HomeMy WebLinkAboutA5. Discussion Demo Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Bob Risk, Chief Building Official
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion with City Commission regarding Demolition in Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District; Use of Deviations and/or Variances; Revisions to
Approved Projects; and, Options for enforcement under the Chapter 38, Unified
Development Code and Chapter 10, Buildings and Building Regulations, BMC.
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2015
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
SUGGESTED MOTION: As determined by the City Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The following memorandum provides Building Code and Unified
Development Code information, updates on studies and code amendments in development, and seeks
input from the City Commission on the following:
1) Demolition in Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District: ................................................................... 1
2) Use of Deviations and/or Variances: ......................................................................................................... 3
3) Revisions to Approved Projects. ................................................................................................................ 5
4) Options for Enforcement under Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, BMC...................................... 7
5) Options for Enforcement under Building Code, IBC and Chapter 10 BMC ............................................. 9
This item has been placed on the action agenda so the Commission has the flexibility to vote on issues
addressed in this memorandum and thereby give specific direction, if needed, to staff on amendments to
existing code provisions.
DISCUSSION:
1) Demolition in Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District:
Summary
The City has historic preservation regulations as part of the Unified Development Code (UDC),
specifically applied to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Efforts are underway to
update the historic buildings inventory upon which the NCOD was based. The Commission provided
staff with policy direction on code amendments to address demolition of buildings within the NCOD in
439
Commission Memorandum Page 2 of 10
July 2014. The amendments to the UDC to address demolition by neglect and direct demolitions are in
the final stages of being drafted.
Update
The analysis of the 20 year old NCOD is underway. The scheduled report date is in September, 2015.
The consultant team is currently evaluating data and public input to prepare a recommendation on the future of the NCOD and the regulations that govern it.
As a result of the Commission discussion in July, 2014, Staff has been working to update the 1984
historic inventory that established the boundary for the NCOD. Two projects are underway:
• New historic inventory forms for + 115 properties within the B-3, Central Business District.
o Enable an early determination of whether structures are historically valuable or not
o Document architectural character and significance.
o Determine review criteria and review process for proposed removal of the structures.
• Preliminary evaluation and mapping of all structures within the NCOD which the 1984 survey showed as
intrusive and structures built before 1965.
o Many structures have been rehabilitated or have aged into a historic designation. Maps
summarizing the findings are included in Appendix A.
o The scoping survey provides a preliminary evaluation tool to determine changes in neighborhood
character and determine areas outside the NCOD which may also qualify for historic districts.
The City Commission gave direction for preparation of code amendments relating to historic preservation
and demolition in July, 2014. The code preparation is underway. It is estimated that a draft will be prepared for public review in September 2015. The items for which amended code language is being drafted are:
• Demolition by neglect
• Process clarification for when and how demolition can be approved or denied
• Timing of demolition in approval process
• Definition of terms to provide code clarity
• Clarity on determining whether there is remaining economic value in a structure.
Frequency of Demolition
Removal of historic structures is limited. Under the provisions of Article 38.16, persons who remove a
historic structure without approval can be required to reconstruct the building. This is a very expensive
remedy and would likely be part of a formal enforcement action. The City has recently put in place a
process whereby a property owner can solicit feedback from the City on the potential demolition of a
structure before submitting an application for new construction. This helps avoid unnecessary expenditures for design fees for a new structure, which can reach $10,000-12,000. Under this new process
an applicant can provide the factual information necessary to enable a determination of whether a historic
structure retains its economic value and is adequately safe. Therefore, a determination is made before
significant expense is incurred. No approval for demolition is granted by this process. Rather, it is a
determination that demolition is warranted upon submittal of an application for new construction on the site.
440
Commission Memorandum Page 3 of 10
Demolition Review
Demolition of structures involves both the Planning and Building divisions of Community Development.
Procedures have been revised to improve coordination prior to and during demolition so both divisions
stay informed. The increased use of the SunGard computer system enables notifications to be attached to
projects still in Planning review so that a demolition permit is not issued prematurely. This coordination is
also occurring through timing of review steps. Coordination ensures that a project is ready for new
construction before demolition is authorized. It is hoped this will help avoid circumstances such as
occurred with the Lehrkind Brewery wall on N. Wallace Avenue.
A key element in determining whether a historically significant property can be demolished is whether it
retains viable economic life (Section 38.16.080.A.3.b, BMC). This term is not specifically defined in code
but is understood, in part, to mean that the cost to replace the structure is greater than the cost to renovate
the existing structure. These costs are affected by building code requirements. Historic structures can be
renovated under the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). The IEBC recognizes preexisting
conditions and may require a less rigorous compliance standard than the codes applicable to new
buildings.
From the IEBC, Section 408
“408.1 Historic Buildings. The provisions of this code relating to the construction,
repair, alteration, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of
occupancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are
judged by the Building Official to constitute a distinct life safety hazard.”
If a project involves a change of occupancy such as from a dwelling to a commercial office then the
exemption for an historic building may not be applicable.
In comparing renovation versus replacement costs staff evaluates the construction necessary to obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy. The Building Code is focused on meeting functional performance, not the
elegance of the finish, therefore building finishes such as cabinetry, carpets, and high end plumbing
fixtures are not used in the calculation of economic viability. The functional performance analysis
provides greater equity and consistency of the evaluation of economic viability from project to project.
2) Use of Deviations and Variances:
Summary
The purpose of deviations in the NCOD is historic preservation. Preserving historic structures and
neighborhood patterns typically involves repair and rehabilitation of existing structures. Deviations are
intended to be used selectively on individual properties. If there is an area with substantial numbers of
properties which do not meet standards a better alternative is to consider creating a zoning district which
reflects that character. Previously approved updates to the UDC have made it much easier for new construction to conform both to the historic character of an area and meet setback standards. As a result,
deviations are less necessary than they were two decades ago. A specifically focused district or plan for
441
Commission Memorandum Page 4 of 10
infill would provide much of the information residents, designers and staff desire in creating clarity
around infill and the future use of deviations.
Defining intent and purpose
Variance or deviation procedures allow a project to not comply with adopted ordinances; however,
different standards apply. Section 38.35.010 describes the intent of both procedures:
3. To provide through deviations a procedure for flexibility, as a means to support
creativity and excellence of design, in the application of the standards of this
chapter in overlay districts and planned unit developments as provided for in this
chapter;
4. To provide through zoning variances a procedure for relief from the occasional inequities created by the physical standards of this chapter relating to zoning when
such standards create a substantially unequal burden on a particular parcel of land
in a fashion that would otherwise prevent the reasonable use of property, owing to
physical circumstances unique to that parcel;
Deviations in the NCOD are intended as an exchange of zoning compliance for historic compatibility. Projects not advancing historic preservation do not meet the basic requirements of Section 38.16.070.
Deviations may be allowed in defined areas outside of the NCOD for additional purposes.
Variances anywhere within the community are for the purpose of avoiding unfair regulatory burdens on
one or a few properties which are otherwise reasonable on the majority of properties.
When deviations were first introduced in the municipal code, the standards for residential zoning were considerably more restrictive. For example, at that time all residential front yard setbacks in the NCOD
were 25 feet and side yards in the R-1 district were 12 feet. Today, most of the NCOD has a required front
yard setback of 15 feet, and a side yard of 5 feet. Therefore, the need for deviations due to zoning non-
compliance has been reduced.
Staff looked at deviation applications from 2004 through 2015. A spreadsheet of the types and scope of deviations in the NCOD has been prepared and is attached as Appendix B. A summary table is shown
below.
Years Average amount of
deviations
Average deviation
percentage
Percent approved
2015-2009 1.6 32% 91%
2004-2008 1.84 38% 83% (includes conditional app.)
Issue
The UDC states that deviations are to be used to support modifications to structures to encourage
restoration and rehabilitation of structures with the NCOD. If the Commission seeks a greater degree of
flexibility for purposes other than historic preservation this can be accomplished by amending the UDC.
The entryway corridors allow for deviations, but require clear demonstration of how the deviation
enhances the project and requires design enhancements (often landscaping or other site enhancements)
442
Commission Memorandum Page 5 of 10
that offset the relaxation sought through the deviation. If this approach is considered then the balance of
how the additional flexibility interacts with existing standards is very important. It will be necessary to
establish limits or new standards to prevent undesired changes in community character.
It is not common practice throughout the country to allow deviations or exceptions to adopted zoning
standards. When allowed they are very limited, a 5 or 10 percent reduction to address only very specific standards.
The most effective way to support infill development within the NCOD is being considered by the
consultants preparing the NCOD review. Successful infill projects need to be designed with careful
consideration of the surrounding context. Unfortunately, the community has seen where the flexibility of
the deviation process has resulted in structures that many would say are not compatible with or complement community character.
Variances are a tool very different from deviations. Where deviations are a trade-off, variances are a
direct waiver or relaxation of a standard. Variances provide relief to a property when an otherwise
reasonable and lawful standard if applied to a property would create an unreasonable burden due to the
character of the property. Examples are usually physical such as severe topography. Variances are rare since they affect equal protection/burden of the law so dramatically. One person within the same zoning
district is not held to the same standard as others when a variance is approved.
Question: 1) Does the Commission wish to alter the use of or standards for deviations?
3) Revisions to approved projects
Summary
All development within Bozeman is required to conform to adopted City regulations. Projects change
during the course of construction for good and valid reasons. Both the building code and the municipal code have provisions which allow for amendments to approved plans. In many cases, amendments are simple administrative procedures requiring little time, effort, or cost. However, some property owners are
not submitting revisions to approved plans in a timely manner. At times, construction is complete when
revisions are submitted. As described above, failing to construct a project in accordance with the
approved plan is a violation of municipal code and is subject to code enforcement. Code enforcement options are covered in Section 4 of this memo.
UDC Requirements
The following sections from Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, are examples of the language within
the Chapter. Text selections are bolded for emphasis.
Sec. 38.01.080. - Compliance with regulations required.
A. No land shall hereafter be subdivided, used or occupied, and no building, structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered,
and no development shall commence unless it is in conformity with all of the regulations
herein specified for the district in which it is located.
Sec. 38.34.110. - Permit issuance; conformity with regulations required.
No permit or license of any type shall be issued unless in conformance with the regulations contained within this chapter. Permits issued on the basis of plans and applications approved
443
Commission Memorandum Page 6 of 10
by the building official and planning director authorize only the use, arrangement and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use,
arrangement or construction. Use, arrangement or construction at variance with that authorized
shall be deemed a violation of this chapter, punishable as provided in this article.
Chapter 10 of the municipal code and the International Building Code contain very similar requirements to Chapter 38.
Section 107.4 Amended construction documents, IBC. Work shall be installed in accordance
with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are
not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as
an amended set of construction documents. Issues
The Building Inspectors are inspecting to the approved plan. There are two sets of approved building
plans. One set remains in the Building Division offices and one set is to be on-site. However, at times
plans in the field have been inappropriately modified or are not available for inspector review.
There is a need for increased coordination between building division plan reviewers and planning staff so that changes made in one division are acceptable to both. Electronic plan review provides a tool
by which revised plans can be readily submitted and quickly routed for review. Full implementation of the
software is scheduled for January 2016. At this time about 5% of all plan submittals are electronic.
Review of changes to plans requires balancing customer service to applicant and customer service to community. The City makes substantial effort to inform the public of applications in review. People may have decided not to comment based upon the documents available for review but might have chosen
otherwise if the project was different. Approval of amendments requires judgment regarding which
changes are so significant as to require more rigorous review and notice. Section 38.01.070, BMC
provides some guidance on when more review is required. Generally, the Director of Community
Development requires that changes are noticed in order to keep the public informed and allow for public engagement.
Unapproved changes to the approved building plans are a daily occurrence for the Building Division
and a huge problem for the building inspectors. Examples of projects which made change without prior
approval or otherwise did not abide by limits of zoning or building approval:
1. Lark Hotel Z13224 - demolished elements of the building well beyond approved limits.
2. Gallatin Park Drive industrial buildings Z13241 and Z13242 - exterior modifications,
windows, doors, mechanical equipment in setback
3. Petco Z12310- site modifications, lighting, landscaping
4. South Towne Square Outdoor Seating CUP Z11102 - Sola Café patio expansion
5. Capellis CUP Z13055 - expired CUP preliminary approval, continued personal and
convenience service in M-1 zone.
6. Country Inn and Suites Z13065 - landscape plan main drainage swale out of compliance
7. Element Hotel - Z-15080 – revised mechanical equipment, changed façade materials, enclosed
patio
444
Commission Memorandum Page 7 of 10
8. Montana Motor Supply - replaced approved historically significant window design with
alternate window design without planning approval.
Under either Chapter 38 or Chapter 10 of the municipal code application and review fees apply to
amendments. After the fact requests for permit approval require further additional fees as a deterrent to
late submittals.
Question: Does the Commission wish to direct a different approach in addressing changes to approved plans without City approval?
4) Options for Enforcement under Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, BMC.
Summary
Primary responsibility to enforce the requirements in Chapter 38 is assigned to the Director of
Community Development and designees, please see Section 38.34.030. The Director works with the City
Attorney to pursue enforcement approaches. There are a range of enforcement options. The Director and
the City Attorney work together to match the best solution to the problem. Sections 38.34.040 and 38.34.160 authorize a variety of enforcement tools ranging from criminal prosecution to a temporary stop
work order. Violations of standards are often committed in ignorance. The City has traditionally, and
continues to work in a collaborative manner to seek corrections before proceeding with formal
enforcement. This resolves a large percentage of problems efficiently and effectively. Community
Development is working closely with the Police Department to coordinate ongoing efforts. In addition, we are working with Human Resources to create and recruit for a position that will serve the department.
The new position will provide continuity by ensuring properties comply with UDC and Building Code
requirements.
Issues
It is not uncommon that a development or site which is in violation is having more than one issue that needs to be addressed. The City’s Code Compliance Officer and Community Resource Officer work as an
initial point of contact for many issues and connect with other staff as needed.
The Community Development Department had two full time positions to assist property owners in
correcting building code and UDC violations. One position was cut due to budgetary restraints and one
position is presently authorized but vacant. Due to the considerable interconnections between the divisions the City Manager has approved a jointly funded shared enforcement officer. The City has used
the jointly funded position approach in the past. The City seeks voluntary compliance and has a high
compliance rate without having to take formal action.
Unfortunately, there are property owners who refuse to conform voluntarily and necessitate formal action.
Also, some violations are flagrant and/or dangerous. Often the first step in formal enforcement is a stop work order. The stop work order requires the person to stop their actions immediately. This provides time
to identify the full scope of violations and identify what actions may be needed to make correction. A stop
work is an administrative action and can be issued without publication of notice or action by the
Commission. The UDC covers a variety of subjects. Therefore, under Section 38.34.040 the Director of
Community Development, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official are authorized to issue a stop work order.
445
Commission Memorandum Page 8 of 10
Stop work orders only place the project on hold. No fines or other penalties, other than the delay of time,
are attached. However, delays in construction can be a significant incentive to correct violations due to
contractual obligations of the contractor. A stop work order can be for a very short period or may last for
an extended time, if necessary. A stop work order is also lifted by administrative action. A stop work
order is the most commonly used type of formal enforcement. A stop work order is ineffective if the construction has been completed.
As the purpose of enforcement is compliance, violations are often corrected by the applicant taking action
to make their project comply with approved plans. This ranges from minor adjustment to required
reconstruction of improperly demolished structures. Section 9 of the development application form
includes a specific statement that the signing owner and applicant acknowledge that they must conform to the standards of the municipal code and any conditions of approval.
Non-conformities are commonly found at the end of a project when there is substantial urgency to
complete the work and obtain a certificate of occupancy. The City requires an appropriate professional
provide a letter stating the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans. The self-
certification keeps the design professionals involved throughout construction thereby reducing the likelihood of unapproved design changes. The letter provides an additional review or monitoring on the
construction. The City does allow some site work to be financially guaranteed which enables occupancy
to proceed and gives the applicant additional time to complete the work.
Enforcement Actions
An alternative enforcement action is the recording of a notice of non-compliance with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder. This places a cloud on the title which would make sale, obtaining a
mortgage, or similar financial transactions difficult. This provides a financial motivation for the owner to
correct the violation. This may take a long time to occur and so should be used selectively where the
violation is not creating an immediate safety hazard. However, it is a simpler process than criminal or
civil prosecution and may be effective where the owners are difficult to contact or are uncooperative.
The City may seek a judicial order to prohibit the continued violation or to compel correction of the
violation.
The City may prosecute the violation as a criminal misdemeanor where each day of violation is a
separate offense. Each offence is punishable by up to a $500 fine or imprisonment. Prosecution as a
misdemeanor is specifically authorized by both the subdivision and zoning state enabling legislation. To prosecute as a misdemeanor the Director of Community Development must request prosecution by the
City Attorney.
The City may issue a civil citation to assess a fine. Fines range from $100-200 dollars. Each day of
violation can be a separate offense.
The planning application fee schedule, Resolution 4587, adopted by the City Commission includes a $290 fee for after the fact permits which increases the cost for any retroactive application.
Per Section 38.34.060, BMC if applicants provide false information as a basis for a development review
the review authority may withdraw approval of the development. Such action must occur in a timely
manner. A report of false information must be provided to the City within 30 days of review authority
action.
Question: Does the Commission wish to change the approach or scope for enforcement of Chapter 38,
BMC.
446
Commission Memorandum Page 9 of 10
5) Options for Enforcement under Building Code, IBC and Chapter 10 BMC
Summary
The Building Code has fewer options for enforcement than the UDC. There is a great deal of enforcement which occurs during the normal inspection process. Incorrect work is identified and directed to be
corrected before the inspection is approved. The following actions are used when the scope of
enforcement has exceeded the standard inspection process.
Enforcement Actions
Stop work order. The Chief Building Official is authorized to issue a stop work order. In the past 5 years the Building Division has issued about 120 “official” stop work orders. To date in 2015, the Building
Division has issued 7 stop work orders. In 2014, 6 stop work orders were issued.
Additional Fees. The Building Division assesses hourly charges of $75 for special services, including
some enforcement actions. Such fees are authorized in the municipal code. A copy of a violation notice and fee charge is attached as Appendix C.
Sec. 10.02.020. - Building division fees; permits
Reinspection fees. Reinspection fees may be assessed against a previously issued permit when
additional reinspections are made in excess of what is commonly performed. Such fees are based
on the extra time expended, multiplied by the building inspectors total hourly rate. This additional fee is to be paid to the building division prior to any further inspections being made by the
building inspector to the site. The reinspection fee is to be based on a minimum time of two hours.
Move-in prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. When an occupant moves into a structure
prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued by the building inspector, a reinspection fee shall
be assessed against the previously issued permit. Such fees are based on the extra time expended, multiplied by the building inspector's total hourly rate. This additional fee is to be paid to the
building division prior to any further inspections being made by the building inspector to the site.
The reinspection fee is to be based on a minimum time of two hours.
Work commencing before permit issuance. Any person who commences any work on a building,
structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to an additional fee as established by the building division that shall be in addition
to the required fees. The fee shall not be more than twice the permit fee amount.
IBC Permit Revocation 111.4 Revocation. The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or
revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the
certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
Municipal Misdemeanor. Sec. 1.01.210. - General penalty for Code violations. Unless otherwise
specifically provided in the Bozeman Municipal Code, any person, firm or corporation, their agents or
servants, who violates any of the provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding $500.00
or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both such fine and imprisonment, and in
addition shall pay all costs and expenses of the case. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon
each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues.
447
Commission Memorandum Page 10 of 10
Violations range from small to large in scope and with differing degrees of seriousness. Some are both
dramatic and dangerous. In one recent event, a building inspector found that a home was being
constructed contrary to the approved plans. A stop work order was issued and directive given for
extensive corrections. Due to the unusual construction techniques the contractor was instructed that a
letter from a structural engineer was required certifying to the adequacy of the work. A letter was submitted to the Building Division on letter head and with the signature of a structural engineer. In
reviewing the letter, the building official had a question on the content and contacted the engineer whose
name was on the letter. That engineer had not seen or prepared the letter. The contractor had obtained a
copy of a legitimate letter from the engineer and replaced the text then submitted the altered letter to the
City.
Attachments: Appendix A – Summary maps of historic inventory scoping survey
Appendix B – Analysis of Deviations in the NCOD Appendix C – Building Division violation notice form
Report compiled on: July 1, 2015
448
Application
#
Year Address # of
deviations or
variances
requested
with the
application
Municipal Code section to deviate
from
Standard dimension
in feet (what is the
required limit?)
Amount they wish to encroach Dimension requested (what did they
propose instead?
% of deviation from
dimensional standard (how
much of the setback do they
wish to occupy?
Differnce/original)
14302 2014 522 West College Street 2 Section 38.08.050.A.1.b 20 6 14 30%
14060-15 2015 402 West Koch Street 4 Section 38.08.050 15 8(structure already exists at this point)7 53%
15093 2015 439 North Black Avenue 1 Section 38.08.050.A.1.c 15 10 5 67%
15007 2015 201 Lindley Place 1 Section 38.08.050 20 3'1.5"(structure did encroach 5'.5")16'8.5"17%
13248 2013 611 North Tracy Avenue 1 Section 38.08.050 15 1'8"13'2"11%
13109 2013 413 North Wallace Avenue 1 Section 38.08.050.A 5 2 3 40%
13099 2013 17 East Aspen Street 1 Section 38.08.040.A 6,000ft2 540 5,460ft2 9%
13075 2013 608 North Tracy Avenue 2 Section 38.21.050 E1, E2 21 4 25 19%
13060 2013 609 South 6th Avenue 2 Section 38.21.050 H, G no more than 20%, 6 12.8%, 6 32.8%, 0 but n/a b/c zero lot line 61%, 100%
13040 2013 11 East Villard Street 2 Section 38.08.050.A.3 , E.2 5ft , 3ft 4ft (already encroaches 4ft), 5ft 4ft , 8ft 80%, 167%
13021 2013 815 South 7th Avenue 1 Section 38.08.040.B 30ft 5ft 25ft 17%
13017 2013 715 South Grand Avenue 2 Section 38.08.050, Section
38.21.050.E.2
20, 3 19(structure already exists here), 10'4"1,5 95%, 343%
13013 2013 524 North Wallace Avenue 2 Section 38.21.060.C.1 15, 20% 7ft (sturcture currently encroaches 6 ft),
1%
8, 21%47%, 5%
13003 2013 504 West Arthur Street 1 Section 38.21.060.4 15 3 12 20%
12214 2012 615 North Black Avenue 1 Section 38.21.050.E 11'6"7'1.5"18'7.5"62%
12207 2012 317 South 6th Avenue 2 Section 38.08.040, Section
38.21.050.H
60, 20%6, 5%54, 25%10%, 20%
12205 2012 212 North Church Avenue 2 Section 38.08.040, Section
38.21.050.E.2
60, 3 4, 4.8 56,7.8 6.7%, 160%
12112 2012 117 East Dickerson Street 2 Section 38.08.050 A 1 c, Section
38.08.050 A 4
15, 20 4.5(building is only 16.5 from street), 7.5 10.5, 12.5 30%, 37.5%
12011 2012 616 North Bozeman Avenue 1 Section 38.08.040 60 10 50 17%
12006 2012 401 South 8th Avenue 1 Section 38.08.050 15 11'6"3'6"77%
11288 2011 600 North Wallace Avenue 1 Section 38.14.020 1,500 332 1,832 22%
11213 2011 515 West College Street 1 Section18.16.050.A.1.b 20 5 15 25%
11130 2011 211 East Main Street 1 Section 18.52.060 12ft2 7ft2 19ft2 58%
11087 2011 515 West College Street 2 Section18.16.050.A.1.b, Section
18.46.020.A,
20,22
5,1 15, 21
25%, 4.5%
11077 2011 308 South Tracy Avenue 1 Section18.16.050 5 1(already encroaches,)4 20%
11021 2011 602 South Third Avenue 2 Section18.20.050 15 6 9 40%
11019 2011 602 South Third Avenue 1 Section18.38.050 600ft2 168ft2 768ft2 28%
10005 2010 544 East Main Street 1 Section 18.52.060 15 n/a polestyle freestanding sign n/a
9236 2009 1002 West Babcock Street 1 Section 18.16.040 6,000ft2 844.5 5,155.5ft2 14%
9208 2009 432 North Willson Avenue 1 Section 18.16.040 60 10 50 17%
9178 2009 703 West Babcock Street 4 Section 18.18.050, Section
18.38.060, Section 18.42.130
25,25,4 18(already exists here), 25(already exists
here), 3'4"
7,0 ,7'4" fence 72% and 100% for front yard
setback, 83% for fence
449
9117 2009 212 South Third Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 15,5 3'10",3 11'2",2 25%, 60%
9704 2009 407 South 10th Avenue 1 Section 18.50.060 25 (5 ft allowed for deck)4 (9 total, 5 allowed, deck already exists
at this point)
16 16%
10249 2010 619 East Mendenhall Street 1 Section18.20.050 20 14 6 70%
10068 2010 410 West Curtiss Street 1 Section18.16.040 B 60 7 53 12%
10023 2010 506 East Cottonwood Street 1 Section18.16.050 20 8 12 40%
14208 2014 502 West Story Street 1 Section 38.08.050.A.3 5 1(already encroaches, just wish to
encolse)
4 20%
9209 2009 412 West Harrison Street 1 Section18.16.050 5 2.5 2.5 50%
9200 2009 607 South Black Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 4 1 80%
9153 2009 720 South Tracy Avenue 3 Section18.16.030 B, Section
18.16.050, Section 18.46.040
60, 5, 4 spaces 10.07 , 1, 1 spaces 49.93, 4, 3 spaces 17%, 80%, 25%
10096 2010 502 South 19th Avenue 2 Section 18.52.060, .5 of a ft2, 80ft2 .1 of a ft2 ,4ft2 based of .6 of a ft2, 84 ft2 allowed 20%, 5%
12297 2012 1010 East Main Street 1 Sections 38.10.050A.1.a and
38.17.060.A.2.b.(2) BMC.
25 5 20 20%
12173 2012 1301 South Willson 5 Section 38.08.050 “Yards” 1 a,
Section 38.08.050 “Yards” 1 c
25,15
4, 12 21, 3 16%, 80%
13064 2013 24 West Mendenhall Street 3 Section 38.10.050.B.1 , Section
38.10.060.A.3 , Section
38.23.150.D.7.b
7, 70, shielding of
light fixtures
10'6", 40, light does not comply 0, 110, light does not comply 150% , 57%, n/a
13132 2013 5050 Cottonwood Road 1 Section 38.22.060 18 3.6 21.6 20%
10066 2010 1459 North 19th Avenue 2 Section 18.30.080 50 10 40 20%
10200 2010 307 East Main Street 1 Section 18.42.100 35 10'6" (already existed here)24'6"30%
10241 2010 15-17 South 5th Avenue 1 Section 18.46.040 7 spaces 3 spaces 4 spaces 43%
11243 2011 1871 Baxter Lane 1 Section 38.22.060.A.1 18 3.6 21.6 20%
10273 2010 502 West Mendenhall Street 2 Section 18.18.050.A2 8,25 3'6", 20 4'6", 5 44%, 80%
10239 2010 1735 West Main Street 2
Sec. 38.25.040, Sec. 38.10.050
100% max,25 14 stalls ,2 >100%, 23 n/a , 8%
9164 2009 530 East Curtiss Street 3 Section 18.16.050, Section
19.16.040, Section 18.16.040
20, 10,000, 5,000 6'4", 250 , 125 13'8", 9,750, 4,875 31.5% , 2.5%, 2.5%
9154 2009 801 South Grand Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 20 5 (1 home previously encroached 8ft)15 25% for each house
9031 2009 322 West Mendenhall Street 2 Section 18.18.050.A2 , Section
18.18.050.A.5
8, 5 2 on east 3 on west, 5 5, 0 60% , 100%
10362 2010 210 South 8th Avenue 1 Section18.16.040 60 10 50 17%
11156 2011 307-311 East Main Street 1 Section 18.42.100 35 10'6"(already existed here)24'6"30%
Average 1.60714286 32%
5041 2005 419 West Curtiss Street 2 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.38.050 5, 25%(607'6" ft2)6", 10% 232'6"4'6", 35% 840ft2 10%, 38%
450
5153 2005 316 North Tracy Avenue 1 Section 18.16.040 10,000 1,310 8,690 13%
5298 2005 720 East Orange Street 1 Section 18.16.050 15 7 8 47%
6071 2006 427 West Curtiss Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.4620, no parking in front or side yards15(structure already exists here), n/a5, parking to be provided in driveway in corner side yard 75%, n/a
6072 2006 321 South 10th Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 , Section 18.38.050 20, 19'6"17, 2'6"3, 22 85%, 13%
6089 2006 717 North Rouse Avenue 1 Section 18.42.130 4 2 6 50%
6124 2006 417 West Mendenhall Street 3 Section 18.18.050, Section 18.16.050, Section 18.48.050 8, 10, 4
3, 10, 5 5, 0, 0 37.5%, 100%, 100%
7102 2007 503-507 West Babcock Avenue 2 Section 18.38.050 20, 20%10(already exists), 6.6%10, 26.6%50% , 33%
7137 2007 403 West Villard Street 2 Section 18.16.050 20, 8 14, 2'6"6, 5'6"70%, 31%
7138 2007 122 North Church Avenue 1 Section18.16.030 B 60 4 56 7%
7147 2007 114 South 6th Avenue 1 Section18.16.050 A1c 15 3'6"11'6"23%
7169 2007 817 South Third Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 2?(ground floor already encroaches to here)3?40%
7190 2007 607 West Babcock Street 1 Section18.16.050 A1c 15 1 14 7%
7242 2007 520 West Cleveland Street 1 Section18.16.050 20 10'6"9'6"53%
7248 2007 433 North Black Avenue 4
Section 18.16.050, Section 18.38.050, Section 18.46.02020, 600ft2, 5, 5 9, 368ft2, 11, 968ft2 45%, 61%
8008 2008 411 West Mendenhall Street 4
Section 18.18.050.A2 , Section 18.48.050.C2 , Section 18.46.040
8,10, no fence, 9 spaces 2,10, 4ft fence, 3 spaces 6,0, fence, 6 spaces 25%, 100%, 100%, 30%
8016 2008 406 East Olive Street 3 Section18.16.050, Section 18.42.100 20, 75, 75 14, 45, 47'6"6, 30, 27'6"70%, 60%, 63%
8019 2008 105 West Main Street 3 Section 18.52.060 1,12ft2, 6 1, 7.1ft2, 7'5"2, 19.1ft2, 13'5"100%, 59%, 123%
8051 2008 710 East Aspen Street 2 Section 18.38.050 15'10", 1.5 stories 3, .5 stories 18'10", 2 stories 19%, 33%
8082 2008 626 North Bozeman Avenue 1 Section18.16.050 15 3 12 20%
8116 2008 419 North Bozeman Avenue 3
Section18.38.050 17 , 20, 616ft2 (20%)4'11" , 9, 70ft2 21'11", 11, 686ft2 29%, 45%, 11%
8151 2008 1113 South Fifth Avenue 2 Section 18.42.130 6 2 8 30%
8173 2008 524 North Black Avenue 2 Section 18.16.040, Section 18.40.030 60, 600ft2 10, 296ft2 50 , 896ft2 17%, 49%
8181 2008 501 South Third Avenue 1 Section 18.38.060 15 8 11 53%
8269 2008 522 North Willson Avenue 2
Section 18.16.040, Section 18.46.040
6,000ft2, 1 new space 289ft2 , -.75 of a space 5,711ft2, .25 of a space 4.8%, 75%
8271 2008 538 North Black Avenue 2 Section 18.16.040, Section 18.38.050 60, 1.5 stories 22, .5 stories 38, 2 stories 37%, 33%
4208 2004 516 North Grand Avenue 3
Section 18.16.040, Section 18.16.050, Section 18.16.050
60,20,5
1,10,4 59,10,1 17%, 50%, 80%
5186 2005 724 North Bozeman Avenue 1 Section 18.38.050.G 10 7 3 70%
5051 2005 718 South 7th Avenue 2 Section 18.16.040, Section 18.16.050 60, 20 10, 15 50, 5 17%, 75%
4250 2004 705 South 5th Avenue 1 Section 18.16.040 60 10 50 17%
4079 2004 701 South 7th Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 20, 15 5, 10 15, 5 25%, 67%
6239 2006 415 South Willson Avenue 2 Section 18.42.130 6 2,5 8,11 30%, 83%
5301 2005 415 South Willson Avenue 3
Section 18.16.050 , Section 18.42.130 , Section 18.46.02020,6,26
16'6" (previously 20), 1, 9
3'6" , 7, 17 82.5% (previously 100%), 17%, 35%
4142 2004 114 South 7th Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 20 18 2 90%
6005 2006 506 North Tracy Avenue 3
Section 18.16.030, Section 18.38.050 60, 23 ,20 10, 1'1" , 9 50, 24'6" , 11 17%, 4.7% , 45%
4059 2004 203 South Church Avenue 1 Section 18.38.060.C 15 7 8 47%
4058 2004 409 South Bozeman Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.38.060 20, 13' 10"15, 6'2"5, 20 75% , 45%
451
4026 2004 314 East Story Street 1 Section 18.42.100 75 41 34 55%
4232 2004 433 North Tracy Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 2 3 40%
5152 2005 140 East Main Street 1 Section 18.44.100 50 or 1000ft2 10ft2 9990ft2 1%
4086 2004 221 South Bozeman Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 5, 20 3'6", 9 1'6", 11 70%, 45%
6186 2006 516 South 6th Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 15 2 13 13%
5123 2005 603 South 5th Avenue 3
Section 18.38.050.G, Section 18.38.050.H, Section 18.38.060.A10, 25%(331.25ft2), 17'6"7 , 2%(32.75ft2), 15'10"3' , 27%(364ft2), 20'70% , 9.9%, 90%
4231 2004 222 South Tracy Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050 20, 5 12'6", 5 7'6", 0 62.5%, 100%
6004 2006 504 West Arthur Street 1 Section 18.16.050 20 15(footprint already exists here)5 75%
4158 2004 718 South 7th Avenue 2 Section 18.16.040, Section 18.16.050 60, 20 10, 14 50, 6 17%, 70%
4233 2004 613 West Babcock Street 1 Section 18.16.040 60 15 45 25%
6102 2006 522 North Willson Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 20 8 12 40%
6105 2006 809 West Olive Street 3
Section 18.16.050, Section 18.38.060, Section 18.46.04020, 15, 3.5 spaces
1'6"(just roof), 5, 2 spaces
18'6" , 10, 1.5 spaces 7.5%, 33.3%, 57%
5205 2005 321 North Rouse Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.42.100 25,75 5, 28 20, 47 20%, 37%
4115 2004 401 East Lamme Street 3
Section 18.16.040 , Section 18.16.050 , Section 18.16.050 60, 25, 15
15, 10'8", 5 45, 14'4", 10
25% , 43%, 33.3%
6068 2006 413 North Wallace Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 1'4"3'8"27%
4284 2004 820 South Tracy Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 4'2"10" (must increase to 15")83%
6003 2006 404 West Story Street 2 Section 18.16.050 15, 20 7, 10 8, 10 47% , 50%
4242 2004 323 North Grand Avenue 3
Section 18.16.050, Section 18.38.050, Section 18.46.02015, 25%, 26
5, 2%, 6 15, 27%, 20
33.3%, 2%, 23%
4247 2004 506 North Rouse Avenue 2
Section 18.16.050, Section 18.42.100.B.3 5, 75
3, 45 2, 30
60%, 60%
4149 2004 721 West Koch Street 1 Section 18.38.050 10 6 4 60%
5185 2005 515 West Cleveland Avenue 2 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.46.020.D 5, 26 2, 2 3, 24 40% , 7.7%
5285 2005 317 South 6th Avenue 1 Section 18.16.050 5 1 4 20%
6187 2006 417 West Olive Street 1 Section 18.16.040 60 10 50 17%
8244 2008 1531 West Main Street 1 Section 18.52.090.B, 30ft2 6ft2 36ft2 20%
5070 2005 307 North Broadway Avenue 3
Section 18.16.050, Section 18.46.020, Section 18.38.050H 20, 28, 1750ft2 6'6" , 22 , 1152ft2 13'6" , 6 , 2902ft2 32.5% , 27% , 66%
5018 2005 214 South Black Avenue 1 Section 18.46.020 24 14 10 58%
5024 2005 6195 East Valley Center Road 2 Section 18.30.070, B. Section 18.46.040.B 50, 106 stalls 10, 11 stalls 40, 95 stalls 20%, 10%
5286 2005 522 North Willson Avenue 1 Section 18.38.060 20 2 (already encroaches 5)13 35% total
6041 2006 416 North Ida Street 3
Section 18.16.040, Section 18.16.050, Section 18.16.05010,000 , 20, 5,000
886.7 , 5 , 443.35
9113.3 , 15 , 4556.7 8.7% , 25% , 8.9%
6287 2006 120-136 West Main Street 2 Section 18.18.060, Section 18.44.10055, not allowed in triangle 25, to be built in triangle 80, to be built in triangle 45% , 100%
7033 2007 140 East Main Street 1 Section 18.46.020 26 2 24 8%
7048 2007 201 East Mendenhall Street 1 Section 18.18.050 7 3.5 3.5 50%
7120 2007 602 East Lamme Street 2 Section 18.20.050, Section 18.46.040 20, 16 5, 4 15, 12 spaces 25%, 25%
7278 2007 24 West Mendenall Street 1 Section 18.18.050 7 6 1 85%
8088 2008 3-1967 Sacco Drive 1 Section 18.18.060.B 88'7"17'9"106'4"20%
8207 2008 406 East Olive Street 5 Section 18.16.050, Section 18.42.100, 15, 75, 75, 75 7'6",fence, 65, 45 7'6", n/a, 10, 30 50%, n/a, 87%, 60%
4243 2004 214 East Mendenhall Street 2 Section 18.18.050, Section 18.44.100 7, 50 7, 10 0, 40 100%, 20%
452
7052 2007 720 East Orange Street 3 Section 18.16.050 , Section 18.38.060 15, 20, 20 7, 2, 12 8, 18, 8 47%, 1%, 60%
Average 1.84 38%
Average amount of
deviations
Average deviation percentage Percent approved
2015-2009 1.6 32%91%
2004-2008 1.84 38%83% (includes conditional app.)
453
Type of deviation (from parking, yard, height, for
an ADU, width or length, signage, lot coverage, lot
size, other)
Deviation approved or denied?Notes
front yard setback approved
side yard setback, basement, window, shed dormer approved
side yard setback not yet reviewed
rear yard setback, 2 story addition approved
front yard setback for new porch approved
side yard setback for 2nd story addition approved
ADU(2 dwelling home) for reduced lot area approved
ADU height excess approved
ADU for reduced lot area and location on rear
property line
approved
side yard setback, garage height excess approved
Lot width approved
rear yard setback, garage height approved
corner side yard set back, rear lot area coverage approved
front yard setback for porch approved
accessory structure height approved
ADU minimum lot area, rear lot area coverage approved
ADU minimum lot area, garage height approved
front yard setback, vehicle entrance setback approved
ADU minimum lot area approved
garage addition yard setback approved
restaurant floor area approved
front yard setback approved
sign area increase approved
front yard setback, interior garage space length denied
side yard setback approved
front yard and corner front yard setback approved
accessory structure area in rear yard setback approved
Sign within setback approved
2 household dwelling lot area denied
2 household dwelling lot area approved
front yard setback, fence size in setback approved
454
front and side yard setback approved
deck encroachment into yard setback approved
front yard setback approved
ADU lot frontage approved
porch encroachment into front yard setback denied by BOA
side yard setback approved
sideyard setback for garage approved
sideyard setback for garage approved
ADU lot width, side yard setback, parking
requirements denied, approved, approved
garage demo approved
sign size approved
front yard setback approved
front and corner front yard setback approved
front yard setback, maximum building height, light
fixtures
approved
service canopy height approved
entryway corridor setback, public access easement approved
watercourse setback (after-the-fact-approval)denied
office parking spaces approved
fuel canopy height approved
side yard setback, corner side yard setback approved
maximum parking requirement, front yard setback approved
rear yard setback, lot area approved
front yard setback approved
side yard setbacks approved
ADU minimum lot width approved
watercourse setback (after-the-fact-approval)approved
91%
side yard setback, rear lot coverage conditional approval condition: lot coverage only 30% of rear lot
455
lot area for single household shared with
community residential facility
approved
front yard setback approved
side yard setback, parking spaces approved
rear yard encroachment, garage height approved
fence height denied COA approved?
side yard setback, rear yard setback, parking lot
wide screening
approved
rear yard setback, rear lot coverage approved
rear yard setback, side yard setback denied COA approved?
ADU required lot width approved
front yard setback approved
side yard setback for second floor addition approved
front yard setback approved
rear yard setback approved
rear yard setback, accessory structure area and
height, parking space in rear setback
denied, denied, approved, denied
side yard setback, rear yard setback, fence, parking
space number
approved
rear yard setback, watercourse setback denied COA approved?
number of signs, sign area, sign distance approved
accessory building height approved
front yard setback approved
accessory building height, rear yard setback for
accessory sturctures, rear lot area
denied conditional approval, no deviations
fence on property line, leave neighbor's side
unfinished
approved
ADU lot width, ADU living area approved
front yard setback approved
2 household dwelling lot area, number of parking
spaces
denied
ADU lot width, accessory building height approved
ADU lot width, rear yard setback, side yard setback approved
rear yard setback approved
ADU lot width, rear yard setback approved
two-household dwelling lot width approved
rear yard setback, corner-side yard setback approved
fence height in required yards approved
rear yard setback, fence height, car backing
distance
approved, approved, denied
rear yard setback approved
ADU lot width, accessory structure height, rear yard
setback
approved, denied, denied
corner side yard setback approved
rear yard setback, porch length approved
456
watercourse setback approved
side yard setbacks approved
street vision triangle approved
side yard setback, rear yard setback approved
front yard setback approved
rear yard setback, rear lot coverage, rear yard
setback (for eave)
approved
rear yard setback, side yard setback approved
rear yard setback approved
ADU lot width, rear yard setback approved (never built)
two-household dwelling lot width approved
rear yard setback approved
rear yard setback, front yard setback, parking
spaces
approved
front yard setback, watercourse setback approved
two-household dwelling lot width, side yard
setback, front yard setback
approved
side yard setback approved
side yard setback conditional approval
corner side yard setback, rear yard setback approved
corner side yard setback, rear lot area, driveway
backing way condtional approval (condition: in staff report said decrease to 25%)
side yard setback, watercourse setback (bozeman
creek)
approved
rear yard setback approved
side yard setback, driveway backing distance approved
side yard setback approved
ADU lot width approved
wall signs approved
rear yard setback, backing distance, rear lot
coverage approved
driveway width approved
I-90 setback, number of parking stalls approved
front yard setback denied COA approved
lot area for 2 single-household residences, rear yard
setback, single-household minimum lot area
approved
building height, street vision triangle denied, approved
backing distance approved
front yard setback approved
front yard setback, required parking spaces approved
front yard setback approved
maximum building height denied approved
front yard setback, fence in watercourse setback,
parking in watercourse setback, drive access in
watercourse setback approved
front yard setback, street vision triangle approved
457
corner side yard setback, rear yard setback, corner
side yard garage access
approved
83% approved (including conditional)
458
S 11TH AVE L ST N 7TH AVE S 3RD AVE INTERST
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
W OAK ST
E MAIN ST S 4TH AVE S 5TH AVE N 15TH AVE E KAGY BLVD
W MAIN ST N ROUSE AVE S 6TH AVE W KOCH ST S CHURCH AVE S WILLSON AVE S GRAND AVE W STORY ST
W KAGY BLVD N 5TH AVE BO
H
A
R
T
L
N
W COLLEGE ST HIGHLAND BLVD SOURDOUGH RD S 8TH AVE S 15TH AVE CE
D
A
R
S
T
W OLIVE ST
W DICKERSON ST
W BEALL ST
W ALDERSON ST S 7TH AVE W CURTISS ST S ROUSE AVE W LAMME ST
W GRANT ST S 9TH AVE N BLACK AVE W VILLARD ST N TRACY AVE ELLIS ST S 10TH AVE E LAMME ST IDA AVE N GRAND AVE DURSTON RD S BLACK AVE N WALLACE AVE FR
O
N
T
S
T
W HARRISON ST
GRAF ST
CHERRY DR PLUM AVE N BOZEMAN AVE WESTRIDGE DR N 9TH AVE N 3RD AVE ARNOLD ST N 14TH AVE W MENDENHALL ST N 10TH AVE N 11TH AVE N CHURCH AVE KENYON DR W PEACH ST
HOLLY DR FAIRWAY DR N WILLSON AVE S 14TH AVE E MENDENHALL ST
BROOKDALE DR S TRACY AVE E OA
K
S
T
ARTHUR ST SPRING CREEK DR E STORY ST N BROADWAY AVE N MONTANA AVE E GARFIELD ST
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
N
BI
G
G
U
L
C
H
D
R
GREEK WAY LOMAS DR
PATRICK ST
W LINCOLN ST N 12TH AVE W BABCOCK ST
ASH DR
JUNIPER ST
DAVIS ST S BOZEMAN AVE POST DR GOLD AVE OLD HIGHLAND BLVD BUTTONWOOD AVE HIGHLAND CT S WALLACE AVE HILL ST
CONCORD DR CANDY LN PE
A
R
S
T
BAXTER DR LEXINGTON DR CYPRESS AVE FIELDSTONE DR LINDLEY PL CHAMBERS DR STAUDAHER ST
HEMLOCK ST
FOX CT
N PINECREST DR GOL
F
WA
Y
E ASPEN ST
RYAN DR S 13TH AVE E MASON ST
NOSTALGIA LN
ACCOLA DR
MAE ST
CUTTING ST
MORROW ST
CAMPUS BLVD
HENDERSON ST BRADY AVE OPPORTUNITY WAY
ALLEN DR
W CLEVELAND ST
E KAGY BLVD S TRACY AVE N 9TH AVE N 11TH AVE GRAF ST HIGHLAND BLVD W BABCOCK ST HIGHLAND BLVD S 3RD AVE N 7TH AVE E
M
A
I
N
S
T
S BLACK AVE INTERSTA
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
E OAK ST
$This map was made by the City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Department and intended for planning uses only. June 2015
0 0.5 1Miles
NRHP Eligible
No
Yes - Both
Yes - District
Yes - Individual
City Limits
Conservation Overlay
National Historic Register Eligibility
459
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!S 11TH AVE L ST N 7TH AVE S 3RD AVE INTERST
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
W OAK ST
E MAIN ST S 4TH AVE W MAIN ST S 5TH AVE E KAGY BLVD N 15TH AVE W KOCH ST S 6TH AVE N ROUSE AVE S CHURCH AVE S WILLSON AVE S GRAND AVE W STORY ST
W KAGY BLVD SOURDOUGH RD N 5TH AVE W COLLEGE ST
BO
H
A
R
T
L
N
HIGHLAND BLVD S 8TH AVE S 15TH AVE CE
D
A
R
S
T
W OLIVE ST
W BEALL ST
W ALDERSON ST S 7TH AVE W CURTISS ST S ROUSE AVE W LAMME ST
W GRANT ST S 9TH AVE N BLACK AVE W VILLARD ST
ELLIS ST N TRACY AVE S 10TH AVE DURSTON RD
GRAF ST
E LAMME ST IDA AVE N GRAND AVE S BLACK AVE N WALLACE AVE FR
O
N
T
S
T
W HARRISON ST
CHERRY DR PLUM AVE N BOZEMAN AVE WESTRIDGE DR N 9TH AVE N 3RD AVE ARNOLD ST N 14TH AVE W MENDENHALL ST N 10TH AVE N 11TH AVE N CHURCH AVE KENYON DR W PEACH ST
HOLLY DR FAIRWAY DR N WILLSON AVE S 14TH AVE E MENDENHALL ST
BROOKDALE DR S TRACY AVE ALDER CREEK DR
E O
A
K
S
T
ARTHUR ST SPRING CREEK DR E STORY ST N BROADWAY AVE N MONTANA AVE HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y
L
N
E GARFIELD ST
BI
G
G
U
L
C
H
D
R
GREEK WAY W LINCOLN ST LOMAS
DR
W BABCOCK ST
PATRICK ST N 12TH AVE N 16TH AVE ASH DR DONEGAL DR JUNIPER ST
DAVIS ST S BOZEMAN AVE POST DR GOLD AVE OLD HIGHLAND BLVD BUTTONWOOD AVE HIGHLAND CT S WALLACE AVE HILL ST
CONCORD DR
PARK PL CANDY LN PE
A
R
S
T
BAXTER DR
LEXINGTON DR CYPRESS AVE S 12TH AVE FIELDSTONE DR LINDLEY PL CHAMBERS DR HEMLOCK ST
FOX CT
N PINECREST DR GOLF
WAY
S 13TH AVE E MASON ST
NOSTALGIA LN
ACCOLA DR
MAE ST
CUTTING ST
MORROW ST
CAMPUS BLVD
HENDERSON ST BRADY AVE OPPORTUNITY WAY
ALLEN DR
NASH CREEK RD
W CLEVELAND ST S 7TH AVE E KAGY BLVD N 9TH AVE E OAK ST
GRAF ST HIGHLAND BLVD S 3RD AVE HIGHLAND BLVD S 7TH AVE S BLACK AVE N 7TH AVE E
M
A
I
N
S
T
N 11TH AVE S TRACY AVE INTERST
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
W BABCOCK ST
$
0 0.5 1Miles
This map was made by the City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Department and intended for planning purposes only. June 2015
Historic Integrity
!Maybe
No
!Yes
City Limits
Conservation Overlay
Historic Integrity
460
MSU
Bon Ton
Cooper Park
Main Street
Section 3 Section 4
Section 1
Section 5
Section 6
Section 2
Section 8
Section 11
Section 9
Section 10
Section 7
$
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Miles
This map was created by the City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Department and is intended for planning purposes only. June 2015
2015 Survey Sections
Legend
Conservation Overlay
City Limits
Historic DistrictsLindleyPlaceSouth Tracy-South BlackSouth TracyN. TracyBrewery
St
o
r
y
M
i
l
l
461
462