Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Work Session on Phase II of the Local Landmark Project – May 20, 2026

The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) held a work session on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, from 6:00 PM to approximately 7:52 PM to discuss the next phases of the Local Landmark Project, including creation of a local landmark program, updates to the NCOD design standards, and related code revisions. The meeting included presentations from staff and consultant, board deliberation, and informal discussion after quorum was lost at 7:44 PM.

Call to Order & Attendance

• Time: 6:00 PM
• Members Present: Danielle Nicholas, Chelsea Holling, Ashley Wilson, Michael Wiseman
• Members Excused: Allyson B. Brekke, James Webster, Mitchell Korus
• Staff: Deputy Director of Community Development Rebecca Harbage; Consultant Adrienne Burke (Community Planning Collaborative) via video
• Quorum: Initially present (4 members). Quorum lost at 7:44 PM when Member Nicholas left; meeting continued as informal discussion.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (April 15, 2026): Motion by Michael Wiseman, seconded by Ashley Wilson. The motion carried 4–0. (Danielle Nicholas, Chelsea Holling, Ashley Wilson, Michael Wiseman voting yes; none opposed.)

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered in person or online on non-agenda items or on the work session topic.

Discussion Items

• Work Session on Phase II of the Local Landmark Project: Rebecca Harbage reviewed the project background: the Local Landmark Project began in late 2023 with Phase I, producing three near-term recommendations: code revisions, revision of NCOD design guidelines, and creation of a local landmark program. Staff contracted with Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) for the landmark program and with the Lakota Group for design standards. Harbage outlined three options for sequencing the work:
  • Option 1: Establish local landmark program first, then design standards and code revisions.
  • Option 2: Complete design standards and code revisions first, then address landmark program.
  • Option 3: Begin with local landmark criteria and designation process (Option 3A was proposed to separate criteria from process).
• Board members favored Option 3A: first define local landmark criteria and categories, then update NCOD design standards and code, and later decide what regulatory protections apply to landmarks. They noted that criteria definition would inform the scope of design standards and reduce dependencies.
• Member Wilson read comments from excused member Allyson B. Brekke, who recommended prioritizing updates to design guidelines and demolition code, and requested data on 2025 demolitions of NCOD properties.
• Board discussed the need to address demolition code as a high priority, possibly separating it from other code updates.
• Board requested that staff provide regular summaries or bullet points of consultant meetings to help HPAB stay informed without full reports.
• Consultant Adrienne Burke led a discussion on local landmark criteria, including categories of significance (history, architecture, culture, townscape/landscape, archaeology) and integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association). She emphasized flexibility (e.g., requiring “one or more” criteria) and the importance of a local inventory form less burdensome than the state form.
• Hypothetical examples were discussed: Pete’s Hill/Burke Park as a landscape landmark, Story Mansion as a single-site landmark, and a potential future built district (with examples from Lakota Group’s tour). Board raised questions about viewshed protection, continuity of use, character-defining features, and how overlays interact with underlying zoning.
• After quorum was lost at 7:44 PM, the meeting continued as informal discussion. Board members reiterated support for Option 3A and the demolition code priority, but no formal guidance was adopted due to lack of quorum.

Key Outcomes

• Board Direction (informal, no formal vote due to loss of quorum): Staff was advised to pursue Option 3A, focusing first on establishing local landmark criteria and categories while continuing design standards work; to prioritize demolition code updates as a separate track; and to provide brief summaries of consultant meetings to the board.
• Next Steps: Staff will continue working with CPC and Lakota Group, prepare an online survey for community input on design standards, and return to HPAB with more detailed recommendations on landmark criteria and proposed code language.
• Data Request: Staff will provide the number of demolitions of NCOD properties in 2025.
• Public Comment: None received.

Note: Because the board lost quorum at 7:44 PM, all discussions and guidance after that time are informal and will need to be formally revisited at a future meeting where a quorum is present.