I rest my keys.

So yeah, usually this is to remind folks of a couple of things to make it easier for you to follow along and make public comment.

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

Attend in person in 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 TV on channel 190.

You can also join us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join by clicking on the calendar event for the meeting on Bozeman's main web page to find the city commission 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'll be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you're 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 190.

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

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

If you are joining us through the 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 finish making your comment.

You can always provide written public comment before the meeting by sending an email to comments at boseman.net or by visiting our public comment webpage.

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

And with that, let's start the uh May 20th, 2026, Historic Preservation Advisory Board meeting.

Before we do attendance, can I just mention that we know it's historic preservation month, but with the multiple projects going on, we're focusing our energy on that, but we will be having the awards later this fall?

Can we do roll call?

All right, uh member Hall.

Sorry.

Member Member Holly, they're not sure.

I'm here.

Uh Daniel Nicholas.

Present.

Member Wiseman.

Here.

Member Wilson.

Here.

Okay.

Um are there any disclosures?

Changes to the agenda.

Okay.

Uh approval of minutes from April's meeting.

Can I get a movement?

I'll move to approve April's meeting minutes.

I'll move to a second.

Can we get a vote?

Mover Wiseman.

Yes.

Secretary Wilson.

I.

Member Nicholas.

Yes.

Member Holly.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh public comments on non-agenda items falling within the purview and jurisdiction of the board.

This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matters 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 any action on the 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 shall be respectful of others.

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

General public comments to the board can be found on the laser fee repository page.

Do we have any public comments there?

Any online?

None online.

All right.

Let's move into the work session on phase two of the local landmark project.

We didn't do anything.

Your presentations.

There we go.

Yep.

Yep, yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening, historic preservation advisory board.

My name is Rebecca Harbage.

I'm the deputy director of the community development department with the city of Bozeman, also the staff liaison for the HPAB.

Happy to be here tonight talking to you about our very important but very massive projects that we have undertaken as a board and as a city.

I do want to acknowledge that we have Adrian Burke with the community planning collaborative joining us online.

So if you do have questions for our consultant on the landmark program part of this, she's online and she'll be available to answer questions.

So tonight we have some goals.

We would like to try to, as I mentioned to Commissioner Sweeney earlier, take an elephant and figure out how to eat that elephant.

So what we want to do tonight is walk you through the project and the different elements of this project and hear some feedback from the public as well as from the board on how you would like to see this all move forward.

I think we've reached a point at which you have a lot of information about both of these projects, and it has become apparent that there are a lot of overlaps between the two projects.

There are a lot of things that maybe are more difficult to decide on without having decided on something else first.

And so what we want to do tonight is make sure that we understand what's going to make sense to you as we move all of this forward.

And so we'll start with a little zoom out and just talk about where we've been up to this point, kind of where this project came from, where we are today.

Some of this is going to be a repetition of what you've heard in recent meetings, but I just want to make sure that it's still on everyone's radar.

And then we'll move into looking forward, talking about again the pieces of the projects, where you want to go from here.

We'll look at some opportunities, challenges, and then again, as I said, some options for moving forward.

We'll take public comment and then happy to have as long a discussion as you would like to have, and then hopefully end the night with some feedback that will give us direction as staff as we continue to work on these projects.

All right, so just to start off, we have a very robust historic preservation program in Bozeman.

We have a number of items that apply to historic preservation.

We I put some dates up here just to sort of frame this as we've we've done this for a while, right?

Like we have national register listed sites and historic districts that made it onto the register in the late 80s.

Um I put 1987 here, that is when the districts that are wholly contained within the neighborhood conservation overlay district were added to the national register.

So 1987, that's a long time ago at this point.

The neighborhood conservation overlay district itself was established in 1991.

It was established to apply a level of local regulation to those newly recognized historic districts, as well as to areas in and around Bozeman's historic core that may yet at that time qualify to become historic districts in the future.

So this was a sort of an acknowledgement of look, we got some districts listed, that's wonderful.

We want to protect them.

We also recognize there may be more in this area.

So let's apply these regulations to the whole of the NCOD to make sure that we can protect what may come as a future district.

The NCOD is currently functioning like a very large landmark district in that regard.

Within the NCOD, you'll see the sub-bullets here.

We have certain additional requirements that apply on top of the base zoning.

So that is what an overlay zone district does, it applies on top of base zoning, alters those underlying base zoning requirements or allowances.

We have things like an application and review process that's spelled out in code for proposed development projects as well as for demolition.

We have allowances or code flexibility for restoration projects that maybe they wouldn't otherwise comply with the modern code language.

And then we also have consideration of the design guidelines document for all exterior modifications that are applied through the certificate of appropriateness process.

I think we can all agree that Bozeman is ahead of many cities in Montana.

And I just will add an example.

Aaron George, Director of Community Development, and I went for a visit to Butte last week.

We sat down with some of our colleagues over there, including their historic preservation officer, just to chat with them about what they're doing with design review and historic preservation.

And as an example, one thing we learned that we were not previously aware of is in Butte, it is not applied as a zone.

They apply design review only if a property is seeking out financial incentives from the city.

So I think we're ahead of them in that regard because we're not, we're not basing our design review on whether or not someone's going to get financial incentive from the city.

It is applied to everyone seeking a modification to their ex the exterior within the NCOD.

However, this is looking at faces, the big caveat here is we also can all agree that this framework isn't perfect, right?

It's been around for a long time, 1987, 91, 2006.

There are a lot of challenges with the historic preservation program that we do have, although it is robust.

We knew that when the city kicked off the local landmark project in late 2023 to review our historic preservation policy, conduct research, listen to the community to try to learn what's working and what we can improve.

So, with all of that, the local landmark project, like I said, kicked off in late 2023, and there was significant community engagement.

CPC Community Planning Collaborative did data analysis, research, community engagement, and produced a report with several recommendations.

The project team gathered input and information, and those recommendations were presented to City to HPAB as well as to city commission last spring.

Specifically, there were three recommendations that we've been talking a lot about recently.

There were also some additional recommendations if you read the full report that maybe were outside the scope of what we could take on immediately, but are still important things for the city to have for future consideration.

So the ones we've been focusing on for near-term projects are completion of code revisions.

So these are some code updates to our unified development code.

They were not considered as part of the major overhaul of the UDC that just recently happened for a number of reasons.

We also have revision of our NCOD design guidelines, and then finally a local landmark program.

So development of some way for the city to recognize things that are significant to Bozeman specifically.

So this is kind of how these projects were laid out in the report from the phase one local landmark project.

What you'll probably have noticed is that we did a little shuffling of projects.

So we've got project number one, which we're referring to as our local landmark project still, and we are still continuing to work with community planning collaborative and Adrian, who's on the call.

We also started a second project because we love to take everything at once.

And we specifically went out and contracted with the Lakota group to work on our project that we are referring to as our NCOD design standards update.

So a little more about these, the local landmark program, as you all know, is to recognize sites that have historic or cultural significance in our community.

This was recommended in the phase one report as a way to broaden designation of landmarks to include sites that the community considers important to Bozeman's heritage, without requiring them or yeah, I guess requiring them or limiting recognition to things that meet the rigid qualifications to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

This is also recommended in the phase one report as a way to broaden recognition of Bozeman's heritage beyond the boundaries of the NCOD.

So we're talking, okay, maybe there are places in our city that weren't recognized with just this overlay district, and how can we go about recognizing and protecting those places in addition to the NCOD?

The code revisions.

These pieces, like I said, were set aside from the major UDC update that just happened at the end of last year.

And we really did that because we wanted to make sure that we had a consultant with historic preservation expertise, help with revisions specific to the NCOD.

It was always the intent to complete these updates in a timely manner following the UDC revision.

So this was never meant to be, oh, we updated the UDC and now we're done.

No, this was supposed to follow right along behind because we recognize these sections of code do need attention and they do need updates.

And then finally, our design standards project.

These, like I said before, were originally adopted in 2006.

As you know, there was a minor update in 2015.

It didn't really mess with much of the language that was already in the existing chapters in the design guidelines, but they're overdue for an update to make sure that they're clear, implementable, and to make sure that they align with current community priorities.

So to move forward and utilize experts that we already had under contract.

We kept CPC on board to help us move forward with a local landmark program.

Adrian has a lot of experience working on local landmark programs and developing municipal code.

And then we specifically looked for a consultant who had some historic architecture and urban design expertise to help us with the design standards project.

So that's where we got landed with the Lakota group.

So this is all kind of framing where we've come from and hopefully was a review for most of you.

So as far as where we are today, this is where we're gonna just breeze through it because this is a repeat of what you heard from Adrian back in March.

So we've come a long way with our local landmark project, started in late 2023.

Since last summer, we have been working on reviewing applicable state law.

We have reviewed both the old and now the new UDC to evaluate where the program components might live.

So are we talking about building a local landmark program that sits within chapter 38 within the UDC, or does it belong somewhere else in City Code?

We've looked at drafting some initial code sections and we've reviewed those internally to make sure that staff and our legal council are on the same board on the same page with what our authority allows us to do related to the local landmark program.

And then Adrian has really spent a lot of time looking at other landmark programs across the country that provide us with some examples, and she's shared those with HPAB specifically at the March meeting.

As far as ongoing work, we are continuing to consult with both of our consulting teams, and we've brought them together to start talking to each other as well since there has been so much overlap between the two projects.

And then we're continuing internal discussions around how we would actually, use our authority to apply any protections that are desired through a landmark program.

And Vice Chairman Weisman Wiseman sent an email to the board.

I want to say that was several weeks ago or maybe a month ago, kind of walking through some notes that he had from the meeting that he and conversation he had with city staff as far as how do we actually do what we think we want to do with landmarks.

As far as where we are with the other project, since last fall on the design standards update, we have reviewed the existing design guidelines.

We have looked at all of the previous reports and recommendations for the NCOD.

There have been a lot of work put into what does what do we need with the NCOD?

And we're now making sure that all of those are in front of the Lakota group as they move forward.

They've reviewed the historic preservation code sections and our new UDC.

We have engaged with and gathered input from HPAB, the community, key stakeholder groups.

Just last month we did a full intensive week of community engagement with the Lakota group folks in town, did some walking tours and open house key stakeholder meetings, a neighborhood focused group.

So as we move forward, Lakota is currently reviewing all of that input, compiling the community engagement, and trying to put that into some sort of a report to share with HPAB and the commission.

We're also working to put together an online survey.

So that's something that HPAB requested be included as part of our community engagement plan.

And we recognize that's an important piece because there may be people who weren't available to participate in one of our in-person events during that one week, and we certainly don't want to dismiss their perspectives.

And so we're preparing the online survey.

Hopefully, we'll be launching that I will say before June, but that feels really soon at this point.

So we will be launching that very soon.

And I would say you can expect to not receive the full report out on community engagement feedback until after we close the survey because we want to make sure we include all of that feedback in the report out.

And then again, just like on the last slide, we're having Lakota and CPC meet with each other to talk about the overlaps between the projects.

Okay.

Are there any questions so far?

Okay.

So that I would say is that was the easy part.

That's all where we've been, where we are today.

What we have realized as staff as we've been working through these projects is that it feels like we had a very clear idea of where we were going.

And then as we started diving into the details, things ballooned in complexity, and we could see all of these various overlaps, and we would bring topics before HPAB, and you would bring up something else that was really important that we didn't think about that needed to be sort of thought through before we could ever even answer the initial question that we thought we were going to come and answer.

So I am thinking of these like building blocks, and I am intentionally splitting up on this slide the landmark program.

I think one of the challenges we've seen is that the landmark program is a big thing to just kind of take off and say we're gonna we're gonna write a new program for the city.

And so I think there are really three components to that, which you'll see here.

There's the identification of like what is a landmark, how do we decide what qualifies as a landmark?

Then there's the what applies to those landmarks.

So is it honorary recognition and plaques?

Is it a walking tour?

Is it regulation of some sort?

What is it that applies?

And then once we know those two things, how do we use our city authority to actually apply what we want to apply to those designated landmarks?

So if this is intentional, splitting up the landmark program into three.

And then you'll see the design standards update and code revisions here on the screen as well.

And I do want to just say off the bat, before we go into this further, what we're not talking about tonight is oh, the city is going to put some of this aside and stop working on it and only focus on one piece at a time.

We took on two projects and we realized that they were big projects when we did that.

We are going to continue moving forward with both projects and all components.

And we've been imagining that everything will go to city commission kind of as one big package.

But the big but, we need to start making some decisions and choosing which topics to focus on during your limited time in your meetings once a month, to help us make decisions on a piece, maybe put that to the side so that we can focus on the next piece, put that to the side and move on and so forth.

So my advice to make it feel doable is to take it piece by piece.

I think there are some preliminary decisions that the board can consider making on different elements, and then we will bring the whole package back before you to make sure that everything works together in the way that you thought it would work.

So we're not saying make decision on something and then we'll vote on it and you'll be done forever.

We're gonna bring it all back before you so you can see how all the pieces work together.

So to help with this conversation, I'm just gonna walk through some of the challenges and dependencies that we've seen between these projects, and I did share this section of the slideshow with you in advance.

So hopefully you had a chance to look at it.

It's a lot of information.

Um I was told that I should shorten up those slides, but I think it's important information for you all to be aware of what we're thinking and why we're seeing some challenges here.

So we'll start with the local landmark project phase two, creation of a local landmark program.

And so, this is kind of where we started.

We thought, hey, this is a cool opportunity for the city to develop a new program that would be a win.

It's a positive for the city of Bozeman, it's a positive for HPAB, it's really in line with the roles and responsibilities of the board to promote and celebrate historic preservation and the city's heritage.

And so as we worked through code revisions with our city attorneys, we thought maybe this is an easy sort of low-hanging fruit, we can develop a new program.

There are a number of reasons why this made sense, and those are on the slide.

Um, it is an opportunity to apply more policy tools to the preservation of historic and cultural resources that are significant to our community.

It broadens our local preservation program beyond just the districts that are listed on the historic register, beyond those national register listed sites.

And when I say it may help us finish the work, what I mean there is we have heard a lot of comments about maybe some like start-stop efforts to identify and recognize and list additional districts.

I think that if we move forward a local landmark program, it may provide the city with an avenue to recognize landmark districts with a lower bar than might exist to list those districts on the national register.

So that's what I mean by finish the work.

I think this potentially again broadens application of our design review, our certificate of appropriateness process, and regulation of demolition beyond the NCOD, right?

So those things already apply within the NCOD.

We're talking about how do we protect things outside that boundary.

Potentially, again, it expands preservation incentives.

That's as available.

We don't know right now what commission will decide they want to throw at historic preservation if they decide it's exciting to have a grant program, for example, or put some plaques or signage up.

That's something that's going to be before commission to decide how to budget for those types of incentives.

And then as I said at the beginning, this would be something to celebrate.

It's a positive, it's a win for the city and for HPEB.

But there are challenges.

As I said previously, when I broke down the three different aspects of the program, um it's hard to build a new program.

It is not a simple task.

So in March, the community planning collaborative presented on this to you, and we discussed the process of how we might build the program based on their research and understanding of landmark programs in other communities across the country.

I would say one of the main takeaways from that meeting could have been it is not easy or simple to build a program.

There are a lot of pieces to think through, decisions to make each step of the way.

And I think that said, like I said on the previous slide, and like is outlined here, there may be ways we can work through it one piece at a time rather than biting off the whole thing.

So for example, again, we need to determine what qualifies as a landmark, what it means when something is designated.

So is it recognition?

Is it regulation?

And then if we intend to protect things using regulations, how can we do that?

How are we actually able to do that under state law with our city authorities?

Additionally, um, where am I?

Okay, so this first bullet, like that sort of builds on what I was just saying.

Um, there are limitations to our land use regulatory authority.

Um, there, you know, was a set of bills that have been passed in recent years by the state legislature that sort of change our authority a little bit and change our processes.

So there's always this sort of are we in line with state statute?

Um, what happens if we overstep um there is an ever growing list in state statute of powers denied to local governments?

So I will just throw that out there so everyone is aware, there is always the risk that a city goes too far in one direction, the legislature doesn't like it, and something appears on that list of powers denied.

So we want to avoid that.

Um we'd like to go about this in a way that is within our authority and is not going to rub anybody the wrong way.

I think it's a positive thing and it's a win.

So hopefully we can convince everyone of that.

Um second bullet here, chicken versus egg.

Uh, as we have talked through this with you all, especially at our March meeting, um, it's really hard to think about what should apply to protect landmarks without knowing kind of like a what those landmarks might be, but then it's hard to say we want to apply what applies in the NCOD when we don't really like or we're not really happy and satisfied with what applies in the NCOD currently.

So, how can we be excited about applying that to something else when that needs to be fixed itself potentially first?

And so we're in the middle of updates, right, to all of the stuff that applies within the NCOD.

So the question here at the bottom in the last bullet is is it a higher priority to finish updating the policies and design standards that apply in the NCOD before we try to expand beyond it?

That's something that we're hoping to get some direction from you all on.

What does it mean also for landmarks to be within the NCOD?

That's something we talked about at our March meeting as well.

Um, would there be additional policies or different treatment applied to them as compared to the rest of the NCOD?

Again, it's really hard to make a decision on that when we don't know the future state of what applies in the NCOD itself.

So those are some of the challenges.

When we move on to the design standards, I would say this these seem on their face to have fewer challenges, but I do want to be clear first.

I'm not talking about the challenges with the existing guidelines.

I know that those are many, um, and we're all aware of them.

So these on the slide are challenges and questions related to moving the update project forward.

So the Lakota group has been processing, like I said, all of the feedback they have received in the last month.

We're working on an online survey, we're gonna do some visual preference questions as part of that survey, help us gather more input from folks who might not have been able to attend an in-person event.

And we're hoping that the revised design standards will be more straightforward to apply, less onerous for property owners to comply with.

Um, if they are tailored to some of the differences across the NCOD.

So, as you all know, the NCOD is a large area, and it is not consistent in character from one corner of the NCOD to another.

It has multiple historic districts that were designated or listed for different reasons and different character elements.

So, is it possible, as part of this update, to identify those character areas and historic districts, and then tailor our design standard and guideline update to match with what we want to actually recognize and protect.

And then finally here, the second bullet, this document, we've been told by the Lakota group, could be very helpful in educating the public on how the process works to apply the design guidelines or design standards, but it's only if we have outlined that process before we finish this document.

So there are a lot of overlaps, there are a lot of dependencies.

It is difficult to walk through both of these projects in one chunk.

I think it would also be hard to only do one of them at one time for all of the reasons stated.

So back to this slide.

These are the building blocks as we see them.

Um I am certainly happy to hear from you all if you see this in a different way.

If you would break things up slightly differently, I would love to hear that.

And again, we're intending to move all of this forward in like parallel.

All of it's gonna go to commission, hopefully at the same time.

None of what you advise us tonight is going to result in, you know, we're gonna fully stop working on one piece or another piece.

So next slide is gonna be a lot of texts.

Fair warning.

We have outlined a few options, and I do not intend for this to come across like these are your only options to pick from.

So, like I said before, if there are different ways that make sense to you or make sense to the public, I would love to hear those, and we're certainly open to it.

So, just walking through these for the record.

Um, option number one, you can see that goes from establishing a local landmark program, drafting the design guidelines or standards, and revising the code.

And notes here is that this would mean deciding what will apply to landmarks before you actually have revised the code and design standards.

So you might be in a situation of saying we want the COA process and demo regulation and design standards to apply to landmarks, even though we don't know where those things are going to land once we're done updating them.

I would say this is how we've been proceeding to date, though we recognize the need to let the design standards project catch up a little bit.

We have reached a point where there's the question of does it need to go first instead of just catching up?

So, option two would start with drafting the NCOD design standards, revising the code, and establishing a local landmark program.

This would essentially mean that some of what you have heard in recent months on the landmark program would be set aside until you update the design standards and revise the code that currently apply within the NCOD.

Then you would decide if or how those revised standards and revised code would apply to the landmarks that you decide to designate.

Option three, and this is why I started sort of breaking up the landmark program into three different segments.

There is the potential to start with local landmark criteria and designation process, then design standards, revise the code, and decide what applies to the landmarks and how we use our authority to apply it.

So this would look like figuring out what qualifies, how the nomination process works, and all of that time can be happening that that can all be happening while we're continuing to work with the Lakota group on revising the design standards themselves.

Then you circle back around and say, okay, now that we know where the landmarks are, what we want to recognize, and this body of regulation, we can make decisions on whether that new newly revised regulation should apply to those landmarks that we want to recognize and protect.

I was asked whether the city would recommend one of these approaches.

You have had some discussion recently on the local landmark criteria designation process, so you could finish that discussion, and then we can carry on with the rest of these elements before coming back to the how it applies, what applies.

How expensive is that?

How onerous is that?

But we didn't have as much conversation on what is a landmark and what do you want to recognize across the city?

So the split here would have you spend more time focusing on those criteria, the significance integrity, ensuring that what we're drafting in that code or in that program is sufficient to recognize what you want to recognize in the city, and then we'll come back around and talk about the regulatory versus honorary and how we can do that.

With that, we will move on to questions.

Yes.

Are you talking about three?

So we're sorry.

So um back to it.

So one and two are happening parallel to each other.

So it's not like one period, two, it's like one equals two.

Like they're both, they're both like happening simultaneously.

Is that what I'm gathering?

Yeah, I think I think there are fewer dependencies between establishing the local landmark criteria and designation process and updating the design standards.

So I think that we can have CPC continue working on landmark and Lakota continue working on design standards and be moving both of those forward.

And there are fewer questions between the two.

Okay, thank you.

I think just a couple of observations.

Um, as intertwined as these two projects are, I don't think they can go A B or one-two cleanly.

I mean, there's just there's a lot of we don't know what we don't know, and we need to understand some things first.

That's gonna affect one thing, that's gonna raise questions on the other.

I mean, you guys are already running into that.

So I yeah, I think there's gonna have to be some back and forth.

Um as I look at this, I would go for 3A, which is maybe the local landmark criteria, and postpone the designation process and then dive into NCOD standards.

Um, I think understanding the criteria, what we're going to want to recognize, is gonna probably guess would give us the most direction as to then what the NCOD is gonna affect.

Um, for instance, I'm looking at the um from CPC's document, the uh establishing a local landmark requires categories criteria and designation process.

So I'll just real quick read through the categories, history and historic association, architecture, artistry, culture, townscape, or landscapes, archaeology.

Um architecture, some of those may or may not be affected by the NCOD.

I mean, if they're affecting design a streetscape or a zone, right, or a district or things like that, then they may, but if it's something that's not specifically tied to an architectural component or a piece of city property or district, they may not have as big of an influence.

And I think where my mind goes is Adrian made a comment at one point about the local landmark is really where you can be regulatory, um, and if we want to do something regulatory in those instances that might be outside of the NCOD.

Um so understanding which of which of those categories and criteria we want to move forward with, and then understanding which ones are really going to be affected by the NCOD.

I think that clarifies a lot of questions as we move into the NCOD as far as here are the things this is going to affect beyond the current scope of the NDO's NCOD once the landmark program comes into being.

Yes.

Um, but I think um, and I real quickly while I have the mic, I'm gonna read um Alison's she sent a couple comments real quick.

Uh and so she said, due to the city's lack of interest in going through an ICO process, I would highly recommend we prioritize the update to the design guidelines and correlating sections of the UDC with priority to the demolition section.

Both teams of consultants with staff can work together to ensure language is also proposed or considered that would be relevant to future local landmark properties.

This would be in alignment with the phase one report, which specifically recommended an update to the design guidelines quote as soon as possible.

So that's I agree with that.

I just would slip in, let's get those categories defined so we understand what the NCD is going to look at, or at least have a better idea.

We may not know it fully, but we'd at least get some get some direction.

Yeah, thanks for that.

Just made me realize that maybe maybe when I said there is not there's not as much dependency between those two, uh, that may not be correct because if you decide on some categories of landmarks, and what exists now in our design guidelines wouldn't affect in a positive way landmarks in a certain category, you would have the opportunity potentially with this design standards update to add in a chapter or several chapters or certain criteria that we say, oh, we're actually we're gonna look at landmark landscapes in our design standards.

That's something that you could decide to do and add a chapter to the design standards as they're updated.

Yeah, and I think um since there's been talk about having sort of different levels of regulation and application based on the status of a property, I think that becomes more clear too.

And it it might be that there's we've been talking about sort of lower and higher value properties in terms of historic value, but there might be some that are in between where they have higher historic value, but they're not strictly in COD applicable, but we might be able to address that directly in there.

Yeah, for those um who are not familiar or maybe haven't heard the what what uh member wiseman was just talking about.

Uh as we've been talking to the Lakota group about where the design standards may be heading, um, this is really a preview, so or they may come back and say, no, we've totally changed direction, and we're thinking about something else.

So fair warning and caveats.

Uh, but they are thinking there may be a way that we can have a tiered approach to the design standards.

So um potentially, and these are I'm just throwing these out here, and you we can talk about it at a different date.

Um, but potentially you could say the highest tier deserves the most protection, the most regulate regulation, strictest application, and maybe that's our designated local landmarks, whether those are individual sites or districts.

Then you might say, okay, we have a middle tier, um, what does that what goes into that tier and how does it differ from what applies to the top tier?

Um, and then perhaps you have okay, now there's everything else in the NCOD that's not maybe a listed national register district, it's not a designated local landmark.

It deserves a bit more flexibility and maybe more on the guideline side versus the standard side.

So what would we include there?

And so there would be some decisions to be made on how those different tiers actually take shape.

Um, but that's kind of the direction they're thinking.

And I think that potentially would help us answer questions about what if a landmark is in the NCOD, right?

Maybe it bumps it up a tier within that design standard framework, perhaps.

Other questions.

I don't have a question, and just my comment that option three seems to make the most sense.

And if it wasn't option three, then it would have to be option two, so that um you know what you're working with when you go to make the local landmark program.

So, I would have to say option three or Mike's option three.

Yeah, and I guess just as a clarification.

When I read designation process, that seems like that could live a little bit independently of the others.

Um, you know, we can if I'm understanding we can have a process, but just it seems like we can decide how that moves through the wheels and gets um gets designated, and that I think that can probably happen at any time down the road.

That's that's why I was thinking we necessarily need to be up front.

That makes sense.

Yeah, I would agree.

So we we do have some slides and we're prepared to run through local landmark criteria discussion tonight.

If you we didn't know which option you would choose, but we have Adrian online, and we have some slides, so we could carry on that conversation.

Um I do want to recognize that before you finalize your guidance to us, um, I would be interested in hearing from the public, but I also don't want to, if we're going to continue talking about local landmark criteria, I don't want to give them their opportunity now before they've had a chance to hear that part.

So what would you prefer?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but as the board seems like we want to go down the criteria path, and then we could do public comment on that plus the three options.

Okay.

That's all we're doing if that seems fair for everyone.

All right.

Can I ask a question?

Sorry.

Um so well, I I should make sure that you guys all know the commission decided not to have a work session on an interim zoning ordinance.

Um, so something that is really concerning to me, and I would wonder how you guys feel about this, is demolition code.

So would it be possible to, you know, there were a couple of different code components, the COA process, demolition code, and then um deviations.

Would it be possible to separate out demolition code and sort of deal with that first?

And I mean, I'm I'm thinking from a commission standpoint, we are doing some UDC housekeeping sessions, and I'm just wondering for staff, is it possible and the consultant to have a look at updated demolition code and would this body be interested in sort of bumping that as a priority while we work through other stuff.

So that's a great segue into the second half of Allison's email.

So I'll read that real quick.

Uh for city staff, I would like to receive the number of demolitions of NCOD properties or other historic properties that occurred in 2025 to update the table in the phase one report.

I would also ask staff to continue discussions with the consultant teams about the realities of establishing landmark districts through a zone map amendment process and to consider examples of Montan jurisdictions in your landmark adoption process.

Updates of this information should also be provided to HPAD.

Um the back half of that was a little off topic, but the but I know demo and that whole point has been pretty important to uh Alison Brecky.

So I'm I have a feeling she would be in support of that.

I would be in support too.

I'm definitely in support.

You do.

Yeah, and I wanted to ask real quick, I did have a question.

You're you had in there uh completion of historic preservation code updates not addressed um during the UDC updates.

Was that part of that?

The okay.

Yes, yep.

So I think, and now it's been a week since I sent this out.

I think I included the pages from the phase one report that cover these recommendations.

So all of the elements of those code updates are what is covered in those pages of the phase one report.

So, yes, it's the COA process, demolitions, and deviations.

Okay.

Well, thank you for that guidance, and we will with that direction move on into our next segment of the slides.

Um, and we'll start talking about local landmarks again.

Can I real quick ask one more question?

Just this is this is in between, so I'm not trying not to go backwards.

Um as you guys are having meetings, and by you guys, staff and consultants and some of these work sessions.

Is it possible for us to get a summary or minutes or just something to sort of keep us because I know you guys come and you present on what you've been talking about, but I feel like half our meeting is just getting caught.

Here's what's going on, and then we got to move forward real quick, and I'm wondering if it would help us to get just a few bits earlier.

So if we can break that into some bite-sized chunks, I don't like I'm not requesting full recordings or whatever, but just if there was if there's even just a bullet point list of here the significant things we went through or talked about or came up, and then if we had further questions or if we had other thoughts, yeah, we could, but even just to help us keep keep up with you guys because I know there's a lot going on.

Yeah, that's a that is a good suggestion.

Um, we do have regular every other week meetings with our consultant team.

Um so I think that on that sort of pace that's doable where we could send something out.

I will say with our vacancy and our historic preservation planner position, it is it has been tough to staff all of this.

Um, but I think that's doable, and I understand where you're coming from and the reason for that.

Yeah, and that's and I understand that I'm not trying to like make it an onerous process, but if there's if you like just something short and sweet of like here are the topics we went through and what came up.

And we'll we'll chat with Adrian about that as well.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, any other questions before we dive into landmarks, okay.

Adrian, can you still hear us?

Yes, I'm here.

Awesome.

Would you be willing to run us through these slides?

Sure, I'm happy to.

And I've been um listening to the conversation intently, so happy to talk about any more of what Rebecca shared as options and thoughts and things like this.

Um, I was I was we've been talking about it a lot, like we've mentioned, but every time we talk and hearing different input makes me think too.

So um, yes, Adrian Bark with Community Planning Collaborative.

Nice to be with you all again this evening.

Um this slide probably looks familiar because we did show it in March, but we didn't really get into talking too much about it.

Um typically in a local landmark program that is regulatory, you have to establish criteria against which to measure that application.

So it's extremely important in a landmark process that there are very clear criteria, and that the advisory board, and then ultimately the commission would be reviewing the application against that criteria and making findings uh for that criteria, so that it's following uh legally defectible process.

So the criteria is really important, and this um is where the origins of this project lie in the thought process of one expanding preservation beyond the NCOD, but then also ensuring that that um landmarking program is uh is uh inclusive as possible, and sometimes just relying on the national register of historic places standards is limiting depending on the type of property that is um proposed to be nominated.

And so this criteria is really where the city can be flexible and expand the types of um landmarks that you might want to include.

You can um you know think about integrity a little differently, integrity with the national register level is usually quite stringent, um, and that is often what precludes uh sites of perhaps more cultural significance if it's really you know looking at architecture and integrity of architecture.

So all that to say we had come up with these um examples of significance related to different categories of types of resources, and then categories related to integrity.

Um and the those are uh we can go through them if you have any questions about them specifically.

What I want to highlight for you all to think about um is the flexibility of the criteria again with that thought process being that the program wants to be broad and inclusive for different types of cultural resources, um you don't want it or you wouldn't want it to be too specific.

So that's also why this language one or more is highlighted.

Um in my observations of seeing how different programs work, the programs that are more inclusive and flexible are those that use this language of one or more, because that means property only has to meet a minimum of one in order to be designated.

Um now you could make it so that it's one s of significance, one of integrity, you you have options there, but I've seen ordinances that, for example, say a la potential landmark has to meet four or more criteria, and that becomes a really difficult burden for a property to meet.

Um it often requires more extensive research, it requires um maybe a higher level of you know architectural integrity than certain resources potentially could meet.

So I personally like programs that leave it to one or more.

Um you could also add different things to this, like you could have significance and integrity, and then a finding that we talked in a prior meeting about age, you know, 50 years is the typical standard tied to what the national register looks at, but some communities choose to lower that to 40.

So it could be you have to meet one or more of significance and integrity, and it's a property built, you know, over 40 years ago or something like this.

So you have it this really is the section where you all have this flexibility, and so that's why we wanted to spend a little bit more time talking about it.

Maybe there's something here that you think is missing or needs more clarity.

Um hopefully that helps.

I just said a lot of words.

So let me know if you have any questions.

I'll just interject to let you know, um, because I know we have slides that show the national register criteria, and then that actually spell out more of the words behind these significance and integrity criteria, and I printed copies of those and handed them out to the board members so they do have those to reference in front of them.

Okay, great, so as an example, our next slide.

This is just a screenshot of what is required to meet the criteria for national register listing.

Um, and as Adrian was explaining, you can see this code says you know, we're talking about district sites, building structures and objects that possess integrity of location design setting, materials, workmanship feeling, and association.

So they're looking for a very rigorous, like describe to us what is the integrity in all of these different fields.

So we may or may not want to be that rigorous.

Yeah, and I don't want to get too much into the weeds with you all, but um, just for your thought process and all of this, national register nominations are increasingly becoming dissertation level documents.

There's a really high threshold for what state historic preservation officers are looking for before they send things to the National Park Service.

In my opinion, it's gotten quite unwieldy.

It's they really are not able to be completed without professional help, which I think is a disservice to a lot of sites who could be listed.

Um local programs aren't, in my opinion, shouldn't be going for that.

The goal is to make it accessible, and um, you know, make it able to serve the community and the help protect the sites that the community thinks is important.

Um, and so that's that's why having this local flexibility is very critical.

Yeah, and I would add to that too, just in conversations with the state historic preservation officer, um, you know, listing on the National Register of Historic Places is a wonderful thing.

It is something to celebrate and be proud of.

Like Adrian said, it is a lot of work and it is typically expensive and very procedure heavy because we're dealing with the federal government.

It does not convey any regulation.

So if your goal is to regulate and protect, that comes from local regulation and a decision at the local level to apply something to what has been listed or designated.

So I don't want to disparage anyone like from going down the path of national register listing because that is a great thing, but if we were to come up with a local landmark process that would allow us to designate sites, designate districts, and apply local regulation to those, you would not necessarily need to be listed on the national register.

Any questions for Adrian on these?

I do have just to click through the slides.

So this is what you have in front of you with a few, just a few more words.

Um, this is just a caveat, this is draft text.

Um, we're not looking to wordsmith this tonight, um, but you all have handouts.

We'll make sure that these slides are available for everybody and for the public as well.

Um, so this is just to help you understand as you're looking at landscape.

What is what are we thinking when we say that?

What are we thinking when we say tradesperson or theme?

It's hard to know without a little bit more uh context and verbiage.

So significance, integrity.

And then we do have some examples that are hypothetical.

So we were hoping that perhaps walking through some hypothetical examples might help you kind of think about are these criteria sufficient to recognize the things that we think we want to recognize.

So if there are no questions on this, we'll just jump into examples.

That's a good one.

Sure, one question.

And this is just a broad question, so maybe you don't know the answer to this, but would the intent of a local landmark program be to recognize any existing state historic landmarks?

Like, do they de facto become part of the local landmark?

Or they still stand a little bit separate.

You're talking about these.

It doesn't matter.

I'm just curious.

The existing, like the historic districts, right, for example.

So we have talked to both Lakota and CPC about what that would look like.

Um, I think probably the easiest path forward would be for the city to move those into some into landmarks.

And not instead, they wouldn't lose their national register listing, of course, but we would say this historic district is a local landmark under our local landmark program.

And that would be the trigger that then is why we can apply the regulations to it.

Whether those would need to come through the whole process with HPAB and commission, or whether that's something that we could just make happen.

So more to come on that for sure.

But that is our hope is that those would become landmarks.

I just have a comment to like emphasize, even though things are listed on the national register, does not protect them from demolition.

Correct.

All right.

Other questions?

Ready for examples?

Okay.

I'm not sure how this is gonna work.

So hopefully it goes smoothly.

All right.

So as we have contemplated a landmark program, we have talked about whether we would want to recognize landscape landmarks.

And so we wanted to present an example, Pete's Hill or Burke Park.

Um, this is something that I think has come up in a number of conversations about the landmark project and program.

Um, so how would these significance and integrity criteria get us to a designation of Pete's Hill as a local landmark?

Would they?

Or is anything missing?

Are you asking like which of these things apply to Pete's Hill?

Is that your question, Rebecca?

Not necessarily which apply, but is there anything missing?

You know, would you do you see a path with these criteria that you would you'd be confident that you could make a case for Pete's Hill to be designated as a landmark if that is something that we want to recognize?

I have a a question.

So under integrity, same location, like what does that mean exactly?

I'm not really sure how it's being used here.

Adrian, is that something you can answer?

Yeah, sure.

Um, yeah, same location would mean it the resource lives in the same location as when it was originally constructed.

That really would apply more to a building.

Um, context is very important for historic structures.

So that's not to say this is again, I'm very I err on the much on the side of flexible preservation.

So it's not to say something couldn't be a landmark if it had been moved, um, but it's something to consider.

I also want to throw out um significance and integrity are the kind of the two benchmark things that are used in preservation to evaluate status.

It's not to say you also couldn't collapse these somehow.

So I just by example hold up uh a code that I we recently worked with for a local landmark designation, and they have 10 criteria, and in looking at it, it's really kind of a collapse significance and integrity, they come together in that 10 criteria, um, but they still only have to meet one, and then it has to be 50 years or older.

So just wanted to mention since we're since we're at this discussion level phase, just also think of it, because you have the flexibility, you also could collapse these a little bit too.

So, you know, it doesn't have to be these two big lists, but these are generally the things that are evaluated in landmark criteria.

So sorry, I answered your question about location, but then also gave you more words.

Thank you.

That was helpful, Adrian.

Yes, sure.

I mean, looking at these, like, yes, these things, you know, does Pete's Hill fall in one or more of those things for both significance and integrity?

Like, yeah.

But if we were going to evaluate this, the application would have some context for it too.

Like there would be some probably some historical information about Pete's Hill.

So we could apply that.

Like you know.

Yeah, I think that's an important thing to think about.

So, yes, we're wondering, are these criteria sufficient to designate Pete's Hill as a landmark?

But are they also sufficient that if something comes before you and someone's like, my corner lot should be a landmark for the landscape, and you want to say no, can you get there from these criteria as well?

So thinking about maybe it's more than one of the integrity, maybe something needs to it needs to have that historic connection.

I don't know.

Do the lists for significance and then the items for integrity, do those need to be the same items across different categories?

Like, do we have to have the same items of significance in the list for landmarks as for structures?

Does that need to be stable across the program?

Yeah, that's a good question.

So to date, I will say, and we're far from like fully baked on any of this.

So to date, we have been talking about um just having two two categories, um, so not the significance categories, but we're looking at individual landmarks or landmark districts, and we're thinking that landscape would probably fit within one of those.

I think I used the word landmark when I meant to use the word landscape.

I'm sorry.

So something I'm thinking could be missing, and I don't know what you guys think is um continuity of use.

And what makes me think about that is like pasture land or ditches or you know, things that are specific to agriculture and they're still being used for agriculture, or you know, vice versa.

I had a couple questions on integrity.

So looking at the NPS definitions and like the categories, I guess, it seems like the significance you've hit on all of them, but for integrity, I'm not seeing where setting or feeling fits in with our listed ones here.

So I'm wondering where those belong.

Adrian, I'll let you uh address that.

Yeah, I think with the integrity setting would actually show up in a couple of what we've looked at, but again, this is why your feedback is important.

So looking at configuration of context, um spatial elements, I think those speak to setting.

Um, and then I think the other one you mentioned was association, was that correct?

Uh feeling.

Well, feeling gosh, feeling is like the toughest one.

Um feeling I would venture to say is the one that doesn't get addressed in National Register nominations in a very clear way.

Um so yeah, I don't know if I have a great answer for how to address that right now, but I think that it's a great point that you brought up, and if that's something we want to look at how we could address that, that could be good.

Um I did want to the questi the prior question, um, about different if I understood the question correctly, could there be different criteria for different categories of landmark?

I think you would do that.

Um I also think that could get overly complicated.

So if you have enough criteria that are broad enough, um, then when the application is evaluated, something either meets that criteria or it doesn't.

So again, for example, the code I was just looking at to have an example to speak about.

They have their 10 criteria.

The project or the site we were evaluating for landmark designation was a historic cemetery.

So there are some criteria in that particular county's code that just don't really quite apply to that type of resource.

But they have broad enough criteria, the historic cemetery still met a majority of those criteria.

So in the report we drafted, we just note whether it applies or doesn't apply, and if it applies, why, and if it doesn't apply, why not?

Um that helps.

I think that would be preferable just for simplicity's sake, thinking of code language, but that's not to say you couldn't say, you know, if you're proposing a landscape, here's the criteria that apply.

If you're proposing a structure, here's the criteria that apply.

Um that's possible.

I just don't I I don't typically typically see that in preservation ordinances.

So like going back to Alison's point on certain things, continuity of use, especially in this area around agricultural resources, um, it seems like under integrity that that would fall under the you know overall configuration of context and direct link to historic event, in this case activity or persons, and then significance as an aspect of heritage or culture.

Right, so that maybe these are broad enough that those kinds of things can fit in.

Yeah, yeah, and I think Alison, the the being structured this way, especially if we say one or more or two more, however, we want to phrase it, it's understood not every submittal is gonna check every box.

And you know, some things just aren't gonna apply and some things are.

Um, and I don't know if it, you know, looking ahead, Adrian, do you ever see where on sort of an objective level uh priority is given if you hit more boxes than less, or is that you know, is it ever used like a scoring system or not necessarily?

No, I've never seen it done that way.

Like I said, I've just seen it, I've just seen that minimum number change.

You know, either it's one or more, it's four or more, or anything in between.

Um I've never seen one that's four or more.

I've never seen something above that.

I think that would just be really almost impossible to achieve for a lot of sites.

Um yeah, I don't it I don't think that would really apply as a priority.

I think where that probably applies is in a place like the United Kingdom where they have tiers of landmarks, so it's probably something like if you meet certain criteria that puts you in a different echelon, but for purposes of how landmarking typically works here, um it's just you either become a landmark or you don't.

So you either meet the criteria or you don't.

So Adrian, what about uh oh um so something like the Bridger Mountains, you know, are outside of the city, but the view shed of uh the bridgers is one of our greatest resources here within the city of Bozeman, and so how would you see something like that being protected through the landmark so that all can you know benefit from this great resource?

That is a good question, and I know we've talked about viewsheds during the life of this project, I'm just thinking.

However, I have.

I think because of the geographic scale that's involved, and you know you'd have to be designating something as a because what you would actually technically be regulating is property within the district, most likely, and how that would impact the view shed.

You could do it, but what I was gonna say is I have seen communities that have view shed ordinances and they're they live apart from a landmark program.

Um I just I would have to do more research on it.

I'm not I'm not a hundred percent sure what how those ordinances work and maybe they could fold into a landmark program.

I think that's something we would need to explore.

Um because I do know that is important to the community, so yeah, that that could be something that maybe is missing as a category that we need to look more into.

Thank you.

Or we can move on to another example.

Can I mention something about Pizza?

Yeah.

So I do think this is I know we're just talking about the elements of what criteria we would use to landmark, but for future conversations, just park in the back of your mind something we've touched upon before, which is when we do think about regulation, what is it you would want to see regulated at Pete's Hill or a space like Pete Hill?

Um there is we did we have looked at an example of the city of Portland, Maine.

Um does have a separate category for landscape districts, only publicly owned property is eligible for that district, though.

It doesn't apply to privately owned property.

Um I believe the reason they do that is because there is probably a difference in what you're regulating in that type of space than versus a story mansion.

So I know that's not what we're talking about tonight, but I do want you all to just be thinking about that.

You know, what is it in a space like Pete's Hill that you would want to be regulating?

And I think that's where this intersection of design guidelines comes in.

Um, because yeah, what would we be regulating at a space like Pete Hill?

So Adrian, have you seen spaces like parks get designated on get a historic designation and it's something like that approach?

Would that apply to something like Pete's Hill?

Even though it's not maybe technically a city park, but if you treat it as such in terms of how the how the protections view it.

Yes, um, yes, I I have seen parks be designated, and then this is where I've I've recommended, and in conversations we've had with y'all in the past when we specifically are really talking about um sites of cultural significance or perhaps spaces like landscapes or parks, um, you have you do have to think of the regulation differently, and where that can be spelled out is in the designation report and what is approved when the property is designated.

So when I worked um, I worked for Miami Dade County in Florida, and a number of the county parks had some historic landmarking um aspect.

And in those reports, it's spelled out very clearly um these buildings require a COA.

The building built in 2006 doesn't.

That was something there, then changes to those oolitic limestone walls required a COA.

So you can provide more specificity when you designate a site.

So that's also ideally they could, so it's a good time you're working on that project now.

If landscapes are very important, why not have a landscape section?

But you can also ensure you do it through this designation itself, and should anyway, even with design guidelines.

So if I understand you right when something is designated, we can write into the designation specific criteria for future modifications to that site.

That would be my recommendation.

So I'll give you a really quick example with this cemetery.

Cemeteries are what's called a cultural landscape.

And so I relied on National Park Service Secretary, not I'm sorry, National Park Service documents that talk about cultural landscape.

So it's a legitimate source for evaluation.

And through using that, we made very specific recommendations about what should or shouldn't have a COA at this cemetery and outlined that in the report.

Shall we go on to the next example?

Okay.

This one we just wanted to provide you with a single site, a landmark, and this is a site that is not controversial.

We all recognize that this is an important landmark to our community.

So wanted to just make sure that these significance and integrity criteria could successfully designate something like the story mansion.

And again, similar to the last one, and also not designate things that maybe don't rise in your minds to the level of being a landmark.

So there's there are potential scenarios, right?

Where someone comes forward and says, I think my house is a landmark, and it is going to be up to you all to review the application materials and decide is that appropriate, yes or no, because it will apply if if we go that route, it will apply regulation to the site.

So it'll be important to be able to base that decision on criteria.

Well, and and just to elaborate a little bit too, someone previously mentioned having information that helps with that decision.

Yes, when a landmark is proposed, it comes along with a report that staff usually puts together, but sometimes it's a consultant, like we were for this cemetery.

Um, and that report outlines um the basis for a recommendation, whether things meet this criteria or not, and why, and there's supporting evidence uh for that.

So by the time it gets to you, you wouldn't you wouldn't have to be um there on the dais trying to figure out yourself, well, what is the con his what's the historic context of the site?

That would be provided to you, and then it would be up to you to make a finding that that evidence is sufficient or not.

Any specific thoughts or questions on single site landmarking and the criteria?

I think for build structures, it's going to be a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around which one of these applies.

So it was decided that um individual properties or items or structures do not have to have a zone map amendment to become a landmark, right?

Have we decided that yet?

We have not decided.

Okay, because if it does have to have a zone map amendment, does that disqualify this board from being part of review by state law?

So see this you're you're bringing in another element of the landmark program, which is the how do we apply it?

Um I think there's a lot more discussion to be had on that topic.

Um we very much want these to come before HPAB, but as Commissioner Sweeney pointed out, we are limited under state law to having the community development board, our land use board, review and make recommendations on zoning and land use.

That does not mean that they couldn't hear a recommendation on like the historic significance and integrity, for example, from HPAB, and so they would potentially receive information that says this is deserving potentially that's a route we could go.

Nice.

Okay, thank you.

It seems like we would still be the first stop as sort of a gatekeeper to the historic landmark process.

That is that's what we've been thinking.

Until that gets fleshed out, but yeah, I don't I don't see somebody going to CDP without going here first and then going, I don't know, we're not that's not our jurisdiction.

Yeah, we have consistently been intending that these will come to HPEP first, and I think that's where relying on the code language that exists already that outlines the roles and responsibilities of HPAB and the categories of folks who serve on HPAB, relying on that will be really important to make that argument that you all should be the recommending body for the this action, and then I'll say it maybe if staff can't, but ideally the CD board is a procedural step, and that the decision as to the validity of the landmark status, the expertise lies with the HPEC.

Does that make sense?

Thank you.

That's excellent.

Shall we move on to a built district?

Okay, so for these photos, we have the Lakota group to think.

Um, they when they were here in April they toured around the entirety of the NCOD and a little bit outside of it.

Um, they were looking at the existing National Register Historic Districts as well as everything else.

Um, and we reached out to them and asked, hey, you kept mentioning that perhaps you saw some character areas that were potential future districts.

Can you provide us some examples?

So this is one of the areas that they shared with us, and this is just a few of the structures that they pointed out.

Um, but if this were presented to you with some of these structures as a potential landmark district, would these criteria suffice?

I think so.

Okay.

I mean, privately we would have information on just the original history.

So yeah.

Yeah, I mean if we're just if we just said one from significance, one from integrity, there's at least one for it looks like.

I guess we'd have to know more, but that'd be up to the applicant, whoever to put that together, but as a note, these have all been inventoried, so there is documentation available for them.

Um potential hurdles moving this program forward is that we have not kept up our inventorying process, and so there may be properties that have not been inventoried that do not have that historic documentation, and so would that be a requirement that lands on the applicant where we would need to see an inventory and uh cultural resource form of some sort in order to have that sort of documentation and information to make the decision.

That's something that we'll be talking through as well with all of you.

Yes, and that's where we have talked about in the past, because Montana's uh state inventory form process is quite cumbersome and pricey.

Um we have talked about creating a local inventory form that would still capture information, but not to the detail that's required for the state inventory form.

Um because in a district, you are looking at a specific geographic area.

The reality though is that not every single property in that geographic area is likely contributing to that character or history.

So that's why the inventorying is really critical, because then you're specifying which properties are reviewed at that higher threshold, which you guys already do with the NCOD.

Um, so it's the same concept.

But yeah, those inventory forms are going to be necessary for anyone who's proposing a district, any um neighborhood.

You're going to have to have some level of inventory to make the case for landmarking.

Adrian, could you see any potential pitfalls with a potential local inventory form not being as detailed as the state form?

No.

Not if it's calibrated against what the criteria are for the local landmark program in Bozeman.

If it helps answer the questions that are needed to make a determination, then I think it would be fine.

Um because you'd still want a decent baseline amount of information.

My understanding of what makes the Montana state inventory form so complex is that they require a pretty substantial amount of historic research, which is not always necessary for inventory forms.

If you're really just trying to get a high-level overview of um, you know, era of construction, character defining features, um, maybe any specific uh cultural association, or you know, architectural style, this kind of thing.

Um, you can still collect a decent amount of information on an inventory forum and not have that really in-depth historic research that goes with each property.

I might push back a little bit on that.

Just sure.

That's up to you guys.

Well, I'm I'm not speaking for this is just me.

Um but just knowing that, trying to figure out how to say this delicately.

Um you want to track the history of the property, but you don't want it to come across as one portion of its history as more important than the other, that then could backfire for a future one that comes through.

So, like for example, if one of these houses had, and I'm not saying this is allowed in the NCOD or anything like that, but just for an example, if like the upper left photo, they extend that front gable end out and make that super modern, and then you lose all of that original character, but for whatever reason they're saying, Oh, we didn't have that much history of the original house.

We think this is better because it fits XYZ, then that doesn't do it enough justice in my opinion, if that makes any sense.

Yeah, it does.

And that's why even a local inventory form should be evaluating character defining features.

So, for example, that upper left, I would say that that highly visible front-facing irregularly shaped gable is a character defining feature.

So a COA shouldn't allow if this were to become a local landmark district, its inventory form would say that was a character defining feature.

So when a COA comes in, potentially changes shouldn't be made, that alter, that's where you would be using your COA criteria and your design guideline criteria to say that doesn't apply.

Um I think that's the way you would solve for that is that the the inventory forms do need to address character defining features for each property in a district.

That's typically um typically on almost every state inventory form I've seen, right?

I would agree with that.

I'm saying the level of detail.

And I might have completely derailed the conversation, but no, I mean, I think I think I I've I've completed a lot of inventory forms in Florida where I work, but um primarily, but the forms have enough information that you would specify that that gable end, and especially just with design guidelines, any primary facade change is should always generally be minimal.

Um I mean, that's where you also your design guidelines really have to carry some of that heavy lifting.

So I think there's ways to this is why these projects do go together.

So um, because yeah, design guide if this were to become a local landmark district and that based on its inventory was found to be contributing to the reason why that district was landmarked, then the design guidelines in addition to the character defining features for that house, all of that would be reviewed for a COA.

Yeah, that's on thank you.

I think I did derail the conversation.

I would just I'm going to extend the meeting for 15 minutes, but I would push back on it might be a better idea to have more detail of these local forms if we do that than not as much detail.

Yeah, thanks for that.

And I think that's that's something that I took note of.

And if we do go down a path of, hey, we're let's create a local inventory form.

So we're not just using the state form.

I think that's something that HPAB should probably review to make sure that it does cover all of the required detail.

Yes, definitely.

Let's ask another potentially bombshell question here.

I'm sorry.

It's just how my brain works.

So the underlying zoning on these properties is B2M and RC.

How is that going to interact with whatever we decide to regulate for landmark or NCOD, COA, et cetera.

And then does it can the landmark trump the zoning?

Adrian, I'll start and then let you jump in and add, but um, I think that we can address that if we are talking about an overlay zone, which is what I mean, when we talk about regulations, we're talking about applying an overlay zone, and that modifies the underlying zoning.

And so I think that there and I might get myself in trouble.

I think that there are ways we could come up with to apply the protections we would want to apply as limitations on the underlying zoning, regardless of the district that it that it is that it exists underneath.

I think yeah, I assumed A, that was the intent of the NCOD, and B, that's why it keeps triggering the whole zone map amendment.

Because is it change modification to the underlying zoning?

Because you the NCOD covers multiple zoning districts, and you could potentially have a district submitted that crosses two different zones.

And that has to get reconciled somewhere, and I would assume that's in the NCOD.

But that's wrong before, so right now what the NCOD, what our overlay zone applies is the additional process, right?

You have the COA is required and the design guidelines apply through the COA review.

There are demolition regulations that apply and there are deviations that apply.

So we have applied this overlay that essentially just says, hey, there's this like higher level of review that is required for everything here, regardless of the underlying zoning.

There are other examples of overlay districts.

I would say probably more frequently used for like a stream, right?

Where you have uh maybe a riparian overlay that says regardless of your zoning, everybody who has this 50-foot buffer from the stream bank, there's you can't build in there, for example.

Um so there are different ways to use overlay zones to modify what would otherwise be allowed.

Right now, the city has chosen to do this path that is just requiring more process, essentially.

But that is all to be determined still.

Go ahead, Adrian.

I think no, that is I think I think that is potentially a larger discussion.

The way landmark overlays work, is requiring that additional level of review, so what the NCOD does already.

So I've I've never seen a true just preservation overlay, landmark overlay, for example, alter the allowable underlying uses of a zoning district.

Um that does tip more into that would be some other kind of overlay.

Um landmarking typically is just applying a regulatory COA process, uh, some higher level of review, but it doesn't landmark programs don't get into really altering other things in the underlying zoning.

Um I think if there was like an area of town where that is a particular concern, that would warrant a larger conversation about whether landmark is the appropriate overlay type or not.

Or potentially another conversation about the underlying base zoning would be correct.

A better path than to try to apply those regulations through landmarking.

Okay.

Yeah, that's a great point.

And just I mean, uh an additional reminder, you know, as we're going through the design guideline design standard update, we have been talking about identifying what's a requirement, what's a standard, what's guidance, a guideline.

And so there may be things that we apply to the design review that we say this is a non-negotiable.

You, you know, you you will not have metal siting, and that is a requirement.

Um, and that's still applied via the overlay and via the process and design guidelines standards.

And so if we were to create a district, could we say within that district, if something is demolished and new construction comes in, it cannot be above the tallest building in the district.

I mean, we've been told the NCOD design guidelines update cannot address mass and scale, but that is what upsets most people, and so, and it you know, then a district would conflict with the underlying zoning.

So, yeah, just pointing out a conundrum.

We don't need to answer that tonight, but I I think um it comes down to that compatibility.

It's not you can't say you can't do it, but you can say you can do it if it's compatible.

And I that was in the in the CPC's report.

They had a talking about deviation from underlying zoning had a definition of historically appropriate, like having some clearer definitions of what appropriate means.

And you have mentioned before, and it's come up before the whole concept of context and context matters.

I think that's an avenue where we could start to tighten up some language, and I think that's the fight against form and scale is tilting at windmills, but I think tightening up language about relevance compatibility, context, appropriateness, historic significance, diminishment of character, things like that.

That might be an avenue to get more teeth.

Nice, okay.

And we're hoping through the design guideline update, we will also be able to get more specific to certain areas, whether it's a character area or a historic district, because one of the challenges we run into as staff right now is when someone comes in with a COA, um, they're looking at the whole of the NCOD and saying, well, it's compatible because look at that building, you know, on the far end of the NCOD from them.

Um, and it is with what we have right now, not really conducive to saying, no, we meant on your block, or we meant two blocks.

So hopefully with the update, that will provide more clarity and more specificity.

Nice okay, awesome.

I have a way off the top question.

We no longer have a quorum.

So what's the proper procedure?

Because that is a great question that I actually just asked Trenton as well.

Okay, because we have not had a chance for public comment on this topic.

We cannot make decisions.

I mean, we're gonna take public comment because folks are here, so I would suggest we let those maybe they don't want to.

They're just listening.

That's okay.

Okay.

We don't have comment.

Um I think we can probably continue a conversation, knowing that it's you don't have a quorum, so any decisions or guidance at this point or things we should maybe revisit at a future meeting?

Yeah, I mean, you kind of got the guidance you were looking for.

Yeah.

Or if we're at the end of our discussion, we can also be at the end.

I do have one question on districts.

Sorry, I know.

Everybody's like, let's keep it short.

Um, I think before you start, Trenton, can we just make sure that in the minutes it reflects when member Nicholas left and we don't have a quorum?

Okay, thank you.

Um with respect to districts, is there a threshold to what defines a district?

And I'm like looking at this, I'm thinking let's say there were just two of these houses, and they're two blocks apart, and they've got half of all the neighbors in between, or 51%, and they all decide yes, let's make a district, but there's only two structures that are considered contributing to that district.

I mean, is that how far can that be pushed?

I guess is that or is that something we start to define and what defines a district, or is it just a non uh non-contiguous district?

Yeah, I would I I'll just jump in with um the one example that's fresh in my mind, but I know Adrian has a lot more examples that she has reviewed, so I'll let her chime in after.

Um in looking at, I believe it was uh Fort Collins, Colorado.

Um they do have a requirement that 50% of the structures within the designated district or the nominated district are contributing to the district, so that's an example, and Adrian, you probably have more examples of that.

Sorry, not to jump in.

Yeah, I like I like the the specificity of that example.

Um I was just gonna say more generally, the district is a concentration of a resource type, so um whatever that word concentration means to you.

I like making it something more specific.

The only reason I could think of that you would have a district that maybe only has two resources left or ever had two resources is because there's some larger setting or context that makes that boundary significant, but that is probably pretty rare.

In that case, I would just recommend that um I actually have an example off the top of my head of a subdivision that was um started to be built in the 1920s and they built spec houses in the 1920s, but they only built or of the ones they built, only four maybe remained, and the rest of the neighborhood got filled in in the 1950s and 60s.

Um and so our recommendation was even though they were on one large block, it just made sense to individually landmark those houses.

Also, a couple of those 1920 house property owners didn't want to do it, so the one that did became an individual landmark.

Um, not to say that neighborhood couldn't be nominated in the future for a mid-century neighborhood, perhaps, but um yeah, in your example you gave, I would probably just go for an individual landmarking.

Thanks.

Anything else?

Okay, and just confirming there's no public comment.

No.

Is there any online?

No.

Okay.

During the meeting.

Thanks for coming.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks, Adrian.

Thanks, Andrew.

Thanks, Adrian.

Oh, I think I Goodbye.

That's awesome.