Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-26 - Historic Preservation Advisory Board - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 pm B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes(Ruffalo) E. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board THE BOZEMAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA HPAB AGENDA Wednesday, May 20, 2026 General information about the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the City Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Board or staff. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Sarah Rosenberg, srosenberg@bozeman.net 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: 973 0055 8356 Approve This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. 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 1 F. Action Items F.1 Work Session on Phase II of the Local Landmark Project (Harbage) G. FYI/Discussions H. Adjournment 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 state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. This board generally meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00pm City Board 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. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Trenton Ruffalo SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes MEETING DATE:May 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Approve STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:None UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:Approve with corrections FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 04152026 HPAB Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: May 14, 2026 3 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 04.15.26 Page 1 of 3 THE HISTORIC PRESERVAION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES April 15th, 2026 A) 00:07:42 Call to Order - 6:00 pm Present: Danielle Nicholas, Chelsea Holling, James Webster, Mitchell Korus, Ashley Wilson, Michael Wiseman Absent: None Excused: Allyson Brekke This board generally meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00pm General information about the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. 00:08:23 Member Wilson provides disclosure on personal business project pertaining to the interim zoning discussion in this meeting's action items. 00:09:02 Member Webster provides disclosure regarding a proposed meeting between CDB and HPAB members pertaining to NCOD and Landmark Programs B) 00:08:19 Disclosures C) 00:10:37 Changes to the Agenda D) 00:10:42 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes 033126 HPAB Minutes.pdf 00:10:48 Motion to approve 03.31.26 meeting minutes Mitchell Korus: Motion Ashley Wilson: 2nd 4 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 04.15.26 Page 2 of 3 00:11:10 Vote on the Motion to approve 03.31.26 meeting minutes The Motion carried 6 - 0. Approve: Danielle Nicholas Chelsea Holling James Webster Mitchell Korus Ashley Wilson Michael Wiseman Disapprove: None E) 00:11:23 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board F) 00:12:30 Special Presentation F.1 00:12:33 Overview of Bozeman's Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Review Criteria and Process 00:13:21 Community Development's Development Review Manager Brian Krueger presents to the Board 01:03:38 Technical Troubleshooting G) 01:05:07 Action Items G.1 01:05:11 Work Session to Discuss Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Design Guidelines Project Bozeman_DesignGuidelines_DiscussionQuestions.pdf 01:07:12 Representatives of the Lakota Group speaks with the Board 01:21:09 Community Development's Director George and Deputy Director Harbage respond to questions from the Board 01:24:45 Engagement Session with the Board and the Lakota Group 01:47:10 Meeting Extended to 8:30 02:17:11 Community Development Manager Chris Saunders responds to a question by the Board 02:25:10 Member Nicholas leaves the meeting 02:31:16 Meeting extended to 9:00 02:43:59 Natsuki Nakamura provides public comment 5 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 04.15.26 Page 3 of 3 02:46:11 Mark Campanelli provides public comment G.2 02:49:05 Consider a Recommendation to City Commission Regarding Interim Zoning 02:49:30 Member Wilson abstains from the discussion and leaves the room 02:49:48 Community Development Manager Chris Saunders presents to the Board 03:04:12 Board discussion and questions with Chris Saunders 03:08:02 Mary Bateson provides public comment 03:08:18 Daniel Carty provides public comment 03:08:36 Mark Campanelli provides public comment 03:09:03 Jason Delmue provides public comment 03:14:53 Board discussion 03:22:40 Motion to approve to send a letter to City Commission asking them to hold a public hearing and consider adopting an interim zoning ordinance James Webster: Motion Mitchell Korus: 2nd 03:23:53 Vote on the Motion to approve to send a letter to City Commission asking them to hold a public hearing and consider adopting an interim zoning ordinance The Motion carried 4 - 0. Approve: Chelsea Holling James Webster Mitchell Korus Michael Wiseman Disapprove: None H) 03:25:56 FYI/Discussions I) 03:25:58 Adjournment 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Rebecca Harbage, Deputy Director of Community Development Erin George, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Work Session on Phase II of the Local Landmark Project MEETING DATE:May 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Receive information from project team, hear public comment, and provide direction. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The City of Bozeman is updating its Historic Preservation Program. In 2023, after a competitive procurement process, the City selected Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) to assist with the project. The Local Landmark Project was divided into two phases. Phase I consisted of research, community engagement, and data analysis culminating in a final report outlining recommendations. The Phase I report was reviewed and discussed by HPAB and the Community Development Board before being adopted by City Commission in May 2025. The full report may be viewed online through the Local Landmark Project page on Engage Bozeman . The project is now in Phase II, which focuses on implementing the recommendations described on pages 36-51 of the Phase I report, which are included in the agenda packet for reference during the discussion. The recommendations include: Revisions to historic preservation related sections of Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Updates to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Design Guidelines Creation of a Local Landmark Program Due to the breadth and scope of the recommendations, Phase II was divided into two separate but interrelated projects, each with its own qualified consultant team serving as a resource to the City. CPC continues to work toward updating code sections and developing a Local Landmark Program. Separately, the City selected The Lakota Group to support updates to the NCOD Design Guidelines due to their specific expertise in historic architecture and urban design. 7 The two projects have been moving forward in parallel but there is significant overlap between them and it makes sense to periodically check in to ensure we are on the right track in sequencing the project work. Tonight's presentation will recap work completed to date and staff will outline several sequencing options for HPAB to consider for moving both projects forward. The intent of the discussion is to share a status update and get direction from HPAB and the public to guide next steps on the projects. CPC will be online to address any questions that may come up during discussion related to the Local Landmark Project. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:Funding for these projects was included in the FY25-26 biennial budget. Attachments: Bozeman Local Landmark Report_Pages 36-51.pdf Report compiled on: May 12, 2026 8 3736 Recommendations within Project Scope (Phase II) Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map of Bozeman, 1904. Credit: Library of Congress RELATED TO CHAPTER 38.340 PURPOSE OF CHAPTER 38.340 Stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction is invited and encouraged, as long as preservation is emphasized and new construction enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design is encouraged as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changing community. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA) PROCESS AND APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Certificate of Appropriateness application is required for exterior alterations, demolitions, and new construction of properties within the NCOD. New construction is invited and encouraged, as long as preservation is emphasized and new construction enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area Recommendations for the COA process and application: • Consider a different name for Certificate of Appropriateness. Some municipalities call them Certificate of Approval, while others use more general names such as Historic Preservation Permit. • Require COA applications for properties outside of NCOD if they are in a historic district or are individually listed on the National Register or as a Local Landmark. • Further define architectural appearance design guidelines to consider. Clarify elements that can be codified versus those best suited for design guidelines and when other code framework should be applied (i.e. Unified Development Code, Article 5). • Expand COA exceptions outlined in 38.340.040.A.1 especially for properties that are not within historic districts. • Differentiate minor vs. major projects and what process applies. • Clarify definition of historic structure in 38.700.090. DEVIATIONS FROM UNDERLYING ZONING REQUIREMENTS (38.340.070) Much of historic Bozeman was developed before modern zoning, subdivision, and construction regulations. As a result, some buildings and properties within the NCOD do not conform to current zoning standards. To support restoration, rehabilitation, and compatible new construction that enhances the district’s historic character, certain deviations from zoning requirements may be permitted. Recommended changes to the deviation section include: • Add a definition of “historically appropriate.” • Establish clearer criteria, requirements, and public notice (if required) for deviations. • Make review of deviations administrative, to comply with recent state law (Montana Land Use & Planning Act). 9 3938 Preservation Brief 16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors was updated by the National Park Service in October 2023. This document provides guidance on the use and applicability of non-historic materials when reviewing projects under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This document can provide insight into requests for alternate materials during the COA process. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS BRIEF spotlight 1 16 PRESERVATIONBRIEFS The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors John Sandor, David Trayte, and Amy Elizabeth Uebel National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation generally require that deteriorated distinctive architectural features of a historic property be repaired rather than replaced. Standard 6 of the Standards for Rehabilitation further states that when replacement of a distinctive feature is necessary, the new feature must “match the old in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties, and, where possible, materials” (emphasis added). While the use of matching materials to replace historic ones is always preferred under the Standards for Rehabilitation, the Standards also purposely recognize that flexibility may sometimes be needed when it comes to new and replacement materials as part of a historic rehabilitation project. Substitute materials that closely match the visual and physical properties of historic materials can be successfully used on many rehabilitation projects in ways that are consistent with the Standards. The flexibility inherent in the Standards for Rehabilitation must always be balanced with the preservation of the historic character and the historic integrity of a building, of which historic materials are an important aspect. Any replacement work reduces the historic integrity of a building to some degree, which can undermine the historic character of the property over time. With limited exceptions, replacement should only be considered when damage or deterioration is too severe to make repair feasible. When needed replacement is made with a material that matches the historic material, the impact on integrity can be minimal, especially when only a small amount of new material is needed. When a substitute material is used for the replacement, the loss in integrity can sometimes, although not always, be greater than that of a matching material. Also, whether historic or substitute material, there is a point where the amount of replacement can become excessive and the building’s historic integrity is diminished to an unacceptable degree, regardless of the material used—that is, a loss of authenticity and the physical features and characteristics closely associated with the property’s historic significance. The term substitute materials is used to describe building materials that have the potential to match the appear-ance, physical properties, and related attributes of historic materials well enough to make them alternatives for use in current preservation practice when historic materials require replacement. Compelling reasons to use a substitute material instead of the historic material include the unavailability or poor performance of the historic material, or environmental pressures or code-driven requirements that necessitate a change in material. When using a substitute material for replacement it is critical that it match the historic material in all of its visual and physical properties to preserve the historic character of the building and minimize the impact on its integrity. Substitute materials can be cost-effective, permit the ac-curate visual duplication of historic materials, and provide improved durability. While the behavior of traditional, his-toric materials is generally well understood, the behavior of newer materials can be less established and sometimes less predictable. Substitute materials are most successful when the properties of both the original material and the substitute are thoroughly understood by all those involved in the design and construction process. The architect must be adept at the selection of substitute materials and their incorporation into architectural plans and specifications. The contractor or tradesperson in the field must also be experienced with their use. This Preservation Brief provides general guidance on the use of substitute materials as replacement materials for distinctive features on the exterior of historic buildings. Due to the ever-evolving product market for construction materials, this Brief does not provide specifications for substitute materials. This guidance should be used in conjunction with qualified professionals who are knowledgeable in current construction and historic preservation practices. CATEGORY NOTES NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS Commercial Development Residential Development Demolition* Deviation** Major Projects – New Construction, Large Exterior Alterations Minor Projects – Storefront Remodels, Window and Door Replacement, Minor Improvements Add new dwelling – new unit, accessory dwelling or single family home All other residential COA 50 buildings total 7 of 12 reviewed by City Commission 25 54 91 345 39 12 566 Certificate of Appropriateness Applications: 2019-2025 TOTAL APPLICATIONS * Not all demolition applications have resulted in a demolition of a structure (i.e. COA expired, denied, still in review). See demolition section below for more details. **Deviations greater than 20% or more than one deviation request require City Commission review. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Community Development A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is a certification that the design of a project is appropriate within the neighborhood or area in which it is located. COA approval is required for any alteration, demolition or new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). COA approval may be required in conjunction with site plan review, planned unit development and/or conditional use/special use permit review. COA approval is required before the issuance of building permits. There are three types of COA applications: 1.Neighborhood Certificate of Appropriateness (NCOA) - residential properties within the NCOD 2.Commercial Certificate of Appropriateness (CCOA) - commercial properties within the NCOD 3.Demolition Certificate of Appropriateness (DEM) - demolition of a structure within the NCOD CodeReferenceUDC 38.340 Overlay District Standards Deviations from underlying zoning requirements Many structures within the NCOD do not conform to contemporary zoning standards. In order to encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that would contribute to the overall historic character of the community, deviations from underlying zoning requirements. A deviation can be granted administratively or by the City Commission if there is more than a 20% change in the standard or more than two deviations is request. Per BMC 38.340.070, the criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning requirements: 1.Modifications must be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties. 2.Modifications will have minimal adverse effects on abutting properties or the permitted uses. 3.Modifications must assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Process Overview This flow chart visually describes the COA process for all development proposals in the NCOD. The application is reviewed for adequacy against the Unified Development Code (UDC), Design Objectives Plan and the COA standards. Dependent on the scope of the project, your application will be routed and reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) or other advisory boards if deemed necessary. If your COA is part of a subsequent application (i.e. site plan), please see the Development Review Process handout for process overview. Below is the process for an independent COA application that does not require a deviation or public hearing. If an application is not complete or requires revisions to comply with the code, this timeline will be extended. START HERE 1 INTAKE Digitally submit your application through the Planning website. 2 ACCEPTABILITY REVIEW Application is checked over. Project is formally submitted. Planner assigned reviews it to determine if all related information on checklist is acceptable. 3 PROJECT REVIEW Planner and any other advisory boards review project to determine adequacy. If project needs more information, it will require revisions/corrections. 4 PUBLIC NOTICE If a notice is required (i.e. new dwelling within NCOD), a public notice period is conducted. 5 FINAL REVIEW Staff report is prepared, public notice ends and public comment is reviewed and considered. WEEK ONE WEEKTHREE -FOUR WEEK FIVE WEEK SIX 6 DECISION The City makes decision and determines approval of project. Once approved, a building permit can be applied for with the Building Division. WEEK SEVEN City of Bozeman Department of Community Development \ 20 East Olive, Bozeman, MT 59715 \ www.bozeman.net/planning \ 406.582.2260 Page 1 of 2 The City’s current COA approval process. This information is available online and is a good way to communicate process with the community. Fact sheets like this one are very helpful in making preservation requirements more accessible. Credit: City of Bozeman 10 4140 DEMOLITION (38.340.080-110) A multipronged demolition policy is vital to ensuring that historic buildings are preserved when they are structurally sound, and that there is suitable motivation to maintain them in the first place. A demolition policy must balance the need to ensure buildings and structures are safe, preserved when possible, and not excessively cumbersome to use and maintain. Defining each of these elements is frequently the cause of substantial disagreement among professionals. Preservation of older, if not necessarily historic, buildings is often environmentally favorable due to the embodied energy of existing buildings versus the carbon required to demolish and redevelop sites. However, if such buildings are dilapidated or in poor repair, they can contribute to blight in the area. Demolition policies vary widely by municipality. The most successful include: a clear way to determine threats to human health and safety, balance economic and historic considerations, incentives for reuse of materials, meaningful disincentives for illegal demolition, and mitigation. LIMITATIONS OF DEMOLITION POLICIES Local government historic preservation policies play a crucial role in regulating demolition within designated historic districts and for landmarked structures. However, these policies are limited by property rights considerations and broader legal frameworks. While cities can impose review processes, delay periods, and incentives to encourage preservation, they generally cannot permanently prevent demolition. The fundamental principle of property rights in the United States, reinforced by state and federal laws, ensures that property owners retain the ability to make decisions about their properties, including the right to demolish structures under certain conditions. As a result, one of the main functions of a demolition policy is to require a level of review prior to demolition. This allows for a process to occur that adds criteria and procedure for evaluating demolition requests. In addition, local governments often rely on policy tools such as demolition delays, economic hardship reviews, and negotiated alternatives rather than outright bans. This balancing act between preservation and property rights illustrates the challenges cities face in enforcing long-term historic protection while respecting property rights. Demolition by neglect ordinances are legal measures aimed at preventing the gradual deterioration of historic properties due to prolonged neglect by property owners. While these policies are common across the country, the state of Montana has not adopted the International Property Maintenance Code and precludes municipalities in the state from doing so. If that changes at some point in the future, Bozeman should consider how property maintenance regulations or demolition by neglect provisions could help preservation efforts. This presents challenges for documenting properties for demolition as well as larger survey efforts. As part of Phase 2, a less complex, local inventory form will be created that helps capture basic locational and architectural information, general history, and photographs. This option will allow documentation of properties in a more economically feasible manner. The demolition of Deaconess Hospital in 2022 is a source of sadness for many in Bozeman. In earlier days of the Deaconess, photos show a party for babies born c. 1920s and the hospital in 1936. This Deaconess Hospital was demolished in the 1960s. Credit: Museum of the Rockies DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT BOZEMAN DEMOLITION DATA: 2018-2024 The number of demolitions since 2018 generally reflects an increase over time, corresponding to increased development pressure in Bozeman. The majority of approved demolitions are for non-contributing structures. Non-contributing means that the structure does not fall within the historic period of significance or has been substantially altered. A contributing or eligible structure is a historic structure that is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places individually, or as a contributing building to an existing or potential historic district. Some demolitions fell under the unsafe provision of the code that is outlined in 38.340.110. As noted later in the report, routine surveying and/or ways to get updated inventory forms is very important in helping identify eligible contributing historic resources. 2018 1 2019 5 5 2020 5 2021 4 2022 7 2023 10 2024 5 37 8 27 9 YEAR NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING NON-CONTRIBUTING UNSAFE PROVISION* DEMOLITIONS /ELIGIBLE 1 - Residence, contri- buting to potential historic district 1 4 considered unsafe 2 - Residential, contri- buting to potential historic district 3 - 2 commercial, 1 residential 4 - 2 commercial, 2 residential 2 - 1 residential structure contributing to Cooper Park Historic District; Hospital individually eligible 5 - Residential 2 - 1 eligible, 1 noncontributing 3 - 1 residential contributing to Cooper Park Historic District, 2 eligible commercial buildings 7 - 5 residential, 2 commercial 2 - Noncontributing3 - Residential 2 - 1 residential contributing to North Tracy Historic District; 1 group living contributing to potential historic district 10 - 7 residential; 1 commercial; 2 industrial 1 - Noncontributing , residential TOTAL BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED PENDING *Per 38.340.110, “The demolition of unsafe properties/structures may be subject to the public nuisance abatement provisions of chapter 16, article 2 of this code. Upon the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority must give final approval on a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city may abate a nuisance.” 11 4342 Bozeman’s current demolition policy was adopted in 2015. The following recommendations to section 38.340.080-110 will further strengthen and clarify requirements around Bozeman’s existing demolition policy. The full extent of the code language in the demolition section will be part of Phase 2. Below is a list of overarching suggestions on what is recommended to be revised and altered: Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site • Apply demolition policy to sites in the NCOD as well as other landmarks and historic districts outside of the NCOD that would be considered historic structures. • Clarify review criteria, including the following: ◦ Alter economic viability provision (38.340.080.C.2) with clearer standards and process on how to determine economic viability and hardship subject to State Statute. ◦ Revise code exception language. ◦ Clarify the two-year stay demolition provision and guidance on the proceedings required at the end of the two years. ◦ Create additional criteria for the early termination clause for the applicant. Demolition or movement of all structures – historic or non-historic • Add documentation provisions for demolition proposals that require updated inventory forms if the form is more than 10 years old with initial submittal. • If housing will be demolished, evaluate whether the city can have the same number or more of housing units constructed in the replacement project consistent with design guidelines and site plan standards. • Create standards for movement of all structures. Demolition of unsafe structures • Require demolition of unsafe structure standards to only apply for historic structures. • Add standard requirements for information needed to determine that the property is unsafe. DOCUMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES – INVENTORY FORMS (38.340.120) There are over 3,000 properties that have historic inventory forms in the City of Bozeman. Most of these are located within the NCOD and were completed in the 1980s. These valuable forms act as a comprehensive record of a property’s historical significance and document a place’s cultural heritage. While there have been some efforts to update these inventory forms, most of them are out of date. While the City will continue to update these forms over time, this will take a lot of time and financial resources to accomplish. There are also hundreds of properties that have never had an inventory form completed. Presently, only demolition permits for properties within the NCOD require an updated or recent inventory form be submitted (38.340.120). It is recommended that the City expand documentation requirements through the following: • Require an updated inventory form if none is on file or an existing form is more than 10 years old for the following projects: ◦ Demolition of structures over 50 years old citywide ◦ Major modifications to structures that are in the NCOD, in historic districts, or individually listed on National Register or as a Local Landmark Requiring documentation of properties being demolished outside of the NCOD will take a more proactive approach on places that have not been inventoried or those that have inventory forms last completed in the 1980s. A building that was inventoried in 1986 might not have been considered historically significant, but decades later could be. This is common practice across many cities nationwide and allows for a much greater degree of building inventory than preservation survey and designation-focused efforts alone. Montana is unique in that the level of information required for a state A/ER inventory form is extensive. These forms must have “thorough architectural descriptions, histories of the properties, including title searches, significance statements, photography, and mapping/shape files” with an expectation that “properties will be inventoried in person and local research conducted at historical societies, city/county records, museums, and other organizations.” (Kate Hampton, Montana State Historic Preservation Office, February 2024) As a result, the cost per form can run from $1000-3500 per form depending on the complexity of the property. This presents a challenge for documenting properties for demolition as well as larger survey efforts. Bozeman could create a less complex local inventory form that could seek to capture basic locational and architectural information, general history, and photographs. This is a good option for documenting properties in a more economically feasible manner. MONTANA A/ER INVENTORY FORMS spotlight 12 4544 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT (NCOD) DESIGN GUIDELINES The Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (“HP Guidelines”) were adopted in January 2006 and amended in July 2015 to add Subchapter 4B. Design guidelines are tools that help provide guidance on alterations, new construction, demolition, and maintenance and serve as a suggestive guide and are not mandatory. In 2018, the city amended its zoning standards to include design requirements in all areas of the community that overlap with some elements of the HP Guidelines. While the HP Guidelines are still largely consistent with best practices in historic preservation, they should be updated to correct out-of-date references and improve usability. The City should prioritize completing an update to the design guidelines as soon as possible. Existing design guidelines should remain in place until a full overhaul is completed. At that time, the old guidelines can be repealed, and the new guidelines can take effect. Recommendations for full design guidelines overhaul include but are not limited to: • Simplify how design guidelines apply to specific properties, how chapters apply, and the definition of each type of building evaluated. • Update any area that references old versions of the Secretary of the Interior Standards. • Update subchapter 4B for the B-3 Commercial Character Area to align with Article 5 of the UDC and any other related UDC changes. • Clarify residential, commercial, and mixed-use character areas with a map inserted into the guidelines. • Address zone edge transitions between residential and commercial zoning as reflected in the upcoming UDC update. • The HP Guidelines should be referenced by title in the update to Chapter 38.340 and noted “as amended.” • Expand period of significance to at least 1980 or 45 years from whenever the guidelines are updated. • Take into account any updates to The Secretary of the Interior Standards. • Create district-specific guidelines based on the different areas of the NCOD and local landmarks and districts. other historic areas. Emphasize resilience and sustainability through incorporating appropriate building materials. • Design guidelines should have a planned maintenance schedule and be updated at a minimum every 10 years, ideally concurrent with updated survey efforts. DESIGN GUIDELINES From top to bottom: Miami-Dade County, FL updated their historic preservation design guidelines in 2022. The guidelines are oriented in particular towards resiliency in the face of climate change effects in Miami. Credit: Miami-Dade County Design Guidelines for the La Alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District in Denver are available in English and Spanish. These guidelines were updated in 2022 after extensive community engagement and allow flexibility for characteristics important to the neighborhood. Credit: City of Denver 13 4746 In recent years it has become increasingly common for municipalities to adopt local landmark programs that focus on cultural heritage when evaluating historic significance. Instead of just relying on the National Register of Historic Places standards, which has rigid requirements, these local programs can choose how to recognize what the community considers important to its heritage and culture. Broadening designation and review criteria can also help recognize people and places that have been historically excluded. The City of Bozeman does not currently have a citywide local landmark program. The code standards and design guidelines only apply to properties within the NCOD. In order to establish a Historic District or be individually listed as a Historic Landmark, the property must qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Establishing a local landmark program, as was also recommended in the 2019 NCOD report, will allow individual landmarks to be designated both within and outside the NCOD. A local landmark program will enable individual significant sites and districts across the city to be recognized, broadening the array of historic stories told in Bozeman. Landmark program policies must also include a process for appeals of COA decisions as well as a de-designation process. Appeals must follow state mandated land use appeals processes. There is an important difference at the local level, the landmark process can be made more accessible to members of the public wishing to nominate their properties. Buildings, structures, cultural landscapes, human-made landscape features, natural features, and more may all be designated under a local landmark program. Creating this program will require adding provisions to the code to implement it. There is a difference between historic landmarks/districts, overlay districts, and zoning districts. CREATION OF LOCAL LANDMARK PROGRAM Peets Hill could be considered a local landmark as a cultural landscape. Credit: Adrienne Burke Types of Districts NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES – DISTRICT OR INDIVIDUAL LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT Recognizes historic places and cultural heritage Established by Federal Government Voluntary, no regulation by itself, approved by the National Park Service via State Historic Preservation Office Bon Ton Historic District, Main Street Historic District, Baxter Hotel, Willson School Recognizes historic places and cultural heritage; may add extra rules to base zoning with special requirements Established by City Regulatory, but level may vary depending on type of designation Buildings, structures, cultural landscapes, natural features that might not qualify under National Register standards but are significant at the local level Adds extra rules to base zoning with special requirements Established by City, created by a Zone Map Amendment following state law criteria Regulatory, enforced by code and sets additional criteria Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, Certificate of Appropriateness Regulates land uses and development Established by City, created by a Zone Map Amendment following state law criteria Regulatory, enforced by code Zone Districts – B-3 (Commercial) R-2 (Residential), REMU (Mixed Use) *Section 38.340.030 allows for properties to be added to the NCOD by the City Commission upon recommendation of the HPAB subject to the Section 38.260 Text and Map Amendment process. This provision also allows for removal from the NCOD. FEATURE PURPOSE CRITERIA ENFORCEMENT EXAMPLES 14 4948 Establishing a local landmark program requires categories, criteria, and a designation process. The recommended categories for a local landmark program in Bozeman are: 1. History/Historic Association: The landmark is associated with a historical person, event, period, social movement, group, or association that contributed significantly to the heritage, culture, or development of Bozeman. 2. Architecture: The landmark is associated with distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, building type, or method of construction that is significant to Bozeman. It can also be the work of a major architect, builder, or craftsman whose works have influenced the evolution of their fields or are significant to the development of Bozeman. 3. Artistry: A landmark that displays artistic or aesthetic values that contribute significantly to the heritage and appearance of the neighborhood in Bozeman or promotes understanding and appreciation of the built or natural environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. 4. Culture: The landmark is associated with an era of culture or heritage that allows an understanding of a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices, how the site was used by past generations, or is a source of pride or cultural understanding. 5. Townscape or Landscapes: A landmark that represents an established and familiar feature of a geographic area due to its prominent location or physical characteristics. It represents a resource whether natural or human-made, which has historically or culturally contributed to the character of an area and to Bozeman. Examples could include trees, green or open space, waterways, settlement patterns, areas of industry, and methods of urban planning. 6. Archaeology: A landmark that yielded or may be likely to yield information significant to an understanding of historic or prehistoric events; cultures; and standards of living, building, and design. Criteria for potential landmark categories will be included in the Bozeman Municipal Code in Phase 2 of the project. Two criteria that are commonly found in landmark criteria include: • Integrity: Landmarks should possess sufficient integrity to convey or represent the qualities for the category. A property designated for architectural significance would have a different lens on integrity than cultural significance. • Age of landmark: The federal standard for classifying something historic is 50 years old. Municipalities can elect their own age standards; this may involve an evaluation that enough time has passed to provide perspective and evaluation of significance. Bacchus Pub, Hotel Baxter, c.1929. The interiors of properties are typically not regulated in local landmark programs. Credit: Museum of the Rockies DESIGNATION PROCESS As part of the creation of a local landmark program, a local landmark application will be developed along with an administrative manual that lays out the designation process. The following designation process is recommended: 1. Initiation of Nomination: Property owner, government agency, or community organization submits an application to nominate a landmark. Property owner consent is required. 2. City Review: The Historic Preservation Officer does initial review of application and works with applicant to ensure that all appropriate information is provided. 3. Notification of Nomination: Once application is deemed adequate, public notice is provided. 4. Historic Preservation Advisory Board Review: HPAB reviews the landmark nomination at a public meeting and makes a recommendation to the City Commission. 5. City Commission Adoption: City Commission would be the final decision authority to designate the landmark. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF LOCAL LANDMARK PROGRAMS AND DESIGNATIONS: • Protection from Demolition or Unsympathetic Alterations – Local landmark status can ensure a review process before significant changes or demolitions can occur. The COA process helps provide additional review and regulatory benefits to the landowner that can help preserve these historic sites. • Zoning & Code Flexibility – Historic structures may qualify for adaptive reuse allowances or relaxed zoning regulations to encourage preservation. Section 38.340 already provides zoning relief and code flexibility through deviations for structures designated as historic or located within the NCOD. With the establishment of a Local Landmark Program and the further designation of historic properties, potential additional deviations will be explored. • Increased Property Values – Studies show that historic designation often stabilizes or increases property values over time. • Tourism & Economic Development – Landmark properties contribute to heritage tourism, attracting visitors and boosting local businesses. • Neighborhood Stability – Preservation efforts can enhance community identity and deter incompatible development. • Official Recognition – Landmark designation highlights a property’s historic significance and can enhance its cultural prestige. Additionally, landmarks could be recognized through a plaque program (funding allowing) and on the City’s website and mapping system. • Educational & Advocacy Opportunities – Owners can collaborate with historical organizations, host tours, and receive public recognition. • Promotion of Sustainable Development– Rehabilitating existing structures reduces landfill waste and conserves embodied energy. • Funding & Incentives – By being designated a local landmark, historic resources may be eligible for incentives, grants, or other benefits. See the Funding and Incentives section in “Future Recommendations” for additional information. 15 5150 Miami-Dade County, Florida’s historic preservation ordinance dates to 1981, which enables the County to designate local landmark properties and sites. Only one criterion has to be met to designate, and a site may be landmarked as associated with elements of the cultural, social, political, economic, scientific, religious, prehistoric, paleontological, or architectural history that have contributed to the history of the community. This is intentionally broad and has allowed for designation of sites associated with cultural heritage (vs. architectural heritage). The County currently oversees 141 individually designated historic sites, 46 archaeological sites and zones, and 8 historic districts. The nature of designation is included in the designation reports accompanying landmark applications. This determines what and how the property will be regulated for purposes of Certificate of Appropriateness review. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY’S LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROGRAM spotlight The Liberty City Elks Lodge was designated for cultural significance. Because the property was not landmarked for architecture, limited character-defining features were noted for COA review in the designation report. Demolition also requires COA review. No other work requires a COA. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (2.05.860, 2.05.930) The Historic Preservation Advisory Board is an appointed citizen advisory board made up of seven volunteers. Meeting on a monthly basis, HPAB focuses on promoting the historic preservation program through education, outreach, and policy direction. HPAB does not have any sort of review authority for development applications but upon request of the review authority (City Commission or Director of Community Development, depending on application type as identified in BMC 38.200.010 and as allowed by state law), may make recommendations regarding development applications. Members of the HPAB took a survey and discussed results at their January 15, 2025, meeting. This survey sought input from board members on their roles, responsibilities, and how they could shift in the future with the creation of a Local Landmark Program. While advisory boards have some limitations on their roles under Montana State Law, board members expressed interest in being more active and involved in larger policy projects that occur in the City. Based on the HPAB survey results and the Landmark Project team input, some recommendations for modifying their roles and responsibilities as outlined in 2.05.860 and 2.05.930 include: • Evaluate landmark nominations to make recommendations to City Commission • Participate in City policy and project discussions where appropriate and related to HPAB purpose • Encourage preservation of and education about cultural heritage The purpose of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is to provide for an appointed citizen board for the city charged with establishing a local historic preservation program; integrating historic preservation into local, state and federal planning and decision-making processes; identifying, evaluating and protecting historic resources within Bozeman; and educating the general public about historic preservation. PURPOSE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD IN BOZEMAN Another preservation success is providing training for HPAB members. During Preservation Month in 2024, the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions visited Bozeman for Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program training. CAMP Trainers presented on “Why Preserve?” identifying and designating historic resources; preservation planning; resources of the recent past; conservation overlay districts; and diversity, equity, and inclusion in historic preservation. CAMP TRAINING MAY 2024 Members of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board attend CAMP Training on May 11, 2024. Credit: Sarah Rosenberg spotlight HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD WORK PLANS The HPAB and City staff utilize a work plan to outline the board’s priorities for the upcoming two years. The 2022- 2024 Work Plan focuses on three key areas: education and outreach, historic resource survey and inventory, and preservation program development. The 2025-2027 Historic Preservation Advisory Board work plan is under development as of the writing of this report. Above: An Extreme History tour at Sunset Hills Cemetery. Credit: Sarah RosenbergBelow: Attendees at a Gallagator Tour held in partnership with Extreme History during Preservation Month. Credit: Sarah Rosenberg During Preservation Month 2024, the City partnered with Friends of Story Mansion for a cookie painting party where participants painted house cookies. Credit: Sarah Rosenberg 16