HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 04 2008_Resolution No. 4111, Revising the Fee Schedule for the Department of Planning and Community Development
Report compiled on July 30, 2008
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4111
MEETING DATE: Monday, August 4, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Open and continue consideration of Commission Resolution 4111
revising the schedule of fees for review of various applications by the Department of Planning
and Community Development until August 18, 2008.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission will be conducting a work session on August 7th to
consider budget matters. That will affect the discussion and possible action on Resolution 4111.
Rather than have to revise the resolution immediately after passage it is more efficient to
continue the matter until after the work session.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The revised fees will provide funding to support the long range and
current planning functions for the Department of Planning and Community Development.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have
questions prior to the public hearing on August 4th
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: None
101
Report compiled on July 14, 2008
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4111
MEETING DATE: Monday, July 21, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Commission Resolution 4111 revising the schedule of fees
for review of various applications by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
BACKGROUND: The City of Bozeman has a policy of recouping a portion of the cost of
processing development applications. A schedule of fees was previously adopted and revised
from time to time. The staff monitors the adequacy of the collected fees in covering the costs of
processing applications.
The most recent review indicates that the costs are not being adequately recouped. Increased
expenses for newspaper advertising necessitate increases in the amounts collected for
advertising. The City commissioned a study of the costs to update the historic structures
inventory. The estimated cost range is $75-100 per residential building. This is higher than the
initial cost adopted in 2006 before the study was completed.
Not all projects, even within the same category, require equal review effort. The fee structure has
been evolving with each revision to more accurately assign costs to more complex projects. This
has continued with the proposed establishment of a per unit cost for site plans, rather than simply
increasing the baseline fee.
Each development project relies upon the adopted growth policy. In 2007 the state legislature
authorized a fee to be charged with subdivision and zoning reviews to help fund the development
or update of a growth policy. The amount is limited to $50 per dwelling or $250 per non-
residential lot or unit. Collection of the allowed fee has been spread across both preliminary and
final components of review in accordance with existing practice. The use of the fee is limited to
updating the growth policy.
The fee schedule as proposed continues the Commission directed policy of restricting fees for
annexation, initial zoning, and single home projects. An example of the single home restriction
may be seen under section two of the fee schedule.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The revised fees will provide funding to support the long range and
current planning functions for the Department of Planning and Community Development.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have
questions prior to the public hearing on July 21st .
102
Report compiled on July 14, 2008
Commission Memorandum
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Commission Resolution 4111
Comparison of existing and proposed fee schedule
76-1-410. Planning fees -- limit. (1) Governing bodies that have committed in a resolution to
adopting or that have adopted a growth policy that includes the provisions of 76-1-601(4)(c) may
assess planning fees to pay for services that fulfill the purposes of Title 76, chapter 1. The
planning fees are in addition to any other fees authorized by law and may be collected as part of
either subdivision applications or zoning permits.
(2) Planning fees may not exceed $50 for each residential lot or unit or $250 for each
commercial, industrial, or other type of lot or unit.
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 455, L. 2007.
103
RESOLUTION NO. 4111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE REVIEW OF
ZONING, SUBDIVISION, ANNEXATION AND GROWTH POLICY
PROPOSALS, AS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 7-1-101, 76-1-410, 76-3-201(4)
AND 76-3-602, MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED (MCA) AND SECTION
18.64.140, BOZEMAN BOZEMAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman collects fees to cover the administrative
costs of processing and review zoning, subdivision, annexation and growth policy
proposals; and
WHEREAS, the fee schedule for zoning, subdivision, annexation and
growth policy proposal review must be updated from time to time to reflect
changes in City procedures, increases in costs to the City and legislative
changes at the State level; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-201(4), MCA authorizes local governments to
collect fees, not to exceed $200, to examine subdivision exemptions and Section
76-3-602, MCA authorizes local governments to establish reasonable fees, to be
paid by the subdivider, to defray the expense of reviewing subdivision plats; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is authorized to collect fees for the
review of annexation, zoning and growth policy proposals, based on the
provisions of Section 7-1-101, MCA, because state statute does not prohibit the
collection of fees for annexation, zoning and growth policy proposal review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has conducted a review of its fees for
annexation, zoning and growth policy proposal review and concluded that
revisions are necessary; and
1
104
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is authorized to collect fees for the
review of annexation, zoning, growth policy proposals and long range planning,
based on the provisions of Section 7-1-101, MCA, because state statute does not
prohibit the collection of fees for annexation, zoning and growth policy proposal
review; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.64.140 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance states that: “The City Commission shall establish a schedule of fees,
charges and expenses and a collection procedure for reviews, permits, appeals
and other matters pertaining to this title. The schedule of fees for the procedures
listed below shall be set from time to time by the City Commission by resolution.
The fees shall be available in the office of the Planning Director and may be
altered or amended only by the City Commission.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana:
Section 1
The fee schedule for the review of zoning, subdivision, annexation and
growth policy proposals shall be as follows:
See Exhibit A
Section 2
This fee schedule shall be in full force and effect on August 1, 2008.
DATED July 21, 2008.
2
105
3
Kaaren Jacobson
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Stacy Ulmen
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
PAUL LUWE
City Attorney
106
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure Proposed Changes1. Miscellaneous Current Fee New Base FeeOverlay District*AdvertisingPer Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per AcrePer Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Informal Review Fees are cumulative $100.00 – DRC $100.00 –DRC $100.00 – DRB $100.00 –DRB $100.00 – Planning Board $200.00 –Planning Board $200.00 – City Commission $200.00 –City Commission New Fee $200.00–Board of Adjustment Fees are cumulative Reuse $25.00 $50.00 $25 $25Reuse with building permit $50.00 $100.00 $25 $25Reuse with deviation $200.00 plus $800 advertising $250.00 $125$900 $50Special Temporary Use Permit $100.00 $100.00 if permit duration is one week or less $250.00 if permit duration >than one week. Condominium Review – Independent of site plan $75.00 No changeZoning verification letter $75.00 No changePage 1 of 9 107
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure Revised materials submittal New fee. 25% of original application base fee Re-advertising due to applicant modifications New fee. $450.00 per advertisement Incomplete Application New fee. 1/3 of original application base fee 3rd or subsequent Occupancy site inspection New fee. $100.00 Page 2 of 9 108
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Minor Sketch Plan COA (fences, windows, siding, roofing, additions < 120 sq. ft., egress windows) $25.00 plus $10 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district $75.00 $25 Major Sketch Plan COA $50.00 plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district $100.00 $100 $50 Commercial COA New Fee $250.00 $125 $900 if required$100 if any $200 Sketch Plan COA - Deviations/SHR $250.00 plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $275.00 $125 $900 $100 $50 Sketch Plan COA – Deviations/Other $350.00 plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $400.00 $125 $900 $100 $50 Page 3 of 9 109
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 3. Site Plans Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Site Plan $500.00 $500 $25 $50 $25 Per dwelling/ $125 per non-resid. Site Plan COA $750.00 plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district $750.00 $125 $25 $50 $25 Per dwelling/ $125 per non-resid.Site Plan COA – Deviations $1,000.00 plus $800 advertising, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district $1,000.00 $125 $900 $100 $25 $50 $25 Per Dwelling/ $125 per non-resid. Master Site Plan $1,000.00, plus $25.00 per residential unit and/or $25.00 per 1,000 square feet of leasable non-residential floor area; plus $800 advertising if deviations are requested; plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district $1,000.00 $125 $900 if deviations or variances are requested $100 $25 $50 $25 Per Dwelling/$125 per non-resid. Final Site Plan $500 plus $50 for each variance or deviation $500 $50 $10 $10 $25 Per Dwelling / $125 per non-resid. Final Site Plan Modification New fee $250 Page 4 of 9 110
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 4. Conditional Use Permit Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Standard CUP $1,000.00, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $1,500.00 $100 $900 $100 $25 $50 $25 per dwelling, $125 for non-resid. Cabaret License CUP $660.00, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $750.00 $100$900 $100 $25 $50 $125 ADU or Home Based Business CUP $500.00, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $660.00 $100 $900 $100 $25 5. Planned Unit Development Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee PUD Concept Plan $500.00 $10 $10 $50 PUD Preliminary Plan $1,000.00, plus $25.00 per residential unit and/or $25.00 per 1,000 square feet of leasable non-residential floor area; plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $1,000.00 $100 $900 $100 $25 $50 $50 Per dwelling/ $125 per non-resid. PUD Final Plan $500.00 $500 $50 $25 $50 $50 Per dwelling/ $125 per non-resid. Master PUD Plan $500.00 None - Project type has been abandoned Page 5 of 9 111
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 6. Amendments Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Zone Map Amendment $1,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $10.00 per acre thereafter, plus $400 advertising $1,000.00 $450 $50.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $25.00 per acre thereafter, Zone Map Amendment – Ordinance $1,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $10.00 per are thereafter; plus $400 advertising $1,000.00 $450 $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $25.00 per acre thereafter, Zone Map Amendment – Initial $550.00 plus $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $10.00 thereafter; plus $400 advertising $550.00 $450 $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $10.00 per acre thereafter, UDO Text Amendment $1,000.00 plus $1,200 advertising $1,200.00 $1,350 Growth Policy Text Amendment $2,000.00 plus $1,200 advertising $2,500.00 $1,350 Growth Policy Map Amendment $2,000.00 plus $25.00 per acre up to 80 acres plus $10.00 per acre thereafter; plus $800 advertising $2,500.00 $900 $25.00 per acre Page 6 of 9 112
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 7. Subdivision Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Subdivision Exemption $200.00 No Change $10 per final lotSubdivision Preapplication $500.00 plus $25.00 per lot. No Change Preliminary Plat – Minor $500.00 plus $50.00 per lot plus $5.00 per adjoiner, plus $400 advertising $500.00 $100 $450 plus $5 per adjoiner $250 $50 $25 per lotPreliminary Plat – Major $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per lot for the first 100 lots plus $25.00 per lot thereafter plus $5.00 per adjoiner, plus $400 advertising $1,000.00 $100 $450 plus $5 per adjoiner $250 $50 $25 per lotFinal Plat – Minor $500.00 plus $25.00 per lot. $500.00 $25 $25 per lot Final Plat – Major $1,000.00 plus $25.00 per lot. $1,000.00 $25 $25 per lot 8. Annexation Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Annexation $250.00 for the first 10 acres plus $10.00 per acre thereafter, plus $400 for each newspaper advertisement required $250.00 for the first 10 acres $450 for each newspaper advertisement required $10.00 per acre after first 10 acres Page 7 of 9 113
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure 9. Variances and Appeals Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District*Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Dwelling Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Variance - Single household $500.00, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $750.00 $100 $900 $50 Variance - Other $1,000.00, plus $50 if in Conservation/Entryway Overlay district, plus $800 advertising $1,250.00 $100 $900 $50 Administrative Project Decision Appeal Same as application being appealed, plus $800 advertising if not already required. Same as application being appealed $900 Administrative Interpretation Appeal $180.00 plus $800 advertising for single-household, $300.00 plus $800 advertising for all other uses. $500.00 all uses. $900 Page 8 of 9 114
Comparison of Current and Proposed Fee Structure Page 9 of 9 10. Improvements Agreements Current Fee New Base Fee Overlay District Advertising Per Deviation/ Variance/ Relaxation Per Acre Per Lot Per Residential Unit Per Non-Residential 1,000 Square feet Long Range Planning Fee Per Lot or Unit Initial Improvements Agreement $400 or 1% of face value whichever is greater No Change Reductions in Security other than final release $200 No Change 11. Code Enforcement Current Fee New Base Fee After the fact permit (exclusive of signs) $250 in addition to the otherwise applicable fee. No Change *Overlay District charge is to fund the updating of the historic inventory and design guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the design guidelines for the Entryway Overlay District. It includes an amount for administration of the updates as well as the contract work to be completed. 115
BOZEMAN, MONTANA HISTORIC BUILDINGS INVENTORY:
Status Analysis and Update Recommendations
Prepared for:
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771
Prepared by:
Mark Hufstetler
Renewable Technologies, Inc.
8 West Park Street, Suite 313
Butte, Montana 59701
July 2008
116
- 2 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................3
EXISTING HISTORIC SURVEY DATA ...................................................................................................4
1983-84 HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY...................................................................................................4
OTHER INVENTORY AND EVALUATION MATERIALS ....................................................................................5
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA ADEQUACY......................................................................................6
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR SURVEY UPDATES................................................................8
A SUGGESTED APPROACH....................................................................................................................11
APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE SITE FORM FROM 1983 SURVEY.............................................................................14
APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE SITE FORM PREPARED TO CURRENT STANDARDS ..................................................17
117
- 3 -
Introduction/Executive Summary
The city of Bozeman, Montana has an historical and architectural heritage that is
unquestionably noteworthy, evidenced by a strong and cohesive collection of historic
residential and commercial buildings. The community has long recognized the value of
these resources, and over the past quarter-century Bozeman has formalized this
appreciation through the establishment of nine National Register historic districts and
numerous individual National Register listings. Many other National Register-eligible
resources are known to exist in the city.
Bozeman’s efforts to preserve its noteworthy and characteristic historic atmosphere are
further reflected in the city’s zoning regulations and design review process, as
administered by the city’s Department of Planning and Community Development. These
programs, intended to help encourage the consideration of historic values during building
construction and renovation projects in the city’s historic core, have been considered
among the most progressive in the state. City staff and two city-sponsored advisory
boards consider historic preservation and design reviews generated by building projects,
and help provide additional guidance to elected officials.
Nearly all of the focus of Bozeman’s organized historic preservation activity is centered
on the city’s original core – an east-west commercial district on Main Street, with historic
residential neighborhoods to the north and south. This area, most of which was originally
developed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, contains Bozeman’s
most cohesive historic streetscapes and most of the city’s noteworthy historic buildings.
The historic significance of this area has been formally recognized since at least the early
1980s, when the city completed a comprehensive inventory of the buildings in the
historic core. This inventory, conducted under contract by James R. McDonald, P.C.
with the assistance of paid employees and volunteers, ultimately resulted in the
recordation of approximately four thousand potentially-historic resources in the city.
This typed and photocopied inventory material has been the city’s primary database of
historic architectural information ever since. Bozeman’s current “Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District” (Figure 1, page 10), established in 1990, is based on that
inventory, and is the primary focus of the city’s historic preservation attention.
The original Bozeman historic resources inventory, along with its accompanying design
review and other programs, have served the city well for a number of years. There is
now an increasing realization, however, that the existing inventory data has become too
dated to be an effective reference tool for city planners. In the quarter century since the
inventory was undertaken, many additional Bozeman buildings have reached an age
where their potential historic significance must be considered. Other buildings that were
found to be historic in 1983 may have been altered or razed in the years since. The
number of buildings in these categories is very substantial, bringing into question the
reliability of the city’s only database of site-specific historic building information. This
is a significant problem for Bozeman city planners, since they are mandated to consider
118
- 4 -
National Register of Historic Places eligibility when reviewing proposed building
demolitions and remodelings.
In addition to the issues described above, Bozeman’s existing historic inventory suffers
from other issues that limit its usefulness to the city. While the inventory was a quality
product for its time, it does not meet currently-accepted professional standards for detail
and comprehensiveness. In addition, the current inventory data exists only in paper form,
not in computer or other machine-readable format; this makes it difficult to search, and
complicates the integration of any potential updates. Maps associated with the inventory
are largely hand-drawn, and crude by contemporary standards; there is no integration
with the city’s current map data or GIS system. In short, even if the inventory’s National
Register evaluations were current, the existing inventory data displays significant data
gaps and usability hurdles. These are major obstacles for the city’s planning staff as they
work to fulfill their duties.
Consequently, this document recommends that the City of Bozeman undertake a
comprehensive re-evaluation of the historic buildings within its jurisdiction. Such a
project, which would be implemented as a phased, multi-year effort, would update the
existing inventory data and expand it to meet current professional standards. Potentially-
historic neighborhoods not presently included in the inventory could be added. All data
would be machine readable and searchable, and would be georeferenced to allow its
incorporation into the city’s current GIS system. The result would be an information
database that would be a strong reference tool for city planning staff and the general
public, and would be easily updatable in the future. Such a product would help ensure
the continued efficiency, accuracy, and responsiveness of the city’s historic preservation
program.
Existing Historic Survey Data
1983-84 Historic Building Inventory
While the current body of historic preservation information in the City of Bozeman has
been generated incrementally over the past three decades, the largest (and only
comprehensive) historic inventory in the city was conducted in 1983-84 by a survey team
headed by James R. McDonald, a Missoula-based historic architect. This inventory,
sponsored by the city in conjunction with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), inventoried approximately four thousand buildings in the city, in a largely-
comprehensive fashion. All city neighborhoods that were considered historic at the time
were included, comprising an area roughly congruent to the city’s current Conservation
Overlay District. In general, the inventory apparently attempted to include all buildings
within that contiguous area that were fifty years of age or more at the time of inventory;
newer structures within the survey boundary were not included. Inventory tasks were
performed by both paid staffers and volunteers.
119
- 5 -
For each building inventoried, the 1983-84 project included tasks in three broad areas:
historic research, contemporary description, and analysis. Historic research was largely
standardized throughout the project, and focused on reviews of primary, city-specific
resources. The principal sources used included the following:
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps for Bozeman;
Polk and other historic city directories;
County property tax assessment/appraisal records;
City water/sewer hookup records; and
City building permits.
Secondary sources were generally not used, nor were those primary sources judged to be
less time-effective (such as deed records and period newspaper articles).
The contemporary descriptions of each inventoried building were brief and limited to the
building’s exterior. The building’s overall form and architectural style were generally
(though not always) described, along with basic information on such elements as wall and
roof cladding and general fenestration pattern. Detail on these elements was seldom
provided, and non-historic alterations were not enumerated. Secondary buildings on a
site were not always noted or described. A single, black-and-white film photograph was
taken, and a simple, hand-drawn sketch map was prepared showing the primary
building’s location relative to its street.
For most addresses, only minimal analyses of the building’s historic significance was
provided, nearly always using brief, boilerplate text. The significance statements indicate
whether a building was considered eligible for the National Register or contributed to a
National Register historic district. While those evaluations were expected to be based on
accepted National Register criteria, little justification for those evaluations is provided in
the text. For most buildings, the significance evaluation appears to have been based on
the building’s perceived or researched age in 1984, combined with its level of
architectural integrity.
For each inventoried building, the above data was consolidated onto a preprinted, two-
page form, which was filled in by typewriter. The forms in the Bozeman planning office
are photocopies of the originals. None of this data apparently exists in digital form.
The 1983-84 inventory forms were accompanied by a summary report, which included a
brief architectural history of the City of Bozeman. The text portion of this report was
digitized and updated in 2007-2008 by Renewable Technologies, Inc., under contract to
the City of Bozeman.
Other Inventory and Evaluation Materials
For most of Bozeman’s Conservation Overlay area, the comprehensive inventory data
prepared in 1983-84 remains the only available source of architectural history
information. Several other recordation projects in the city, however, have resulted in
120
- 6 -
additional research and synthesis on specific historic buildings and districts within the
city. Each of the nine National Register historic districts in the city is documented with
additional district-specific information, though in most of those cases inventory material
from 1983-84 was used as a base. More detailed information exists for the handful of
Bozeman buildings nominated to the National Register individually. In addition, a small
number of other building surveys have taken place in the city since 1984, as part of
cultural resource compliance efforts by other governmental agencies. Cumulatively,
however, the number of historic site forms prepared or updated in Bozeman since 1984
has been minimal.
Additional historic research and documentation has been generated over the years by and
for Bozeman planning office staff, as part of the application and approval process for
demolition, construction, and remodeling projects within the Conservation Overlay area.
This material, however, is scattered and inconsistent in scope and depth, and the overall
staff workload has prevented it from being integrated into the previously existing
inventory data. Its current utility is therefore limited.
Analysis of Existing Data Adequacy
As noted above, the site-specific 1983-84 inventory data included information in three
broad areas: historical research, architectural description, and historic significance. The
current adequacy of this data varies, due both to the passage of time and to evolving
professional standards. Evaluations of the current adequacy of each of the three data
areas are provided below; this is followed by a discussion of the adequacy of the original
survey area’s geographic scope.
Historical Research: Reviews of selected site forms from the 1983-84 project indicate
that the historic research generated was generally accurate and of good quality. With the
exception of deed and newspaper research, the major primary sources typically utilized in
such an inventory were all examined. While secondary sources were generally not
consulted, relatively few relevant ones exist for many of the inventoried properties.
Almost no site-specific historic synthesis or context exists on the site forms, however,
making it difficult for the reader to establish or evaluate the historic significance of a
property under National Register Criterion “A.” Some such synthesis exists in the
accompanying overview report, although the synthesis provided is not applicable to many
of the buildings in the inventory area. By current standards, this is a deficiency in the
existing inventory data.
Overall, the historic data presented on the forms is adequate background for evaluation of
many of the inventoried buildings, although additional research (early newspapers and
other sources) for a relatively small number of landmark buildings would be appropriate.
To be useful, however, the available building-specific data needs to be synthesized, and
related to the broader contexts of Bozeman’s architectural history.
121
- 7 -
Architectural Description: In general, the architectural descriptions provided on the
current inventory forms are insufficient. Though the quality of individual descriptions
varies somewhat from form to form, the following generalizations appear to be
appropriate:
Information on a building’s form and architectural style is not always present, and
when present is not always consistent;
The overall level of detail provided does not meet today’s standards;
Information on a building’s fenestration pattern is often lacking and sometimes
inaccurate, especially on elevations other than the primary façade;
In most cases, no attempt has been made to identify or date post-construction
changes to a building;
Ancillary buildings are not always identified, and are almost never described;
Only minimal photographic information exists;
Hand-drawn maps are inconsistent, incomplete, and inaccurate.
Together, these deficiencies are among the most significant of the 1983-84 inventory; the
descriptions are not sufficient for the reader to understand or evaluate either the
architectural style of the building or its integrity. This would be true even if the
descriptions were current, but they become are even more problematic when viewed in
the context of their age – since they are now 25 years old and have not been updated in
that time. As a combination of dated, inaccurate, and incomplete material, the existing
architectural descriptions have almost no utility today.
Historic Significance: In general, the significance evaluations and judgments provided
on the 1983-84 inventory forms are believed to have been appropriate for their time, but
they display less detail and synthesis than that used on contemporary inventory projects.
The boilerplate text used is spare and basic. Moreover, most evaluations appear to focus
on National Register Criterion “C” eligibility, with little emphasis on eligibility under
Criteria “A” and “B.”
A more significant problem, however, is the age of the evaluations themselves. National
Register guidelines typically require an eligible building to be fifty or more years old, so
the original inventory largely excluded post-1930s buildings from eligibility. Today,
however, buildings constructed as recently as the late 1950s have reached that 50-year
threshold. The inventory’s eligibility statements for post-1930s buildings are therefore
no longer valid.
The passage of time has altered the eligibility status of many older buildings, as well.
Some buildings that were considered eligible in 1983 may no longer be so, due to recent
remodelings or additions. Simultaneously, some buildings found to be ineligible in 1983
may be eligible today, either due to a recent restoration project or because other building
demolitions have made the subject building rarer and therefore more significant.
In summary, then, the historic significance judgments in the 1984 inventory are
significantly dated, and many can no longer be considered accurate.
122
- 8 -
Geographic Scope: Overall, the geographic area encompassed by the 1983-84 inventory
includes nearly all of the Bozeman neighborhoods that have traditionally been considered
historic. The project did not record all buildings within those areas, however, omitting
some that were too recent to be considered “historic” at the time of the inventory.
Consequently, the survey area is now incompletely covered, since some buildings that
were not inventoried in 1983 now meet the fifty-year age threshold for potential National
Register eligibility. In addition, obtaining basic inventory information on non-historic
buildings is an important component of an historic inventory, since the ratio of historic
(“contributing”) to non-historic buildings in an area is one measurement of an area’s
eligibility as a National Register historic district.
In addition, the boundaries of the 1983-84 survey area do not fully encompass those
Bozeman neighborhoods that today contain concentrations of historic properties. In
particular, residential neighborhoods developed during the 1940s and 1950s now meet the
50-year age threshold for potential National Register eligibility, and should be
inventoried. The largest of these areas are residential neighborhoods to the south and
west of the 1984 survey area, but smaller pockets of period development exist along
much of the periphery of the Conservation Overlay area.
Recommended Guidelines for Survey Updates
Given the difficulties with the current inventory data outlined above, it is apparent that a
substantial update to Bozeman’s historic inventory is both warranted and necessary to
ensure the continued success of the city’s historic preservation program. In order to
provide an appropriate and useful product for city planning staff, while making the
inventory project as cost-effective as possible, the following overall guidelines are
recommended:
1. Adapt and reuse as much of the 1983-84 inventory data as is practical. As
noted above, much of the existing inventory data is dated, incomplete, or not
congruent with current professional standards. However, some components of the
original inventory – elements of the historic research, in particular – do meet
those standards and should be retained as the basis of any future inventory.
2. Comprehensively inventory within the boundaries of a congruent survey
area. To allow planning staff to readily identify whether a proposed project
impacts an historic resource, it is important to have inventory data for all
buildings within neighborhoods containing historic buildings. A fully
comprehensive historic inventory is also required to evaluate the presence or
absence of National Register Historic Districts within a given area.
3. Choose a boundary for the inventory area to include all neighborhoods with
concentrations of potentially-eligible buildings, allowing for a “time buffer.”
National Register guidelines specify that most buildings that are fifty or more
123
- 9 -
years old have the potential to be evaluated for National Register eligibility, and
all such neighborhoods should be included in the inventory. (Note that this
recommendation does not mandate or suggest a corresponding expansion of the
current Conservation Overlay district. Rather, it recognizes the fact that some
building owners in those neighborhoods may wish to recognize the historic
significance of their properties.)
Currently, buildings constructed on or before 1958 meet the National Register age
threshold for eligibility, and so neighborhoods predominately developed prior to
that year should be included in any new inventory. Since that cutoff date is
continually advancing, however, it would be appropriate to establish a somewhat
later cutoff date for the inventory, to help keep the inventory product from rapidly
becoming obsolete. Using a cutoff date of 1970 may be appropriate, since it
would not substantially increase the inventory area and would help ensure the
product’s utility through the year 2020 (fifty years after the cutoff date). Figure 1,
on the following page, outlines the current Conservation Overlay area and shows
proposed expansions to the inventory area that would help meet this goal.
4. Ensure that the inventory is conducted by qualified professionals. The
National Park Service has established minimum professional requirements for
individuals conducting historical architectural inventories. To ensure that the
results of the Bozeman inventory are appropriate for the city’s use, and are
accepted by federal and state historic preservation agencies, the city should
require that any contractors and their employees working on the survey be paid
professionals meeting those federal requirements.
5. Ensure that individual site forms prepared by the inventory meet all state
standards, and that completed forms are filed with the appropriate state
agency. The Montana State Historic Preservation Office publishes a standard
“site form” for historic architectural inventory in the state, and this should be used
for all future Bozeman inventory work. Copies of completed forms should be
filed with the state’s Archaeological Records Office (at the University of
Montana) to ensure that future researchers have access to the material and that
effort is not duplicated.
6. Ensure that future inventory products are integrated with the city’s GIS
system. All future site forms should include appropriate georeferencing
information, as specified by city staff, to allow the city to incorporate the data in
future map-based products and reports. To provide a consistent product and
reduce overall cost, city-supplied GIS data should be used in the preparation of
future site form maps.
7. All data should be prepared digitally, and supplied in a variety of formats for
ease of use and public access. The current Montana architectural site form is a
Microsoft Word-based document. Product deliverables should be submitted in
124
- 10 -
Figure 1: Boundary of Bozeman’s current Conservation Overlay
area, with proposed areas for future historic inventory.
125
- 11 -
that format for future use, as well as in pdf format to facilitate public delivery and
Internet publishing of the material as appropriate. In addition, all material should
be submitted in a delimited, text-based format, to allow its importation into
computer databases. City staff should preserve archival as well as working copies
of all deliverables, adding updates and edits only to the “working” copies of the
data sets.
8. City staff should develop and implement a formal cross-reference system
between the new inventory data and city building permit and Certificate of
Appropriateness applications. This will help ensure that historic issues are
considered when such applications are reviewed by city staff. It will also help
keep the inventory data current, by linking to information about recent changes.
9. The city should commit to maintaining the inventory database, both by
noting building changes as they occur, and by periodically re-evaluating
National Register judgments. It should be remembered that, on completion, any
historic inventory provides only a static picture of its subject, and that its accuracy
degrades with time – buildings age and are altered, some gaining National
Register eligibility and others losing it. The city should therefore plan to review
and re-evaluate the inventory results periodically, particularly the National
Register evaluations. Doing this approximately every ten years is suggested.
These reviews should also consider the future expansion of the overall inventory
area, as additional Bozeman neighborhoods reach the fifty-year National Register
threshold.
A Suggested Approach
Scope and Costs: The completion of a full update to Bozeman’s historic inventory is
obviously a major, complex undertaking, requiring both a strong logistical commitment
from the city and a substantial financial investment. Depending on the chosen
boundaries of an updated inventory area, it is likely that between 5,000 and 6,000 sites
would require recordation, a project scale requiring a phased, multi-year commitment by
a qualified cultural resources contractor.
The costs of such an inventory – as with all cultural resource projects – will vary greatly
depending on scope and approach chosen. Per-building inventory costs will also vary
substantially depending on the nature of the building and the level of existing recordation
that is available. In general, the larger the size of an inventory project, the lower the per-
building costs will be, since planning, administrative, and other overhead expenses will
be spread among a larger number of sites. Costs will be lower for buildings inventoried
as part of the 1983-84 project, since historic material already exists for those buildings.
Simply-built residential properties will cost less to record than commercial landmarks.
Economies of scale will allow for lower per-building costs when entire neighborhoods
are inventoried as opposed to individual structures.
126
- 12 -
Given all these variables, precise per-building inventory costs are difficult to estimate
without information on available funding and the construction of specific project
parameters. In a citywide project, the cost to prepare a Montana architectural site form
may be as low as $75 to $100 per site for vernacular, previously inventoried properties.
Costs in such a project will be kept low by the proximity of sites to one another, the
similarity of many sites, and the fact that historical base data already exists. Costs will
also be contained through the city’s provision of GIS mapping data to the contractor.
Conversely, projects that lack a citywide economy of scale and include significant
numbers of unique or previously unrecorded properties are likely to have significantly
larger per-building costs – perhaps $300 per building or more. Regardless of the
resources chosen for inventory, however, it will be important to carefully scale any
inventory project in response to funding levels available, ensuring that per-building funds
are sufficient to ensure a quality product.
A Large-Scale Project Timeline: In planning the phasing of a multi-year inventory
project, it is important to include time for more-detailed project planning, and to address
potentially-threatened sites in a timely fashion. Any inventory project should conclude
with a detailed summary overview, outlining the historic contexts that are relevant to the
city and describing the rationales employed in preparing National Register
determinations. One possible multi-year schedule would be as follows:
Year 1: Complete a full “windshield survey” of the city to finalize inventory area
boundaries. Finalize procedures and methodologies. Inventory the city’s historic
commercial area, and areas where commercial development is encroaching.
Year 2: Inventory the city’s north side residential areas.
Year 3: Begin inventory of the city’s south side residential areas.
Year 4: Complete south side residential inventory. Revise Bozeman historic context
document and prepare final report.
During years 1 and 2, a portion of the overall inventory effort (perhaps 5%) should be
reserved for sites that are outside that year’s focus area, but are the subject of imminent
redevelopment issues.
The completion of such an inventory would be an immense help to the City of
Bozeman’s planning department and the citizens it serves, greatly streamlining and
standardizing the city’s historic preservation programs. Given the substantial recent
increases in development activity within Bozeman’s historic core, this assistance will be
extremely important, both for the city and for the historic resources that help define its
character.
127
- 13 -
Beginning Incrementally: If funding is not available to commit to a full inventory of
Bozeman’s historic core, smaller-scale inventory efforts could still provide great
assistance to the city’s historic preservation program. Smaller-scale projects must be
structured with particular care, both to ensure that economies of scale are still preserved
as much as possible and to focus available funding and resources on neighborhoods most
in need of documentation.
If a program of smaller-scale historic inventories is undertaken in Bozeman, it may be
appropriate to begin by performing a reconnaissance-level “windshield survey” of the
current Conservation Overlay area and surrounding neighborhoods. Such a survey could
be completed either by a contractor or by city staff. It would not focus on the inventory
or evaluation of individual buildings, but instead would be designed to identify those
neighborhoods where comprehensive survey projects would be most useful. Such
neighborhoods might include the following:
Previously unsurveyed neighborhoods containing a relatively high number of
buildings with the potential to contribute to a National Register historic district;
Previously surveyed neighborhoods not in a National Register district, where a
potential National Register district appears likely to exist;
Neighborhoods which may be appropriate additions to the Conservation Overlay
area; and
Neighborhoods or individual resources that may be impacted by upcoming
development projects.
128
- 14 -
Appendix 1: Sample Site Form from 1983 Survey
519 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
129
- 15 -
130
- 16 -
131
- 17 -
Appendix 2: Sample Site Form Prepared to Current Standards
526 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
132
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
For the Montana National Register of Historic Places Program and State Antiquities Database
Montana State Historic Preservation Office
Montana Historical Society
PO Box 201202, 1410 8th Ave
Helena, MT 59620-1202
Property Address: 526 North Rouse Ave.
Historic Address (if applicable):
City/Town: Bozeman
Site Number: 24 GA 1709
(An historic district number may also apply.)
County: Gallatin
Historic Name:
Original Owner(s): Rowena and Alden Webster
Current Ownership Private Public
Current Property Name:
Owner(s): Douglas R. and Martha S. Drysdale
Owner Address: 1408 S. Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715-5638
Phone:
Legal Location
PM: Montana Township: 2S Range: 6E
NE ¼ NE ¼ NW ¼ of Section: 7
Lot(s): Center Portion of Tract 6
Block(s): NA
Addition: Perkins and Stone Year of Addition: c. 1889
USGS Quad Name: Bozeman, MT Year: 1987
Historic Use: residence
Current Use: residence
Construction Date: 1898 Estimated Actual
Original Location Moved Date Moved:
UTM Reference www.nris.state.mt.us/topofinder2
NAD 27 (preferred) NAD 83
Zone: 12 Easting: 497540 Northing: 5059022
National Register of Historic Places
NRHP Listing Date:
Historic District: North Rouse Avenue (Bozeman)
NRHP Eligible: Yes No
Date of this document: January 2006
Form Prepared by: Dale Martin, Renewable
Technologies, Inc.
Address: 511 Metals Bank Bldg., Butte, MT 59701
Daytime Phone: 406-782-0494
MT SHPO USE ONLY
Eligible for NRHP: □ yes □ no
Criteria: □ A □ B □ C □ D
Date:
Evaluator:
Comments:
133
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE 2
Property Name: 526 North Rouse Ave. Site Number: 24 GA 1709
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION See Additional Information Page
Architectural Style: OTHER: If Other, specify: vernacular
Property Type: Residential Specific Property Type:
Architect: unknown Architectural Firm/City/State:
Builder/Contractor: unknown Company/City/State:
Source of Information:
Concisely, accurately, and completely describe the property and alterations with dates. Number the buildings and features to
correlate with the Site Map.
This is a one-story, irregularly-shaped, vernacular residence of wood-frame construction. The cross-gable roof is
covered with asphalt shingles. The exterior is sided with drop siding and has double-hung 1/1 windows. Cladding and
windows are both historic. There is a shed-roofed front porch (historic) in the building's southwestern ell. The
foundation is concrete. The cellar is accessed at the rear of the building where there are enclosed stairs down to the
cellar.
There are three rear additions to the building in total. Two are on the east elevation and are shed-roofed. The third is
on the southeast corner of the building. It has large, south-facing screen windows and a shed roof. Its form suggests it
was used as a chicken house. The additions are at least partially historic, and are minimally visible from the front of the
building.
The tax assessor records note that there are two sheds on the property. The first measures 16 X 29 feet, and
reportedly dates to about 1910. The other is 8 X 16 feet and was erected in about 1960.
134
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE 3
Property Name: 526 North Rouse Ave. Site Number: 24 GA 1709
HISTORY OF PROPERTY See Additional Information Page
This house probably was built in about 1898, shortly after Rowena (or Roanna) Webster purchased the lot on which it
stands. By 1901, Rowena and her husband Alden were living at the house at this location. Alden Webster was
employed as a laborer, and he and his wife had at least one child, also named Alden. In about 1910, the elder Alden
died, but Rowena Webster continued to live at 526 N. Rouse for the following 30 years. Rowena Alden presumably
died in about 1940, and her son Alden and his wife sold the house to Gail and Anna Kinyon that year.
Sometime during Rowena Webster’s ownership, she had purchased an adjacent land parcel, so that for most of the
historic period the house stood on a lot which measured about 210 x 290 feet. This included land on both sides of
Bozeman Creek, and two houses which stood facing Perkins Place at the east edge of the large lot. The home place
must have somewhat resembled a country estate, with a handful of outbuildings adjacent to and behind the main house
and a large space to the north available for a yard (or possibly undeveloped).
The Kinyon family may have purchased the house from Alden and Agnes Webster under a contract for deed. They
lived at the house while they paid it off. During that time, Gail Kinyon was variously employed as a laborer, city
policeman, and packer for the Montana Flour Mills Company. The Kinyons also apparently rented out another small
house on the property set well back from the street. It would appear that, immediately after paying off their debt to
Alden Webster, the Kinyon family sold the house and lot at 526 N. Rouse to Albert and Minnie Buettner.
These next owners did not reside there themselves during the three years that they owned the property. In 1950, the
Buettners sold out to Thomas Grimes. Grimes owned and lived on the property for seven years, sharing the property
with other members of the Grimes family, Arthur and Bertha, possibly a brother and sister-in-law. During that time,
Thomas Grimes worked as a laborer for the City of Bozeman.
M.J. and Earlene Beckman purchased 526 N. Rouse in 1957, holding the property for a little over 3½ years. RTI did
not determine whether or not the Beckmans resided at the house.
INFORMATION SOURCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY See Additional Information Page
1891, 1904, 1912, and 1927 Sanborn maps
R.L. Polk & Company. Bozeman City Directory, 1900-1961
deeds on file at Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office (refer to attached partial chain of title)
135
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PAGE 4
Property Name: 526 North Rouse Ave. Site Number: 24 GA 1709
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
NRHP Listing Date:
NRHP Eligibility: Yes No Individually Contributing to Historic District Noncontributing to Historic District
NRHP Criteria: A B C D
Area of Significance: Period of Significance:
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE See Additional Information Page
This building is a quality, representative example of a small, largely vernacular home from the late nineteenth/early
twentieth century. Houses of this scale and level of detailing were typical of working-class neighborhoods in turn-of-the-
century American towns, and it is the characteristic building type in Bozeman's northeastern residential neighborhoods.
This portion of the community was home to much of Bozeman's small industrial area -- primarily devoted to the
processing and shipping of agricultural products -- and consequently, much of the neighborhood's residential
component served blue-collar workers and their families. In general, these houses were smaller and less ornate than
those found elsewhere in the town. The bulk of the neighborhood's homes were constructed during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, a period of growth for the town of Bozeman as a whole, and particularly for the
northeastern neighborhood, which benefitted from proximity to the newly-constructed Northern Pacific and Milwaukee
Road railway lines.
This house, therefore, is significant as a representative example of period vernacular residential architecture, as well as
for its association with the early growth of Bozeman and its agricultural industry. The building retains a high level of
historic integrity, although no site-specific historical significance has been attributed to the house. This building is a
contributing resource to a proposed North Rouse Avenue Historic District.
INTEGRITY (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association) See Additional Information Page
This building appears to largely retain all seven aspects of National Register integrity. The only substantial changes to
the property appear to be the rear additions to the house, at least some of which appear to be historic. These additions
are minimally visible from the street, and do not substantially detract from the house's overall appearance.
136
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
PHOTOGRAPHS
Property Name: 526 North Rouse Ave. Site Number: 24 GA 1709
View to east.
View to southeast..
137
CHAIN OF TITLE: 526 N. Rouse Center Portion of Lot 6 Perkins and Stone Addition * Bk.: deed book; FILM: microfilmed record Note: the following information, based on Gallatin County deed records, illustrates the primary chain of ownership of this property during the historic period discussed in this site form. It is not, however, intended to be a full abstract of title for the property. Date of instrument Grantor Grantee Instrument Property description/comments Reference* 10/25/97 Mary E. Perkins and Emma S. and J.H. Baker Rowena Webster WD 140 x 204-foot parcel [roughly S½ Lot 6]; for $150 Bk. 21, p. 138 8/9/38 Rowena Webster R. Alden and Agnes G. Webster WD 207-214.43 x 290-foot parcel [all of original Lot 6] Bk. 82, p. 614 4/5/40 R. Alden and Agnes G. Webster Gail L. and Anna B. Kinyon WD 207-214.43 x 290-foot parcel [all of original Lot 6] Bk. 96, p. 316 11/3/47 Gail L. and Anna B. Kinyon Albert and Minnie P. Buettner WD 207-214.43 x 290-foot parcel [all of original Lot 6] Bk. 96, p. 378 10/7/50 Albert and Minnie P. Buettner Thomas M. Grimes WD 207-214.43 x 290-foot parcel [all of original Lot 6] Bk. 119, p. 423 6/22/57 Thomas M. Grimes M.J. and Earlene H. Beckman WD [can’t read] Bk. 136, p. 610 2/27/61 M.J. and Earlene H. Beckman Malcolm C. and Rose A. Story Indenture 214.43 x 290-foot parcel Bk. 136, p.612 1/8/74 Malcolm C. and Rose A. Story Martha Story Drysdale WD multiple properties 22FILM1260 1/25/95 Martha Story Drysdale Douglas R. and Martha S. Drysdale QCD 151FILM3854 138
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
SITE MAP
Property Name: 526 North Rouse Ave 24GA1709Site Number: Perkins PlaceBozeman CreekN Rouse Ave526
E Peach StN
Building outlines depicted on this map are
approximate. They may not necessarily
reflect current conditions, and are for
illustration purposes only.
0 60 120 Feet
139
MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPProperty Name: 526 North Rouse Ave 24GA1709Site Number:
USGS Topographic Quadrangle, 1:24000 scaleBozeman, Montana (1987)
Section 7, T2S R6E
140