HomeMy WebLinkAboutG1. Conservation Overlay1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District review report discussion and
determination of preferred alternatives for implementation and direction to
staff.
MEETING DATE: March 28, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Commission directs Staff to implement selected actions which address Items 1-3. Items
A-F will be addressed at future meetings of the City Commission. Appendices are provided for
reference material.
Item 1: Updating The Inventory Of Historic Structures ................................................................................ 5
Item 2: Geographic Scope of Historic Preservation Regulations .................................................................. 7
Item 3: Design Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 8
Item A: Infill Development – Floor Area Ratio .............................................................................................. 9
Item B: Changes to Municipal Code – Accessory Dwellings ....................................................................... 11
Item C: Changes to Municipal Code – Small Scale Development ............................................................... 11
Item D: Changes to Municipal Code – Non-Conforming Buildings And Deviations .................................... 12
Item E: Infill Development – Zoning Map ................................................................................................... 15
Item F: Infill Development – Affordable Housing ....................................................................................... 16
Item G: Implementation Schedule .............................................................................................................. 17
Appendix A: Statistics For The 1984 Montana Historical And Architectural Inventory And Certificate Of
Appropriateness Applications ..................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District ...................................................... 20
218
2
Appendix C: Statistics On Structures Built Before 1965 In Bozeman .......................................................... 21
Appendix D: Floor Area Ratio From Site Development 2004-2007 ........................................................... 22
Appendix E: 2014 Reconnaissance Survey Results .................................................................................... 23
Appendix F: Evolution of Residential Zoning Setbacks ............................................................................... 25
Appendix G: The Steps To Identifying And Listing Historic Properties, Including Key Phrases .................. 29
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
1. I move to direct staff to implement Alternative 1 of Item 1.
2. I move to direct staff to implement Alternatives 2 and 3 of Item 2.
3. I move to direct staff to implement Alternatives 2 and 3 of Item 3.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Commission received the evaluation of the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) December 14, 2015. At that time the
Commission requested that the Staff return for discussion of alternatives. This meeting begins
that process. The report is available on line.
The NCOD report identified numerous alternative options for the City. Not all recommendations
of the report can be enacted as some are in conflict with others. It is necessary for the City
Commission to provide policy direction to determine which recommendations to implement.
This memo identifies each subject for consideration, identifies alternatives for each subject, and
provides Staff’s recommended alternative(s). There are many interconnections between the
issues in this memo. Decisions made for one issue will affect others. Staff has tried to call
attention to those items which are most strongly connected.
The NCOD report covered a wide range of subjects. Due to the wide scope of subject matter
Staff has divided the material into two sections. The first identified as Items 1-3 are those for
which the Staff requests direction today. The remaining subject matter identified as Items A-G
the Staff will bring back for Commission discussion at a future date. Several of these items are
applicable city-wide and will be addressed in the on-going update to the City’s land development
regulations, Chapter 38, BMC. The focus of this meeting is the people, process, and policies
specifically related to historic preservation and the NCOD.
Following direction from the City Commission, staff will begin the implementation process. See
Item G for discussion of implementation. Several implementation efforts are already underway.
One key element relating to this discussion is the definition of a historic property. This was
tentatively established in discussion with the Commission in 2015. A formal adoption of the
definition will be included with the second phase of the UDC update now underway. The
present working draft of the definition is:
“Any site, building or structure that is:
1) listed in the State or National Register of Historic Places; or
2) designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey; or
219
3
3) certified as a contributing resource within a National Register listed or locally
designated historic district; or
4) certified that the property is eligible to be listed on the National or State Register of
Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to a historic district by
the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of
Historic Places.”
The following graphic illustrates some of the interrelationships of issues involved in this item.
Items for discussion on March 28th are highlighted in green.
BACKGROUND:
On-going Transition of Historic Preservation Program and Historic Preservation Officer
The present historic preservation program has a mix of duties. The COA program has
emphasized architectural preservation through review of development applications. The HPO has
also supported the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and their mission of education and
outreach. The HPO has been a 24 hr a week position since October 2014. Previously the position
was full-time. The position duties transitioned to less development review with the reduction
from a full time position. The COA review duties were primarily moved to other Planning Staff
with the HPO acting as an internal consultant to address issues that were specifically historic
preservation oriented.
220
4
The HPO position is presently vacant. Before completing the update of job duties and advertising
the position direction is needed from the City Commission on the policy direction for the historic
preservation program.
The work required to implement the recommended revisions in the historic preservation program
is significant. The NCOD area is one of Bozeman’s most recognized and valuable areas. Historic
preservation is a significant part of that and staff time is needed to update and administer the
program.
The position is currently funded for 24 hours per week. Reduced time availability limits what the
position can accomplish. Given the significant work load for the alternatives of updating cultural
resource survey forms and other implementation of the NCOD study, part time does not appear
sufficient.
The Community Development Director has requested the HPO be returned to a full-time position
in the FY2017 budget. Action has not yet been taken on that request as the budget development
is still in process. The NCOD report found on-going community support for the historic
preservation program. It also identified significant work needed to bring the program to a place
to address current and future needs. A full-time position is expected to support a greater
applicant pool and greater qualifications for the HPO position when advertised.
The HPO has the primary duty for the updating of cultural resource survey forms, updating and
creation of historic districts, tax abatement, and support for preservation’s regulatory role. This
reflects an on-going change in practice. There are some duties which can best be addressed
within the bounds of local government’s regulatory or other authority. The HPO position has
repositioned to focus on those duties. It places the HPO in a professional oversight position for
volunteer or contractor work related to historic preservation. This will facilitate the completion
of quality work products.
History does not belong to the government. There are many interested citizens and some groups
who are interested in discovering and sharing local history. These people can be an effective
means to pursue the education and public outreach efforts related to historic preservation. As an
example, The Extreme History Project has been participating in the development and
presentation of walking tours and sponsoring lectures on history. The City can support this work
financially through contracted services and free up staff time to focus on those elements that
require a governmental role. Staff and advisory boards are restricted in how they can advocate.
Community involvement and encouragement can be a potent force to encourage good property
stewardship and recognize the importance of the community’s history.
Public Outreach and Information
There were several comments regarding opportunities for citizens to learn about development
applications. Applications which require public notice are included on the City’s Community
Development Map. Development applications are provided to the Neighborhood Coordinator for
distribution to organized neighborhoods. Larger projects are included on the Development
Review Committee agenda available through the City’s website. Many projects also have notices
which are mailed to property owners within 200 feet and have a sign posted at the site. The
221
5
majority of smaller projects for individual homes do not require public notice unless they include
a deviation or variance.
The City uses project tracking software which maintains a record of all formal applications
whether small or large. The City also has related software named Click2Gov which allows read-
only web access to the project tracking data. The web access shows current status of applications
as the review occurs. The software does not send out notifications, it simply allows you to get
information. Click2Gov is actively in use for the Building Division.
The staff is working on improving connections between the City’s project tracking software and
the Community Development Map. We are striving to enable all applications to connect to the
Community Development Map with an active hyperlink to the Click2Gov system. Staff is
looking toward first or second quarter of fiscal year 2017 for implementation. The Click2Gov
system for planning applications might be activated sooner.
The City will continue to develop the existing efforts to improve access to project records. Staff
believes that the present level of noticing for development applications is reasonable. Public
notice requires considerable effort by both applicants and staff. If applications are in
conformance to adopted standards additional notice is not justified.
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 will be required.
Attachment: NCOD Report
Report compiled on: March 17, 2016
March 28, 2016 Action Items
Item 1: Updating The Inventory Of Historic Structures
The cultural resource surveys which form the primary background data for historic districts and
the NCOD were prepared in 1984. They need to be updated to account for the passage of time;
change in professional practice in historic preservation, and many alterations to buildings within
the NCOD. Buildings outside of the NCOD may qualify as historic properties if surveyed.
Outdated information creates uncertainty to property owners and makes program administration
more difficult for Staff.
The City has established a dedicated fund which receives a portion of the fee from each
certificate of appropriateness in the NCOD. The purpose of this fund is to help pay for new
survey work and updating design guidelines for historic preservation. The fund balance as is
approximately $160,000. Page 11 of the NCOD report discusses the reason why updated cultural
resources survey documentation is needed.
222
6
The MSU School of Architecture has volunteered to assist in gathering field data for updated
survey forms. This is very important assistance and will greatly aid in updating the forms in a
timely and cost effective manner. The first service event is planned for April 2016.
Staff recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative 1. The NCOD is a large area and it will be a lot of work to survey
all the possible eligible properties. To manage the work load, budget demand, and ensure quality
work it is appropriate to divide the area into segments and complete them in sequence.
Alternative 1: Prioritize specific sectors of the community for update of cultural resource surveys.
The NCOD has eight national register historic districts and over 3,500 properties. Some areas of
the NCOD are known to be more historically significant than others. Division of the area into
segments will enable the entire survey process to be completed before moving to another area.
This supports follow up actions such as the revision to or creation of new historic districts.
There are portions of the existing NCOD for which cultural resource survey forms have not been
prepared. This deficiency causes challenge in communicating with property owners and in
ensuring proper application of adopted standards. Prioritization would enable focused effort to
correct this deficiency in the timeliest manner.
Prioritization allows the costs for updated cultural resource surveys to be spread over several
years. This best matches expenditures with funding availability and increases the likelihood of
finding grant support. Making the update a standard part of yearly operations for the historic
preservation program will help to prevent a recurrence of the long lag time between survey
updates. A regular but smaller effort will also make it easier to obtain consultant services when
appropriate to assist in the work.
The NCOD report implementation matrix suggests that updating surveys for two historic districts
per year is achievable. Historic districts vary significantly in size and number of structures.
Alternative 2: Undertake a single update of the entire NCOD and other potentially
eligible areas.
To update the cultural resource survey record for the entire NCOD and other potentially eligible
locations as a single project would require $400,000-$500,000. As noted above, the City does
have some cash on hand to help pay for the project. The project would require substantial
intensive staff time commitment as well. To complete the entire project in one effort would be
challenging to manage given the thousands of documents to track.
Having a single update effort would provide a strong baseline of data for a given time frame. It
could potentially reduce delay for some structures in having the update completed. It would be
more difficult to integrate community efforts like the MSU School of Architecture effort into a
single large survey endeavor.
Updating the existing individual historic districts as a follow up to the new survey work would
require additional costs. The NCOD report implementation matrix suggests that updating surveys
223
7
for two historic districts per year is achievable. Cost per district is estimated between $5,000-
40,000 per district.
Item 2: Geographic Scope of Historic Preservation Regulations
The present NCOD covers a large area, see Appendix B. Not all areas within the NCOD exhibit
the same degree of historic significance. See Appendix A for a summary of historically
contributing and non-contributing properties within historic districts and the NCOD. This
diversity means that some structures are subject to regulation for historic purposes when they are
not historically significant.
As part of the report preparation, an analysis of structure age in Bozeman was conducted. That
analysis found that there are several areas outside of the present NCOD boundary that are
potentially eligible for historic preservation.
The NCOD boundary was adopted based on a census boundary from 1957. It has remained fixed
in location as the community has continued to develop and age. As shown on page 49 of the
report, there are several areas outside of the NCOD which are potentially eligible for historic
recognition.
A primary recommendation of the NCOD report is to replace the broad brush approach of the
NCOD with more targeted efforts. This does not mean that areas within the NCOD would
necessarily lose historic significance. It would mean that a more localized determination of
historical significance would be made before adjusting the NCOD boundary. A summary
recommendation is on page 3 of the report. The discussion and background on this area begins
on page 47 of the report. The NCOD is a component of the zoning map. Therefore, changes to
the NCOD boundary will require one or more zoning map amendments.
One change to remove areas from the NCOD is already in process. A zone map amendment to
pull back the NCOD boundary to avoid overlap with areas subject to the new B-2M and R-5
zoning districts has been advertised. The City Commission will consider this amendment in
April. No action is required at this time on that amendment.
Staff recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternatives 2 and 3 that the current boundary of the NCOD be phased out in
favor of more focused smaller districts. No removal should occur until a replacement is in place.
This can be accommodated during the zoning map change process. Alternative 2 is the
recommendation from the consultant as well.
Staff will be bringing a zone map amendment to the Commission this spring to remove portions
of the NCOD where it overlaps with the Entryway Corridors. This reduction of the NCOD in
size will remove conflicts between the two overlay districts. This primarily affects commercially
zoned areas.
224
8
Alternative 1: Retain the exiting NCOD boundary.
Retain the exiting NCOD boundary. This approach will leave an increasing area of the City
outside of the area of historic preservation. It will also continue a wide but shallow
characterization of historic properties. Bozeman’s history includes many architectural styles. One
of the disadvantages of the current approach is that the applied standards do not adequately
reflect the localized character of buildings in the regulatory design guidelines.
Alternative 2: Revise the boundary of historic preservation standards to be more tightly
focused on defined areas of architectural character.
Staff believes this enables a more locally relevant set of development standards. This approach
supports development of new historic districts and preservation standards as neighborhoods age.
This prevents the historic preservation program from becoming stagnant and is consistent with
the draft definition of historic property presented in the Executive Summary. This approach
enables fine tuning of current districts and the definition of architectural character which
distinguishes them from other areas.
This alternative would enable smaller areas with more tightly defined architectural character to
be defined. The report recommends the development of design districts to complement the
historic districts. See page 57 of the report for discussion of this approach.
Alternative 3: Revise map and standards to include design districts to recognize areas
of defined character which may not be historic.
The NCOD report discusses this option beginning on page 57. Not all areas with a defined
character are necessarily historic. See figure 12 on page 49 for a map of potentially eligible
properties and figure 13 on page 51 for potential district locations. This alternative allows
development of design standards which reflect the unique character of an area without invoking
historic preservation rationale or review requirements. This would allow a greater degree of
design flexibility within a context of the neighborhood.
Alternative 4: Amend the zoning map and regulations to no longer pursue historic
preservation.
The NCOD report conducted significant public outreach. See Appendix 1 of the report. There
was a consistent theme in the responses that historic preservation and the character of the NCOD
were valued. Staff does not believe that the report supports this option.
Item 3: Design Guidelines
The design guidelines are a key element of the NCOD and are established in Section 38.16.050,
BMC. They establish standards which development must meet whether for new construction or
renovations. There is one set of overall guidelines for the NCOD with some additional detail
relating to individual historic districts. Standards vary for residential and commercial
development. The Commission recently adopted a revised guideline for commercial
development outside of the Downtown historic district.
225
9
The application of the guidelines will be heavily influenced by the direction given regarding
Issue 1. If the Commission decides to implement the NCOD report recommendation to establish
smaller historic and design districts the guidelines will need to be revised. The City uses a
portion of application fees to periodically update the design guidelines.
The design guidelines apply as part of the NCOD. To retain them in place in any form some type
of overlay district is required to place them geographically on the zoning map. Design guidelines
are based on the documentation of architectural and site character that makes one portion of the
community distinct from another. Design guidelines ensure that new construction is consistent
with the existing character.
Staff recommendation:
We recommend Alternatives 2 and 3.
Alternative 1: Retain the design guidelines as a single document generally applicable to
all areas within the NCOD with enhanced architectural character descriptions for
individual historic districts.
This alternative requires the fewest changes to the existing document. It enables common
elements to be developed a single time and made available to the public in a single location.
Each historic district has a unique historic and architectural character. This alternative would
allow the analysis of those unique features to be strengthened and ensure that the application of
design guidelines is consistent with those features.
Alternative 2: Revise the design guidelines to be a specific document as part of a
preservation plan for individual historic districts.
This alternative provides greater opportunity to customize standards to specific historic areas. If
the Commission agrees with Staff’s recommendation for Issue 1 this alternative is most
appropriate. A preservation plan may also address elements of historic preservation that purely
design guidelines do not.
Alternative 3: Revise the design guidelines to include specific standards for individual
design districts.
This alternative provides opportunity to customize standards to specific areas. If the Commission
agrees with Staff’s recommendation for Issue 1 this alternative is most appropriate to develop
guidelines for design districts.
NCOD Report Items for Action at a Subsequent Meeting
Item A: Infill Development – Floor Area Ratio
A floor area ratio (FAR) is a calculation that divides the amount of building area by the amount
of land area. A lower FAR represents a lower intensity of development. A developed site with a
higher FAR often represents a higher land value. An analysis of FAR on new site plan
226
10
developments was prepared for the current growth policy. As shown in Appendix D, the FAR
has varied by location and year. The B-3 district consistently had the highest FAR.
As a mathematical ratio, the FAR is consistent in describing the development potential of a lot
regardless of lot configuration. An FAR takes into account all building types whether principal
or accessory buildings. An example illustration follows.
Presently, the City uses lot coverage which only looks at footprint, setbacks, which only look at
distance between building walls and property lines, and building heights to establish a building
envelope. The entire area within the building envelope may be developed but usually is not.
An FAR is a tool which enables additional flexibility in consideration of overall site intensity. A
development may meet the maximum FAR with a large single story building or a small footprint
but multi-story building.
Alternative 1: Develop and incorporate a Floor Area Ratio as part of the standards for
development city-wide.
An FAR would provide a tool for more carefully balancing the intensity of development on a
particular lot. It could potentially replace some other standards. This could be developed with
Phase 2 of the UDC update.
Alternative 2: Develop and incorporate a Floor Area Ratio as part of the standards for
development for historic districts
An FAR could be applied as part of an overlay district approach. This would enable certain base
zoning elements, such as allowed uses, to stay constant but enable a finer tuned regulation to
protect existing developed character. Such an overlay could be crafted to enable incremental
change in intensity over time. This mimics the way the NCOD has developed with smaller
227
11
homes receiving several additions over their lifetimes. This would be best managed as part of the
development of individual design standards for specific historic areas.
Item B: Changes to Municipal Code – Accessory Dwellings
One of the most likely options for additional development within the NCOD area is accessory
dwellings. These small scale additional units are often less expensive due to the smaller size and
accessory nature. However, as they provide an income stream for the primary residence, they
may increase the value of the site as a whole. See discussion beginning on page 29 of the NCOD
report.
The City began the process to consider changes to accessory building standards in 2007. Due to
the downturn in the economy and other priorities the project was placed on hold.
Alternative 1: Revise standards for Accessory Dwelling Units.
• Revise ADU requirements to allow development within the principal structure in R-1
zoning district as a principal use.
• Revise ADU requirements to allow development of ADU at the ground floor with
appropriate design criteria.
Alternative 2: Retain ADU standards as are presently in place.
The present standards require ADUs to be placed over a garage if they are not within the
principal dwelling. In R-1, an ADU requires a conditional use permit.
Alternative 3: Revise accessory building standards generally.
Accessory buildings such as sheds and garages can have a substantial impact on the character of
an area. They reduce open space on a lot and can be more than one story raising concerns about
privacy. Accessory Dwellings are only one element of accessory buildings. Some deficiencies in
clarity of standards for accessory buildings have been identified. Misplacement or abuse of
accessory building standards has caused conflict between neighbors.
Item C: Changes to Municipal Code – Small Scale Development
There are a variety of development standards codified in Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal
Code. They provide the means by which development can be constructed without harm to others.
The standards are integrated so that they work together providing flexibility and protection. The
standards can be revised to establish new opportunities for different styles of development. One
such approach would be to enable small scale development where size of dwellings and related
facilities is capped rather than required to provide a minimum standard such as lot area.
As noted on page 8 and figure 6 of the NCOD report, there are few sizable undeveloped parcels
within the NCOD. Development of a package of small scale development options, such as ADUs
or small detached homes may enable additional infill. The same code provisions may enable
additional development opportunities elsewhere in the community as well.
228
12
An example of this type of development is at the corner of South Black Avenue and East
Dickerson Street. See the following image.
Example of existing small homes constructed at S. Black Avenue and Dickerson Street. Small
scale development could replicate this approach.
Alternative 1: Retain the development standards as they presently are written.
The existing development standards provide a wide variety of development options. The use of
those options has created a diverse and welcoming group of neighborhoods. Not all property
owners welcome maximum development.
Alternative 2: Develop new standards and procedures for small scale development.
Appropriate standards would include limitations to keep the development in scale with itself and
adjacent properties and be respectful of community context. Details have not yet been developed.
The City has standards which presently address a variety of densities of development. It is
reasonable to expect that they can be adapted to address this approach as well.
Item D: Changes to Municipal Code – Non-Conforming Buildings And
Deviations
The City of Bozeman adopted zoning in 1934. The regulations have been revised many times
since then. A non-conforming building is a building which does not conform to the adopted
regulations. An example is a building which is located within a required setback from a property
line. A non-conforming building does not have to be altered to meet new regulations. Additions
to a building or construction of a replacement building do need to meet the current regulations.
Non-conforming buildings and parcels are subject to Article 38.32.
229
13
The zoning ordinances applied a very suburban set of setback requirements. In some cases, such
as the 1974 ordinance, 240% larger than are required today. Those basic standards remained in
place until 2004. See Appendix F for historic setback requirements. When the NCOD was
initially adopted in 1991, the text rightfully noted that there were many buildings which did not
comply with the zoning regulations then in place. This was a result of regulations being placed
on existing development which were not consistent with existing development patterns. The
substantial changes in setbacks and similar standards in 2004 removed many of the conflicts
between existing buildings and the zoning regulations.
The 1991 zoning ordinance established deviations as a less difficult method than variances to
seek an exception from full compliance with zoning standards. The deviation process remains in
place. A discussion of the deviations and their use is presented beginning on page 26. Figure 8
shows the location and distribution of deviations requested from 2004 to 2015.
If the baseline standards adequately addressed non-conforming situations then deviations would
be unnecessary. The majority of deviations relate to required distances from buildings to
property lines. Section 38.16.070 says in part regarding the purpose of deviations, “In order to
encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that would contribute to the overall historic
character of the community,…”
Alternative 1: Revise the standards for non-conforming buildings to use existing
construction as the baseline location standard for lawfully created buildings.
Many recent deviations have resulted from an expansion in an upper story while the encroaching
footprint remained the same. Some buildings are encroaching into a side yard and the proposed
expansion maintains the same wall alignment. This alternative would allow modification or
expansion of a lawful non-conforming building without needing a deviation so long as the
pattern of development, e.g. footprint or wall planes, did not cause additional non-conformities.
This alternative would significantly reduce the number of deviations and would enable
renovation and rehabilitation with less effort required for regulatory review. This alternative
would not alter standards applicable to non-conforming uses.
Alternative 2: Remove deviations from the NCOD.
Deviations were adopted for specific purposes; the restoration and rehabilitation of historic
structures. If alternative 1 above were adopted then the primary purpose of deviations has been
accomplished. Use of deviations within the NCOD beyond this purpose is inconsistent with the
existing code and purpose of the NCOD. Unnecessary procedures should be removed from the
text.
Alternative 3: Restrict the scope of deviations to prevent harm to adjacent properties.
Deviations in the NCOD are not limited in their scope. Through a deviation a standard may be
reduced to zero or expanded to infinity. This extreme latitude provides opportunity for misuse
and negative consequences. Deviations are also allowed in the Entryway Overlay districts.
However, in those areas they are limited to a change of 20% above or below the standard to
which they are applied.
230
14
There is increasing pressure to develop and redevelop areas within the NCOD to the maximum
allowed by the zoning standards. The zoning standards are minimums. See Section 38.01.080.
“In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to be
minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. In some instances the public interest will be best served when
such minimums are exceeded.”
Since the zoning standards are the least necessary to meet their purposes (See Section
38.01.040.C), provisions which allow reduction or expansions to those standards have potential
to allow problems. Recently, the City has adopted regulations for stormwater control. Side yard
setbacks between buildings and property lines can provide an essential location to transition
between surface grades on adjacent lots and to direct stormwater. When encroachments are
allowed water can be diverted to adjoining private property to the detriment of that property.
Yard encroachments or additional height may interfere with solar access on adjacent properties
casting portions of property in near perpetual shade.
This image is of a property which complies with all development standards yet still has
substantial impact on solar access to its adjoining property. No deviation was required.
Some projects have received as many as eight deviations. The greater the number or intensity of
deviations the greater the likelihood that negative results will occur. There are several methods to
231
15
limit deviations. The City has already prohibited deviations for reducing parking for ADUs and
limits deviations available for accessory buildings to two deviations.
If the Commission decides to pursue alternative standards for small scale development it should
consider the role that deviations may play.
Alternative 4: Revise standards for renovation of non-conforming structures to address
the degree of demolition.
Under the existing language of Section 38.32.040, when a non-conforming building is
demolished to an extent of 50% of its replacement cost it loses its protected non-conforming
status and needs to meet present standards. This standard was adopted from a decision in the
federal courts. Application of this standard to renovation of historic structures can have
unintended consequences where a substantial renovation could trigger demolition of the entire
building in order to remove the non-conforming element.
Adoption of a new or revised regulation is a determination by the City Commission that it has a
superior outcome than what came before. Therefore, it is typically considered beneficial to
remove non-conformities. If Alternative 1 is put in place it may largely address this issue
depending on the final wording.
Item E: Infill Development – Zoning Map
The City adopted zoning in 1934. The existing zoning map for the NCOD was largely developed
in 1974. Some changes have occurred since then but the majority of district boundaries remain as
they were. The community has changed significantly in 42 years in its development and in its
expectations for the built environment. The zoning map should meet today’s needs. The City
encourages infill development. Many areas of the City, not just within the NCOD, are built at
substantially less intensity than the existing zoning designation allows.
Alternative 1: Retain the zoning map as is until private parties initiate amendments.
The zoning map legally limits the uses and intensity of development on a parcel. For some
properties, there is a conflict between what is presently built and what the zoning map indicates
can or should be present. A zone map amendment can be initiated by an owner of property at any
time. It takes approximately six months to process a zone map amendment which can cause
delay in desired projects. Application fee for a zone map amendment is approximately $1,800.
Alternative 2: After completion of cultural resource surveys evaluate the match
between existing development, the growth policy future land use map, and the
zoning map and make adjustments where needed.
The proposed cultural resource surveys will provide a more detailed and accurate description of
what is actually constructed on a property. This will be a factual basis to consider possible
changes to the zoning map. When the existing land use, zoning map, and growth policy future
land use map do not correspond it adds complexity to any land development proposals. This can
inhibit infill development, or can allow infill development that is not in character with adjacent
development. Such conflicts can lessen the historic integrity of neighborhoods.
232
16
The zoning map, while not a guarantee of approval of development, is relied upon by persons
purchasing property. It is in the best interests of the City and its citizens if the existing
development, the growth policy future land use map, and the zoning map are in harmony. The
exception to this is if the City intends existing buildings to be removed for more intensive
development.
This would be an on-going effort as segments of the NCOD are reviewed. Not all areas would
benefit from a zoning map change.
Item F: Infill Development – Affordable Housing
The issue of affordable housing interacts with many others. The NCOD report found that there
are very few non-developed areas within the NCOD boundary. See discussion beginning on page
18 and Figure 6. Infill development is therefore likely to require removal of existing buildings.
New construction within already developed areas is often more complicated than in vacant areas
with associated increased costs. The City provides a variety of incentives for infill development.
Infill development that is more intensive than existing development may create conflicts between
users. Many areas of the City, not just within the NCOD, are built at substantially less intensity
than the existing zoning designation allows. Given the scarcity of infill sites, the cost of
acquiring property with existing buildings, and the complexity of construction in already
developed areas it appears unlikely that affordable for sale housing will be constructed within the
NCOD area without very large money subsidies to the projects.
Affordable housing also includes the preservation of smaller, less costly dwellings that already
exist in the NCOD. Unused development potential increases sale prices. See discussion of
affordable housing beginning on page 14 of the NCOD report. See also the discussion under Item
B in this memo.
The City adopted an affordable housing program which applies to the entire community in 2015.
This program is independent of the NCOD.
Alternative 1: Adopt code revisions to enable additional infill development which
respects the context of the area.
There are several different code revisions which could enable simpler review of applications,
reduce costs, and not impose burdens on adjacent development. See discussion on page 29 of the
NCOD report. The Commission could choose to restrict some or all of these elements
specifically for affordable housing.
• Revise parkland requirements so that mitigation of parkland impact for small impacts is
more streamlined. This could be done with during Phase 2 of the UDC update. The text
has already been drafted.
• Adopt standards for Floor Area Ratios and minimum usable area as part of zoning
districts. This will allow greater latitude in site design while providing limits on over-
development of lots.
233
17
• Create new standards for small scale residential development specifically restricted to
affordable housing. This will provide a means to use small infill sites to accomplish the
purpose of affordable housing.
• Facilitate construction of additional Accessory Dwelling Units which will increase the
number of small rental properties within the NCOD. See Item B for more information.
Alternative 2: Revise zoning map to protect neighborhood character in more modest
neighborhoods.
As discussed above, the zoning map does not necessarily reflect current community priorities in
all areas. Some portions are zoned for much higher densities than presently exist. The potential
additional density increases speculative prices for the property above that which would apply for
the constructed dwellings. Changing the zoning map to reflect the current development pattern
could reduce price pressure on existing homes.
Alternative 3: Recognize the inherent difficulties in placing additional dwellings within
the existing development context of the NCOD area and not take additional steps.
There have been several larger infill residential developments in the last two years. Several
smaller projects adding just one or two homes have also been approved. The Commission could
make the policy determination that the code as it stands is adequate and that the inherent
limitations of development within a fully developed area will prevent development of affordable
housing within the NCOD.
Item G: Implementation Schedule
There are many different parts to the implementation of the selected alternatives and those items
to be discussed later. Amendments to municipal code typically take about six months from
beginning until the changes are effective. Other such as hiring new staff can take less. The City
has already begun a code amendment process for an overall update to key elements of the
Unified Development Code. Several of the items will be integrated with that work.
234
18
Issue Zoning Map
Amendment
Needed
Zoning Text
Amendment
Needed
UDC phase
to address
issue
Other Action
Item 1: Updating the
inventory of historic
structures
Contracted and volunteer
services required to complete
the work.
Item 2: Geographic
Scope of Historic
Preservation
Regulations
X X
After Commission direction
individual changes will rely on
completion of survey form
updates and district revisions.
Item 3: Design
Guidelines X X Dependent on completion of
new survey forms
Item A: Infill
Development - Floor
Area Ratio
X 2
Item B: Changes to
Municipal Code –
Accessory Dwellings
X 2
Item C: Changes to
Municipal Code –
Small Scale
Development
X 2
Item D: changes to
Municipal Code – Non-
Conforming Buildings
and Deviations
X 2
Item E: Infill
Development – Zoning
Map X
This will be partially dependent
on the updated survey forms
and potential revisions to the
growth policy.
Item F – Infill
Development –
Affordable Housing
X 2
Affordable Housing has some
special standards already in
place.
235
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 district # 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
236
20
Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
A link to this map is available here.
237
21
Appendix C: 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.
238
22
Appendix D: Floor Area Ratio From Site Development 2004-2007
2004 Overall Mean FAR - 26 sites 0.222
Non B-3 Mean FAR 0.222
B-3 Only Mean FAR - No sites 0.000
Median Value FAR 0.225
2005 Overall Mean FAR - 35 sites 0.365
Non B-3 Mean FAR 0.286
B-3 Only Mean FAR - 2 sites 1.668
Median Value FAR 0.242
2006 Overall Mean FAR - 15 sites 0.546
Non B-3 Mean FAR 0.378
B-3 Only Mean FAR - 2 sites 1.631
Median Value FAR 0.323
2007 Overall Mean FAR - 22 sites 0.999
Non B-3 Mean FAR 0.424
B-3 Only Mean FAR - 4 sites 3.588
Median Value FAR 0.431
239
23
Appendix E: 2014 Reconnaissance Survey Results
Fall 2014 Cultural Resources reconnaissance survey
Statistics compiled January 2, 2015
Total number of properties surveyed: 1,545
Statistics for Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places # of properties
percentage of survey
area
not eligible 392 25%
eligible in a district or individually 1,086 70%
eligible in a district 35 2%
eligible individually 33 2%
Statistics for Historic Integrity in the survey area # of properties
percentage of survey
area
Properties which have no historic integrity 408 26%
Properties which may have historic integrity 52 3%
Properties with historic integrity 1,086 70%
Architectural styles found in the survey area # of properties
percentage of survey
area
Ranch 257 17%
Minimal Traditional 392 25%
Contemporary 65 4%
Craftsman 247 16%
split level 30 2%
Colonial revival 38 2%
21st Century Modern 134 9%
Tudor 24 2%
Folk Victorian 172 11%
Queen Anne 92 6%
Other 20th Century modern 35 2%
shed 12 1%
240
24
International 33 2%
Prairie 2 0%
Mission 2 0%
shingle 2 0%
241
25
Appendix F: Evolution of Residential Zoning Setbacks
District Front Second
Front*
Side Rear Special Standards
1935: Ordinance 664
A 25 15 8 8 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
B 25 15 8 8 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
C 25 15 8 8 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
D 20 15 8 8 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
1938: Ordinance 682
A 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
B 25 - 8 - [Note: Only the measurements for front and side yards are
specified.]
C 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
D 20 15 8 10 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
1941: Ordinance 711
A 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
B 25 - 8 - [Note: Only the measurements for front and side yards are
242
26
District Front Second
Front*
Side Rear Special Standards
specified.]
C 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
D 20 15 8 10 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section I of this Ordinance.”
1954: Ordinance 776
A 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section IV of this Ordinance.”
B 25 - 8 - [Note: Only the measurements for front and side yards are
specified.]
C 25 15 8 20 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section IV of this Ordinance.”
D 20 15 8 10 1. 5 for side yard for small accessory buildings
2. If block is already constructed with a front yard of less
than 20 feet, the new building can be made equal to adjacent
front setback but not less than 15 feet.
3. “The intention of these provisions as to side yards is that
there shall be a distance not less than 16 feet separating main
buildings on the lot “width” dimension as “width dimension” is
defined in Section IV of this Ordinance.”
1960: Ordinance 818
AAA
AA This ordinance does not specify measurements for these items.
243
27
District Front Second
Front*
Side Rear Special Standards
A However, yards are described and reductions disallowed.
B
C
D
1966: Ordinance 855
AAA This ordinance does not specify measurements for these items.
AA However, yards are described and reductions disallowed.
A
B
C
D
1973: Ordinance 935
R-S 35 - 25 25
R-1 25 12 25
R-2 25 8 20
R-3 25 8 20
R-4 25 8 20
R-5 25 8 20
R-O 25 8 20
1982: Ordinance 1118
This ordinance does not specify measurements for these items.
1992: Ordinance 1332
R-S 35 - 25 25
R-1 25 - 12 25
R-2 25 - 8 20
R-2a 25 - 8 20
R-3 25 8** 20 **8 feet each side except zero lot line sides of townhouse units
R-3a 25 8 20
R-4 25 8 20
R-O 25 8 20
RMH
2004: Ordinance 1645
R-S 35 - 25 25 For lots created prior to the effective date of the regulations. PUD
Required for lots created after these regulations were established
R-1 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
R-2 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
R-3 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
R-4 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
R-O 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
RMH 25 - 5 20 Front yard requirement is 25 feet for homes adjacent to arterial
streets. Reduced to 20 feet for collector streets
244
28
*corner side yard
245
29
Appendix G: The Steps To Identifying And Listing Historic Properties, Including Key Phrases
246