Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-26 - 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, August 19, 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 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 addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience 1 F. Special Presentation F.1 Update on July 28 City Commission Discussion Related to Historic Preservation Projects(Harbage) G. Action Items G.1 Consider Making Recommendations to City Commission Regarding Zone Edge Transitions and Maximum Building Height in the B-3 Zoning District(George) G.2 Work Session to Continue Discussion of Demolition Regulations (Burke) H. FYI/Discussions H.1 Discuss Historic Preservation Awards(Harbage) I. Adjournment 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:August 19, 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: 07152026 HPAB Meeting.pdf Report compiled on: July 20, 2026 3 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 07.15.2026 Page 1 of 3 THE BOZEMAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES 07.20.26 General information about the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. A) 00:01:04 Call to Order - 6:00 pm Present: Danielle Nicholas, Allyson B Brekke, James Webster, Ashley Wilson, Michael Wiseman, Lisa Weilbacker Absent: None Excused: Mitchell Korus B) 00:03:44 Disclosures C) 00:03:48 Changes to the Agenda 00:03:53 Move FYI Up G) 00:04:06 FYI/Discussions 00:04:15 Lisa Weilbacker joins the board 00:04:30 Michael Wiseman introduced as new HPAB Chair, Ashley Willson as new HPAB Vice Chair 00:04:49 6:00pm on 07/22 & 07/27 Commissioner Sweeney and Commissioner Madgic will be facilitating walking tours open to the public to look at zone edge transitions in preparation for 08/25 City Commission meeting. Meeting will be at Biel Park 00:06:34 HPAB August 19th meeting will have B3 height and zone edge transitions in the agenda D) 00:11:24 Approval of Minutes 4 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 07.15.2026 Page 2 of 3 D.1 Approval of Minutes 061726 HPAB Minutes.pdf 00:11:52 Motion to approve D) Approval of Minutes Ashley Wilson: Motion Danielle Nicholas: 2nd 00:12:00 Vote on the Motion to approve D) Approval of Minutes The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Danielle Nicholas Allyson B Brekke James Webster Ashley Wilson Michael Wiseman Disapprove: None E) 00:12:31 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board 00:12:38 No public comment F) 00:13:05 Action Items F.1 00:13:07 Public Engagement Summary and Preview of Layout for Updated Design Standards for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Bozeman NCOD Design Standards SUMMARY 2026-07-02.pdf Bozeman NCOD Design Standards OUTLINE 2026-06-30.pdf Bozeman NCOD Design Standards RESIDENTIAL WINDOWS 2026-06-30.pdf July 2026 - HPAB Presentation - Engagement Summary.pdf 00:18:30 The Lakota Group presents to the board 00:58:28 Board asks questions to the Lakota group 01:35:46 No Public comment 01:36:16 Continued Board discussion F.2 02:54:59 Work Session to Continue Discussion of Demolition Regulations 02:59:16 Motion to approve I move to send the board’s recommendations for demolition code revisions, as compiled and distributed by Chair Wiseman, to the project consultant, Community Planning Collaborative 5 Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 07.15.2026 Page 3 of 3 Ashley Wilson: Motion Allyson B Brekke: 2nd 02:59:47 No Public comment 03:00:02 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to send the board’s recommendations for demolition code revisions, as compiled and distributed by Chair Wiseman, to the project consultant, Community Planning Collaborative The Motion carried 6 - 0. Approve: Danielle Nicholas Allyson B Brekke James Webster Ashley Wilson Michael Wiseman Lisa Weilbacker Disapprove: None H) 03:00:57 Adjournment This board generally meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00pm 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Rebecca Harbage, Deputy Director of Community Development Erin George, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Update on July 28 City Commission Discussion Related to Historic Preservation Projects MEETING DATE:August 19, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Information only, no action required 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:On July 28, City staff provided updates to City Commission on two ongoing historic preservation projects (both the Local Landmark Project and the NCOD Design Guidelines Update), and sought direction from the Commission on several related topics. As work progresses with any policy project, it makes sense to periodically check in to ensure we are still aligned with Commission's vision. During this meeting, staff will provide HPAB with an update on the discussion and direction received. The slides that were shared with Commission are included with this agenda item and a recording of the full Commission discussion can be viewed on the City's website (beginning at approximately 1:01:30 in the video). UNRESOLVED ISSUES:The City recently terminated its contract with the consultant hired to work on the NCOD Design Standards Update. Future work on that project may require execution of a new contract. ALTERNATIVES:As provided by the Board FISCAL EFFECTS:Funding for both projects was included in the FY27 budget. Additional funding may be necessary at a later date to hire a new consultant for the NCOD Design Guidelines update. Attachments: HP Work Session Slides July 2026.pdf 7 Report compiled on: August 12, 2026 8 Historic Preservation Program Work Session Local Landmark Program & Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Design Standards Project Update July 28, 2026 9 Agenda Where we have been •Overview of Historic Preservation Program •Local Landmark Project Phase 1 Recommendations Where we are now •Update on the status of each project Where we might be going •Questions for you 10 National Register Listed Sites & Historic Districts Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Bozeman Municipal Code Sec. 38.240.020 Design Guidelines 1987 1991 2006 Historic Preservation Program 1991 11 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) & Historic Districts 12 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Bozeman City Limits NCOD in Context 13 •Bozeman led the state and we have a robust program. •Our program is overdue for a comprehensive review and update. •Challenges include: •Historic preservation practice has evolved since the early 2000s •Federal guidelines were overhauled in 2017 and we have not kept up •Our historic resource inventories are out of date •Areas and sites outside of the NCOD may deserve more recognition •The 2006 design guidelines are vague and challenging to implement Historic Preservation Program 14 Local Landmark Project Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Local Landmark Project kicked off in 2023 and involved research, data analysis, and significant community engagement. The final policy report presented to Commission in 2025 contained several recommendations, including: •Development of a program to recognize structures, sites, and districts that have historic or cultural significance in our community •Completion of historic preservation code updates not addressed during the larger UDC update •Overhaul of the NCOD Design Guidelines 15 Local Landmark Project Phase 1 “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:” 16 Agenda Where we have been •Overview of Historic Preservation Program •Local Landmark Project Phase 1 Recommendations Where we are now •Update on the status of each project Where we might be going •Questions for you 17 Ongoing Projects Project: Local Landmark Phase 2 Consultant: Community Planning Collaborative Project: NCOD Design Standards Consultant: Hire new in winter 2026 •Create a Local Landmark Program •Update the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Design Guidelines •Revise BMC 38.240.020 o Demolition o COA Process & Deviations 18 Ongoing Projects – Local Landmark •Started: framing a Local Landmark Program •Historic Preservation Advisory Board heard about examples across the country and gave input on the purpose and eligibility criteria •Currently: on hold while code revisions move forward first •Timeline: to be determined, possibly early-2027 •Up Next: finish developing the program •Next steps would include deciding what applies to a designated Landmark – regulation, honorary recognition, incentives, etc. •We would then determine the process for applying the identified actions 19 Ongoing Projects – Local Landmark •Currently: drafting revisions to the demolition code •HPAB heard about reasons for and limitations to regulating demolition of structures on private property •Also heard about current regulations and reviewed data on the number and type of demolitions approved in recent years •HPAB provided feedback on what they would like to see addressed through code revisions •Up Next: present & discuss draft code revisions •Timeline: August 19 HPAB Meeting 20 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards •Community Engagement Summary NEIGHBORHOOD FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS 21 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards 22 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards What are the character defining features of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District? 23 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards 24 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards And how do we plan neighborhoods with character? (EXAMPLES) 38.210-230 – lot standards for sidewalk & boulevard width, setbacks, tree spacing •building standards for floor height, building height & width, setbacks •building standards governing windows and door placement 38.260.010 – street-facing façades, frontage 38.260.040-050 – coverage and open space, pedestrian-oriented design •streetscapes, boulevards & street trees 38.260.100-110 – building massing, wall plate height 38.540 – landscaping, urban forestry master planning 38.260.070 – zone edge transitions 38.510 – non-motorized circulation, access to sidewalks, pathway design •balcony & rear property line standards for light, air, privacy •location & screening of service areas 25 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards 26 Ongoing Projects – Design Standards •Currently: seeking policy direction from Commission •We continue to hear concerns about protecting “neighborhood character” •Concerns about the effect of bulk/mass/scale of new buildings on existing neighborhoods continue to dominate the conversation •These issues are clearly front of mind in engagement feedback, more so than detailed regulation of historic architectural design features •Up Next: engage a new consultant to complete project •Timeline: to be determined, possibly Winter 2026 27 Agenda Where we have been •Overview of Historic Preservation Program •Local Landmark Project Phase 1 Recommendations Where we are now •Update on the status of each project Where we might be going •Questions for you 28 Questions Do you agree with the proposed sequence of work? 1.Revise historic preservation code sections 2.Update the NCOD Design Guidelines 3.Develop & adopt a Local Landmark Program 1 29 Questions Do you want to modify the dimensional standards established in base zoning districts through the NCOD? •If yes, which standards should the NCOD modify (i.e., height, width, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.)? •Further, why are the modifications necessary only in this part of the city? 2 30 Zoning Districts in the NCOD •The NCOD is a large and diverse area. o Downtown o Older, single-family style neighborhoods o 7th Ave corridor o Northeast historic and new manufacturing o University area density •The NCOD contains 12 zoning districts. 31 Bulky Buildings in the NCOD •We mapped 11 of the buildings that are frequently referenced as being tall, boxy, and incompatible with the neighborhood •Most are in B-3 (7) and B-2M (2) zoning districts •Many are right on the edge of the zoning district 32 Questions What outcome(s) do you want to see from regulating demolition of structures?3 33 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Erin George, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Consider Making Recommendations to City Commission Regarding Zone Edge Transitions and Maximum Building Height in the B-3 Zoning District MEETING DATE:August 19, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Discuss and hear public comment before making recommendation(s) for consideration by City Commission STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:The City's Unified Development Code (UDC) establishes maximum height standards in zoning districts and a variety of standards that address the mass and scale of new buildings. One such standard, zone edge transitions, requires certain design features for buildings that will be located at the boundary between some zoning districts. Updated standards were recently adopted as part of the 2025 UDC update. Maximum building height for the B-3 zoning district is set in Section 38.220.050 and the rule of interpretation for height is in Section 38.260.100. The rule of interpretation describes how heights are measured, what encroachments are allowed above maximum height, and other details. Zone edge transition standards are described and applied per Section 38.260.070. The City Commission will hold a work session to discuss these issues on Aug. 25, 2026. These topics are relevant to ongoing HPAB conversations about the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, preservation of historic sites and districts, and the compatibility of new construction with old structures. The board requested an opportunity to weigh in and provide recommendations for City Commission to consider. In considering these topics, HPAB members can provide unique perspectives related to height and transitions as they relate to impacts on historic preservation. These topics will also be considered at upcoming meetings of the Inter- Neighborhood Council, Downtown Urban Renewal Board, and Downtown Business Improvement District Board. Meeting details are available on the 34 city's website at: https://www.bozemanmt.gov/departments/city- commission/meeting-videos In preparation for this meeting, HPAB was encouraged to watch the presentation and discussion at the Community Development Board meeting on Aug. 3, 2026. A summary of the recommendations and video time stamps are included in the attached staff memo, which was prepared for consideration by the downtown boards. Additional materials and a recording of the meeting can be found on the city's website at: https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/2783?view_id=1&redirect=true UNRESOLVED ISSUES:Several advisory boards are considering recommendations to City Commission on this topic. ALTERNATIVES:As provided by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None at this time Attachments: Memo re B-3 Height and Transitions Downtown Boards 8-18- 2026.pdf Report compiled on: August 12, 2026 35 Unified Development Code (UDC) Discussion on Building Height in B-3 Zoning District and Zone Edge Transitions Report To: Downtown Urban Renewal Board and Business Improvement District Board From: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Erin George, Community Development Director Meeting Date: August 18 and 19, 2026 Memo Organization: • Questions for Consideration • General Background Information o Immediate History o State Law and Local Plans o General Regulation Information • Current Code o Building Heights o Wall Plate o Articulation o Zone Edge Transitions and Step Backs o Street Trees Questions for Consideration The following questions will be discussed by the City Commission on August 25, 2026. The Commission requests input on these questions. 1) Retain the 90 feet building height authorized in the B-3 zoning district? 2) Direct review of a potential amendment in height with no other changes? 3) Establish additional minimum standard applicable for buildings over XX feet and retain the 90 feet maximum building height? 36 Page 2 of 15 4) Direct a review of a potential amendment to how zone edge transitions function? General Background Immediate History The City Commission has requested a work session regarding the maximum building height in the B-3 zoning district (38.220.050.B.1) and Zone Edge Transitions (38.260.070). Transitions and a seven story building height in the B-3 zoning district were included in the August 2023 public review draft of the Unified Development Code. The height and transition standards now in place came from revisions to earlier standards and were adopted in December 2025 and are available through the City’s website [external PDF]. During the formation of the current standards, the City engaged with advisory boards and the public through variety of outreach opportunities. The City Commission held a work session on regulatory tools to control mass and scale of buildings. This work session was held on June 24, 2025. The video recording [external link] and packet materials [external PDF] are available through the City’s website. The work session begins at 1:05:45 in the recording and on page 45 in the Commission packet. As part of the work session the Commission directed a change in height measurement from stories to feet with the translation of seven stories to 90 feet as an outcome in B-3. During the public engagement process for the UDC update prior to the June 2025 work session several questions in surveys and comments in other engagement opportunities addressed mass and scale of buildings and how best to manage mass and scale. That information was made available to the Community Development Board, City Commission, and public prior to the work session. Provisional adoption of the updated Unified Development Code occurred on December 2, 2025; and final adoption occurred on December 16, 2025. The recording of the December 2nd meeting is available online [external link] and discussion begins at 4:15:15 in the recording and concludes at 9:41:20. The recording of the December 16th meeting is available online [external link] and discussion begins at minute 55:50 in the recording and concludes at 3:03:30. The Commission discussed and modified the maximum height in the B-3 district in both meetings and finalized the code with a 90 foot maximum height. No new buildings have been constructed following the revised 2025 development code that includes the substantially increased zone edge transition section. All the recently constructed buildings are reviewed and approved under the previous development code. Community Development Board The Community Development Board, at their meeting on August 3, 2026 discussed this material. The recording [external link] of the meeting is available with the following occurring through the discussion: • Staff presentation – 6:30 37 Page 3 of 15 • Board questions – 35:45 • Public comment – 55:15 • Board discussion – 1:03:25 • Board recommendation – 1:42:30 o 1) Height – I move that we recommend to City Commission in the matter of B-3 building heights to retain the 90 feet height maximum in the B-3 zoning district but also consider adding additional required stepbacks and/or setbacks that limit the perceived mass and scale for buildings in the B-3 zone for buildings above a defined height. Passed 6-0. o 2) Transitions – Recommended to include in transitions (38.260.070) the opportunity for a subject lot to build up to the limits allowed in the abutting lot(s) before any transition requirement applies. No motion but all agreed. Overall Context The desire to control the built environment (mass, scale, height) is not new. The early purposes of zoning in the United States included control of bulk in places like New York and Chicago. The purpose has evolved with time. As has the justification for adopting zoning regulations. The first use of basic zoning was to address very real social, environmental, and health issues. Jacob Riis, How the Other Half Lives” [External Link], written in 1890, provides a stark and vivid portrayal of how communities have evolved, how the built environment needs to respond to changing conditions, and how the built environment affects people. As building codes and other regulations have changed to address some issues the need for zoning to also address those issues has changed. State Law and Local Plans The state first passed authorization for municipal zoning in 1929 and amendments occurred over time. Evolution of the law continued with the passage in 2023 of the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA). MLUPA gives authority to the City to plan for and regulate land use and development. The City must conform to MLUPA. MLUPA primarily addresses procedures and leaves some latitude to local decision makers in many areas to address non-procedural matters. Some very detailed requirements for development standards are included in MLUPA including minimum heights in some types of zoning districts, such as those covering the downtown area. MLUPA itself is guided by the MT Constitution including Article 2 Section 3 that both identifies property rights and responsibilities that go with it. Zoning is a tool to help balance rights that may be in competition and to identify responsibilities and how to meet them. Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and 38 Page 4 of 15 protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities. MLUPA requires that regulations governing land use be in accordance with the adopted land use plan. The City updated its land use plan in October 2025 and carried forward the goals and objectives initially adopted in 2020 after a 2.5-year public drafting and review process. The adoption of the BCP2025 also carried forward the adopted Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, [external link] (DBIP) initially adopted in May 2019. The DBIP further develops guiding principles related to the continuing development and evolution of the Downtown area, largely defined by the B-3 zoning district boundary at the time of adoption. The DBIP itself was an update to the Downtown Improvement Plan adopted in 2009 which encouraged further development in the B-3 area surrounding Main Street. Additional housing as well as commercial activities are encouraged. One of the DBIP key ideas was that Downtown needed to expand north and south of Main Street, see More than Main Street beginning on page 52. In the portion of the DBIP titled The Heart of a Thriving City, starting on page 32, there is discussion about growth trends and mixes and how Downtown may differ from other areas of the community. Overall, the DBIP recommends that Downtown expand urban density uses north and south of Main Street into other areas zoned B-3 to facilitate additional employment and housing opportunities. At the same time, the DBIP also identifies a desire to address the existing historic districts both along Main Street and near to the Downtown. To help address both opportunities for development and existing areas the DBIP recommended resolution of several inconsistencies between the land use plan, zoning, and existing development types. These are discussed under the section titled Welcoming to Everyone beginning on page 102 and were largely resolved with revisions to the future land use map in 2020 and the UDC zoning map update completed in 2025. The Welcoming to Everyone section also recommends an increase in authorized building height to enable seven story buildings. It further discusses the idea of height transitions to be responsive to context. The City Commission adopted formal standards for building height transitions in 2018 and revised them in 2025. See below for further discussion. Appendix B of the DBIP makes several suggestions for possible revisions to regulations relating to building height and transitions to implement the DBIP. These were evaluated as part of the UDC update completed in 2025 and several were included in whole or with revisions beginning with the initial public review draft in August 2023. Balancing the desire for incremental development and redevelopment with meeting the needs for housing for existing and relocating individuals, providing for employment, and enabling services to meet needs, while at the same time addressing various civil rights is complex. The Bozeman Community Plan 2025 (BCP2025) [External link] includes seven themes. Maximizing each outcome 39 Page 5 of 15 tends to create tension between competing outcomes as maximizing one may be detrimental to another. • A resilient city • A city of unique neighborhoods • A city bolstered by downtown and complementary districts • A city influenced by our natural environment, parks, and open lands • A city that prioritizes accessibility and mobility choices • A city powered by its creative, innovative, and entrepreneurial economy • A city engaged in regional coordination The BCP2025 addresses the fundamental tensions of growth. How do we maintain existing developed areas and accommodate those who wish to join the community or address changing needs. Chapter One addresses “To Grow or Not to Grow” and “Does the City Have to Grow.” Local land development and use standards must conform to the purposes and limits of zoning and established in law, whether by the legislature or the courts. The UDC is the primary implementation tool of the adopted land use plan. With each revision of the long-range planning documents, the city made edits to zoning to realize the community’s desires and conform with legal requirements. Since 2003, state law has required regulations to be in accordance with the adopted land use plan. The current UDC text and map reflect this requirement. General Regulation Information Anticipating the update to the development regulations after adoption of the land use plan in 2020, the city performed a code assessment to identify possible changes that could improve the Unified Development Code (UDC), zoning map, and development review processes to both maintain needed standards and outcomes, and remove regulatory barriers to the creation of affordable housing [Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment]. Changes to form and intensity standards are discussed beginning on page 23. The recent UDC update implemented many recommendations from the report. There is a wide range of resources describing concepts to control the built environment. Individual controls all have pros and cons depending on the context being employed and what the community hopes to achieve by a particular set of regulations. Some terms are explicitly defined in the UDC. The meaning of specific terms is also influenced by State and Federal definitions. A variety of tools are available to influence the size and proportions of a structure and its relationship to adjacent properties. Most zoning codes employ more than one tool, and the interactions must be considered collectively to work. Functional tools are influenced by the context of the community in setting specific standards. What works in one community may not achieve 40 Page 6 of 15 another’s desired outcome. These zoning standards impact land use efficiency, housing stock, and costs. The following tools to influence building mass and scale are included as part of the UDC and may have also been adopted by prior versions of the code: • Lot Setbacks: Required distances between a building and property lines, roads, or other structures. • Lot Area: The minimum amount of land required within the boundaries of a lot. This tool is much more limited in application under the new code. • Lot Coverage: The percentage of the surface of a lot that can be covered by buildings, ensuring open space for landscaping, recreation, or other non-building uses. • Height: Maximum building height. Bozeman measures height in feet from grade. • Wall plate: A limitation on maximum height from ground to where a roof line or step back needs to begin to limit overall visual mass of a building. • Horizontal Massing (Width): A limitation on the maximum building width in relation to the street. • Building size: A limitation on the maximum building total floor area. • Park dedication and on-site open area: A minimum amount of area which must be set aside from development or developed to provide recreational functions for residents. • On-site commercial and residential open space requirements. Provides amenity space for residents and “third spaces” for human interaction and creates additional transition areas. • Elevation Design Requirements: Ratios, formulas, or specific measurements on the street- facing front elevation of a home based on certain conditions, such as a garage. • Step backs and planes: Required changes to the façade of a building to move back from the placement at ground level. • Screening requirements for utility to serve basic needs of power, garbage, delivery service areas, etc. • Transitions: Standards for building design to reduce the maximum wall height of taller allowed building heights in one district to an adjacent district. • Building Frontage: How buildings relate to streets and public spaces. Bozeman’s development code uses these tools in residential, commercial, and industrial zones. For the current form and intensity standards (setbacks, height, lot area, etc.) in the updated UDC [external link] see Article 2 and the individual descriptions of each zoning district and Division 38.520. 41 Page 7 of 15 No single standard adequately addresses all the concerns of the community or the characteristics of construction relating to bulk and scale of buildings. The following graphic helps illustrate the way these concepts interact. Each identified subject (illustrated by a colored circle) allows for a range of actions or sets a standard. A project must meet each of the regulations. Only where a proposed project can meet all the standards can it be approved (illustrated by the orange shape). Each standard helps constrain the potential for excess in other standards. When considering how these standards work together it is important to remember and consider the range of uses that will be subject to the standard. If only homes are considered then a different outcome may be acceptable than when the schools, churches, daycares, offices, retail, and other activities also allowed in a zoning district are part of the consideration. The same tools are used in non-residential and mixed-use zoning districts although the numeric standard may vary by district. Each regulatory tool has nuances, and many have some flexibility in their application. If there is a code reference listed such as shown in the standards of the B-3C district in 38.220.060.B.1 and shown further below, it means there is additional detail at the referenced section. To understand the standard, you should read the additional details as well as the initial standard description. Those details often include a reference to “relief” which is the defined flexibility in application of the standard. Zoning is not retroactive. Buildings cannot be required to be modified to meet new requirements. Existing or approved structures may continue as is until redevelopment is proposed or be constructed according to approved plans. 42 Page 8 of 15 Current Code The 2025 UDC update created a new B-3C zoning district to distinguish the historic area along Main Street with a well-established pattern of lower commercial buildings with a few taller structures from other areas of the Downtown that may be suitable for new construction of more intensive structures. The B-3C zoning district has three specific standards for buildings that distinguish it from B-3: 1) a shorter maximum building height of 60 feet – the lowest allowed by state law, 2) a wall plate standard that requires a break in the height of the façade at 45 feet, and 3) a step back for the façade at or above the 4th story. See 38.260.060.B for the standards and the following image for location of the B-3C zoning district. A revised zoning map was adopted in conjunction with the new development code. Several of the changes adopted were a direct result of state mandates to harmonize the zoning with the land use plan. Several others removed mid-block zoning boundaries. Regulating the built environment is a finer grained tool than adjusting the base zoning. Consideration of whether the zoning map needs to be further examined to determine if the appropriate zoning is applied to a given area and is in accordance with the future land use map may be merited. The map also should reflect policy statements in the land use plan. A visual analysis suggests many of the perceived issues with mass and scale are a result of existing structures in or near the city center in zones that allow and encourage larger buildings. 43 Page 9 of 15 Building Height The maximum vertical extent of a building. Buildings vary by size, purpose, and site conditions. It is difficult to identify a “correct” number that applies in all circumstances. For example, the Marriot Residence Inn at 815 E main is a single structure but on a very sloped site. The vertical extent at corners of the building are very different along Main St than along Village Downtown Blvd. Height is also influenced by function. Theatres need scenery lofts, industrial sites may require tall storage silos, and many buildings have elevator head spaces that project above the rest of the roof. While exceptions can be created for specific functions, most zoning ordinances establish some type of maximum size limit in a district. The PLI district is a local zoning district that does not have a maximum height limit. Maximum allowed height varies by district in the current UDC. Specified height number is often subject to a variety of allowed encroachments and exceptions or other modifiers. The authorized height in the B-3 district has changed over time. When zoning was initially adopted in 1935, the Main Business District (designated with MB), the equivalent of the B-3 district today, had no specified limit on height. See the following excerpt from the 1941 zoning map, letters are residential zoning districts. A is the most restricted and D the most permissive residential districts. 1941 Zoning Map excerpt 44 Page 10 of 15 The B-3 district name was applied in 1973 to a larger area than the initial Main Business district as shown on the following excerpt from the zoning map. 1973 Zoning Map excerpt It was not until 1991 that a numerical height limit of 55 feet was uniformly applied to the B-3 district. Various exceptions were also authorized to height limits generally; and also applied in the B-3 district. In 2002, the City kept the 55 feet limit for the area along Main Street that would become B-3C, but raised the allowed height in the rest of the B-3 district to 70 feet. The update to the B-3 district approved in 2025 raised the maximum building height in the B-3 district to 90 feet which is enough to enable a seven story building. This was consistent with the recommendation from the DBIP as discussed above. How height is measured and what exceptions to height standards are available is established in 38.260.100.A. Whether or not a building is perceived as “too tall” depends on more than just a single measurement. The City has also adopted other standards to help address the interaction between adjacent developments. Some photos of existing structures and heights of taller buildings in the community are attached to assist in visualizing what the various heights mentioned above exist in the community. A map of taller buildings in the Downtown area is also attached; as is a map showing locations of constructed buildings over the past 10 years or so that have generated public comments on height. Please note the location of most of those buildings are in the B-3 and B-2M districts and often on the edge of the district. 45 Page 11 of 15 In 2015, after an open public review and participation process, the City Commission amended the Design Guidelines to include Chapter 4B to distinguish between the applicable standards for the area within the Main Street historic district and other portions of the B-3 zone. The revised language was adopted by Resolution 4598 [external link]. Chapter 4B was later amended by Resolution 4623 and readopted by Ordinance 1981 in 2017. The revised language supported development of larger and taller buildings but did not change the maximum height allowed in the B- 3 district. Elements of the revised guidelines have become part of the UDC standards. The placement of low-density zoning adjacent to the city core may contribute to property owners feeling overwhelmed by development nearby. Rather than imposing development restrictions on property within the city center, an alternative is to evaluate areas adjacent to the Downtown for appropriate zoning to create an intensity transition from the B-3 to lower intensity districts further from the city core. Should RA be directly adjacent to B-3 or is the B-2M or RC zone more consistent with the Community Plan? Wall Plate Wall plate is a new standard to address massing, especially in less intensively developed areas. Wall plate limits the maximum height of an exterior wall to prevent uninterrupted facades. A wall plate standard is shorter than the maximum building height allowed in a district. Definitions and rules of interpretation help explain terms used in the document. Wall plate is described in Sec. 38.260.100.B. The combination of wall plate to constrain uninterrupted building wall size and a maximum building height provide flexibility for the designer and predictability for adjacent owners and residents. Wall plate is a response to public concern on scale of development, especially in existing lower intensity areas experiencing redevelopment. Wall plate heights establish when a step back, see discussion below, or other change in building design must occur to lessen visual and physical mass of the building. More intensive zoning districts may not have a wall plate limitation to allow them to have the taller buildings that are intended in those districts. B-3 does not have a specified wall plate limit, but the B-3C district does. The City Commission considered the potential requirement for a generally applicable wall plate standard for B-3 during the June 24, 2025 code update work session on mass and scale but decided not to establish one. 46 Page 12 of 15 Figure 38.260.100-3 illustrating measurement for wall plates. Example of the B-3C – 38.220.060.B.1, excerpt of dimensional standards relating to massing below. Articulation The UDC also includes required standards for both vertical and horizontal articulation for both residential and non-residential buildings that are subject to site plan reviews. See Section 38.520.040, Building Massing and Articulation. It is expected that any new building constructed in the B-3 zoning district would be subject to site plan review. Smaller buildings like single dwelling or four-dwelling buildings are not subject to the same standard. This standard was updated in 2025 and now requires a greater number of articulation features to be used, increases the degree of 47 Page 13 of 15 variation in wall or roof needed to meet an articulation standard, and increases the locations on a building where articulation is required. There are some differences between residential and mixed- use/non-residential building requirements. This standard does not directly limit the height of a building; however, by dividing the massing into smaller visual modules it reduces the perceived scale of a building. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) design guidelines apply for sites located within the NCOD. The Chapter 4B guidelines are specifically focused on the area included in the B-3 zoning district. An update to the design guidelines has been paused but are expected to start again this winter. Zone Edge Transitions and Step Backs Zone edge transitions apply throughout the entire city when the defined condition of two dissimilar zoning districts being adjacent exists (38.260.070). A zone edge transition is a tool to adjust the abruptness of difference in building size at the edge of a zoning district. Step-backs refer to step-like changes in the profile of a building where there is functional building area for several stories and then the step inwards reduces the width or depth of the building from that point onwards. See the image below. The flat areas created by the step-backs are often used as outdoor terraces in both residential and commercial buildings. With step-backs, structures are allowed to rise straight-up a certain height beyond which they are subject to recede from the initial façade that follow a prescribed method to establish the step back. Extent of step backs in height and depth may vary by district. Although the names are similar, a setback is different than a step-back. A setback establishes a distance, usually from a property line, and no part of the building is allowed to be placed within a setback. Bozeman previously used an inclined plane, of 45°, to establish the boundary of required step backs as a zone edge transition method. This resulted in some structures with a sequence of small step backs utilized as outdoor patios for the adjacent residential uses. Some public comments have stated that this placement may lessen privacy or increase possible noise from activities in the open spaces. Other methods measure from a different set of beginning points, but in all cases the building must remain within the prescribed limits. In the current code, step backs are only applied at zone edge transitions and in conjunction with wall plate heights in the B-3C district. There are very few examples of constructed buildings implementing this standard at this time. Section 38.260.070, Transitions, describes the circumstances when a step back is required. These occur at the edges of zoning districts and primarily where residential and non-residential districts adjoin. A map of these locations is included with the packet. Types 1a and 1b transitions include a step back requirement, see image below for an example. The vertical height at which a building is subject to the step back is determined by the maximum height of the adjacent district. For example, the height at which a step-back must begin for projects adjacent to an RA district would be lower 48 Page 14 of 15 than if adjacent to the RB district. The type of applicable zone edge transition is determined by the zoning of the lot subject to the requirement and the zoning on the abutting lot as set out in Table 38.260.070-1. Transitions are required where the degree of difference between districts is greatest. There are four transition types to address different circumstances. Not all zoning boundaries require a transition. In addition to the step back, transitions in some locations are required to provide a greater distance for the entire building (setback). For example, a lot in the B-3 district which is abutting a lot zoned as RA or RB must add 3 feet to the width of the minimum setback shown as the “X” in the image below. A transition standard is not a substitute for placement of a zoning district in a proper place. The Commission directed and approved numerous modifications to the zoning map with the 2025 update to remove locations where zoning district boundaries occurred within the same block. This reduces potential conflicts by physically separating dissimilar districts. Excerpt from 38.260.070 Transitions are a special case for mass and scale controls as they apply at district edges rather than uniformly throughout a district. The best method for transitions is to place zoning districts at streets, watercourses, or similar physical separations. The width of a standard local street right of way (60 feet see below) is six times the minimum setback of the Type 1a no-alley setback (10 feet see above). Elements located within the right-of-way are shown below. The placement of zoning 49 Page 15 of 15 district boundaries on streets inherently provides spacing between dissimilar districts. However, such placement isn’t always feasible. Transitions lessen potential impacts in those circumstances. Both the prior zoning regulations and the current regulations include as part of the standard that a street (typical local right of way width of 60 feet) is by itself a transition by providing a large physical separation. An alley is not of sufficient width to be a transition. Paragraph 38.260.070A.3.f addresses this question of right of way width. Should a street be less than 60 feet wide, the transition standard would apply to a proposed building as if the street were not present. If the street is less than 60 feet wide, nothing in the language prevents a landowner from providing additional right of way, either by subdivision exemption or by provision of a street and utility easement, to widen the right of way. Whether the right of way is created by plat or easement, so long as it is 60 feet or greater in width the transition requirement has been met by physical separation from adjacent uses across the street. A transition standard places all the burden of lessening perceived conflict on only one property to the full benefit of the abutting property. It is therefore important to use care in establishing the degree of restriction with a transition. Street Trees The municipal code, in both Chapter 16 and Chapter 38, requires planting of trees within the boulevard strip (see right of way cross section above) with development. The City maintains planted trees in the right of way. Proposed tree plantings are reviewed during the site plan review process by the City Forester. Removals of trees require review and approval by the City Forester and compensation to the City for the loss of the asset. Although not a part of the building, street trees provide a visual barrier, a variation in height, and change of materials when viewing a building. The average height of a mature street tree in Bozeman is 60 feet tall. Trees therefore function as an additional element of transition between properties whether they occur at a zone edge or within a zoning district. Staff will present further visuals and information at the meeting to assist in the understanding of regulating mass and scale tools as they relate to these issues and the questions identified at the beginning of the document. 50 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 to Continue Discussion of Demolition Regulations MEETING DATE:August 19, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Receive presentation from staff, hear public comment, and discuss next steps STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:Demolition regulations, which apply within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), are part of Bozeman's current Historic Preservation Program and are located within Bozeman Municipal Code Sec. 38.240.020.H through L. The Local Landmark Project Phase I Report, which was reviewed and discussed by HPAB before being adopted by City Commission in May 2025, included a recommendation to update the existing demolition regulations. A presentation at the June HPAB meeting walked through the City's existing demolition regulations. HPAB members discussed what's working and what could be improved in the City's existing regulations and subsequently provided a compilation of suggestions for potential changes. These suggestions have been reviewed by the project team and Legal staff, and are included as an attachment with this agenda item. During this work session, the project team will share staff, consultant and legal input on their suggestions, and hear feedback from the board. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As provided by the Board FISCAL EFFECTS:Funding for this project was included in the FY27 budget. Attachments: 51 HPAB Feedback_Demolition Process_07142026.pdf Report compiled on: August 12, 2026 52 Historic Preservation Advisory Board recommendations related to Demolition in Bozeman 1) Do we want to address out-of-date inventory forms directly? If so, do we require a specific consultant for consistency? Establish a set fee and the city runs the process? a. We recommend, at a minimum, any property owner seeking demolition be required to update their property inventory form. This could be expanded to any work requiring a COA, and just baked into the COA process. Keeping this process under City control makes sense from a quality control and consistency standpoint. Our recommendations is that the City have a consultant on retainer and, when a property owner needs to update a form, the City either coordinates the effort and passes the cost through to the property owner, or they put the property owner in contact with the consultant to have the work done directly. Ideally, this would be a fixed fee, included with application fees, so the property owner can know the cost impact in advance. 2) Given the recommendation to keep the 2-year stay of demolition, do we want to make changes to what happens during that stay or what is required at the end of the stay? a. We recommend a process whereby the property owner is required to submit updates, perhaps quarterly or every 6 months, documenting what other alternatives they have explored. Some things that could be required: i. proof of listing and attempting to sell to an owner willing to re-use ii. proof of attempt to move/ sell/ deconstruct structure iii. proof of grant or tax applications in coordination with city staff. b. Non-compliance could result in a fine or other penalty c. Create a higher quality commemoration of what gets demo’d: i. Complete photo inventory or building scan? ii. Some way to honor what was there if necessary? 3) The habitable conditions requirements for the economic life criteria are intended to make demolition harder (by limiting what can actually be used a cost to keep the existing structure "habitable"), should this be changed, revisited, or stay as it is? a. The recommendation is to keep this as is and codify it into the current process. I believe it's a "technical bulletin" or similar at the moment, so making it a more official part of the could be beneficial. 53 b. We wondered if there is a way to create a higher threshold for re-use (prior to demoliton) for commercial structures? In helping define demolition regulation: 4) Ways to address demolition by neglect since the "property maintenance" code can not be enforced by state statute. a. This one we couldn’t find a good recommendation for. There are legitimately some properties that need to be demo’d, but it is a route that can be exploited. We’d be interested to hear if our consultants have dealt with this in other jurisdictions. 5) Should HPAB review demolition requests? a. We recommend HPAB be, at a minimum, involved for every property that would trigger public comment, but HPAB would like to be involved in every Demo request. 6) Ways to address historic integrity: Does a "non-contributing" or "Intrusive" structure still need consideration in a larger context? a. Mostly yes. The biggest step would be to update the inventory form to verify how the structure is classified. Again, no firm recommendation but there’s more to maintaining contextual integrity than just “historic” integrity in the strictest terms. Alternately, the replacement design may completely appropriate. If we move forward with reviewing all demo permits, we need to come up with a standard by which we evaluate structures, their contribution, and weigh that against the proposed design in a way that may lay outside the current model. 7) What are the penalties for illegal demolition and should they be stiffer? a. We recommend that illegal demolition be treated the same as demo that is not approved – immediate 2 year stay on future development, as well as any fines assessed for “work done without a permit”. b. If a project was caught mid-demo and the process is early enough that the structure could be saved, maybe it’s a one year stay while options are discussed for salvage. If it’s too far gone, then 2 year stay. Other considerations: 8) Should deconstruction be considered? 54 a. We feel this is a market driven issue and, given the lack of options currently in Bozeman, this should not be a part of any mandate. As stated above, a viable or successful plan to deconstruct a structure might lessen a 2 year stay or, in the case of approved demo, be eligible for some incentive. b. We do recommend more (or more stringent) requirements around remediation are considered with respect to lead and asbestos. Could be as simple as noticing for adjacent properties so they know what to expect and how to protect themselves. 9) Does moving and re-using a structure change the evaluation of demolition? a. We recommend some sort of acknowledgement during the process if this is offered as part of a solution. This could be considered conditionally with the same treatment as 8)a above; a viable or successful plan to relocate a structure could lessen or forgive a 2 year stay, especially if the historic significance is tied predominantly to the building and not the location. 10) Can we outright ban demolition of a historic structure (National Register or Local Landmark) a. Unknown at this time, we don’t feel we have a good enough understanding of law to make a recommendation. 11) Should trees be considered? a. While most HPAB members are not opposed to consideration of trees, this falls outside our jurisdiction and we don’t have a real recommendation at this time. This is better handled through Forestry or some other department/ entity. 12) Are there "carrots" available to encourage re-use/ maintenance/ preservation? a. General consensus is that we prefer carrots to sticks, but we don’t know the specifics of what’s available. This would be a great opportunity for the City to aid in grants, provide tax or development fee incentives, streamlined approval, or some other way to encourage behavior. We would like to hear from our consultants and City staff what carrots might be available to offer knowing there is probably no direct funding available from the City and not wanting to place undue burden on staff. 55 Memorandum REPORT TO:Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board FROM:Rebecca Harbage, Deputy Director of Community Development Erin George, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Discuss Historic Preservation Awards MEETING DATE:August 19, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:NA STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:For years, the Historic Preservation Advisory Board has hosted historic preservation awards that recognize projects, properties, individuals, and organizations that honor Bozeman’s history and cultural heritage. In 2025, nominations were solicited beginning in late-August, HPAB selected awardees at their meeting in October, and the awards were announced at a public event in mid-November. This item is included on the agenda to allow the board time to discuss the awards - categories, timing, and logistics. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As provided by the Board FISCAL EFFECTS:The estimated cost of the awards event was included in the FY27 budget. Report compiled on: August 12, 2026 56