƟng com- munity character, if the proposed building’s architecture is world-class, contemporary.” Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Öʽ®‘®›Ý ψ.φ.—, ψ.ψ, ϋ.ψ.— CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½Ý υ.χ, χ.χ, ψ.χ A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Ensure the review process is understandable and streamlined. Map out the different review processes to determine overlap and areas to simplify and consolidate. For example, explore the advantages and disadvantages to exempƟng the NCOD from form and intensity standards in zone districts (and pos- sibly other review processes) and instead use context derived design guidelines (recommendaƟons) and standards (require- ments). Develop review criteria that is objecƟve and allows some fl ex- ibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulaƟons, de- sign standards and design guidelines. TÊÊ½Ý ¥ÊÙ ¥çãçٛ —®Ý‘çÝÝ®ÊÄ: 1) Require a binding design review process with the Design Review Board (non-historic properƟes). The DRB would be authorized to make the final decision on design review, while sƟll enabling the Bozeman Commission to consider a large project for review when certain thresholds or requirements are met. At the same Ɵme, lower the thresh- olds that triggers DRB review to include smaller projects to balance the recommendaƟon requiring a design review pro- cess for large projects. This is a significant change to the Bozeman Municipal Code and requires a commitment to training the DRB to apply re- view criteria. A large majority of established communiƟes im- plement a similar review structure with design review boards, historic preservaƟon boards, planning boards, and/or zoning boards conducƟng 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 conƟnues to approve minor projects and provides exper- Ɵse and recommendaƟons to the review body during a proj- ect review. 588 85 Gʃ½ χ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ½ç-χ LƒÄ— Uݛ. (P.χχ) Strengthen the Historic Core of Bozeman to preserve the community character, economic resource, and historical connecƟ on represented by this area. Gʃ½ ψ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ‘-υ.φ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Q烽®ãù. (P.ψϋ) Update design objecƟ ves to include guidelines for urban spaces and more dense development. Gʃ½ ψ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ‘-υ.ψ CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù Q烽®ãù. (P.ψϋ) Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the City’s visual qualiƟ es within neighborhood, community and regional commercial areas. CHAPTER 5 CORRELATION WITH ADOPTED PLANS City of Bozeman planning staff provided an analysis of the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan and the 2018 Bozeman Strategic Plan compared to the draŌ NCOD recommendaƟons. CorrelaƟons are indicated throughout the chapter and are found below. 2018 Sãك㛦®‘ P½ƒÄ Pʽ®‘ù ψ.φ.— U֗ƒã› H®ÝãÊÙ®‘ PٛݛÙòƒã®ÊÄ G算›½®Ä›Ý. (P.ϊ) Update the Neighborhood ConservaƟon Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines for historic preservaƟon in downtown and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers. Promote conƟnued investment in the city’s inventory of historic structures relaƟve to ongoing infill and redevelopment. Pʽ®‘ù ψ.ψ V®ÙƒÄã DÊóÄãÊóÄ, D®ÝãÙ®‘ãÝ Ι C›Äã›ÙÝ. (P.ϋ) Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Midtown, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densiƟes and intensificaƟon of use in these key areas. Pʽ®‘ù ϋ.ψ.— Sãك㛦®‘ MçÄ®‘®Öƒ½ S›Ùò®‘› D›½®ò›Ùù Eø֛‘ãƒã®ÊÄÝ. (P.11) Strategically manage community and employee expectaƟons about the City’s capacity to deliver services. 2009 CÊÃÃçÄ®ãù P½ƒÄ Gʃ½ υ.χ, O¹›‘ã®ò› ¦-υ GÙÊóã« MƒÄƒ¦›Ã›Äã. (Ö.υχ) Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecƟ ng, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. 59 86 6060 CHAPTER 6 PROJECT INFORMATION 87 61 6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY 6.1 PROJECT INFORMATION Strengthen exisƟ ng project informaƟ on channels and work on push noƟ fi caƟ ons City-wide. 6.2 PROJECT INFORMATION Develop a plan to have public meeƟ ngs prior to applicatoni review with impacted neighbors. Collect input from neighbors on large scale projects. Add noƟ cing requirements with area radius. Develop minimum standards that applicant has to meet. Develop clear thresholds that trigger review. 61 88 6262 CHAPTER 6 WORK PLAN Strengthen existing project Sttrenngthheegn eexisƟ ng project information channels and workinnffommoraaƟƟ oon channels and work onn on push notifications City-ppuusshh nnooƟƟ fifi caƟƟ ons City-wide. wide. SHORT TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Develop a plan to have public meetings prior to application 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. 89 6 PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Bozeman requires mailed and posted noƟces that include informaƟon about the project, contact number, and the date of a public hearing for specific types of projects. In addiƟon, the City of Bozeman is currently working on expanding web access to development project informaƟon and advisory board agendas with links to packet material. A CerƟ ficate of Appropriateness in the NCOD does not require posƟng of noƟce prior to approval; rather, the Municipal Code may require noƟce be posted on the property that describes the scope of the already approved project. AdministraƟve reviews at the staff level do not have required public noƟcing prior to the decision. By their very nature, staff reviews are for projects that comply with code requirements and a CerƟ ficate of Appropriateness can be issued quickly without slowing down development momentum. W«ƒã ó› «›ƒÙ—: Project informaƟon is mostly found in the newspaper, on the city website, and through word of mouth. Most parƟcipants feel that available informaƟon provides enough detail to un- derstand the main points of a project. “ALL of these sources and several Ɵmes IN ADVANCE- you can’t adverƟse too much” “Send out texts with development/proposal info to folks within a five block radius.” “ConƟnue to uƟlize GIS in a useable format so the public can see proposed projects early in the process and have a chance to comment.” “Neighbors directly affected deserve a direct communica- Ɵon.” City of Boulder, GIS, Development Review Cases. A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Strengthen exisƟng project informaƟon channels. Go beyond the standard posƟng, mailing, and publishing, and provide informaƟon to the area surrounding the project prior to the first hearing or staff determinaƟon. The City of Boze- man has a robust award-winning GIS Department and web- page. The informaƟon that is available online includes layers that illustrate projects that are under iniƟal review, on hold, are within a public noƟcing, under final review, and approved. In speaking with the community and reviewing the website, there is an opportunity to work within the exisƟng GIS layers to add addiƟonal informaƟon. Examples from other ciƟes in- clude a summary of the project proposal, more detailed appli- caƟon status, and associated permits. OpƟons to explore: • Working with GIS Department and web administrators on how to integrate addiƟonal informaƟon into the exisƟng GIS layers and website to make detailed project informa- Ɵon more readily available to the public. • EducaƟonal campaign through City social media channels discussing where to find planning project informaƟon. City of Fort Collins, GIS, CiƟ zen Portal. 63 90 646464 6 PROJECT INFORMATION A—ÊÖ㛗 Öʽ®‘ù —®Ù›‘ã®ÊÄ: Increase opportunity for community awareness through no- Ɵced public hearings. Pushing more projects and review authority to the DRB or HPAB will automaƟcally generate a forum to gather informa- Ɵon during project review and may result in more community awareness of ongoing projects. OpƟons to explore: • A required meeƟng prior to applicaƟon review with the neighborhoods impacted by the project. • To take it a step further, required input from the neigh- borhood associaƟon on large scale projects could be ex- plored. For example, in Pitkin County Colorado, specifi c areas within the County have formed caucuses that are required to provide a recommendaƟon to the reviewing body on large projects within their area. 91 65 92 Memorandum REPORT TO:Inter-Neighborhood Council FROM:Jim Webster, South Central rep SUBJECT:The Study Commission and the INC Charter Written Update MEETING DATE:May 14, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight: Utilize best practices, innovative approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them. BACKGROUND: Becky Franks and Barb Cestero on the five-person Study Commission (SC) are editing the Charter draft further. Some of the sections are being moved around and there is also the question over the exact choice of words to be used as descriptors, such as "champion" vs, "advocate." I (Jim Webster) was present for a meeting Friday April 24th at 11am along with Beth Boyson and Zehra Osman who was also there. Past INC Chair, Emily Talego, was also present. As a result of that meeting, I organized a zoom call with Becky and Barb, along with Zehra Osman, Mark Campanelli and Emily Talego, as she has so much corporate knowledge of INC. The zoom call was well-received and took place Monday evening, April 27th. The next Study Commission meeting came on Thursday April 30th and Dan Carty, along with Mary Bateson from the Northside attended that meeting. It was suggested that INC really needs to weigh in with the Study Commission to see the recent Charter language being contemplated, so that this does not get away from us. The next Study Commission (SC) Meeting is this Wednesday, May 13th. The SC has used phrases like, "This council (INC), is an Advisory Board to the City." Is this accurate? We are not like any of the other advisory boards and are separate from the city as far as we are aware. This is why we need to keep close tabs on the final wordsmithing from the SC as we could find INC being mischaracterized and it might take a substantial effort to undo the SC's work. Suggested here is for Dick Bakker and Emily Mason to be in touch with the SC re the Charter document. Another observation that Mary Bateson brought up from the 4/30 meeting was how will residents in the larger buildings be integrated into the existing neighborhoods? Examples given were the new substantial buildings 93 that have gone up in the neighborhood of the old Medical Arts building. The mindset of the new residents in the high-rises is thought to present some future potential differences than how those residents living in the single- family homes that have made up that neighborhood for many decades may feel. This could very well be a "work in progress." UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Report compiled on: May 8, 2026 94