Oh my god, we have to phone this out of the two and some colours like the five.

So this is from pocket.

She is the on our presenter.

She's not called members of that here.

Um but it's just that I am so that's why on the comments on that's the question.

So less than all the tests of all these trying to sell me.

So yeah, smile city farms and then where is it?

What's the one right over the boards?

North Dakota.

And we have arms over there too.

Yeah.

Okay to old trees.

Yes.

It wasn't all that.

Well, thank you.

Yeah, sorry.

So already, we're good to go.

I don't see that.

That's why we could say that registration.

Um just straight five.

She is able to share.

And then sound on that really just.

So thank you.

That sounds good.

Sure.

I can see sure that we've got enough for a quorum.

Um good evening.

Thanks for joining us before we start the meeting.

I'd like to remind folks of a couple things to make it easier to follow along and make public comment.

You can watch us in real time in several different ways.

Attend in person at the City Commission room, stream us live on your computer by going to the meetings video page at Bozeman.net and clicking the view live event link.

You can watch the meeting on cable cable TV on channel one ninety.

You can also join us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join us by clicking on the calendar event for the meeting on Bozeman's main web page to find the City Commission agenda or the HPAB agenda.

Click the link to register and follow the prompts to enter the meeting.

Lastly, you can call in to listen.

You'll find the phone number for the video conference and access code on the agenda.

Please note this is for listening only, and you will be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you are joining us through video conference and are having connectivity issues, try exiting out of the meeting and coming back in.

If you continue to have issues, please remember you can also listen via the phone information, streaming live on the website or on cable on channel one ninety.

If you would like to offer public comment this evening, there are two ways you can do that.

You can make your public comment in person here in the commission room.

If you're joining us through video conference, you can use the raise your hand feature.

When it is your turn to comment, staff will call you by name.

Please remember to go back in and lower your hand when you have finished making your comment.

Any public comment received by noon today will have been distributed and read by the commission or board.

We will hear in-person public comment first, followed by those joining via video conference to allow time for remote attendees to queue up for comments.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll call the meeting to order.

Are there any disclosures?

Okay, seeing none.

Um see, are there any changes to the agenda?

Oh.

Yeah, call call roll.

Sorry.

That's not on my cheat too.

Uh quick roll call.

James Webster.

Here.

Michael Wiseman.

Here.

Ashley Wilson.

Here.

Alison Brecky.

President.

Mitchell Corris.

Okay.

Now, any disclosures?

Okay, seeing none.

Um any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

Okay.

I don't think we have any public service announcements.

So can I get a motion to approve February's minutes?

I make the motion.

I made the motion.

A second.

Okay.

I'll just abstain just because I wasn't there at that meeting.

Would that be the safest bet?

But we have, but we won't be able to approve them, right?

If I do that.

Did you read them?

I did read them, yes.

Aaron, that's okay if you do that because we have a quorum without you.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

When we go to vote, you can just I'm seeing and then open for discussion.

Open for discussion.

Okay, thank you.

I have one question about the minutes, just uh more of a format in the FYI part of the minutes for the last month.

I know I was away and um was online, but made a comment at the very end about um the oh just making a uh what's the word making a suggestion to discuss the interim zoning ordinance at an upcoming meeting.

And we didn't really have any discussion.

I mean, there was no yes to no no.

It was just kind of a non-discussion.

But I would think I guess in the FYI, wouldn't something like that, shouldn't that appear?

Because it's it's an item, and it doesn't lead to have much said about it, but for the accuracy of the minutes, because the FYI, you could see on the timer the FYI actually went on for about nine minutes, and you might somebody reading that would say, what happened in those nine minutes?

So just a question for discussion there, and um to I guess if I were to say to amend the minutes if I were to make a motion there.

I would just say I would like to make a motion that there was an FYI item brought up about placing the interim zoning ordinance on a future agenda.

That's it.

Thank you.

Does that work?

I think so.

And we could yeah, we could approve it with an amendment, right?

Sure.

Approve the minutes or through amendment.

So procedurally, that's acceptable.

Thank you.

So we'd move to approve the minutes with the amendment of adding there was a comment during FYI for um putting interim zoning discussion on a future agenda.

Mike, is your mic on?

Yes.

Okay, so I'm not sure.

It's quiet.

Do you want to repeat it?

Okay.

Uh so a motion to approve the minutes with the amendment of adding under the FYI section that there was a request for discussing interim zoning on a as a future agenda item.

Oh, can I oh I guess I can't.

Second, no.

Second the motion.

Okay.

So we'll vote to approve as amended.

I think you have to call it.

What's that?

Don't you have to call it?

You have to call the vote.

Didn't I?

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's what I meant by.

So there's yeah, first you need to vote on the amendment and then okay.

So vote on the amendment.

I wait.

All right.

Mover Webster.

Aye.

Second or Wilson.

Aye.

Member Wiseman.

Aye.

Member uh Brecky.

Abstaining.

And Member Corus.

Aye.

Yes.

Sure.

So now we vote to approve the amended minutes.

Okay.

The amended minutes.

Yes.

Who doesn't?

Mover Chorus.

Aye.

Second or Wilson.

Aye.

Member Webster.

Aye.

Member Wiseman.

Aye.

Member Brecky.

Abstain.

Okay.

Now we will don't have any consent agitums, we'll move to public agenda, uh, public comments.

Sorry.

This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the historic preservation advisory board.

There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item, but you may only speak once per topic.

Please note the board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda.

All persons addressing the board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner, and members of the audience will be respectful of others.

Please state your name and state whether you are a resident of the city or property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes.

One by Angie Kochovic, Linda Simonis, and me from early March or mid-March close to that.

And one last week from Natsuki Nakamura titled What is the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District?

Both of those guest columns, layout commission priorities, and an argument for adopting an interim zoning, or excuse me, an interim zoning ordinance.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Is there any online?

No public comment.

Okay.

Moving on to action items.

So we've got a presentation.

Continue discussion of the landmark development program.

Landmark program development.

Good evening, board members.

Erin George, community development director.

I'm here tonight to um talk with you alongside our consultant about the landmark project.

So as we move forward through both of these projects, you're gonna see that we're gonna be bringing presentations and discussions to you on each project, landmark and COD design guidelines.

We're gonna kind of alternate if if we can and um try not to confuse it too much.

Um but we have our consultant Adrian Burke with us here from community planning collaborative virtually, and she's gonna share the slides if it will work from the technical side of things.

So let's just check that.

Crossing fingers here.

Adrian, are you able to share your slides now?

Help if I unmute.

Let's give the sharing a try.

Is that working?

It is, but can I wonder, Trenton?

Can you make it full screen somehow?

I have to, okay.

There we go.

Look at that.

Okay.

All right, great.

So I just wanted to make sure we had that on the screen.

So um before Adrian gets started, just a reminder that um last spring we were talking about phase one of the local landmark program, and uh we took the policy recommendation report through the historic preservation advisory board and then on to city commission, who adopted it in May.

Following that time, we started phase two, which was to implement some of the recommendations out of that report.

We've provided a couple of presentations to this board with updates on uh some educational pieces and some of the topics that are going to be coming before you.

And then behind the scenes, we've been starting work with the consultant to uh start drafting code language.

But before we get to that point, we reached a moment in our discussions where we needed some input from the board.

And so we wanted to come to you all, catch you up on the status, and then have a discussion about the uh aspects that need your input.

So I'll introduce Adrian so she can take you through that information.

Adrian.

Perfect.

Thank you, Erin.

I appreciate the opportunity to come back to talk to you all tonight and give you a little bit more information on what we've been up to.

Um, just as a quick recap reminder about who we are.

Uh I'm Adrian Burke with Community Planning Collaborative.

Uh also part of our team is Anna Davis, also with CPC, Sarah Martham, and Jacqueline Dreyer.

And we will jump in and talk to you.

Let's see.

Tonight we're gonna go uh very quick project recap about phase one and where we are right now.

Then we'll dive really tonight.

We want to talk specifically about the local landmark program.

So I'll go over some examples of other communities, and then we'll talk about our thoughts and where we are on how to implement the program in Bozeman.

Quick next steps, and then really want to have a discussion with you all regarding your thoughts about the local landmark program and address any questions you might have.

So to start with the project recap.

If you'll recall, Erin mentioned the phase one report was adopted by the City Commission back in May, and these were the topics that were addressed in that report.

As mentioned, we're going to dive tonight into that phase two piece, specifically the local landmark program.

So within that report, the phase two recommendations specifically discussed the landmark program that we'll talk more about tonight, revisions to chapter 38 in the UDC, specifically around the COA process, deviations and demolition, and then the neighborhood conservation overlay district, one of the top priorities being the design guidelines update, which is underway, and then also a discussion about boundaries, which HPAP recommended tabling that conversation, and so that is tabled until the boards are ready to bring it back up.

So that phase one project, we really kicked off working with staff in fall of 2023, and it went through last spring, and then we have been working since summer 2025 on this phase two.

And I'll go over some of the bullet points here.

I'll say as a consultant and as a former local government preservation staff member myself, having also done many code updates in my lifetime.

This one is a it was a little challenging, and one of the reasons why is because there was the fact that you all were in the process of adopting an entirely new UDC.

And so some of the behind the scenes was really logistical, talking about how sections in the existing UDC would translate into the new UDC and where those would live.

So it wasn't as straightforward as just updating existing code sections because so much has changed in terms of organization with the UDC as it is as a new document.

There were actually a lot of conversations both internally and with us as the consultants as to where things made the most sense to live.

And so that is one of the things we've been working on.

We've also been reviewing and discussing with the city attorneys the applicable state law and how that might impact any of the suggestions for the code updates.

We've also been looking, continuing with phase one's work.

We had already started looking at other landmark programs for comparisons, and then all of that has been done.

We have done some initial drafting of code sections based on the direction of that phase one report, some of which you'll hear tonight, specific to the landmark section that we have started drafting.

But like Erin mentioned, there was an inflection point, sort of like what we did with phase one.

We paused and came back to you as the board to make sure we were on the right track, and that's what we want to do with this as well, specific to the landmark program.

You also all have the design guidelines project underway.

So we want to make sure that we're operating in conjunction with the consulting team working on that project.

So we've met with them, and then specifically we'll get into tonight the discussion about the landmark program in and outside of the NCOD.

So I'm gonna jump into the local landmark program examples, and I will say working with Sarah Rosenberg, who we were sad to see go, but wish her very well in her new position, and have been happy to work with Rebecca.

Um we have done a lot of research on different landmark programs, and so I'm just giving you a snapshot of a several that we've looked into.

Um, but if there are any questions about some of the other communities we've looked at, I'm happy to answer that.

So first I'm gonna talk about regulatory landmark programs.

And I will say across the country, this is really the foundational type of landmark program that exists.

The majority of local landmark programs I'm familiar with.

Um I will say this is my tenth year as a National Alliance of Preservation Commissions trainer.

So I've been around the country, and I usually end up teaching the meeting procedures and the legal basics.

So I dive a lot into different communities ordinances as well as part of what I do.

The foundational type of landmark program is regulatory.

That is really the meat and potatoes, and that is because historic preservation legally happens at the local level.

The National Register of Historic Places is not regulatory.

The states do not enforce any kind of regulation on preservation.

I'll say with a caveat that when tax credits are involved, the state and the federal government do look at things.

But for the most part, preservation as a protection tool happens at the local level.

And so that's why landmark programs are primarily regulatory.

So just a couple of other examples I'll share with you.

Regulatory programs with design demolition, certificate of appropriateness processes, and design guidelines.

One not too far away in your state in Montana is the city of Billings.

They have the authority to regulate designated historic districts and properties.

And just you'll note here, they proposed changes to a building, including alteration or demolition, have to go through the process to get a certificate of appropriateness, as do development applications.

So that's a clear example of a regulatory program.

Similarly, Fort Collins, Colorado, same process.

And this is what you see across the country.

When there is a landmark program with local historic districts or ability to landmark individual sites locally, what that is triggering is a COA process, certificate of appropriateness process that is evaluating and regulating design review and changes to properties.

So that is that is the basics of a regulatory preservation program.

And that will come up when we're talking about the NCOD.

So there are though non-regulatory landmark program options.

So it's something to think about.

There are preservation programs that have these two pieces.

One of them is Aurora Colorado.

So they have some, they have the traditional local landmarking ability.

Properties are designated as local landmark sites or districts.

That triggers a COA review.

They have that regulatory function.

However, they also have something called the Cultural Heritage Site Program, which is an honorary recognition.

It does not trigger any kind of regulatory review.

So what comes with that is a plaque.

It becomes part of the commute, I believe they have a map on their website.

It's really an honorary recognition.

This one was a little new to me.

They actually have three tiers.

Certified is fully regulated.

The honorary landmark is only subject to demolition delay.

That's the only regulation it triggers.

And then they have this third, what I would consider is the non-regulatory option, which is just identification as historically significant.

The way I read that is that's probably it as they say internal classification.

I'm guessing they're keeping an eye on things that could potentially move up to that honorary or certified at some point.

So if you have a non-regulatory function in a preservation program, what could that mean?

I think there's depending on Montana state law, there's probably a lot of flexibility here.

Typically, it involves signage and markers.

There might be a physical heritage trail in the community or neighborhood.

You could do certainly GIS-based story maps, digital trails, any variety of education and outreach.

There might be additional incentives that communities identify, like facade grants.

If you're an honorary site, perhaps you're eligible for a facade grant or other financial incentive.

There might be another community I looked at.

Oh, Illinois also is Glenco.

They were exploring code exemptions, so it would allow for a more flexible process for those properties.

And then, of course, the ultimate non regulatory recognition is the National Register of Historic Places.

That's always an option for properties to pursue that or districts to pursue that.

That is, you know, the federal level recognition, but it is a non-regulatory program.

And this picture here is actually from the city of San Antonio.

They've created a history here marker program.

So these are properties that are recognized with signage, but they are not regulated in any way, is my understanding, I should say.

So oh, yeah, here's where I'll talk about some incentives.

That's where I'll touch on the Glencoe, Illinois example.

So this is something to think about both for properties that are already or properties that are regulated or not.

You could look at potential incentives.

Incentives do already exist with some of the tax options that you all have.

But as I mentioned, this is in Glencoe, Illinois.

They work on considering building permit fee rebates, property tax rebates, flexible setbacks, building height.

Now, I will also say something very important that I always mention when I do camp trainings is that every community is unique.

So what might work in Glencoe, Illinois as an incentive might not work in Bozeman.

That is something that is really localized.

That would be up to you all to determine.

Also, things like waivers on permit fees, this kind of thing can also be very dependent on state law.

So that's something you would also definitely want to engage with your attorneys on.

Jackson, Wyoming also has incentives for programs or for properties that are designated.

These are some of the code exemptions I mentioned.

They allow a floor area ratio exemption, they don't have a minimum lot size.

And these other options, there are variety.

So this is another example of a two tier system.

And then just I'll touch upon, we talked a lot about in the phase one report, different options for the preservation program generally in Bozeman, but certainly one of them is education and outreach, and that is an important function of a landmark program.

So just to show Miami Dade County in Florida, they have done some really excellent GIS-based story maps.

This is one on the county's architectural legacy that goes into the different architectural styles found within the county.

They have a variety of maps available now to help share information about the landmark program.

Morris County, New Jersey, we really liked this example because it touches not just upon historic sites, but they also include their open space preservation, cemeteries, farmland preservation.

Looking at sharing a lot of information about the cultural and natural resources in Morris County.

I always use as an example for a local government program that is maintaining that regulatory function.

They still process COAs, they're doing design review, but they have really taken on a whole other host of non-regulatory functions, including a preservation race, they do walking tours, they also have a program for realtors that is an option.

They call it their historic health specialist program.

Now I'm assuming San Antonio has a decent budget and more staff than a most any other preservation office in the country.

So these are great examples.

If a government can do it, fabulous.

But if not, these are great things that you know partnerships can be really important.

Maybe it's something to think about, you know, partnering with the museum or different groups in the community.

So this sharing is ideas, not, you know, this is like I said, kind of above and beyond.

It's it's certainly not typical for most government programs to be doing this much.

So that being said, thinking about the regulatory aspects of a local landmark program and non regulatory.

We have started looking at the local landmark program in Bozeman from that regulatory perspective.

Um that is what we feel like we heard from the community during phase one.

There is interest in having that option uh within the community.

And so as we've started thinking about the process, uh we have been going down the regulatory route.

So that's what I'm going to share with you.

So again, just a recap on why, why would Bozeman be interested in establishing a local landmark program?

It is an additional policy tool for preservation of historic and cultural resources.

It offers again that local option outside of the National Register of Historic Places standards, which we'll talk about a little bit in just a minute.

Specifically, and I bolded this because this is really a big part from the beginning when the city issued the RFP for this whole project.

Historic preservation as a process does not exist outside the NCOD right now.

And so this allows that process to exist for the rest of the city limits.

You could also expand preservation incentives to additional properties by adopting a local landmark program, and having this policy supports other community goals that are in the overall plan for the community as well as policy goals that were, or I'm sorry, community goals that we heard during the phase one community outreach.

So as we're thinking about what this could be, it is a local landmark program that could apply to individual sites or properties, so they would be individual landmarks, or it could apply to landmark districts, so a collection of properties.

So significance is looking at the parts of a property or properties that speak to these types of things, an aspect of heritage or culture, events, activities, people, townscape, design or uh you know architectural style, construction style or materials, landscape, which we certainly heard a lot about trees during the phase one outreach.

And so trees or a landscape feature could be included, uh craftspeople, trade persons, or um a site or district related to a specific theme.

So that's that's where we are right now with the what we have come up with, but again, want you to think about that, and then integrity typically refers to the ability of a property or properties to convey that historic or cultural significance.

So we would be looking at things like is it in the same location?

Although it doesn't necessarily have to be.

So it's it's not new to do it this way, and I I think it's a better practice.

So we definitely want your thoughts on this.

And the reason this is especially important too is I mentioned this is where Bozeman has flexibility to determine what is significant and what defines integrity in Bozeman.

Instead of just relying on the National Register of Historic Places standards, which are typically a lot more rigid and have a they just don't meet the needs of a lot of communities who are trying to have a more inclusive preservation program.

And so this is really important because this is where you all can decide what works for Bozeman.

So again, where we would be talking about creating a local landmark process anywhere within the city limits.

Outside the NCOD is pretty straightforward in terms of how that could go within the NCOD, a little trickier, and we'll get to that in just a second.

So in terms of who's involved in the process, nominations would be submitted by property owner or owners.

Staff would be involved in processing the application, meeting with the applicants in advance, and then drafting a report that would go then to HPAB, who would be the reviewing and recommending body for local landmarks, and then the city commission would be the final decision maker.

So just to explain that process a little bit more here on the right hand side, typically there would be a pre-application meeting or meetings with staff before any formal application is submitted.

I can talk to if anyone's curious about what we what an application might involve, happy to answer questions about that.

Application would be submitted.

There were it would be go through the same process like many other land use applications.

There would be a public notice.

If someone wants to appeal a city commission decision.

So those are some standard procedural components of a landmark process.

Over here on the left-hand side, historic resource surveys are really critical for establishing a foundation for why a property would meet the criteria for landmarking.

That would be something that would be discussed at the pre-application level to see what's been surveyed already or if it hasn't been.

So what would that mean?

It would trigger design review.

It would trigger review of alterations or demolition on a property and a COA, a certificate of appropriateness.

So that's pretty straightforward outside the NCOD.

That is it's not complicated.

Inside the NCOD, we realized landmarking status really would confer what already exists procedurally within the NCOD.

You already require design review, you have design guidelines, you require certificates of appropriateness for properties within the NCOD.

So it's functioning the same way that regulatory landmark programs work.

So we wanted to come to you and talk about the reality of that.

And then is it maybe within the NCOD that this non-regulatory tier could come into play?

Maybe there's a way to use that as an option within the NCOD or outside the NCOD.

It could exist for both.

But within the NCOD, you functionally already have a landmark program.

It has the same outcome essentially as a process.

So we wanted to talk to you about that.

Next steps would be after tonight and our conversation, we will get back with staff and coordinate with the design guidelines team as well.

So they're up to speed on the direction things might be headed, and then we would come back to you all with a next review based on your feedback with further, you know, more fleshed out information.

So for tonight, I know I gave you a lot of information.

We want to talk about that landmark nomination criteria and what we have thought about so far and see if there's anything else that you think should be included or expanded upon.

And then we wanted to talk about how the landmark program applies, both outside the NCOD and inside the NCOD.

And I think those are our primary goals.

We really want to help, or we really want to understand what you all think are the priorities for this landmark program.

And so these two discussion areas will really help us think through that.

And then, of course, happy to answer any other questions you might have as well.

And with that, I will turn it back to Erin if she has any additional thoughts or we can jump into the discussion.

Thank you, Adrian.

That was great.

Just wanted to remind the board that we put this on the agenda as an action item, not because you're taking action on it, but because uh it's an item for the board to discuss, and then we wanted to allow for public comment.

Is this the time to ask questions?

Absolutely.

Yeah, I guess that was actually my question, and I feel like we're the Robert's rules on training wheels here.

But um Do we do public comment first, or is that happening anytime, or is that at the end, or what's the it is up to you as the chair tonight?

Uh you can ask questions of staff, and then usually we suggest uh going to public comment before you go in more into your discussion phase, but um, because you're not taking a vote on this item, it's up to you if you'd like to hear the public comment first, that's fine too.

Chair, I would suggest we just do questions about the presentation first and then open it up to public comment before our discussion.

I'm gonna go ahead and start since the microphone, the mic, the microwave's on.

The microphones on.

Uh okay, just quick question, Adrian, great to see you again.

Um, and this might be for uh Aaron or Rebecca.

I just was thrown off a little bit.

Guidance from the attorney's office is saying that every new landmark would be essentially an overlay district.

Did I hear that correctly?

No, so I think there's an important distinction about individual site versus a district.

Okay.

Um landmark nomination is submitted after this program's created.

Uh if a landmark nomination is submitted that is asking to create a landmark district, then uh that would have to go through a ZMA zoning map zone map amendment process to create that as a sort of uh overlay district itself, like a landmark overlay district for that.

And the idea behind that is because that's the only way that a regulatory regulation can be triggered, correct?

Correct.

That's how the city applies its regulatory authority, and that is if the desire is to apply regulations in that area that do not already exist.

Okay.

Um next question.

Next question, uh very much recognize the IRD that we have an NCOD that essentially has always served as a landmark program, but wouldn't there be um I believe a part of this project is to ensure our current regulatory language for the neighborhood conservation overlay district is following best practices for a landmark program.

Go ahead, Adrian, if you want to speak to that.

Sure, yes, and I think that's where the recommendations in the phase one report come in related to tightening up tightening up language around the COA process, deviations, demolition language, um, all of that is yes, to ensure that the regulatory component does follow best practices and is meeting the needs of the community.

Okay, it just gets a little bit confusing, right?

Because essentially the city would be creating a new landmark program that would exclude the existing NCOD overlay, I'm assuming the regulatory option.

That's what we wanted to discuss with you tonight.

Okay.

Okay, yeah.

I I'm gonna stop there with my questions.

Thanks.

I want to follow up real quick on the overlay piece.

You're using overlay district, but um if a if a site, single site outside of the NCOD is nominated under the landmark program, that would put the same regulatory constraints on that site as the NCOD, correct?

That's the idea, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, and it so in that sense I started to answer yes to the overlay question because in that sense it still needs to be mapped, um, even if it's an individual site as a landmark, and in that sense, it is an overlay.

Um it's an overlay is whenever there's additional requirements placed on a property above the base zoning district.

So, and that's that's how it is across the country.

Local historic districts, local landmark sites are functionally an overlay.

Um, that's the and they typically appear on zoning maps.

That's the standard process.

And I think one distinction I can help with is um when we talk through this with the city attorney's office, is um the district version of this.

If there was a landmark district, um, if the board and the commission wants to have the district option, um having that go through the zone map amendment process means it's it's applying our regulatory authority, um, but it also would mean applying our process.

So that means it goes through the community development board and HPAB for the landmark nomination piece of it at HPAB, but then at CD board it would be for the uh statutory role that they they have to fulfill in considering and making a recommendation to commission on zoning map amendments.

There's also typically a threshold for uh getting a certain percentage under our CMA regulations right now, it's 51% of property owners in the affected area sign off on the application.

Um we could, and we talked about this, uh, we could in the landmark regulations apply a different number, and we think that might be appropriate because 51% is basically half, just barely half.

And if we are considering something that will apply more stringent regulations onto people's private property, the more people that have that know about it and have agreed to it, the better.

Uh so that's something that we'll discuss when we get into the meat of the regulations is do we want to apply 75% or some higher number to make sure that we have agreement within that proposed area.

So that's the district version.

The individual site version, Adrian's correct, we would want to map that so that it's available publicly where the landmarks exist, it's um information that's out there, but uh, I don't believe that we would have to go through that full ZMA process for one individual site.

And then is there and this is kind of me having not done some of my homework within the NCOD when you're within a historic district, is there a different level of regulation inside that district than the general NCOD?

Was your question about historic district within the NCOD?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sorry.

Um, yes, and that's this is one of the things again that's part of this discussion.

So you're right on the money bringing this up.

Uh they uh the design guidelines and all those regulations uh my staff tells me are applied more stringently to within historic districts.

So um we're also working on the NCOD design guidelines, more information to come on that, but um interpreting those slightly more strict um if you're within a historic district because it's also been nominated at the national level.

That's the reasoning for that, and there is some code basis for that, but it's it's not super strong.

So uh we are interested in firming that up a little bit and considering what is the equivalent for landmarks.

Yeah, and that's kind of where my question was going is if you get a landmark designation within the NCOD, yeah.

Do you get special treatment?

So to speak.

Yeah, and that's we're interested from hearing from you tonight.

Um, what you all are interested in in getting out of the landmark program within the NCOD and outside the NCOD.

And Adrian, chime in any time that you like.

We'll do.

I no, I agree with what he said.

And I'm gonna take a quick break.

It looks like Danielle's got our hand up.

Did you want to say something, Danielle?

I do, that's my hands up.

All right.

Um so yeah, thank you all.

I don't I can't exactly see who all is here.

But anyways, um, question on the landmark program.

So it sounds like non-structure things can be part of the landmark program, like for instance, like the view of the Bridger Mountain, since it's a culturally significant and important part of our heritage could be an item for landmarking.

There are questions communities that yeah, there are communities that include, I would call that a view shed.

Um there are communities that you could look at something like that, including that as one of the um significance pieces, you know, that it relates to uh historic viewshed.

That comes up a lot, especially around um thinking of cases I've seen in particular regarding like siting utility infrastructure in a river or um there are different um places that look at view sheds, yes.

I do that just to address it.

Thank you.

That's my question.

Thank you for the great question, Danielle.

I just wanted to also add that um, yeah, it doesn't have to be structure.

So we did mention on the slide that talked about the criteria, um, there was a landscape category we're proposing that could be you know a park, it could be um a tree, but there's other elements, um, the way that Adrian explained that there's kind of those two categories, and you would have to have uh met the criteria in the secondary category as well to ensure it's you can't just nominate any tree, it would be a tree with historic significance and what the reasons for that are.

Uh and that would be explained in the nomination application and then considered by HPAB in their uh their recommendation on that nomination.

But I think um Great sorry, who's talking right now?

Oh, sorry, Aaron George.

Okay, thank you, Erin.

I thought it was you, but I just yeah, I can't see an opt-on late.

So thank you, Aaron.

Can I just ask a clarifying question?

Um I think we do have one historic district that is outside the NCOD.

The story mill historic district.

And partially MSU.

And MSU, which we can't regulate, right?

But thank you for clarifying.

I'm going for memory.

Um Adrian, could you bring up the slide that had the uh integrity and significance pieces listed on it, please?

Yes.

Let me get to that one without making you dizzy.

Oh, I don't know what happened to it.

And while Adrian's pulling that up, one more thing on the question Danielle asked about um something like viewsheds.

I did want to um share that I think that particular example would be very difficult to do because um nominating a landmark, uh, we are proposing that the property owner would have to agree to it.

So um you would have to figure out every property that has a view of the bridge or mountains and get them to sign the application form.

There we go.

Thanks.

Um I just had a question.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that um that procedural item.

Yes, I know but most people who have a view of the Bridger Mountains do, in fact, uh really like their view of the Bridger Mountains.

So okay, thank you.

I guess my question here was um you know, age of the landmark is often considered one of the criteria too.

Um and just thinking about you've got significance listed, integrity listed, you could add age, you could add other things.

When you're talking about one or more of the following, is it generally that um one or more of each criteria category should be included?

Or could something that just has integrity but doesn't mean other I mean obviously it's not gonna be maybe meet without significance, but am I right to assume that all like if you're gonna lay out categories or criteria and you have you know two, three or four criteria, would you want one of each of those, or could it be sort of mix and match?

Or I guess what have you seen?

Yes, I I mean I would I would consider one or more of each of those categories, but that's again because it's a local program, that could be up to you all to decide.

Um but yes, the way we were drafting and thinking it would be one or more of the following of each category.

Thanks.

And just to speak to the age question too, yes, I didn't put that here, um, but that's a great point.

Um yes, most programs um include an age threshold.

The federal standard is 50 years.

Um, but that is something that local communities have also um chosen to vary from.

I've seen 40 years, I've seen some um I think I've only seen one that's 25 years.

But typically what most ordinances say is 50 years or of exceptional importance.

I think I always have thought that was quite vague.

Um I would my personal recommendation would be just to have a younger age limit.

But um again, that's up to the to you all as well.

I have a question.

Um this might be more in the weeds, but if um we're talking about maybe the NCOD having just a honorary landmark because it already has a landmark program.

Is there a physical marker or something that people would want to do this program for, like having a a plaque in front of their house or um some other incentive?

That's kind of how I believe that's um definitely I mean that's definitely one of the options is signage.

That Aurora Colorado program confers signage.

Um that's for properties that aren't you know in something like the NCOD, but that certainly is something Bozeman or the city could consider um for that non-regulatory function that there is signage or some other way to mark the property.

So then when you had this slide that showed the honorary um historic markers, and there was a list of like incentives, there was some that had um yeah, can you go to that slide?

This um this is aurora these are aurora's types of signage.

And if we're talking about what kind of incentives people in the we we know that outside of the NCOD you would get uh regulatory advantages or right, but in the NCOD, if we're talking about within it, what could we offer people besides a plaque?

Um that's where the the city would have again flexibility to decide what that would confer.

Um we talked about that um with the city staff, you know, just thinking broadly.

We didn't come up with any specifics because again, we didn't want to go too far down the road without having run this by you all.

But yes, things like facade grants, keeping in mind or or any other type of grant for these recognized properties requires a funding source.

So that's something to think about.

Maybe there's some flexibility with a code standard, they could be eligible for I mean it it's really you could be very creative, I think, with what some of those incentives might be.

Um that is one that's the factor that I think would especially interest people in in this type of thing within the NCOD is well, what why would I do it?

Um you need to offer some carrots, you know, it's like, well, if I'm already regulated, why would I pursue this?

And you know, the idea of having signs provided, which also would require a funding source or a marker, um, you know, inclusion on some kind of heritage trail, whether that's digital or physical.

Um, yeah, there needs to be some kind of carrot.

We definitely talked about that.

That was our take.

And then if they if if some if a homeowner went through the process and and created a landmark or their property a landmark, would they be in the future if they wanted to say add an ADU or another structure or would they have I guess they would have a more of strict guidelines when they go down that path.

Is that correct?

Or is it only pertaining to the actual structure that the certificate is for it would follow um are you within the NCOD, did you say, or well, I guess where whichever wherever, because if it's outside the NCOD, then it you get that it it I it's just a general question.

Yes.

No, I mean it typically would involve um whatever is within the boundary of the designation.

So, you know, yes, like an accessory building, um those kinds of things would typically follow that review uh process.

I will say I didn't um get into it on the slides, but something to be mindful of, and this has been we've recommended this um in our conversations with staff, and it I believe it came up during phase one too, when we were talking about how a landmark program works.

When a property is designated, it goes along with um that report that staff creates goes along with it.

And those reports are analyzing the consistency with the code section outlining the criteria for a landmark.

So staff would be analyzing uh does it meet one or more of significance criteria, integrity, et cetera.

Um and then the other part of those reports is that there's um typically some kind of recommendation made.

So that is also where you can go into more detail on what's regulated or not within a property.

So that becomes especially important, for example, if you are proposing to designate a landmark because of cultural significance, and the architecture is not primary basis for that designation, it doesn't necessarily make sense to regulate the architecture the same way you would regulate a property being nominated for architectural significance.

So in those reports, that's also where staff would analyze and the board when it comes to them would think through what is it that would specifically apply to this property.

So to give a specific example of a property that I worked on, a local landmark designation for cultural significance, that property, the only thing that was regulated for that property were a handful of features that were original to the building, like an entryway, signage.

There was one other thing I'm forgetting, and then demolition and new construction.

And that was the only thing that was regulated on that property.

So you also you know take that into account at the time of designation.

So I say that because the question about ADU, if it's a landmark site, for example, that was designated for cultural significance, maybe the architecture of the ADU is not of concern.

Um that really is evaluated with each application, if that makes sense.

I just wanted to add that's a really great question.

Thank you for bringing it up.

Um and thank you for the great context, Adrian.

I I agree, I think um, whether it's architectural or cultural, I think that basis is important, but I think it depends on how we write write the regulations.

So my hope is that the regulations would um not be too case-by-case uh and we would come up with some rough guidelines that would help make it easier to apply.

So for example, um, I would be likely to suggest when we get to this time of talking about the specific regulations that um if the nomination relates to architecture, that we have a statement that accessory structures or additions would both be considered.

Just thinking about the way we've applied our NCOD design guidelines over the years, um, it's applying to accessory structures as well because that's typically part of the architectural feel of the property.

So that's something I would suggest that we would put in the regulations.

Um, but if it's not about architecture, then I think that's a different animal.

Yes, and just to expound upon that too, um something to think about, especially um design guidelines are very common with properties that are landmarked.

So there are most likely we would recommend drafting that the Secretary of the Interior standards from the National Park Service are evaluated as part of the um any potential changes to a building.

But then also it's very common to have design guidelines like you all have for the NCOD.

That's another way that the NCOD functions very much like a landmark program already, is that you have design guidelines.

Um something that would need to be thought about is say I always use the mid-century neighborhood example.

Um it might be that if uh neighborhood and Bozeman that is perhaps being nominated because of mid-century architectural significance, that might need its own new set of design guidelines.

And in that you could also write you could also outline more information about you know, this is what that district, you know, ADUs should look like in that district.

So that's just something to think about too, is that um with a new landmark program comes the potential for new design standards depending on what is nominated.

So in looking at the list of you know what you had for categories.

I mean, there's six categories, only one is architecture.

Um I feel like for the local landmark program, there's a there's a good chunk of the NCOD guidelines that may or may not even apply to what's being nominated or included in that local landmark.

Um I guess is it kind of thinking about different levels of designation?

Is it um is it helpful to have uh to to think of this as a um regulatory versus non-regulatory?

I uh I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around how if you have a cultural designation on something, you could easily still have um what would be the uh honorary advantages that you would get in or outside of the NCOD of some kind of um code relaxations or tax credits or grant availability or something like that, whatever incentives you know, we seem to come up with the N SOD might be very limited in what it's actually required to protect or to govern on that site.

Is it uh have you seen any examples of like with the application form, uh something that starts to designate when you're picking those criteria, what would be monitored or regulated or watched as that project goes forward?

I haven't seen it at an application form stage.

That's usually um it usually comes out in the process of the report itself, and also in working with um property owners to understand their goals as well.

Um the example I used was in Florida.

We have very uh pro-private property rights state similar to Montana.

And so that is something that also has to be legally weighed when making decisions.

And so that is something else.

That example I gave of the property that only had the character defining features and the demolition and new construction, that property owner, I will also say that building had been really altered over time, so it really didn't retain a lot of the original features anyway.

But that property owner in particular wanted to highlight the cultural significance.

They just they wanted to do it for cultural significance.

So I mean that is also part of the process.

Is that's why the meetings, the initial meetings with staff are so important, is because you it helps understand what the community goals are.

Um whether it's a property owner individually or a district.

So it's it's a it's I do appreciate Aaron's comment about if it's for architecture, I think it would be a lot easier to put in the regulations that it these standards apply when it's architecture.

It is it is just much more clear when it's architecture.

When it's not, and it's cultural, and this is a conversation that's been going on in the preservation world for a good several years now at conferences, et cetera, is about how our communities handling cultural designations or um, for example, like a tree.

Um it's just not regulated the same way as architecture, so there has to be some flexibility.

Um communities are kind of just doing it as we go.

There's not like one, um, I wish there was like a model way to handle it, but unfortunately there's not.

So we're just sort of learning as we go.

Um, and that's why I I have seen it done in the reports, and that to me seems the best option as of now.

So a couple ideas that may be helpful as we talk about this.

Um when you think about determining what applies, um, we could, depending on how we write it into the regulations, then we would be creating uh an application form to implement it.

There could be check boxes on the form where the uh person who is nominating uh for the landmark would be checking the box for whether they want to ask for a district or an individual site landmark, and then there could also be a check mark for regulatory, a check mark for non-regulatory.

That's one way it could be done.

Uh and then of course they would want to talk to us to learn what each of those meant, and hopefully we've done the work in drafting our rigs in a way that make it clear what the the options are.

So you agree.

Oh go ahead, Jim.

Oh, okay.

Thanks, Mike.

So Adrian, outside the NCOD, yeah, it's very clear that the landmark program can really bolster um essentially a movement or an initiative to put something in place for a property or a district.

I'm just trying to make sure I still understand back to the NCOD.

Did I hear you say earlier something along the lines of a landmark program is not needed within the NCOD, or it's just not needed as much, or how would those two interface?

I guess bottom line, my question is the landmark program can't be used to bolster what we currently have in the NCOD, correct?

So I love the questions you all are asking because you're getting a taste of what we've been talking about with that.

It's it is really it's I wish it was so easy is to just say, oh, we could just do it the same for both.

But yeah, it these are the kinds of we've been asking the same exact question.

So yes, I mean the landmark program, in so much as the goals of a landmark program are to create some regulatory process that oversees design review and changes to structures, the NCOD does that.

That outcome already exists within the NCOD.

So in that sense, it is acting the way local landmark programs work across the country.

You could, and this came up during phase one, and it was explored in one of the prior NCOD reports.

It wouldn't make sense to have both, because again, the NCOD is already doing what the landmark program could do.

In theory, I think that's a very significant policy decision that the city commission would need to weigh in on before that was gone any further.

But yes, you could do that and then amend the NCOD boundaries over time.

But yes, I mean these are these are the questions we have that talks about, you know, that's why we want to understand what the goals are from your perspective, because if with if the goal of a landmark program is to regulate change through design review, that is already happening in the NCOD.

So I don't know.

I don't know if I answered your question or if I'm just making it more confusing, which to be fair, is how a lot of our meetings sometimes end up with staff as we all get confused in full disclosure.

Right, and that's why we have a discussion here to try to get these things out, because I know as you undoubtedly have heard Adrian, the NCOD, you know, maybe not everybody is always happy with it.

People say gee, it's supposed to have teeth, but it doesn't have enough teeth, and is the NCOD as it stands now a little too say one or two dimensional, and as I see what the landmark program can bring to the table all the different say strands, it looks like you know, it takes a more black and white NCOD and could make a more technicolor version of it where some of the landmark initiatives are things that are now brought home in the NCOD that perhaps weren't in the past.

Chair, just a quick call to order.

I I want to make sure we have public comment before we get too far in discussion.

I feel like we're starting to lean toward more discussion than just asking questions.

I'm also being selfish.

I have to go pick up my mother at the airport at eight o'clock.

And I want to get to discussion.

Okay.

Um are there any more just straight questions?

I just want to ask one question.

When it comes to historic preservation in this district, are we addressing the facades of these historic properties?

Because a lot like you touched on mid-century.

A lot of those have they don't they're functionally obsolescent some of the properties, but the facades are historically significant.

So I haven't really seen anything where we address historic facades in the preservation and building new construction behind them, how that gets addressed.

That's a good question.

That would be um that to me is something you would address in your design guidelines.

So if that type of treatment is allowed for a structure, that would need to be addressed in design guidelines.

I I only touched on it because you brought up Florida and they do that a lot.

They say the facades and build a new building right behind it.

It depends on the community.

Um Washington DC is the community I think of the most that really it's called facadism.

They love that there.

Um I haven't seen as many communities in Florida that do it, but we have a lot of communities, so I don't I I can't speak for all of them.

It is it is a potential treatment.

Um that would be something though that you know would have to be worked out at the community level if that is an option that you all would want to see.

Thank you for that comment.

We'll make uh note of that and share that with Lakota in relationships guidelines.

Erin, can I can I just jump in and clarify?

I think I just want to make sure that we're not going down the path of hearing that the NCOD already applies what landmark programs, regulatory landmark programs do in other communities across the country, and and taking that to mean therefore nothing in the NCOD about anything in the NCOD will change.

That's not what we're talking about.

Tonight we're just focusing on the building or framing of a landmark program.

There will also be, as part of the same project with Adrian, with the code revisions that we'll be bringing to you all.

Discussion of the teeth.

So how do our COAs work within the NCOD and as applied to potential new landmark districts?

And how did you know demolitions work?

How do we control those things?

That's all going to be part of this conversation still as well.

So we're not just putting aside the NCOD and saying, good enough.

That's not what we're what we're suggesting.

Yeah.

Thank you for that, Rebecca.

Okay.

Uh any public comment at this time.

Uh Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident.

Um, I am a member of the economic vitality board and a member of Beta Bosan Coalition, but just speaking as an individual.

Um, just a few just some thoughts.

Thank you for the interesting presentation and discussion.

The landmark part program um happened a while ago, so I this was a good refresher of a lot of the pieces that are being discussed.

Um I just wanted to make a quick comment about the Heritage Tree Program.

It's kind of gone between the two boards of this board and the urban parks um forestry board.

So it would be really great if that could be a joint conversation, maybe with some interested members here and some interim members there to kind of develop those regulations if the you do go down that pathway of developing a landscape um or landmark for for trees, um, just to have some interesting conversations and instead of being siloed, that'd be really great to see.

Um generally I'm a little nervous about um I I think there was some clarity given at the end there, but generally nervous about the idea that the NCOD is sufficiently regulatory and that the landmark program um would be at the same standard and outside of the NCOD.

I think we've seen those some um unclearness about how regulatory the NCOD is.

Um so I have some concerns if if we're applying the same standards to outside of the NCOD, then how much protection is it giving to these new potential historic districts outside of the NCOD?

Um also some concern that when the some members of the community development board did seem supportive of the idea of getting rid of the NCOD and just replacing it with the landmark program, um saying that that would be a more efficient and targeted uh regulation.

So that is an idea that some members have expressed um support for.

So if I I would be very nervous to get rid of the NCOD and would not want to see that, but um just an idea just to flag that that that has been pushed by other boards.

Um and then lastly, I guess a concern about if there are neighborhoods maybe outside the NCOD that are interested in becoming the historic district of some kind and they have to go through that zone map amendment process.

Do they have to pay for that zone map amendment fee?

Um that might also be kind of a barrier that would have to be really incentivized to go through that process if they have to pay for that fee, get signatures of 75% of the residents.

Um what what is it in for them?

So um just some thoughts and concerns.

Thanks.

Thank you.

She said, So Daniel Cardi Bozin resident.

I sent in some written comments earlier.

I hope you all get a chance to read them, so I'll just go through it really quickly.

Um I'm really focused on the natural environment, which I guess would fit under landscape.

Um, as far as a tree goes, there's one tree.

There's also Bozeman's urban forest, which is all trees on public and private land.

So how does that fit into a landmark program?

Um we also have Bozeman sits in the East Callum River watershed.

Um it's not a huge watershed, but it is important.

Um how does that fit into a landmark program?

Um there's certainly Bozeman Creek itself.

There's also pretty much an unknown, unsung large network of irrigation ditches.

There's an article in uh Bozeman Daily Chronicle from back in 2025, I think.

Talk about how important they are to aquifer recharge.

Um we have an unpaved trail system that goes throughout not only the NCOD, but everywhere.

Um some of it's public, some of it's private.

Um, and even the public parts are under threat.

Uh for example, the Gallagator Trail.

Um, there was a movement about a year or two ago to pave it because it is considered a um anchor route.

So a bunch of us got together and protested that, and hopefully it will remain unpaved.

Um we have iconic parks, Pete's Hill story mill park, um, even Story Mill Park, excuse me, even Pete's Hill was under threat when GVLT tried to put up a fence up there a few years ago without really informing the public about what was going on.

And under the Pratt plan, we have natural area parks.

Those could all be designated as landscape landmarks.

I would echo um Natsuki's comments about a heritage tree program.

I do not see the forestry division or the urban parks and forestry board right now seriously considering a heritage tree program.

I'm concerned that it will fall through the cracks.

That idea originated here with the HPAB, and I would hope that the HPAB could speak up for it.

In conclusion, the more overlap there is among city plans and programs, the more of these plans and programs can be used to make changes to the city's unified development code, which in the end is about the only only document that is actually legally enforceable.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hi all.

Um Linda Simonis, Bozeman resident.

I want to double up with Natsuki concerning the historic districts or landmark districts.

Um please remember that they need to be accessible.

Historic preservation should be accessible.

Um large numbers of residents having to sign on to a petition, say over 75% is not accessible, and neither is a $2,000 to $3,000 uh charge for asking, simply asking to consider this zone change amendment.

Um so please keep preservation accessible for everyone.

Thank you.

Wait, is there any online comment?

There is no online comment.

Um that was perfectly timed with the last public comment.

Uh top concern for me right now is the idea that this landmark program is going to be uh implemented in zoning.

Huge concern for me.

Um I don't think it's required.

I don't I don't think I can I believe I have heard that that is what is being recommended by our city attorney.

I do not think that has to be the way that we go.

You can have design guidelines be established to be the regulatory part of future districts.

Um that's just the piece I that's not connecting with me.

The thought of a landmark district going to the community development board is very concerning for me.

Um it is not how I ever envisioned this program.

Um and I believe there are some models in even in the state of Montana that you know sh could can sh demonstrate how design guidelines are that basis.

Yeah, having said that.

Design guidelines are tricky.

They can be, I know the state once you know objective objectivity has been emphasized in recent state law.

Um, but I still think that's an option.

I I just never imagine this program to be the idea that we're gonna have several different um overlay districts for every basically historic district.

That just is not computing in my mind.

And if anything, the NCOD is actually an example of why you absolutely shouldn't do it because it has created quite a mess.

And the and I just it just does not make sense.

Um, second comment.

Um I really think we have to ensure that we take the recommendations from the report to ensure to make sure that NCOD current regulatory language is improved.

So we have improved language about the demolition process, um, everything.

So I just want to make sure that that's not lost.

I believe I just heard that from Rebecca, but I don't want to lose sight of that.

Otherwise, I really do agree with staff and our uh consultant that it is a landmark program.

It's just that the regulatory piece of it needs to be improved.

So I I don't see a need to um in a weird way, I feel like it's like it's gonna have to be excluded in some way as we push out a new landmark program.

That's not ideal, I know, but I just it it makes the most sense uh to me, unless we go the other direction where we just wipe the clay the slate clean and just start all over again, which would absolutely justify an interim zoning ordinance, but not to bring up that topic.

Um so that's just what I have right now.

I I just you know was really trying to rack my brain thinking about anything at the state level that would say you have to go this zoning route.

Uh and please, Aaron, Rebecca, let me know if there is something that I'm missing, but um otherwise I just I gosh, I even think about just like what we used to do at the city with all the several different PUD districts, which was like a zoning, it just gets messy, and I've seen many, many, many examples across the country with my current work where you have these like zoning books that are just several different districts for every single historic district.

It gets very complicated.

That is all I'm gonna say.

Thank you, Alison.

And um, to address the the last question there, uh the city attorney, if I recall the way he explained it, was that it related to um the the powers.

So um under the state law, we as a city are granted self-government powers, and then we have all these different powers that we're authorized to use, and then we have powers denied.

And zoning power is one of the powers that we have, and that grants us as a city, the city commission is the decision maker with the authority to apply regulation, zoning and regulations.

And the reason this came up is because uh interestingly, we had a meeting where we were just trying to discuss where in the code this should live.

And it's it sounds really simple, and it turned into this broader discussion that helped us kind of reveal this challenge.

And we were initially proposing that this did not live in chapter 38, the UDC, and that it lived under uh this was Sarah's sort of idea initially.

Um she wanted it to live in chapter two related to historic preservation advisory board.

And so we were talking through that with the city attorney, and he essentially told us we couldn't do that.

It couldn't live in chapter two, uh, or maybe a portion of it could that related only to the nomination of landmarks, but anything that was applying regulations needed to live in chapter 38 because it's following our zoning powers.

And then he went on to explain that um the district component of this, which is an option, right?

Uh, if the city chooses to allow creation, nomination and creation of landmark districts as an option, that that specifically needed to follow the ZMA process because that was creating a district that needed to follow that same process.

So that was a distinction.

He was not proposing the entire landmark program or all the nominations needed to follow it, but simply the district piece.

And I agree with you on the multiple layers of overlays.

We're also trying to avoid that.

So two things quick.

Would it would a district be defined as multiple properties, multiple property owners?

Yes.

Okay.

Second thing then.

Um looking at the zoning, and I'm trying to reconcile um historic overlay districts within the NCOD.

Because they are different than the NCOD.

And I the historic districts in the NCOD.

Okay, yeah.

Historic, yeah.

Are they not called overlay districts?

They are not.

Okay.

Because the actual individual districts, they are just historic districts that are a separate zone.

Correct.

And that's where I'm like that exactly doesn't have to be a zone to have a different status.

Um I mean, I can see kind of and obviously this is legal territory that we're not gonna resolve tonight.

Well, I would assume that should be a zone, but we don't currently do that within the NCOD.

It's its own zone, and then you have a historic district within that zone.

And I don't know if it's just that zone is written to apply that, and maybe we have to look at the entire city to where that is a possibility.

But I that was a thought I had.

I mean, I I I kind of just wondered, okay, if if there needs to be this mapping, you know, component.

Can we just freaking do the whole entire city?

I mean, honestly, because very much respect the city attorney.

I I I want to like totally rely on what he's um recommending, but I I just have a lot of caution.

I I just think it becomes something that can I mean I think I heard uh director George mention earlier just that there was maybe an idea of creating like a different zone map amendment criteria for these scenarios.

So I I don't know if that's something that we can consider, but it has to be accessible, it has to be easy.

No one is going to do it.

The thought of like increasing percentages just because there's design guidelines is insane for me.

For me.

I mean, what simple majority is for school levies.

I mean, like all the things that we are I I would not ever think or hope that we would make this harder for someone to do.

Um, and then just the other concern is because the community development board does not have a member.

I mean, maybe that matrix could change, like where there's someone that's actually qualified to consider landmark.

I I just I get very concerned that that like would be like the final step, unless there might be some different criteria that they would consider that's like landmark district special.

I don't know.

If I if I could just weigh in on the zoning topic really quickly.

Um I'm not aware, and I will I am I am a licensed attorney in Florida.

I so disclaimer, I'm not a licensed attorney in Montana.

But I can't think of a situation in any state um where you would be able to regulate property without some kind of zoning process or a land development code, unified development code process.

Um different states are di have different rules.

Some states prescribe very specifically what local governments can do, others that are home rule allow more flexibility, but from a legal perspective, I I just can't imagine a process where you're applying any sort of regulatory component to a property that wouldn't have to go through some kind of zoning land use uh ordinance process.

That being said, I do think it would be worth circling back with the city attorney, just that's just my suggestion.

The way the way it works in most historic district or landmark programs, I'm sorry, that I'm familiar with, is that there's not a separate zoning hearing.

The the preservation board recommendation, some preservation boards are not advisory and they have the final say, which is really great.

But even when it's just advisory the act of the preservation board advisory recommendation, and then the going to the city commission, that is the zoning process.

That is the map amendment.

It doesn't then also have to go to a planning board.

So and I don't know how billings does it.

Um I think you know, these are things we should just circle back and triple triple check because I I agree with the comments um from my professional opinion and what I've seen requiring another board review, requiring um I know zoning land use are very expensive.

That would be a significant deterrent for people.

I checked, I checked Adrian build billings line.

No, sorry, Adrian, I just want I this is Alison.

I billings does require an overlay.

But I believe it's just the Yellowstone, Yellowstone Historic Preservation Board that makes the recommendation.

But I I absolutely like there has to be an ordinance.

There has to be like regulation, of course, like where something is recognized in the Bozeman municipal code.

I just was surprised to hear this thought that honestly, it's just it's it makes it more difficult potentially for our community members.

I can't help but think about the headache for Aaron's staff.

I mean, just having been there once before and just thinking about the PUD mess that we used to have.

It's it's very complex to keep track of that and then circling back, but I also highly respect the city attorney.

So I I do think it would just be a good future topic for us to discuss to just not to say that like you all haven't relayed his thoughts, but just for us to better understand options.

Um I want to make this something that can be celebrated in the community, um, makes people excited about it.

Having said that, there is a part of me that thinks, well, should we just start non-regulatory and just like kind of push some things out there and really think about other incentives that we can provide people?

I mean, I won't suggest like reduced property tax, but that would be amazing.

But I don't think that's probably like regulated a lot.

Um I just I don't know.

It um it just surprised it was just a surprise for me since we didn't really know the topic of the presentation to hear that.

Um but that's I have to uh unfortunately excuse myself to go pick up my mother.

Thank you, Allison.

I just wanted to agree that we will circle back to the city attorney.

I'll just share again.

We had a lengthy discussion about this, and his uh very clear legal advice was that um we had to follow that process and that in Montana state law uh we are required to have our planning commission, is what it's called in the state law, which is our community development board make a recommendation on a um zone map amendment.

So but I'll certainly ask him the question about if there's another way, and um I can certainly check with my colleagues in Billings as well to see if um what their process is when they're doing that.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question?

Um if we do have to go like the full ZMA process, could um removing the fee be one of the incentives that we give for landmark districts?

It could certainly be proposed.

Um it would be something the city commission, of course, would have to authorize because that would be because fees are paying for staff time.

So um if they wanted to authorize waiving that or reducing it or something in in these regulations, I think that would be the means.

Yeah, and I kind of wondered if there was some other if we can stick to that process, but to find a sort of an alternate route for a landmark district.

Um I think part of the larger point too, though, is that you know, we're talking about um that only applies to a district.

Any single site is not going through ZMA process, correct?

Correct.

So I mean, you know, to Allison's point about starting with a non-regulatory system, it it may be that we start with a non-district system until we get that all ironed out, or we find out, you know, see if there's a you know, how creative can we get if three landowners who want to be in a district all go individual?

Do they have a clear path forward now that they have landmark status to get an incentive to become a district and kind of you know coagulate as it were into a more cohesive piece?

But you know, I mean that's kind of where my head goes.

It's like if it's if it's we want to keep it accessible and the easy entry point of single sites, can a neighborhood start to start that process each individual and then start to grow, you know, going back to Adrian's comment about you know being able to expand, being able to rescind all those things.

Um I mean, that gives a lot of flexibility if a future owner is in there and wants to leave that district for you know whatever reason.

Um might not be desirable, but there might be extenuating circumstances that wouldn't that would allow that.

But um, you know, maybe there's some flexibility that way to kind of make things work.

I guess in short, let's not get hung up on ZMI.

It's a little early in the in the process, I think to get to too worried about that because I like I think the bigger thing I would like to see in tandem with our NCOD is um understanding what those incentives are to become a site or district within the NCOD.

And I and I'm sorry I keep harping on this coming back to you know historic districts within the NCOD.

Um, but it's like I was trying to think about this last week, and the analogy I came up with was thinking about um a conservation district around a national park, right?

Or national forest around a national park.

So the the conservation district is conservation, conservation is keeping something viable, workable.

Sorry, I'll get closer to the mic.

Um and functioning while the preservation aspect is the we don't want to change this, this is significant, it's part of our cultural through line to a historic piece.

And the NCOD being the conservation district kind of functions as that buffer.

Uh in my mind, if you're a landmark within the NCOD, you should get something extra.

Um if you're a landmark outside the NCOD, that doesn't mean you don't get NCOD plus whatever.

But um yeah, I to hear you guys staff say, well, if it's in a historic district, it gets a little extra I that would be nice to codify and have that like an objective threshold.

And I'm I know I'm starting to complicate the NCOD process now, but um you know it might get easier and it might get easier to stomach for a lot of people who look at the NCOD and look at historic districts and look at historic buildings and understand they're not all the same, and there are levels of what should and shouldn't be protected, what shouldn't should be preserved, what should and shouldn't be conserved.

And so I think that's a distinction to kind of have in the back of the mind as we as we look at this.

That's at least that's where I've been going, trying to make clean breaks of things in my mind of something that's not that clean, but um I don't know if that makes sense.

Some of you are nodding your heads.

Yes.

Um, and I I guess on that point, we're getting close to the end of our time here.

Is there any more objective to our discussion tonight?

Adrian, things you want from us specifically or things that we need to have to touch on more.

I think it was a good discussion.

Um I think there were various ideas that were brought up in this discussion.

I don't know, Aaron, how you would like to proceed with the next steps.

Um I will say some of what you've touched upon in your discussion.

Um we've also chatted with the design guidelines consultants about, you know, maybe there's a way to make the design guidelines more specific to certain areas that have already been surveyed.

Um there might be a way to utilize the design guidelines update to maybe take that closer look.

Um so that is a conversation that's been opened with um the Lakota group.

Um so yeah, that process certainly as it unfolds, there might be ways to be creative with that as well to accomplish goals for areas within the NCOD.

Um I did want to mention that.

But yeah, I think I mean I think we have different suggestions for what we could look at.

We have some questions we need to circle back with the attorney on.

Um, Aaron, is there anything else in particular that you think we need more specific guidance?

I think you all are wrestling with the same things we're wrestling with, so that's why we brought this to you tonight, just to be transparent of what we're trying to work through and just to hear if we're kind of thinking about the right things and we're on the right tracks.

It sounds like we're mostly on the same page and we just have some more things to look into with legal um to bring back to you all.

But I also just want to remind, just like Rebecca did that um we have our other project with the NCOD design guidelines um going, and we have certainly started talking with Lakota about um the idea of having maybe separate categories that um might be for historic districts.

Maybe they have a certain category of design guidelines within that document, and maybe landmarks have a different category.

So that is one way we could think about that.

Um if you have thoughts that you want to share, just email us.

Um we'll make sure to share that with Adrian and you know about ideas you might have.

And in the meantime, we'll we'll look into some of this further.

Mike, can I say one thing?

So it's just occurred to me in this conversation about historic districts versus landmark districts.

It sounds like the landmark program is really gonna be on the onus of the property owner or the neighborhood, and historically Bozeman, the city has created the historic districts, and so that's like a much different burden of responsibility, I guess.

Um yeah, I wonder, and then when it ends up, does a historic district offer more protection or different protection, and then does the landmark district offer, you know.

I can just see midtown who really wants a historic district, and they want the city to do the work, like all the other historic districts.

Um I can see this being a juicy tidbit at one of their neighborhood meetings.

Just something to think about, I guess.

Yeah, and just uh to clarify with Aaron, that's that's a good point to raise.

My understanding, if I'm correct, is that the historic districts within the NCOD, those are all national register districts, so that's what triggered that level of different treatment.

Um so, and we talked about that.

That's always an option for properties within the NCOD now to go a national register route, and then that would trigger that higher standard of review within the NCOD.

So that's um that is also a path, a potential path um, you know, within the NCOD.

So just yeah, throwing that out there.

Thank you for mentioning that.

Yeah, that's correct.

I think that's an important distinction, and maybe um kind of touching back on a question from you earlier, uh, Mike, about um the historic districts within the NCOD are those overlays, and I'll have to look back into that to verify exactly um, but I think the important distinction is what Adrian brought up, which is um they meet the national requirements to be designated a historic district on the national register.

And so that's why um part of why we haven't seen new historic districts is that folks have not wanted to go through that process, but there is a process that exists today in the code to nominate a new historic district.

Right, and I know some of the work we were doing with the Fred Wilson structures was to get those into the national register, and so we were trying to get some of that stuff recognized.

Um go ahead, no.

Oh, I apologize.

I was just gonna add another um layer of complication to that conversation.

Um the National Park Service Um does not advise local governments to use a national register district as a basis for local regulation.

So for example, there are many um older historic preservation ordinances, landmark ordinances that exist that contain code language at the local level that basically says if something is a national register historic site or district, it automatically applies this local regulatory framework.

The National Park Service strongly recommends against that, um, especially more and more in recent years because of private property right concerns, because the national register is uh non-regulatory, it's not applying regulation on its own.

There's concern that then automatically doing that at the local level is bypassing a standard process that would allow for property owners to opt in, if that makes sense.

So just throwing that wrench in there, um, that that would also be something that probably would need to be run by the city attorneys, but the National Park Service themselves has said that they don't recommend that route.

So it might it might be something that you know if a new national register district is proposed.

Um if there's an interest in it being regulated, it really should be concurrent with some kind of local process for making that a district.

But thanks, Adrian.

Um, complicating things I know.

No, that's that's really important to know.

I think we'll look into that in more detail, but I'll just um clarify when I talked about earlier about the historic districts having more stringent uh sort of application of our requirements.

What I meant was the design guidelines, not uh our code.

And so I think that's an important um distinction there.

And um design guidelines certainly are they do and can reference the Secretary of Interior standards, so which is federal from the National Park Service.

So maybe that's what we'll need to do, but we can look into that more.

Okay.

Uh I'm gonna extend our meeting for 15 minutes here.

Oh, Danielle, I see your hands up.

Thanks, Mitchell.

It is, yes.

I just wanted to say thank you, Adrian, for making the point that historical designations currently don't have any regulatory enforcement really behind them.

It's more almost like an honorary um designation.

So as we're thinking about landmarks, landmarks within the NCOD, not that that's um a really important um a really important distinction there as we think about how to best um you know help preserve our historic neighborhoods.

So thank you.

Thanks, Danielle.

Um any other comment before we move to next item.

Okay, we'll continue the discussion then.

Um, FYI discussion, we've got commission approval for the historic preservation office local certified government program.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Um, I will keep this brief because I know it's getting late already, but um, we did want to formally put on your agenda uh an FYI about the um certified local government program.

So the city of Bozeman has been a certified local government um under the state historic preservation office for quite a long time.

Um, and we got a little ahead of ourselves on this year's grant application.

We actually ended up receiving approval from commission at their meeting earlier this month, so that is why you're hearing it tonight, just as a heads up.

Um, typically in the future, we would come to HPAB first, but we have had a lot going on, so beg your forgiveness.

Um, but essentially this is a very small amount of funding.

Um, it's about six thousand dollars a year as part of this grant program.

However, staying a certified local government uh does offer other benefits.

So the state historic preservation office or SHIPO offers technical assistance that's available to certified local governments, and there are also potentially other federal grant opportunities or other pass-throughs coming through SHIPO where we'd be able to access additional funding because of our status as remaining a certified local government.

So it is a nice formal thing to do.

Um, and so we have moved forward with city commission and will be a certified local government um for the next year.

We will be submitting that application to SHIPO shortly.

It's basically what keeps us alive, isn't it?

It does support it supports HPAB, it supports our staff salaries and their historic preservation program, it supports um our ongoing projects, of course, very very minimally.

But yes, things like the preservation awards.

Yeah, as a certified local government, we have to have a historic preservation advisory board, right?

Yes, and a and a preservation officer.

Yep.

So yeah, I think we're all in favor of that.

Um, I do have one more item if you don't mind, just as an update for your next meeting.

Yep.

Um, so just as a reminder for folks, because I know we've been spending a lot of time talking about the landmark program, but wanted to make sure that it's on your radar that just in a couple weeks since this meeting was postponed.

Uh, we will be having a meeting with our consultants on our NCOD design guidelines project, and that is the Lakota group.

They will be doing a full engagement week, um, the week of April 13th.

And so just a few highlights to share with you tonight.

Um, they will be in town from Sunday afternoon all the way through Friday morning.

Um, they'll be touring around the NCOD, exploring our neighborhoods, um, just really getting some in-person experience with everything that they've been reading and hearing in our in our public meetings on Monday evening, that's April 13th.

From 6 to 8 p.m., we'll have a community open house.

We sent out a press release on that today.

There will be social media posts advertising it.

We're sending some emails out to targeted groups.

But please, if you're interested, join us for that community open house.

It'll be interactive.

There'll be some opportunities to engage with the consultants directly.

I think it'll be really fun.

On Tuesday, April 14th, we will have our neighborhood focus group.

So we presented on that to you as part of the community engagement plan.

We'll be sharing the discussion topics with the representatives participating in the focus group in advance, so they'll have a chance to talk to their neighbors and get some input before they actually sit down with the Lakota group.

We did hear interest from some public comments about potentially recording that session.

We've decided in talking with Lakota that we will ask the participants in the focus group whether they're comfortable with that.

If they are not, for whatever reason, then of course Lakota is going to be there listening, taking notes and reporting out on what they hear.

We are also in the process of organizing walking tour or tours.

We are looking at just for a heads up for you all.

We're looking at Tuesday afternoon, April 14th, and Wednesday morning, April 15th for the potential walking tours.

We're still working through those details.

We do have some good information that Sarah left for us as far as like little pockets of the NCOD where we might be able to actually walk around and see some things that are interesting for our consultants.

So more detail to come on that very soon.

And then Wednesday evening, that's April 15th, of course, at 6 p.m.

is your next historic preservation advisory board meeting.

You'll be hearing a recap from the Lakota group on what they've been hearing so far, who they've talked to.

Of course, some of their first impressions from visiting Bozeman, walking around the NCOD.

And then you'll get to go through the same discussion topics as they will be taking the neighborhood focus group through.

So you'll have a chance to weigh in and share your thoughts with the Lakota group as well.

They'll also be scheduling some meetings with some stakeholder groups.

So we'll be thinking about maybe some businesses in the downtown.

So that might be our architects, engineers, consultants, maybe they'll heal hear from some realtors about what they're hearing from people who are looking to buy properties in the NCOD.

So we'll be setting up a series of different discussions so they can hear some very varied perspectives in their short week with us.

Thanks for that, Rebecca.

I just wanted to add one point about the the walking tours.

I know that's something that some of our public comments and some of the board members are very interested in.

So just to make sure we're kind of heading in the right direction with what the interest is.

So we have um Sarah actually created a really detailed uh series of maps with points on them as a tour of Bozeman and all of Bozeman's historic districts and different neighborhoods in the NCOD with even some specific structures called out that she used with Adrian when she was first coming to town.

And so we're gonna intending to reuse that to have um Lakota spend many hours driving around and um and absorbing all of that.

So just wanted you to be aware that we were doing that as a foundation, and then the walking tour we were hoping would be an opportunity because the NCOD is just way too large to walk, um, that it would be an opportunity to focus on a couple of spots and maybe talk about just get everyone's creative juices flowing about how design standards are used in the NCOD and start talking about maybe some of these example uh structures that have been through our COA process and how that worked and what kind of challenges they they saw and have we um intend to have uh Brian Kruger, our planning manager, join that group uh to lend some input to what he recalls from those reviews because he supervises the staff that do those reviews.

So that was the initial thought, and then of course have Lakota join and chime in on all of that.

So does that sound generally good to you all?

Any concerns with that approach?

Okay, thank you.

How early?

How early did we need to notify you if there's gonna be a quorum of these guys on the walking tour?

We will send around a sign-up sheet for these various events, and then you all can express which ones you want to come to, and then we can indicate um which ones we need to provide the quorum notice for.

Um Dad's quick question here.

Go ahead, Daniel.

Yeah, so some of my neighbors on the NCOD focus group.

So I know that each neighborhood is only allowed one representative.

Are other neighbors allowed to go sit and observe?

And Danielle, I can address that for this is for the INC focused group.

I so the for the NCOD focused group with the um yeah, the Lakota group for the INC office right, right.

And um, because I had spoken directly with Emily Kylie about that, and unfortunately, it is just the person that goes from the neighborhood, because I had expressed an interest just to sit in the back, and Emily said, you know, Jim, sorry, there just is not going to be a lot of room.

I said, okay.

That's that's cool.

So the answer is one by neighborhood, and that's it.

Okay, thank you, Jim.

Thank you both.

And just you bet to explain the intent there.

It's that each neighborhood in the NCOD was invited to provide a representative to attend these focus group meetings, which there will be several of, and um it's similar to the INC where you're a representative of your neighborhood.

And um, we had a couple folks asked to get the questions ahead of time, and Rebecca noted that we are gonna provide that.

Um, but just a reminder that folks that are interested in providing their um perspective directly rather than through their representative, um, can certainly you know send public comment anytime, but we also have that open house on April 13th, so that'd be an opportunity that's anyone can come to that uh and uh walking tours as well, but um also at some point we'll be doing an online survey.

So there will be multiple opportunities for people to provide their own direct feedback.

And Aaron, who is leading the various walking tours?

Is that so we're working through that now, but um given that this is Lakota's first visit to Bozeman, we didn't think it appropriate for them to lead the tour.

So um I have asked Brian Kruger to lead the tour, our planning manager.

So he is currently looking at the um the sort of suggested maps that Sarah provided, and um he'll be sharing his thoughts on those example properties that um how that went through our process.

And then Lakota will be joining and can chime in as however needed, and whoever else is there.

But of course, with that kind of event, I hope it doesn't get too large because that could become kind of difficult.

So that may not be the most effective way for somebody that wants to just come and provide their voice.

I would suggest the open house is better for that.

So we're gonna have hands-on activities, comment cards, and then off the online survey when it does happen.

Okay, I know um one other FYI item we wanted to bring up before the end of the day was going back to Jim's comment earlier about having an interim zoning um discussion.

And I we've we've kind of reached out individually to board members, and I think what we're looking for is just a yay or nay.

If you guys think that we should have that as a discussion as an as an agenda item on one of our future meetings.

I think so.

Yay.

Okay.

No, it's not an official action item.

It's just do we want to have this as an agenda item on our next meeting?

Right?

It's just just informal, yeah.

I think we're seeing enough nods.

Okay, yeah.

And I know I know Alison was interested in that discussion.

Um I think Chelsea's the only person I haven't really had a chance to talk to, and I don't think Jim's talked to her either.

So I think everybody else, as far as I know, was interested in that discussion.

So thank you.

I just want to apologize to Jim.

I know you brought that up at the prior meeting, um, but we weren't prepared at that moment to um follow you know what the procedure is.

So we looked into it after that and learned that um adding an item to the agenda is something that needs like agreement of it, it can't just be one person, it needs agreement of a majority, um, or it's by the chair.

So those are kind of the two options.

So now that you've done that, we'll put that on the next agenda.

Oh, sorry.

Because it seems like this FYI period is a great place to float ideas like agenda ideas with all the board here, and doesn't take very long to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.

Thanks.

All right.

Any other items to bring up?

Almost.

Okay.

Then meetings adjourned.