HomeMy WebLinkAboutObligation to Maintain Historic Properties and Demolition of Historic Properties_131
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development Anna Saverud and Greg Sullivan, City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Obligation to Maintain Historic Properties and Demolition of Historic
Properties MEETING DATE: July 14, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION : The City Commission direct Staff to return to the Commission with revisions to the Bozeman
Municipal Code which address:
Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure” ............................................................................... 3
Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic properties ................................ 8
Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits .......................................................... 13
Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition ........................................................................... 16
Defining “historic property” was not requested of Staff by the Commission. Staff finds that
creating such a definition is necessary to clarify what properties are subject to the provisions for affirmative maintenance and demolition permitting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
1. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that reflects
proposed definition two; defining “historic property” as any property eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places.
2. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that enacts
recommended Step 1 and Step 2 for addressing affirmative maintenance of historic
properties.
3. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that modifies
the process for demolition of structures in the NCOD as recommended in Step 1, Step 2 ,
Step 3 and Step 4.
4. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that clarifies
the language about the two year stay of demolition as recommended in Option 1.
262
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Commission directed staff to develop a program or
policy to address the neglect and subsequent deterioration of historic properties. This memo
contains a series of options from which the Commission will be able to review and recommend further development of City policy to address owner maintenance of historic properties.
The foundation of the program is the establishment of a definition of “historic property”. The
three definitions offered range from the narrowest to the broadest. Staff recommends definition
two which is a definition of historic property based on a community wide shared commitment to historic structures and an obligation to maintain a current inventory of historic properties located throughout the community.
The staff offers two code options requiring maintenance of historic properties. The first
establishes a legal requirement to maintain historic properties. The second option is an enhancement of option one and requires owner maintenance and commits the city to assisting owners through outreach and education.
To address the timing of demolition of historic structures, Staff offers the City Commission a
series of recommended amendments to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to clarify the process timeline for City approval of demolition permits and approval of the development of the cleared site. The recommended approach is based on City Commission direction/action taken on
approved projects. The recommendations are:
• Adopt definition of subsequent development;
• Amend process to allow determination of viability and preliminary denial/approval of
demolition permit;
• Specify standard process requiring payment of fees and securing zoning and building
approval of replacement development; and
• Outline process for demolition of unsafe structures.
Finally, Staff recommends the City Commission amend the BMC to clarify the process at the conclusion of a Commission approved two year stay of demolition of a historic property.
This memo was presented to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the input of
the board is shown in italics throughout this document. ALTERNATIVES: As identified within each section.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Dependent upon Commission direction from this discussion, a variable
amount of legal and community development staff time and resources to draft municipal code language. In the future, based on full implementation of the proposed BMC changes, staff time from police, legal and community development will be needed to address cases.
APPENDIX:
Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications
Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
Appendix C: How other government agencies define historic properties
Appendix D: Statistics on properties built before 1965 in Bozeman
Appendix E: Montana Cities, comparison of the two year stay of demolition
263
3
Appendix F: March 27, 2014 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases
Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit
Report compiled on: July 7, 2014
Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure”
Creating a definition of “historic property or structure” is important because it clarifies which
properties will be subject to historic preservation provisions like affirmative maintenance or the
demolition process. An adopted definition will replace terms used in the Bozeman Municipal
Code (BMC) which are no longer used by cultural resource professionals to classify properties as
“historic” or “non-historic.” Adoption of a definition will create clarity for property owners in
addition to providing a foundation upon which to evaluate development applications.
Staff has provided the Commission with three approaches to defining “historic property or
structure.” They are listed from the narrowest definition to the broadest definition. A definition
may include more than one of the following options, which are not mutually exclusive.
Staff’s recommended solution
Staff recommends definition two, which enables a continually evolving historic preservation
program based upon ongoing survey work created by professional architectural historians. This
definition provides property owners with a predictable understanding of what is defined as a
historic property/structure.
On March 27, 2014, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board motioned and voted to
support a definition that is consistent with Definition Three, as modified as follows: “A proposal
to require any property over 50 years of age or more to be evaluated prior to demolition for its
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or its potential contributing status in a
National Register Historic District.” The BHPAB’s minutes are included in Appendix F.
Why the current approach is no longer effective
The BMC does not specifically define “historic property.” Creating a definition of “historic
property” would clarify which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the
Municipal Code.
The City currently uses the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory (Inventory) to
identify historic properties. This Inventory identified potentially historic properties as
“landmarks,” or “contributing.” Properties unlikely to be eligible for listing on the National
Register were identified as “neutral,” “non-contributing” or “intrusive.” Many “contributing”
properties became part of a historic district, while others were not included in a historic district.
In 2007 the Department of Planning and Community Development commissioned an evaluation
of the Inventory’s continued usefulness. Completed in early 2008 by Renewable Technologies,
Inc., a professional cultural resource management firm located in Butte, MT, the evaluation
found that:
264
4
“…the existing inventory data has become too dated to be an effective
reference tool for city planners,” and “many additional Bozeman buildings
have reached an age where their potential historic significance must be
considered.” The report recommended “that the City of Bozeman undertake a
comprehensive re-evaluation of the historic buildings within its jurisdiction.
Such a project, which ideally would be implemented as a phased, multi-year
effort, would incrementally update the existing inventory data and expand it to
meet current professional standards.
A digital copy of the evaluation of the Inventory is available on the City’s record management
system, Laserfische, here.
The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board discussed the deficiencies of the 1984
Inventory during their March 27, 2014 meeting. Minutes of the meeting are available in
Appendix F. Specific comments included recommending that the City Commission entirely
disregard the 1984 Inventory. Board members also expressed concern that the 1984 Inventory,
which wasn’t completed to the professional standards of its time, could expose the City of
Bozeman to legal liability.
Established in 1991 to conserve neighborhood character “The Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District” (NCOD) is now found in Chapter 38.16, BMC. The program uses the
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to apply provisions for historic properties. The
Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District includes more general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character.
The Design Guidelines also include targeted recommendations for historic properties. The
NCOD encompasses 2,270 properties in addition to those individually listed on the National
Register or within an established District (See appendix A for Inventory data about properties in
the NCOD).
All properties in the NCOD are subject to the same Certificate of Appropriateness criteria, found
in Sec. 38.16.050, BMC. The NCOD uses the property classification found in the 1984 Inventory
to delineate different processes and criteria for demolition of properties within the NCOD. The
NCOD requires that all “contributing” structures go through the same process for demolition.
(Please see Appendix B for a map of the NCOD and historic districts).
265
5
Options for definitions for “historic property/ structure”:
Definition One: Properties listed on a historic registry or landmark list
Draft definition:
A property, site or structure recognized as historic through inclusion
within a district listed on a national, state or local register of historic places or by any type of individual landmark designation recognized by the City of Bozeman.
Advantages
1. There is a defined list of properties already listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. All property owners have to agree with the
nomination to the National Register before the listing can proceed.
2. Leaves the door open to establishment of a local landmark or local
historic district program.
3. Provides predictability for property owners as these are geographic locations which may be readily mapped and made available to the
public.
Potential
consequences
1. Does not protect properties currently identified as “potentially
eligible” that are located outside of a Historic District and are not
historically significant enough for an individual listing on the National Register.
2. The lack of funding for ongoing cultural resource survey work could
lead to a static program.
3. Creates a disincentive for listing a property on a National or Local
Register, or in a Landmark program as becoming a listed property
subjects it to additional regulation.
City actions to execute this option
1. Adopt a definition for "historic property".
2. Adopt a resolution which specifies which types of landmark
designation are recognized by the City of Bozeman.
Number of
properties affected
Total number of
properties affected 698
Individually listed 51
Included in a District 647
Related Discussion
Definition one is not preferred by Staff or the HPAB because it could create a disincentive for
listing properties on the National Register, which is intended as an honorary program.
266
6
Definition Two: Properties eligible for listing (Staff’s recommended definition)
Draft definition:
A property, site or structure identified as “contributing,” “potentially eligible,” or
“landmark” by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana
State Historic Preservation Office.
Advantages
1. More broadly applies the provisions for historic properties which enables the
historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the
community and reduce unintentional omissions.
2. Creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, aging and growing
community to recognize historic properties constructed since 1945.
3. This definition has a specific meaning and creates a knowable and predictable
classification of properties. Enables community members to know when provisions
for historic preservation will apply and under what circumstances the provisions will
be applied.
Potential
consequences
1. Depends on 1984 Inventory data or subsequent updates to classify “contributing”
and “non-contributing” properties.
2. Requires routine funding for surveying for cultural resources.
3. Updated cultural resources survey work could generate community interest in new
historic district nominations. Historic districts have higher property values and encourage maintenance of historic properties.
4. Protects properties eligible for listing (not limited to the NCOD). A determination
of eligibility does not require a property owner’s consent.
5. May require moving provisions for historic properties from the NCOD into a separate place in the Code.
City actions
to execute this option
1. Adopt a definition for “historic property” which reflects the approach of eligibility
for listing on the National Register.
2. Fund historic property survey work in order to create updated data set.
Number of properties affected
Total number of
properties identified as "contributing" in 1984
Inventory
963
Number of
"contributing” properties in established
historic districts
698
Number of
"contributing"
properties in the NCOD
265
Related Discussion
Staff recommends adoption of definition two; basing the definition on a property’s eligibility for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This approach is consistent with the best
management practices adopted by other state and federal government agencies like the Montana
Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers. This approach also enables the
City of Bozeman’s historic preservation program to grow with the community. The criteria for
evaluating a property’s eligibility for historic designation were established by the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (For additional information, please see Appendix C).
267
7
In order to successfully implement this option, the City of Bozeman needs to address the
deficiency in the 1984 Inventory by routinely funding cultural resource survey work. An
example of such an update will occur in the summer of 2014. The Department of Community
Development has partnered with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership to fund a survey of 100
properties in the B-3 “Commercial Core” zoning designation. The bid process revealed a cost of
$220 per property to generate a new Montana Property Record Form for each property.
Definition three: 50 years or older (BHPAB recommended definition, in addition to Definition One)
Draft definition:
Any developed site or structure over 50 years of age. Note: Fifty years is a common threshold although a lesser age may be appropriately used in combination with one of the
other alternatives.
Advantages
1. Easiest threshold to define and is uniformly applicable throughout the community.
2. Could be used as a screening test in combination with Definition Two, listed above.
3. Applies the provisions for historic preservation to the broadest number of properties.
Potential consequences
1. Significantly expands the number of properties that the provisions for historic
properties would apply.
2. Creates uncertainty for property owners with structures more than 50 years old that
haven’t been surveyed. Who funds the survey of the property?
City actions
to execute
this option
1. Adopt a definition for "historic property".
2. Clarify data set on date of construction for all properties.
3. Modify the BMC to expand provisions for historic properties outside of the NCOD.
4. Adopt procedures for obtaining documentation for structures for which a survey has not been done.
Number of
properties
affected
Total
number of
properties
in the city
limits
built before
1965
8677
Residential
structures in the City
Limits built
before 1965
8223
Residential
structures built in 1965 or
older within
the NCOD
1935
Residential
structures
built in 1965 or
older
outside the
NCOD
577
Commercial
Structures
in the City Limits built
before 1965
454
Commercial
structures
built in 1965 or
older within
the NCOD
361
Commercial
structures
built in
1965 or older
outside the
NCOD
93
Related Discussion
Definition three places the burden of developing cultural resource information on property
owners with any property over 50 years of age. It should be noted that not all buildings over 50
years of age are historically significant. About 600 residential properties and 100 commercial
268
8
properties, respectively, are inside the City Limits, built before 1965 and located outside of the
NCOD. (Please see Appendix D for additional statistics).
The BHPAB passed a motion supporting a hybrid approach that uses definition three to require
creation of a cultural resource survey which evaluates a property’s historic eligibility in a
manner consistent with definition two. Board members felt this approach allowed the process
and provisions for historic preservation to move through history with the community. Using a 50
year date as a benchmark established an easy threshold for community members.
Should the Commission enact this approach, the BHPAB members expressed the need for a
robust public outreach effort to educate property owners, developers, design professionals and
contractors about the shift in policy. The BHPAB members felt that the worst thing that could
happen is a property owner finding out about this requirement when they apply for a building
permit, before which they’ve invested thousands of dollars in design services. The BHPAB
discussed participating in such public outreach. If the City Commission moves forward with
adopting such amendments to the BMC, Staff will engage in a public outreach process.
Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic
properties
The BMC does not currently place a direct affirmative obligation on owners of designated
historic properties to maintain their properties in good condition to prevent intentional or
unintentional neglect.
Staff’s recommended solution:
In discussing this issue at length, it appears that a distinction between historic properties that are single household dwellings and historic properties that are or have been considered to be
commercial, industrial, or institutional continues to cause concern. For that reason, Staff seeks
direction from the Commission on what properties it seeks to regulate and provides possible
options for the different property types.
Should the Commission direct staff to address both single household dwellings and commercial,
industrial, or institutional historic properties, staff recommends Option 1 with Steps 1 and 2, and
to create a “maintenance and repair” ordinance that applies to historic properties and addresses
the concerns regarding ‘demolition by neglect’. Staff recommends enacting both Step 1 and Step
2, as it encourages the City to educate owners of historic properties about neglect and risks
associated with neglected properties, and helps facilitate ways to mitigate impacts of neglect.
Should the Commission wish to address only commercial, industrial, or institutional historic
properties, it should direct staff to develop Option 2 and adopt a “maintenance of historic
buildings” ordinance.
For either option, the creation of a definition of ‘historic property’ as discussed in Issue 1, and the geographical boundaries of historic properties as discussed in Issue 2 will identify properties
subject to this responsibility.
269
9
Preservation Board recommends incorporation of discussion and edits included below in the
Commission memo, discussion and action.
Option 1: Adopt maintenance and repair ordinance to require all historic properties to be
maintained in good condition and repair. Option 1 can be satisfied with only step 1, but
staff recommends steps 1 and 2 in conjunction.
Step 1: Establish a legal requirement on specific properties designated as "historic
properties" to maintain and repair the property.
Example language
Each historic property in the NCOD shall be maintained in good condition. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and
repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not
involve change in design, material, color or outward appearance. Interior
arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject
to this requirement.
Advantages
1. Places an affirmative obligation on an owner of a historic property to
maintain the property in good condition.
2. Places no financial obligation on the City to assist homeowners.
Issues needing to be developed
1. Determinations will need to be made regarding how and what to enforce.
2. Definition for “good condition and repair”.
3. Economic feasibility for property owners and the possibility to allow for economic hardship.
4. Depending on implementation, potential to result in litigation.
City actions to
execute this option
1. Adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Code (Chpt. 38,
BMC).
2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement.
3. Develop enforcement protocols.
4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement.
270
10
Related Discussion
Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address properties
and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and
safety. The Commission asked what could be done to avoid properties reaching the point that
triggers action through either of these codes. The goal is to prevent intentional and unintentional
neglect of historic properties; specific goals are that historic properties be maintained as weather
tight and secure.
Violations of the adopted standard could be handled under the existing terms of Section
38.34.160 BMC “Violation.”
Option 1 (with one or both steps) will require a commitment of staff time from the City
Attorney’s Office, Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each
participating in the code compliance work.
Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step one, commit the City to assist owners of historic properties.
Example language
The City Manager or designee shall work with property owners to identify
historic properties no longer maintained in good condition and faithful to
historic character. The City, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, shall work to educate property owners about neglected
properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate
connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure
properties are maintained in good condition pursuant to this section.
Advantages
1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to maintain their property in good condition and repair.
2. Recognizes the City’s interest in having well maintained historic
properties and requires the city to be involved with homeowners and
neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate repairs.
3. Encourages collaborative approachs involving individuals, government,
and the private sector to address neglected properties; and
4. Less risk of litigation if outreach and education based.
Issues needing
to be developed
1. Determine how and what to prioritize;
2. Definition for “good condition and repair”; Economic feasibility for
property owner and potential to allow for economic hardship. Under zoning law economic hardship is not a basis for not conforming to the regulations;
and
3. Determine if code and enforcement will differentiate between income
properties and owner occupied properties.
City actions to execute this option
1. Same as Step One with the additional program requirements and extensive staff time to develop acceptable definitions of terms as well as
staff time to develop partnerships and work directly with owners to improve
properties.
271
11
The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They
questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by
the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this
definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no
formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing
“and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended
that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus
was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue. Option 2 had not been developed prior to
meeting with the BHPAB.
Option 2: Adopt maintenance of historic properties ordinance that addresses demolition by
neglect with historic properties considered to be commercial, industrial, or institutional.
Example language
Maintenance of Historic Buildings: (possibly under 38.21 or 38.23)
a. The City finds that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and
continued use of historical properties located within the City are
important in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride, and the
general welfare of its citizens. The City further finds that the
economic, cultural, and visual standing of the City cannot be
maintained or enhanced by disregarding the heritage of the City or
by allowing the destruction, defacement, and neglect of historical
properties and cultural assets; and that the neglect and deterioration
of such assets is harmful to the entire community. It is therefore
the intent of the City to protect the general welfare by establishing
effective administrative procedures to prevent the owner’s failure
to maintain a historic property such that it deteriorates to the extent
that the only option to abate the health and safety risks cause by
such deterioration is demotion, commonly known as “demolition
by neglect”.
b. Each historic property shall be maintained in good condition.
Failure to maintain a historic property in good condition may result
in a determination the property constitutes a nuisance pursuant to
Chapter 16.
c. The provisions of this chapter apply to all historic properties,
excluding single household dwellings within the city limits of
Bozeman.
d. For the purposes of this section, the term good condition and repair
shall constitute the structure be weather tight; secure from
unintended entry; and free from dangerous conditions.
Advantages
1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to
maintain their property in good condition and repair.
272
12
Related Discussion
Option 2 addresses the historic buildings that the community as a whole recognizes as culturally
significant and beneficial to the community. These properties are more likely to be the
properties the City will choose to allocate funds to, if need be, in an effort to maintain their
historical integrity as oppose to the single household dwelling.
The Commission could ask Staff to encourage an outreach program similar to Option 1, Step 2,
without adding anything to the BMC to encourage, assist, and educate property owners of single
household dwelling historic properties about demolition by neglect and the importance of
maintaining their property in good condition and repair.
Option 2 has not been discussed with members of the BHPAB.
Advantages
2. Addresses historic properties community collectively has an interest in
preserving.
Issues needing to be developed 1. Definition for “good condition and repair” 2. Enforcement.
City actions to
execute this
option
1. Adopt an ordinance
2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement.
3. Develop enforcement protocols.
4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement.
273
13
Related Discussion:
Either of the options will require a commitment of staff time from the City Attorney’s Office,
Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each participating in the code
compliance work.
The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They
questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by
the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this
definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no
formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing
“and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended
that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus
was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue.
Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits
There are a number of opportunities to clarify the process and criteria for demolishing structures
in the NCOD.
The Department of Community Development cannot accept an application for demolition or
movement of a structure inside the NCOD without a complete proposal for subsequent
development of the property, per BMC 38.16.080.A.1. This burdens property owners considering
demolition of a structure in the NCOD with the cost of designing the full subsequent
development of the property before the City will make a determination if the structure can be
demolished.
Section 38.16.080 A 2 and 3 could be clarified to delineate and separate procedures and criteria
for demolition into distinct categories of structures (historic, non-historic and unsafe structures).
This would provide clarity about the process and review criteria for property owners, applicants
and the review authority.
Staff’s recommended solution
We recommend modification to the BMC to enable the Department of Community Development
to make a preliminary determination on applications proposing demolition of structures. Staff
further recommends clarifying the timing of issuance of a demolition permit for historic and non-
historic properties. Staff recommends enacting Option 1, 2 and 3. Depending on the direction
from the Commission with regard to Steps 1-3, Staff may recommend revisions to the process for
demolition of unsafe structures.
In discussing the matter, the BHPAB was generally supportive of the approach recommended by
Staff.
Potential options for clarifying the application process for demolitions:
Step 1 (Staff's recommendation): Incorporate a definition of “subsequent development” into the BMC. The definition may include allowing only a written description of the plan to grade the site, install landscaping, construct a dwelling, etc.
274
14
Advantages
1. Enables the Department of Community Development to accept an application for demolition of a structure in the NCOD without a fully designed plan for the subsequent development.
2. Reduces the financial burden on the property owner in order to gather information about the likelihood of the City of approving of the demolition.
Issues needing to be developed 1. Unknown
City actions to execute this option
1. Adopt a definition of “subsequent development”
2. Modify application checklist
Related Discussion:
The Department of Community Development is prohibited from considering proposals to
demolish any structure in the NCOD without a full plan of the site’s subsequent development or
treatment of the site by Section 38.16.080.A.1 BMC. Municipal Code does not define
“subsequent development” or “treatment.” “Development” is defined by BMC 38.42.860 as:
Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited
to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations.
The current requirement of a complete plan for subsequent redevelopment of a site prior to issuance of a demolition permit creates uncertainty for applicants that can only be resolved
through significant investment in professional design services. Modifications to Sec. 38.16.080
or an adopted definition of “subsequent development” are required in order to enable the City to
consider demolition of structures separately from consideration of the development to follow.
We suggest Community Development should be able to determine the viability of existing
structures to issue a preliminary denial or approval to demolish a structure before an applicant
invests in the professional services necessary to submit a complete proposal for the subsequent
development of the property.
Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1, stipulate the preliminary approval of demolition of “historic properties” is subject to the following standard Conditions of
Approval:
Standard Conditions of
Approval
1. Demolition permit for historic properties shall not be issued until all
necessary zoning and building entitlements and permits have been issued,
and all related fees paid.
2. The subsequent development must receive all necessary Certificate of
Appropriateness approvals prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Advantages
1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the
redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit issued prior to or
concurrently with the issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building
Division.
275
15
2. The recommended Conditions of Approval make this step consistent with
Commission directives based on prior project approvals.
Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated
City actions to
execute this
option
1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the
redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the
Demolition Permit from the Building Division.
Related Discussion:
If demolition is approved, and depending if a property is determined to be historic, the
Certificate of Approval could be conditioned to prohibit issuance of a demolition or moving
permit until the subsequent development, including issuance of a building permit, has been fully
approved.
Step 3 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1 and step 2, stipulate that issuance
of a demolition permit for non-historic properties from the Building Division is dependent upon approval of the zoning review for the site’s complete redevelopment.
Advantages
1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the
redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit approved prior to
issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building Division.
Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated
City actions to
execute this
option
1. Adopt Code provisions to require the zoning approval for the
redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the
Demolition Permit from the Building Division.
Related Discussion:
It is in the community’s best interest to avoid speculative demolition of structures, which creates
gaps in a neighborhood fabric and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s
ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area.
The intention of this provision is to preserve historic structures and neighborhood character by
preventing speculative demolition. Vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and
create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to
the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished.
276
16
Step 4 (Potential follow-up): Depending on direction on Steps 1, 2, and 3, revise the existing process for demolition of unsafe structures to be consistent with revised demolition process.
Advantages 1. Would clarify the process for City Staff, elected officials and property owners in the removal of unsafe structures, thus improving public safety.
Issues needing
to be developed 1. None anticipated.
City actions to execute this option
1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the
Demolition Permit from the Building Division.
Related Discussion:
The City has an existing process for addressing unsafe structures through the Building and
Nuisance Codes (Article 16.02 BMC, “Nuisances”). Depending on Commission direction for
Steps 1, 2, and 3, it may be necessary to revise the existing process for the demolition of unsafe
structures.
Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition
A “stay” of a demolition permit by the City of Bozeman is authorized in BMC 38.16.080.A.4,
which states that if an application for issuance of a demolition permit is denied, the issuance of a
demolition permit is stayed for up to two years. In circumstances where the demolition is stayed,
the code language does not provide guidance on what, if any, additional proceedings are desired
at the end of two years. The City Attorney has issued an option that because the code does not
specifically require any additional action by the owner; the owner may proceed directly to an
application for a demolition permit under Chpt. 10, BMC.
Recommendation for clarifying the two year stay of demolition:
Staff recommends amendment of Section 38.16.080.A.4 to include language to clarify whether
additional proceedings are required at the end of the two year stay. Staff recommends enacting
Option 1.
The BHPAB recommends that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent request needs to be accompanied by a description of any efforts made to preserve the historic structure.
277
17
Potential options for clarifying the two year stay of demolition:
Option 1 (Staff's recommendation): Revise municipal code to clarify what happens during and at the end of the two year stay of demolition.
Example language
If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate
proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented
to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the City pursuant to Chapter 10, article 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are
satisfied, a demolition permit shall be granted and no other proceedings
under this chapter are required.
Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires.
Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated.
City actions to
execute this
option
1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code.
Related Discussion:
Comparing Section 38.16.080 of the BMC with similar provisions regarding staying the
demolition of a historic structure in communities around the state, Bozeman has by far the
Option 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to Option 1, provide incentive for
property owner to work with community to consider alternate proposals.
Example language
(In addition to the example language in option 1)
An owner of the property subject to a stay under this section may seek early
release from the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought input from interested parties; explored alternative funding
sources; and considered reasonable proposed alternatives to demolition.
Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires. 2. Encourages the property owner to engage in good faith with interested parties.
Issues needing
to be developed 1. None anticipated.
City actions to execute this
option
1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code.
278
18
longest stay in place for demolitions of historic structures (See appendix E). Additionally, of the
handful of cities that were looked at around the country, the longest delay to a demolition permit
was two years (San Antonio, TX).
Modifying the existing duration for the stay of demotion is not advised. Eliminating the two
year stay would take away the opportunity for the City or other interested groups to come up
with alternatives proposals to demolition. Extending the stay beyond two years would likely
give rise to regulatory takings issues. Providing additional guidance in the BMC will provide
clear direction for applicants, the City, and interested parties as to what can occur when the two
year stay expires.
In discussing the matter on March 27, 2014, members of the BHPAB expressed concern that
nothing in the proposed language pressures owners and applicants to find solutions rather than
wait out the two year delay in demolition. They noted that the draft language does not create a
requirement that property owners allow access to the site for others to develop alternatives and
wondered if the language instead enabled demolition by neglect during the two year stay of
demolition. Staff noted there is expenses to a property owner to have a property sit vacant, not
generating revenue. Staff also noted that allowing access to the property may create liability for
the owner.
Ultimately, the BHPAB recommended that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent
requests should to be accompanied by a description of efforts made to preserve the historic
structure. The BHPAB felt such a requirement would ensure the owner engage with community
groups interested in preserving the historic property.
The language in Option 2 has not been discussed with members of BHPAB.
279
19
Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications
Historic District # of contributing properties # of non-contributing properties Total # of properties # of contributing in NCOD but not in a historic # of properties missing an Inventory # of properties in the NCOD identified as intrusive # of properties in the NCOD identified as neutral # of COA applications since 1991 # of COA applications since 2003 # COA applications requesting demo since 2003 # of properties demolished since 2003 # of contributing principal structure demos since 2003 Bon Ton 190 39 229 - - - 318 170 2 2 1
Cooper Park 222 42 264 - - - 297 194 1 1 1
Lindley Place 26 8 34 - - - 38 19 2 2 1
Main Street 49 15 64 - - - 186 98 2 2 1
Brewery 5 0 5 - - - 15 12 1 1 1
N. Tracy 21 8 29 - - - 34 20 0 0 0
S. Tracy 6 1 7 - - - 8 5 0 0 0
S. Tracy/ S.
Black 78 15 93 - - - 126 85 5 4 5
NP/ Story Mill 50 10 60 - - - 0 0 0 0 0
Individual listed properties
51 0 51 - - - 17 12 1 1 1
NCOD 265 0 2,270 844 833 285 1,770 1086 N/A N/A N/A
Totals: 963 138 3,106 43 844 833 285 2,809 1701 14 13 11
% of all
properties in NCOD
31% 4% - 1% 27% 27% 9% N/A* N/A* .4% .4% .35%
Acronyms
COA: Certificate of Appropriateness
NCOD: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
HD: Historic District
* Some properties have received multiple COAs
280
20
Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
A link to this map is available here.
281
21
Appendix C: How other government agencies define “historic properties”
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The term "historic property" is defined in the NHPA as: "any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such
term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
"Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are
related to such district, site, building, structure, or object.” 1
Criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places include:
a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
b. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
“…Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to
the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.”
“A historic property need not be formally listed on the National Register to receive NHPA
protection, it need only meet the National Register criteria (i.e., be eligible for listing in the National Register).”2
1 Definition from the National Historic Preservation Act; 16 U.S.C. Section 470(w)(5). 2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
282
22
Appendix D: Statistics on structures built before 1965 in Bozeman
Number within
City Limits
Structures built
before 1965 Percentage
Number of 1965+
structures within
the NCOD
Number 1965+
structures outside
the NCOD
Residential structures 8223 2512 31% 1935 577
Commercial structures 1831 454 25% 361 93
These numbers are estimates based on Department of Revenue data. Therefore, some errors and
limitations may exist.
283
23
Appendix E: Montana Cities comparison of two year stay
CITY CODE LANGUAGE
BUTTE
Found in 2.64.120 “Demolition permit review and demolition by neglect program”
E. The HPC shall review all demolition permits for local register properties and historic properties in its jurisdiction
F. The HPC is authorized to invoke a ninety -day demolition delay to find demolition alternative and make recommendations. The HPC must notify the owner in writing of demolition delay and hold a public hearing.
BILLINGS
Found in Historic Preservation
Section 27.516 Criteria for demolition permits (a) No application for a permit to demolish a structure which is subject to
this article shall be approved unless:
(1) It is found that the structure to be demolished is not historically or
architecturally significant; and (2) Preservation of the structure is not feasible; or
(3) The Yellowstone Historic Preservation Board with
recommendations from the city building official has determined that
the structure poses an immediate threat to public safety.
(b) No disapproval of a permit to demolish shall be in effect for more than six (6) months after the board's recommendation. During such six-month
period, the historic preservation board may take or encourage the taking of
whatever steps seem likely to lead to the structure's preservation. The board
may work with the property owner to seek alternative economic uses for the
property, may consult with private civic groups, interested private citizens and other public boards or agencies.
HELENA
Found in Chapter 15: “Review process for demolition of historic buildings”
If the city commission denies the application, no further demolition permit application may be considered for the subject property for six (6) months from the date a completed application is submitted, unless the commission finds there are changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant a new application. (Ord. 2639, 11-16-1992; amd. Ord. 3097, 4-7-2008)
284
24
MISSOULA
“Relocation and Demolition Delay: Upon receipt of a completed Historic Preservation
Permit application for demolition or relocation, the Commission may impose a relocation or demolition delay for 90 days to allow sufficient time to explore preservation of the historic resource.”
285
25
Appendix F: Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes
from March 27, 2014
Minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting
Members Present: Lora Dalton (chair), Steve Keuch, Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Lisa Verwys, Ryan Olson, Matt Kennedy, Mark Hufstetler, Jillian Bowers
I. Call to order- meeting was called to order at 6:34 pm
II. Approval of prior meeting minutes- Minutes from the February 27 meeting were
unanimously approved as presented
III. Public comment- none
IV. Disclosure of ex parte communication- none
V. Introduction of invited guests- Marsha Fulton and Crystal Alegria of the Extreme
History Project, City Attorney Anna Saverud
VI. Decision Items
a. Collaboration with Extreme History Project (EHP) and allocation of $500 in
funding to support walking tours
i. Crystal Alegria reported on the fall 2013 walking tours that received
funding from the board. 8 tours were given in October 2013 (2 cemetery
tours and 6 downtown tours). 52 people attended the tours (all locals, no
tourists), good turnout especially given the off-season and the lack of a
marketing budget.
ii. EHP would like to expand the walking tour program beginning in May
2014. 7 walking tours have been developed in collaboration with Derek
Strahn and Dale Martin. Tours would occur on a regular basis with up to 6
tour guides. EHP requests $500 in funding support from the BHPAB to
support walking tour program.
iii. BHPAB has $900 in budget (fiscal year ends June 30, 2014) and no plans
in the foreseeable future to use the funds. Motion made (SK) to approve
$500 allocation of funds, seconded (MK), and unanimously passed.
b. Discussion of the preservation and demolition memo
i. Issue 1- definition of historic properties
1. General discussion and agreement that the 1984 survey is outdated
with erroneous information and that it should not be used as a basis
for definition of historic property, but that it may contain
information useful to future surveys. MH- 1984 survey was not
prepared to professional standards and may not/would not stand up
to legal scrutiny.
2. If a new cultural resources survey (option 2 in memo) were
required to define historic properties, it could be funded by
community development block grants, surcharges on major COAs
(this fund currently has $80,000; $15,000 currently bookmarked
for survey work this spring on commercial properties), or from the
general fund. Discussion about the difficulties in keeping a survey
286
26
updated; issues with a survey being a snapshot in time that may no
longer be accurate as structures age and change
3. Discussion regarding option 3 (age- 50 years) as definition for
historic property. LV- concerned that this leaves younger
properties vulnerable. MH- any younger properties that would
have qualified as historic have been demolished. MH- personal
recommendation would be a combination of options 2 & 3: require
evaluation of any property over 50 years old for potential historic
property eligibility prior to demolition. JB- concerned about
financial burden for evaluation placed on homeowners and
concerned that homeowners will invest significant amounts of
money prior to finding out that they must have their property
evaluated; education should be part of formal recommendation.
CK- have required individuals to finance evaluations in the past for
structures in conservation overlay district. General discussion
regarding need for education of property owners and architects,
need for dissemination of information/education through materials
distributed by city staff. LD- education could also come from the
board’s outreach activities.
4. MH moves to support a proposal to require properties over 50
years old to be evaluated prior to demolition for eligibility to the
National Register or potential contributing status to National
Register Historic District. Seconded (RO) and passed
unanimously.
ii. Issue 2- Affirmative Maintenance
1. Discussion begins with understanding that ordinance is written as a
broad/basic, that “good condition” refers to weather tight and
secure, and that enforcement is TBD and not expected to be
common occurrence.
2. MK- How will owners know if they have a historic property if
there is not a survey of historic properties? Use of “historic
property” may depend on which definition is adopted in issue 1.
Discussion regarding substituting “conservation overlay district”
for “historic property” in the ordinance, MH- concerns over
including phrase “historic character” which is not easily definable
and which may no longer exist in a property that is in disrepair.
LD- a broader definition may be more workable. Anna Saverud-
ordinance must be construed to address specific properties.
3. Additional discussion regarding concerns over how issues of
economic disparity will be addressed.
4. BHPAB recommends that the City Commission takes this
discussion into consideration.
iii. Issue 3- Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits
287
27
1. CK- deals with ability to give preliminary yes or no so that there is
not incentive to let a property fall into neglect. Chris Saunders-
gives higher level of protection for historic properties. LD- issue
and recommendations are in line with past BHPAB discussions
iv. Issue 4- Clarifying two year stay of demolition
1. Clarification of code necessary to ensure that implied meaning and
public interpretation matches.
2. Discussion regarding what occurs during a stay of demolition: time
allows for alternate proposals to be made by interested parties;
there is no requirement for property owners to let interested parties
access the property in order to propose alternate solutions. LD-
there is no incentive for property owners to find alternate solutions
when they can simply wait out the stay. RO- financial incentive for
owners (not cheap to let a property sit unused). Is there a way to
encourage property owners to find alternate solutions or engage
with the community for alternate proposals? MH- suggests
addition to provision: if a demolition has been denied, subsequent
requests should be accompanied by a description of efforts made to
preserve historic structure.
3. Lack of clarity regarding liability of properties during a stay of
demolition. Is the city or the property owner liable for the structure
during a stay?
VII. Chair’s Report
a. Expiring terms
i. 7 board member terms expire in June 2014 (Mark Hufstetler, Jillian
Bowers, Ryan Olson, Lisa Verwys, Jessie Nunn, Nicole Becker, Lora
Dalton). Board members should be thinking about recruitment.
ii. RO will not be continuing on the board and will need to pass on
committee duties, specifically regarding Historic Preservation Awards.
iii. Possibility of reducing the size of the board via bylaw revision. MH and
LD will work on this.
b. Budget
i. After approval of Extreme History Project allocation, there is $400
remaining in the budget. Ideas for use are welcome.
ii. Possible use of funds for Bill Grabow oral history. CK will speak with Bill
about sitting for an interview and LV will speak with historian Betsy
Watry regarding a proposal for conducting the interview.
VIII. Committee Reports
a. Outreach
i. LV, SK, BL met regarding history alliance; sketched out broad plan for a
meeting in September. Committee will meet again April 14, 6:30pm at
Coldsmoke Coffeehouse to finalize a name and meeting details. As
288
28
requested, LV will send a reminder to board so other interested members
can attend.
ii. LD has Pete Brown’s presentation as MP3, CK will work on making it
available via the website. If anyone wants a copy, email LD (32mb
powerpoint and 69mb recording)
IX. Staff Liaison Report
a. Received COA application for Willson Auditorium. Recommending that thorough
documentation of space occur prior to renovations. Modifications are not
appropriate historically.
b. Working on Community Development Block Grant to evaluate the Conservation
Overlay District as a zoning approach
c. Re-surveying 100 properties in the B-3 area. Findings of potentially historic
properties will be reported to the board.
d. Streetlamps (SAT grant) are ready to be installed.
e. Story Mansion appraisal is in, not currently slated as an agenda item for the City
Commission
X. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Next meeting set for April 24, 6:30 PM
End of Minutes
Secretary: Lisa Verwys
289
29
Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases
290
30
Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit
291