Yeah, that's a problem.

This is where we came through.

Oh, it's okay.

I don't know if I like tab classes for the list.

I think so.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

That's what I see now.

Anybody who think through a question.

Yes.

Yeah.

So I draw.

I think that the ballot boxes are big.

And then come upstairs.

And we have a ballot box.

I thought that was fake.

So now that I would take that and walk into the door, and then no more because it processes.

What they did is serve the stream for the gems.

Oh, look at that.

Hey Alison, can you see and hear us all right?

I can, thank you.

All right.

Good evening, and thank you for joining us.

Before we start the meeting, I'd like 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 us by clicking on the calendar event for the meetings on Bozeman's main web page to find the city commission agenda.

Click on 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.

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 video via the phone information, streaming live on the website or on cable on channel 190.

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

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

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

When it's your turn to comment, Steph will call you by name.

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

You can always provide written public comment before the meeting and sending an email to comments at Bozeman.net or by visiting our public comment web page.

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.

Thank you.

All right.

And as my last time, I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

Can we get a roll call?

Member Webster.

Here, Member Wiseman.

Here.

Member Wilson.

Here.

Member Brecky.

Present.

Member Nicholas.

Here.

Chair Holland.

Here.

Mitchell course.

Beautiful.

Mitchell course.

On the fly.

Okay.

Are there any disclosures?

Changes to the agenda.

I have a request.

So we are anticipating that this will be a pretty meaty discussion once we get into the work session.

And we do have a few FYI items that we'd like to share.

And so just for the interest of the public who may be joining and not hang out for the entirety of the discussion, would it be possible to move the FYI item up in the agenda?

I think so.

Okay.

Um can let's move to approval minutes first.

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting?

I move to approve the minutes from our last meeting.

Second.

Second.

Third.

Member Wiseman.

Aye.

Second or Webster.

Aye.

Member Brecky.

Yeah.

Member Nicholas.

Yes.

Chair Holling.

Yes.

Member Wilson.

Aye.

Member Corus.

Aye.

Okay.

Do you want to do the FYI now?

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

For the record, Erin George, community development director.

I'm gonna start with a couple two FYIs and then Rebecca has two.

So first I want to recognize that uh Chair Chelsea Halling.

Her term is up and she's elected not to continue on the board.

So tonight is her last meeting with the Historic Preservation Advisory Board.

She has been on this board for quite a few years, and we'd like to thank her for her many years of service.

So, round of applause for Chelsea, please.

And next up, I just wanted to update the board and the public that the position vacated by Sarah Rosenberg, the historic preservation planner position, is posting, I believe, tomorrow.

So that will be advertised as an opening.

It took us a little bit of time to update the class spec, that's the job description.

Previously it was really just a planner position, and we were lucky, really lucky to get Sarah with her experience.

So we have added historic preservation elements to that job description to make sure we get someone with some qualifications.

So that is posting, and we're hoping to get someone great in that role.

Thank you.

Thanks, Erin.

And a couple updates on the other project that will not be talking about tonight, the NCOD design guideline update project.

We do have a survey that is open now through the end of June.

This survey sort of mimics the questions on the discussion boards at our open house that was in person back in April.

We're really hoping to get a broad participation across the city in this effort.

And so if you have any places in mind or anywhere that you can think of to put up a poster, there's a QR code on the poster to take folks right to the survey.

In addition, if anybody looks on the engage page for the NCOD design guidelines project, they will find a link to the survey right at the top of the page.

And so we're just encourage board members to please share the word, share the link, share the QR code in the poster, and let's get a lot of participation in the survey.

And then secondly, on the same project, we have scheduled our next meeting with our neighborhood focus group.

So if you remember, that was a part of our community engagement plan for the project to specifically engage representatives from neighborhoods within the NCOD in this project to update to the design guidelines.

We met with them also in April, and we will be meeting with them again on July 9th.

And that meeting is from noon to 1 30.

It's been scheduled.

We have reached out to neighborhood representatives.

I think we just were waiting to hear from the representative of the JANT neighborhood.

So if they are listening, we would love to hear from them and hopefully that date will work.

We are really looking forward to sharing a report out on our engagement efforts, things we've been hearing through all of the work we've been doing, including the survey.

And then we'll be coming to HPAB the following week.

So that's our July meeting to give you this essentially the same effort update with the additional comments that we receive from the neighborhood focus group.

So looking forward to that as well.

That's all.

Thank you, Chair.

Um is there any discussions the board wants to have on those?

No?

Okay.

Uh public comment.

We'll do public comment on non-agenda items falling within the purview and jurisdiction of this 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 action on any item which does not appear on the agenda.

All persons addressing the board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner.

And members of the audience shall be respectful of others.

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

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

Anyone in the room for public comment?

Anyone online?

No public comment.

Okay.

Um, then let's move into the action item, the work session to continue discussion of the landmark program eligibility criteria and demolition regulations.

Okay, and we are joined today by our consultant, uh Adrian Burke from Community Planning Collaborative, who is with us virtually can see her face on the screen.

So she's gonna kick us off with this presentation.

Uh Rebecca's gonna start the slides, and I think we also have a couple parts in there that she and I are gonna jump in on as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, looks like we're good to go.

Thank you so much.

Nice to see everyone again.

Adrian Burke with community planning collaborative.

Um, I think I don't remember, I think this may be my third meeting this year, but it's always good to be with you and talk about the landmark program in Bozeman.

So we'll move to the next slide if that's okay.

So just a quick recap.

I was uh in attendance at your May meeting, and we talked about the direction that you all wanted to go.

We had discussed that.

Um, as our consulting practice, along with the folks doing the design guidelines and staff.

We were running into a lot of overlap questions, things were coming up, and so at the May meeting, just a quick recap.

We talked about that, and uh, Rebecca did a great job kind of outlining where we were and possible directions, and you gave us feedback on which way you wanted to go.

So we'll talk about that tonight.

And then we'll get into a couple more sections of the landmark program, as well as introduce the topic of demolition and how we want to think about addressing that, as that was definitely a priority mentioned by the community and HPAB, and then we'll open it up for discussion.

Next slide, please.

So at our meeting in May that we had with you, we talked about several options.

One was, you know, sort of tabling the landmark discussion till the design guidelines could continue.

Another was, if I'm remembering incorrectly, Rebecca, feel free to interrupt me.

Another was to sort of just continue focusing wholesale on the landmark and try to fit it in with the design guidelines.

Or the third option, which is ultimately what you all selected, was to take a look, continue working on the landmark program, but just separate it a little bit.

So we're going to still take a look at the local landmark criteria and purpose, which we'll talk about tonight, and then also work on the section of the code regarding demolition.

So that's not necessarily a piece of the landmark program because it's already an existing part of the UDC, but the revisions are a priority, so that is something we'll start opening the door on those conversations tonight.

In the meantime, the NCOD design standards will be revised.

That will help inform the remaining recommended code updates that we looked at in phase one of this project, and then can circle back onto how that process applies to landmarks.

So it is kind of you know this multi-layered approach, but things are moving along with both the landmark program and the design guidelines.

Next slide, please.

So tonight we wanted to talk to you specifically about the purpose of the landmark program as well as some more specific language around the criteria, which we talked about in more depth in May, specifically significance and integrity considerations.

And I believe Rebecca, they have this okay, I see you nodding your head.

All right, um, so the first is every good uh legally defensible ordinance has a purpose and intent section in it.

So especially establishing a new regulatory program, you need to outline a good purpose and intent.

Um the idea though too is that it is broad enough that it can accomplish the goals of the community.

You know, if it's too specific, it might be too limiting.

So this is what we have come up with between our team working with staff as the draft purpose for the program.

Um so the first criteria, and I I won't read this word for word since it's on the screen and you all have a copy, but the general intent behind the the first A is connecting the community to heritage and establishing a process to recognize sites and districts that possess that significant historic cultural value.

The second is also to encourage protection maintenance and enhancements of sites of historic and cultural significance.

This clause B that it includes reference to health safety and welfare.

That's a also uh important legally defensible provision for local government regulatory actions, so that's why that specifically is mentioned there.

And then C including based this is um and staff I think can speak to this one a little bit better than I can, specific to state law in Montana, but um this is important.

The C criteria is important for consistency with Montana state law.

Um it is also something I see in other states as well where I am based in Florida.

We have state laws that emphasize noting the balance of private property rights at the same time.

You're also trying to balance the interest of a community in protecting historic and cultural resources.

So C gets at that consistency with state law.

And I think I'll pause there because we wanted to just get your take on this language and see if you have any thoughts, questions, anything you think should be addressed.

Just a question on A, how do you set the standards for significant and documented historic cultural value?

And I the this we might want to circle back to this because part of it jumps ahead to some of the criteria where we've got got aspect of heritage culture and theme, a little bit more broad based, kind of concepts, and just wondering like how does documentation work in that sort of area.

Yeah, I can jump in on that.

So when we get into looking at the criteria next, that's where the significance question will come in.

That is one of the criteria for being designated as a landmark.

The landmark program itself is a form of documentation of sites of significant historic and cultural value.

And then I would take this to work in collaboration with some of the authorities that are outlined for the historic preservation advisory board in particular, but also the city staff through things like survey and inventory projects, because that also helps inform the landmark program and what would be required to apply to be a landmark, if that makes sense.

Yep, thanks.

And we can always come back to this too.

If you'd like, I can just continue on and we can circle back on this as well.

And also since it's the first time you're seeing the actual language tonight, um it is totally within reason that you would like to just have some time to sit with it.

It seems like maybe that's I'll take the silence as a sign to continue and we can circle back to it.

I'll just chime in and suggest that as we've discussed, we are intending to bring all of this material under this project to you in chunks.

So this is kind of we're starting that approach here.

So we've attached this material to the packet, and so we are looking for your input tonight.

Doesn't mean tonight is any sort of adoption, of course, but it's you know the hope is that we get your feedback, even if it is just nods that this looks good, so we can set that aside and move to the next piece, which is demolition and then the others uh following that that you talked about at your last meeting.

But like Adrian said, if you prefer to hear the rest of the presentation and weigh in later, that's okay too.

Yeah, I think this looks good, but I would want to probably digest it a little bit more.

Yeah, agreed with Ashley with that Ashley, sorry.

I just I would uh I want to this looks fine, pretty standard.

Sorry, I had a kid in the background.

I think you said this, Adrian, that there will be definitions in this document.

I didn't say that, but yes, all right, I think that's mentioning it.

Yeah, I think that would just be a section I've learned to um be hyper aware of.

So I'm fine with continuing.

Yes, and that's a great point.

Um, yes, it's envisioned that the landmark program would have a definition section, always a good best practice for legally defensible ordinances as well.

And we do also have our definitions uh located in the UDC at the end, so um there are relevant definitions in there now, such as the definition of a historic structure and things like that.

Um, but if there are new definitions needed, then those can be added as part of this process.

Yes, that's a great point too, as we've been looking through this process, we haven't won, we don't want to be duplicative.

So if there is an adopted UDC definition, that's likely what we would work with, unless for some reason it was found to not meet the intent of the landmark program, but that probably is unlikely.

So yeah, thanks, Erin.

So it sounds like we're okay to move to the next slide.

And then this is the draft designation criteria.

We talked at our at the last meeting in May in some more depth about significance and integrity and how those play into a landmark program ordinance.

And what I did with the language that has been presented to you tonight, is not on the slide in detail because it was a lot of text.

But what I did, I mentioned at the meeting when we met last month, we kind of were looking at it in these two buckets.

There was the significance bucket and the integrity bucket.

And during the meeting, I don't know if any of you will recall, but I was at the meeting as we were talking and I was looking at it further and reflecting.

So instead of having a section of criteria for significance, a section of criteria for integrity, I just collapsed it into one section.

So it's really more of a format, code formatting thing than anything.

But functionally, it creates this three-pronged test for designating a landmark.

So one would be the age requirement.

Typical in most preservation ordinances because they are looking at uh National Register of Historic Places standards is 50 years, as we mentioned before last month, that is up for discussion.

But you know, part of Bozeman enacting its own landmark program is to be more locally responsive than federal guidance is.

So there are communities that choose to lower that age threshold maybe to 40 years.

Um I think I've even seen one that was 25 years, which I think is very unique.

That's that's a real outlier in my opinion.

But the age is up for discussion, but that that is a pretty typical benchmark for designation is you are looking at at some age uh threshold.

The second then is that ability to convey significance, which is outlined in a little bit more detail in the draft text, and then meeting one or more of the criteria listed there that we talked about last month.

So it's it's a three-prong test, so it's an and and you know, you have to meet one and two and three, um, and that was uh how we came up with drafting that language that has been presented to you tonight.

And I can keep going.

If we want to just circle back at the end, maybe that's better for unified discussion purposes.

Yeah, okay.

I can continue.

So, all right, we'll set aside um, we'll come back to purpose and the criteria for potential designation of a landmark, and then so those are the first two uh chunks like Aaron mentioned of uh potential code language.

Now we're gonna introduce demolition as a topic.

So last month we introduced significance and integrity, and then we brought you back some code language.

That's what we're doing tonight with demolition.

We're gonna introducing the topic, and then based on your feedback, we can bring you back something to look at or discuss further.

So just a very um quick overview of the purpose of demolition regulations as relates to historic or cultural resources.

Um again, I won't read the whole slide, but you know, really important things.

Uh, the obvious one is it's protecting uh historic places and buildings from loss.

The idea is preserving community character heritage and identity, which is also a goal of a landmark program that was in the purpose language we looked at.

The idea is that you're encouraging reuse of structures rather than demolition.

It involves a review process so that there is an opportunity for staff and potentially the public or a board to look at such an application.

We've talked about that why Montana is a little different with that, but at the very least, there is some review process happening, and then it does um we'll talk about in a second this balance of preservation goals with property owner rights and ideally demolition regulation.

This last bullet about long-term community planning and economic vitality.

To me, the most obvious reason of how that connects to demolition is if you have a lot of wholesale demolition with a lot of vacant lots.

Um, that's not a good strategy for economic development.

So the idea is you want to have active spaces people are using.

Um, and this little pick I I threw this picture in just because it's something that I really love, and I wish personally we would see more of this.

This was a row house in Philadelphia, and before it was demolished, it had a funeral complete with a eulogy and a gospel choir, and it really just spoke to the life that is associated with properties.

Um, and so yeah, I just threw that in there.

I would like to share that as a little example of something unique.

So, next slide, please.

So, that being said, there are limitations on demolition regulations, and this again is um related to that balancing of private property rights.

So, in the United States, um it is a constitutional right related to takings that your property can't be taken.

Um, that could be a physical taking, or it could be what's called a regulatory taking, and I won't get too much into that law in part because I'm a bit rusty on it, honestly, but also because it it's quite complex.

Um the gist to know is that it is um it is not just a Montana law, it is a federal constitutional issue, takings law.

So, because of this, local governments generally cannot permanently prohibit demolition of a private property.

Um that would raise uh some legal alarms for sure.

Um, and so there are, you know, dependent on the state, there are also potential um property rights protections that limit the role of local government in property regulation in general, uh, under which demolition would fall, and historic preservation ordinances as a whole regulate a process around demolition, um, not an ultimate right to demolish or not.

It's all about due process and ensuring that that happens, um, and that there is you know a procedure for how to do the review.

Demolition delays I will talk about in a little bit also.

They are temporary.

Um, they are a good practice.

Almost every good preservation ordinance I'm aware of has some kind of demolition delay.

Economic hardship provisions, also very common.

We'll talk about that in a little bit.

Again, because of law where you can't prohibit demolition permanently, you can come up with potential, you know, carrots rather than sticks.

So there might be incentives or negotiated solutions to help avoid demolition.

The picture on the left is uh deconstruction.

We've talked about that with you all before.

We mentioned it in our phase one report.

It's another demolition, I would call it thoughtful demolition, that is another option related to demolition that is new.

That's not most governments aren't doing that yet, but it's it's definitely an emerging practice.

Next slide, please.

Oh, I think this is where I turned it over to you, Aaron and Rebecca.

Thank you, Adrian.

So I'm now going to walk us through uh the existing demolition regulations for the city of Bozeman, what we have in place today as a starting point to start this discussion.

So uh within those regulations which are attached to your packet, they're located in municipal code 38240, 020, letters H through K.

There are three categories that have uh differing requirements that apply to them.

So there's demolition or movement of a historic structure, demolition or movement of a non-historic structure, and demolition or movement of an unsafe structure.

So I'll walk through those with you.

So first of all, the historic structure term is defined in the code in 3880090, and I've summarized this on the slide.

So in order to meet the definition of a historic structure, uh any of these four things uh need to be met.

One of them.

So listed in the state or national register of historic places, designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey, certified as a contributing resource within a national register listed or locally designated historic district, or eligible to be listed on the state or national register of historic places, either individually or as a contributing building to an existing or potential historic district.

So to break that down in an abbreviated way, it's either listed on the register, it is eligible to be listed on the register, it's a contributing resource within the national register or contributing to a potential historic district, and then that that other one, which is number two here, is uh designated locally or under the state.

So, for example, the local landmark program that we're working on, something that is designated under that program, I believe could qualify as written here.

Can I ask a quick question?

Yes, please.

The eligible to be listed, how is that determined?

Great question.

So we have the historic properties inventory that the city maintains, and we have surveys that have been done uh over the years, and uh the city has a map layer that's actually visible to the public as well on our CD map viewer, and so uh when a proposal is submitted, and I'll get into the process in a second, but when a proposal for demolition of a of any structure in the NCOD is submitted with a COA application, certificate of appropriateness, staff in the planning department, which is the historic preservation planner, or another planner if that person is out, as we're in this situation now, is consulting that historic property's inventory, looking up the survey records that we have for that property, and based on that making a determination whether it is uh historic under this definition, whether it's um it's meeting the criteria or it's already listed or it's eligible to be listed, and so they are reviewing those records to make that decision, with of course guidance from also our planning manager who also has a great deal of historic preservation experience.

When was the last time things were surveyed or inventoried?

I just had this map up the other day.

I'm going for memory now.

I want to say the latest one was 2017.

So we have put some money, you might have heard, we have put a request in for 100,000 in the biennial budget for fiscal year 28 to kick off another round of some survey updates because we need to keep up with those.

So if the city commission decides to leave that in the budget, then um there'll be a bunch of those that can be done.

But as you guys know, there's a cost to each one of those, of course, and the average cost, as I am told here in Bozeman, is around 1,000 per survey.

Next slide.

Aaron, sorry, this is Alison.

Wasn't it 2017 effort though very targeted to just a small neighborhood?

Yeah.

So the question was when was the last time?

And that was from what I remember one of the more recent ones.

The biggest chunk of surveys happened in 1984.

Yeah, so we have a lot of them that are quite old, yes.

Yeah.

So I think just for the group understanding, I think that was Danielle who asked the question, just I think it was just like in the Northeast neighborhood that we did a very small update to the survey files with work that some of us were a part of.

Thank you for clarifying, Alison.

Yeah, that's what I was remembering was the 80s was kind of like the last big one.

I'm pulling it up now someday as well, just to be sure.

So just give me one second here.

So the historic preservation layers on our CD web viewer.

We have the neighborhood conservation overlay district outline.

We also have the historic districts, and then we have this historic structures layer, and it has a legend that will show you the dates of each of those.

So if any of you are curious, feel free to go on there and you can use that legend to see the dates of those.

So I was remembering 2017, but we actually did a few in 2020 and a few in 2021.

But when you look at those dots, the biggest grouping was in 1984.

Let's see, the 2021 ones were downtown along Main Street and a couple blocks north and south of Main Street.

Okay.

So back to demolition.

Because I believe, yeah, sorry, real quick.

I believe the city was asking applicants sometime to update the survey files, correct, Aaron?

Like if demolition was proposed.

So I've gotten inconsistent feedback on that.

So I think there may have been a few limited instances, but we do not have anything in the code that is specifically pointing to that.

So that is something that we should, I would suggest the board keep in mind, and that may be something we want to consider including in the updated code, but it should be considered when that's talked about.

You know, that is a if that's something we're gonna require as part of uh the COA application.

Maybe it's um I think we'll get to some recommendations at the end from the phase one report.

Adrian's gonna talk about those, and I think there was a suggested threshold of 10 years old or older, something like that for the survey record.

But again, just the consideration is the cost, and if if that is a cost and a time delay that we want to be putting on the applicants, which is not always developers, a lot of times it's a homeowner.

So that's just a factors to consider.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh moving on to the process for each type of uh structure.

So uh starting with demolition or movement of a historic structure under the definition I walked through a moment ago, and this is in subsection I of the code you have in front of you.

An applicant uh must submit a COA application, and uh the review by the city must consider several criteria, including the property's historic significance and proposed subsequent development.

Additionally, the applicant must submit an economic analysis along with that COA application, and that analysis must compare the costs of repair or rehabilitation to bring that structure to a habitable condition.

And they must compare that those costs against the costs of the demolition and rebuild of the same type or scale of building, type and scale of building built to minimum standards.

Um, so those comparisons must relate only to the minimum required by the technical codes which are in municipal code 1002, and that is the international building code, the international fire code, and a couple different companion codes that go with those plumbing mechanical and that sort of thing.

So if that analysis demonstrate that the costs of repair or rehab exceed the costs of demo and rebuild, then that means there's no viable economic life remaining under this provision in the code.

It's of just a couple of sentences.

And this is a difficult process, I'll be I'll be honest with you.

We have applicants struggle with this all the time and go through multiple revisions to their economic analysis, trying to trying to get it into compliance.

And the reason for that is that oftentimes the first version that comes in is considering too many factors, it's including optional upgrades and things like that.

And when you think about it, if you're preparing all the costs to rebuild this structure or to rehab it, you're wanting to think of well, everything that I'm gonna do.

But um, so staff has to work with them to identify the minimum that's necessary in the technical codes.

So it's about bringing it just to a habitable condition under the building and fire code.

So we're oftentimes identifying for applicants.

No, this is an optional upgrade, this cannot be considered as part of the cost of the rehab, for example.

So we go back and forth on that, um, it's pretty time-consuming, but um, we're always explaining to applicants that is the code is not intended to make demolition of a historic structure easy.

If approved for demolition, meaning the applicant successfully demonstrates that the costs of repair or rehab uh exceed the cost of demo and rebuild, then uh they must have approved and approved building permit before we allow the demo to occur.

So if they submit that COA, they pass this economic analysis test, and uh demolition is approved, then we require them to get an approved building permit first before they actually can take down the structure.

If the economic analysis fails, meaning the cost to demo and rebuild is um, and I get this very confused when I'm walking you through here.

If the economic analysis fails, which means the costs to repair and rehab is actually cheaper than demo and rebuild, then uh the demolition would be denied, and that's when the two-year stay is applied.

Uh, public notice is required for demolition of historic structures, and that method per the code is posting on site.

So I will pause because there's probably questions about this one.

This is the meaty one, and I will add that there is also a director's interpretation that I have um signed along with the chief building official, that we drafted up to provide applicants with some additional guidance on what habitable condition means.

And we did this this year in response to some several frustrated applicants that were going through this economic analysis review process and feeling like they didn't understand how to prepare this in a way that um could potentially meet the requirements, and so uh we drafted that up based on building and fire code, and we have shared a copy of that with you by email.

So that's a good summary of this one, and I'm interested in taking your questions first.

Can I actually just real quick?

It won't be quick, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna lie.

So this was discussed in a design professionals meeting yesterday, and just for the people that are in this room and listening to the meeting.

I want to summarize what Ben Abbey said.

He's the building department uh head of the building department, and it's a little bit in the weeds, and I'm also doing it to make sure I understood what Ben was saying.

But when you are rehabilitating an existing building, you start with the existing building code, and if you're only doing a small part of the building, there's no requirement to bring the entire building up to code.

And so that that's actually a pretty big distinction when you're looking at rehabilitating a project because when you look at the technical document you guys sent out, it looks like a laundry list of all the things you have to fix, but it isn't it isn't isn't quite that way, it's just those things have to be at a minimum, which you know, some of them are like no garbage in front of the exit, but that's you know, that's a pretty simple one.

So it's it's it it reads like a higher threshold than I think it really is.

Am I saying that right?

Yeah, thank you for that.

I think that's a good point.

So when you say existing building code, just for those who aren't familiar, it's actually a separate code document that's called the International Existing building code.

And that is what's applied to existing structures as opposed to new structures, and so that's an important distinction because it applies in a very nuanced way because it depends on the scope of what's being done.

So if you are submitting a building permit to remodel a house, the scope of what you're proposing to change is what relates to what requires what is required in the IEBC in that existing building code.

So we're when somebody's remodeling their house, we're not requiring them to bring the entire house up to today's version of the code because that would usually be cost prohibitive and somewhat unreasonable for an existing structure.

So that is part of what is a little tricky about these economic analyses, and you know, folks are we require them to be prepared by a professional, by the way.

So it's typically an architect that's preparing it, and they're familiar with the building code, but it's really easy for them to focus on the new building code because they're focused on, you know, they're used to building new structures, and we have to remind them to point them back to the IEBC, and that that uh is the slight difference, and it depends on the scope of what's being proposed.

Can I just add one little tiny thing?

Please do.

Yes, we have architects up here at the diets, please do.

So the IEBC has three levels of alteration, and uh level one is pretty basic, you don't have to modernize anything to today's code.

Level two to stay within that threshold is 50%, and then level three is you have to meet the IBC, and the those definitions are all in the IEBC.

Thank you.

More questions on this slide about the process for requesting demolition of a historic structure, two questions.

So, um Chelsea, thank you for that.

And so, how does that play with what we're talking about in this very specific section?

That's to either of you, yeah.

So I think um the way that the IEBC plays in is that uh it just it's very technical, and I couldn't begin to explain the details, but it I it's just important to know that um these economic analyses are um detailed, they are analyzing the um the cost of the work that needs to happen to bring the structure to have a habitable condition based on the international existing building code, and then comparing it to the cost of demolishing and rebuilding, not their new desired structure, but their if you were to rebuild the exact same type of structure and same scale of structure to the minimum standards that would then be the new standards for a new building.

So that's the comparison, it's prepared by an architect, our chief building official reviews it as well as the historic preservation planner.

And again, I know we've seen some comments during the time that we do not have that position filled.

Um, we have other planners who are doing this work under the guidance of Brian Krueger, who is in the room in the back, and he's here to help with questions if needed.

He's our current planning manager, and he has 20 years historic preservation experience as well as a degree in history and coursework and historic preservation.

So we gloss over that often, but we do have uh experience on staff today.

I have a question.

If the so there's a it's a denied, if the application is denied, and what happens then with that two-year state, does the applicant say have to like state and get some kind of okay?

I will demolish in two years, and then the city is reaching out to find other options, or is it sort of just kind of quiet, and then that two years is in and they go okay, it's coming down.

Great question.

So the denial, just to spell out the process of denial is documented in a decision document.

They receive that document and are notified about the two-year stay, and then it is on the applicant to evaluate other options as mentioned in the code, and um if that two-year stay passes in its entirety and they still desire demolition, then the code allows them to request demolition at that time, and it would then be approved.

But they would have to submit a demolition permit, which is a building permit.

We would not make them go through the COA process again, as long as their subsequent development they're desiring to replace it with has not changed.

And so they would come in and submit their demo building permit to then make the formal request for demolition at that time.

The only time that those alternative methods come into play is if someone wanted to ask for an early termination of the two-year stay.

There is some wording in the code that provides some options there.

If they can demonstrate that they have come up with, for example, a different proposal for a totally different project that then has obtained approval.

That's one way.

So you look like you have a follow-up.

Go ahead.

Just a question on so there must be an approved site plan for what will come after, right?

That and that has to be at the time, kind of in tandem with their economic analysis, right?

So the economic analysis comes in with their application for their COA, along with plans for their proposed subsequent development, and that's getting reviewed all at the same time.

And if the demolition is approved, then we require that not only the zoning approval is completed, which is the COA, and if there's a site plan.

Now there's a threshold for site plan of a certain size of project.

So a single-family host home doesn't require a site plan approval, for example, but you know, apartment complex does.

I believe the threshold is five units.

Brian's nodding.

So we require zoning approval, but also building permit approval before the demo can occur when it's a historic structure.

And have another slide about non-historic structures, it has a different requirement.

It's not building permit, it's only zoning approval.

So can you discuss more?

It says okay, the stay of issuance the stay so that they can in good faith seek alternatives to demolition of the city and the applicant.

So what does that look like on the ground?

And do they present evidence?

And if so, how much evidence, right?

Because it seems like it'd be fairly easy to be, oh, I tried I listed it for a few days and nobody bought it, and so right.

So I just kind of want to know more on the ground how what that looks like and what these things look like when they come in.

Sure, good question.

So the uh the verbiage that you're reading from that relates to a stay, it talks about the the intent of a stay.

That's the reason for having a stay, is that we're in theory.

Uh, you're these the owner is exploring other options, but it is not worded in the way that we are requiring that they provide proof that they have done these other things before they can get their demo at the two-year mark.

That is not worded that way.

Um, Adrian, I'm curious if you have anything to offer on this topic.

Around the criteria, yeah, that's one of our recommendations that we'll talk about from phase one in a little bit.

Thank you.

Yeah, this is sorry, I feel weird being the only one on the board in Zoom, but um I see Adrian very well, but not the rest of you.

So uh quick question, Aaron, and I'm gonna be asking this multiple times.

What does staff need to help with the economic life viability test?

I think I heard you say earlier that that's difficult.

So it's very important for me to know you know what we put into place is helping staff do a fair analysis and giving you all the tools that you need to uh you know make your final conclusion.

Thanks for asking that.

So uh when I say it's difficult, it's mostly difficult for the applicant.

So we have our chief building official uh reviewing these, and he's very familiar with the building code requirements, and it's um it is time consuming to review those.

But I think the main difficulty is for the applicant because there's this kind of tendency to want to include everything that you're doing in the project, and it takes you know a lot of guidance from our staff to help them understand that they need to only require include the things in their costs that relate to habitable condition as required by the minimums in the code.

So that our issuing this guidance document or director's interpretation was our effort to give them that additional information.

Now, in this next version of the code, we could consider what elements of that we might want to include in the code as opposed to in the separate document.

Can I ask?

Um, I don't know if you had a link to what habitable condition means, really, but is it to clarify like a foundation that's cracked and would take a sizable sum to fix the house is still habitable, but say like there's the plumbing is broke or ripped out, or you know, there's like a it's in just repair that people couldn't actually live in it.

That's not habitable.

But like if if it's if it's an old house that needs updates that's expensive, you know what I'm saying?

I do, and at this time I'm gonna ask Brian to come up and help elaborate.

He's not our building official, but he helped draft this document as well.

As Brian's walking up, this is this is Rebecca for those online.

I just wanted to also add two Alison's question.

You know, these are words that are in our current code, and we're currently going through the process of updating the code.

So if your determination is this is too complicated the way we have written it in our current code, there are too many interpretations that need to be made, et cetera, et cetera.

This is our chance to fix it now.

So thank you for that question, Alison.

Yeah, and I that's sorry, Brian, I'm talking over you.

Uh, but I want to echo that, Rebecca, because as I'm doing work with what I'm doing now, I think it's extremely important that we think about as a board, we want to have regulation that is really easy, uh, safe for staff to interpret.

We also want applicants to be accountable as well, right?

So it's that balance of making sure they're providing enough information, especially for the structures where it really matters, and that's a later conversation, um, but also just making sure it's clear for them so that the city can still be seen as a place that development can happen.

Good evening, uh, Brian Kruger, Department of Community Development.

Uh, I think the easiest way to answer that question is that um it depends, and let's use the foundation as an example.

Uh it might have cracking, and the first report we might get has a few pictures of it out of context, can't tell size, can't tell anything, and that could apply to any discipline.

Plumbing, electrical, framing.

Um, but let's go back to the foundation example.

So we look at it, we can't tell from the information they've presented whether or not a full repair, uh a full new replacement foundation is needed, or if it does just need some minor repair, uh in those cases we can ask for more information, or we could ask for uh in most cases we get a structural assessment from an engineer from someone with the stamp, and they can go in and really um sometimes without uh exploratory demolition, you know, without going too far, they can get a good sense of what is wrong with the foundation or the framing, and those two are really the most important ones when it comes to these homes.

Why?

Because if you need to replace the foundation, and or you need to take the roof off or do a lot of work inside, you're either picking the house up, right?

Support an entirely new foundation, uh, or you're doing some demolition inside the building selectively in preparation of new framing, new rafters, um, new trusses, et cetera.

And that's where the existing building code then gets into the three different levels.

Because very quickly, if you're having to repair a lot of framing, um, or pick the house up and put a new foundation, some homes uh are in the state where it's questionable whether they can be lifted because of other structural problems in the framing, in the roof package, damage over time of alterations done by homeowners without permitting, or well before the city even really had building inspections.

So you're really dealing with a very, very case-by-case basis.

And once we determine that yes, something's eligible under the habitable interpretation, that's where then a contractor can come in with a bid and apply a cost, and then we just look at those line items and come to an agreement that yes, this is meeting the standard in the code.

That's a defensible analysis, and we're ready to go to public notice for that.

Um but it the answer really is it depends.

Uh, because we have sometimes somebody will show uh some knob and tube electrical, which is very common in some of our very older homes, um, and they'll show a picture of it and say, Oh, the knob and it's got knob and tube, it's dangerous.

But that knob and tube might have been disconnected years ago, and there's new wiring in the home.

And I'm not saying that as a rule, people are being disingenuous in the process, but I'm just trying to give you an example of the difficulty of trying to go through this effort.

Um, in my mind, it's pretty simple.

Uh, and I I get dinged for saying it's really a simple math problem.

New build, come up with what needs to be fixed to bring it to habitable condition, and then just do the math.

Um, and that's ultimately what the code says and what we do, but getting to those numbers that are accurate, defensible, and truthful, can be a challenge.

And we do we do work with a range of applicants, meaning sometimes we might work with um, you know, an architect that um, you know, has a low level of experience.

Sometimes we work with firms that uh are very, very familiar with the process.

We do it with wide range of structural engineers that do this type of work.

So even uh structural engineers will sometimes uh focus on one element and not really focus on another element when maybe that other element is also needing to be considered.

Um so it's really hard from the from the staff side to direct that work because we're not on the ground, we're not familiar with the structure.

Um we're just reviewing the documentation, the material submitted and the estimates prepared by the contractors that um address that co-provision.

Um I have a question.

I was gonna use the knob and two example, actually, because it's a very prevalent one here in town.

Okay, so let's say I was like, oh yeah, I love this house, I want to get it.

Oh, it's got knob and tube everywhere, right?

And so like it's gonna be you know very expensive to fix that and bring all that electrical up.

And so is that one of those cases where the IEBC, it's like, well, actually, I don't have to change any of that because I can do like the zero percent thing.

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah, you figure out how stuff like that works into the economic viability analysis, sure, sure.

So the if we use the the electrical example, what the what the interpretation says is um it's gotta be in a dangerous condition.

It's got to be providing uh the electrical system has to be um you know creating a threat essence, like it could create a risk to the structure burning down or a shock or something like that.

It can't just be that it's old because old uh old functioning aspects of buildings, uh we've got a lot of them in town that are doing just fine, but we have some that could potentially be dangerous.

So it's that sort of exploration of that of that issue, whether it be plumbing, electrical, structural, um, weather protection, you know, air exchange, things like that, heating.

Um, but if the electrical system is deemed to need to be replaced in whole, you're peeling off all the latham plaster, you're you you very quickly start getting into the IBC elements because you're removing elements that uh potentially are holding you know the structure in place.

Not that the wall surfaces framing, but over time these houses settle.

Um, changes happen to these homes, and again, a lot of these homes are manipulated by homeowners and professionals sometimes in ways that don't comply with standards uh and create dangerous situations with framing, cutting into framing members, doing their own electrical work.

Um, and so you can imagine when you start if you have to peel all the surfaces off the walls to get to the electrical, that costs because you then have to do the electrical, put it back, and if you're doing you're not just replacing the outlets and the and the and the wiring, right?

New panel, potentially new entrance coming in from the power source of the structure.

So it's that sort of, I think of it as a spider web.

You go into one issue, and depending upon what that issue is, and again, this is driven by the building code, um, it may require you to then start going further in uh on these alteration levels one, two, and three, in into more of the structure, and that's where you can very quickly, that math problem very quickly falls on on the side of demolishing the building.

So you can't just say, Oh, it's gold, I want to bring out Dakota's too expensive to bring it up to code, I want to tear it down.

Yeah, correct.

Like that can't.

Okay.

My other question is on this, and I don't know if this is an Aaron or Brian question on this deferred maintenance here under the habitable condition.

Like at what point, because it says you can't include that in your um, in your cost, like at what point does deferred maintenance become so extensive that it starts to contribute to these issues.

You know what I'm saying?

It's kind of a gray area because you could just sort of defer things and defer things, and then it does become an issue.

So when can that get included and not included?

Yeah, a classic example would be like uh ceiling roofing, but also ceiling penetrations into chimneys and other wall surfaces.

So if you don't do the maintenance of water starts getting into the building, uh you very quickly can end up with a mold problem, and that can grow over time, and sometimes you homeowners don't know it's there until you open a open up in into a wall, you make a modification, um, and that mold absolutely would be considered under the habitable condition.

It is uh it is a health risk to humans, and so it does have to be removed.

Um that's one example.

Um other examples settling foundations, um, foundations start to settle, start to fail, and then all the framing inside the house starts settling could impact the roofing.

Um, and we've seen uh images of uh like two by four rafters, right?

Which you don't you don't use two by four, you use very large lumber for snow loads in Montana and windloads.

Um but a lot of the older homes were framed out of very small uh dimensional lumber.

We've seen cracking, right?

Big snow event, some of these roofs will crack and deflect, and you you can't really see it.

Maybe it maybe it deflects back up when it melts in the spring, but structurally inside, there is damage and issues that can be unsafe.

So those are two examples.

And to touch on that as well, um, what I think you're getting at is um as part of this review, we're we're not trying to point fingers or blame the cause for for most of this.

We're just looking at condition and what the code requires to bring it to a habitable condition.

As we've um shared with this board before, the state of Montana does not allow cities to adopt the international property maintenance code.

So we are not able to penalize uh people for uh failing to maintain their homes.

Um but what we're trying to do through this analysis is focus on the minimum necessary for habitable condition under the technical codes and uh ensuring that they are considering those elements that are creating a problem.

So, for example, we're talking about electrical.

I just wanted to read from this for others that are listening.

If you didn't see this, um the examples in this document for electrical safety, a building is not habitable if electrical systems are unsafe, including, for example, exposed live wiring, overloaded or damaged circuits, missing required service or grounding, or conditions creating shock or fire risk.

So that's just an example of the kind of things that we provided as this additional context for examples of what is constituting capital.

Okay, so what happens?

Like let's say that the cost, the economic analysis doesn't work out.

I'm like, oh, and I have to do my two-year thing.

In the meantime, I'd leave all my windows open and my house gets covered in mold, and I'm like, wow, it's gonna like this isn't gonna work.

I need a demo now, so it's super unsafe.

Seriously, right?

Because you know, yeah, yeah, we have a code for that.

It's two slides up.

Um, and uh not to not to not to jump over top of what Erin's gonna present, but we do have a section of the code for unsafe structure, and we do use it, and we do have uh buildings unfortunately that are demolished due to them being unsafe.

Uh and as Ben uh Ben Abbey, our building official says sometimes the difference between uninhabitable and unsafe can be can be very close.

Um, and so we I think the numbers are gonna show you, and I can say this, you know, truthfully over time that we demolish far more buildings under the unsafe provision than we demolish buildings under historic buildings under this analysis, uh, because they've been neglected over a long period of time, like you know, a generation or two.

We have we have more examples than I think most people would think in in some of our older neighborhoods of properties that have been neglected and not cared for um properly over a long period of time.

Okay, so I do have um two more slides on the differences in process for demolition, and then we also have um some numbers we're gonna share with you, and then Adrian has additional slides about putting this in context.

So you guys good with us proceeding?

You can certainly ask for something though.

On the overview here that you have posted, isn't there isn't it H through L?

I'm sorry, could you rewrite it?

H through L under the regulations are an extra H through K.

But on your sections.

The ones you sent out is through L.

Oh, thank you for the point.

Um, what's I don't know if I don't have it in front of me.

What is the subtitle of the since you guys are looking at it?

What is L say?

The subtitle.

I think new materials.

Uh no, L is documentation and administrative procedures.

Oh okay.

So that's not the core of the demolition regs, it's kind of like the the follow-up.

Yeah, um, so mostly what we're going through on these slides goes through K.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh oh, forward.

I went back instead of forward.

Okay, so uh the demolition or movement of non-historic structures is in subsection J.

A COA is also required.

The new structure that they're proposing must meet all COA requirements, including the NCOD design guidelines for as for every COA.

No economic analysis is required when it's a non-historic structure.

If approved, subsequent development must have zoning approval before the demolition can occur, but we do not require the building permit approval.

So that's one difference in the process, and also public notice is not required for demolition of non-historic structures.

And then the third category is unsafe structures.

Again, a COA application is required, but then the applicant must submit documentation prepared by a licensed professional outlining safety issues with the structure.

So somewhat similar to the economic analysis, but it's not about the numeric cost.

In this case, it's about the unsafe elements and why they're unsafe and tying that to the building code, including photos and references to the relevant technical code sections in building a fire code.

The city's chief building official evaluates that analysis and actually visits the site, and uh his determination on whether it's an unsafe building is within the chief building official's authority, which is granted in the building code, and I actually have a site here from the IEBC, and it says building structures or equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe shall be taken down, removed, or made safe as a code official deems necessary.

So it's a little bit interesting.

I think the building division lives within the community development department.

So I do supervise the chief building official, but I do not get to override his determinations on whether building is unsafe or not.

He is granted that authority in state law.

If the chief building official determines the building is unsafe, demolition may be approved.

The new structure must of course meet all COA requirements, including the design guidelines, and public notice is not required.

So those are the three types of processes, and then we're going to show you some numbers.

Are there any questions on the non-historic or the unsafe structure process before we proceed?

Just a short one.

So if a building is determined unsafe and it's allowed to be demolished because it's unsafe, they still have to have the replacement submitted and gone through the whole process.

They do not have to have subsequent development.

So if there's an unsafe structure and they're not proposing to rebuild something else, they're still allowed to submit their documentation to us saying it's unsafe, and here's why we think it's unsafe.

And if the chief building official agrees it's unsafe, he can allow demolition without rebuilding something else.

And I do want to also just add that he takes that, he takes those decisions very seriously, and there are there's a bunch of more details in the building code for what constitutes unsafe.

And you know, it's it's not just like Brian's saying it's not just things are old, but it's you know it's creating a safety hazard, and then it's having to take it one step further, you know, that safety hazard is enough to be concerned that if there's a for example, some of the things that um could make it unsafe.

So if the elements of, for example, structural uh deficiencies are uh severe enough that a severe wind event, an earthquake, a heavy snow event might actually cause uh some structural failure, like part of the structure to collapse.

That's an unsafe condition.

That's just one example.

Okay, with that, we'll turn it to Rebecca to give some numbers and then we'll go to Adrian after that.

Yes, thank you, Erin.

And this is Rebecca again, deputy director of community development.

And hopefully, most of what you see on the screen on this table is not new.

Um, this is a reproduction of a table that was in the phase one recommendations report.

Uh we did get a question, I think at our last meeting or the one before about updating the numbers to show where we we are since I think the report ended in 2024.

So we have provided an update on these numbers for 2025 and then 2026 to date, and just a couple notes here.

What you see here is mainly the count, so the total count you will notice if you do math across the road that the tally under unsafe provision is not in addition, so that is a subset, and where you see parenthetical C slash E that is contributing or eligible.

So in 2018, for example, there was one demolition approved, and that was a contributing or eligible structure in 2022.

You'll see there were two that were unsafe, but only one of those was contributing or eligible.

So that's what that means to clarify.

And then just to add a note for 2025, I guess a couple notes for 2025.

When we were digging through the documentation, wanted to share with you that seven of those 14 were CCOAs, so those were like commercial or multifamily use, and then seven were NCOAs, so more like a single family single dwelling unit.

And then the 2026 numbers that you see, those are approvals only.

So it does not include anything that is currently in-house being reviewed.

And I apologize we don't have those numbers for you tonight.

If we just focused on approvals for this table, but that's certainly something we can look up if you're interested.

And all of those 2026 to date approvals were submitted in either 24 or 25.

So those are the notes for you.

Seems like a large number.

However, only one of those was a contributing or eligible structure.

So I think it is it is notable that in the last three years this year to date, obviously, there have been only three demolitions approved for contributing or eligible structures.

So I think in some in some sense you could say that something is working for our historic contributing or eligible structures.

But we are seeing demolitions happen in the NCOD.

And another note here, these are again approved demolition applications.

These are not showing when the demolition was actually completed.

So I think you know, for folks who are living in a neighborhood, they probably are are feeling and experiencing when a demolition is happening, and so that might not align with the numbers that you see on the screen because these are the approved applications.

Can I ask a question?

Um, you have this slide up.

So I'm curious in the non-contributing column.

How many and might not have a sense of this, but how many of those perhaps are suffering from our inventory not being up to date?

Yeah, so um I think there is a little we we definitely do um we do see many inventory updates done by individual property owners.

Um while the city doesn't go out and do, we don't uh like project-specific staff doesn't go out and do the inventory update each time we get a COA in.

Um, but it is common for property owners to bring in an inventory update, largely because it usually starts over a planner of the day conversation or a phone call that we get and somebody's inquiring about demolition.

Um, and if we do have questions on whether or not that 84 inventory form is still valid, um we will often tell people it's probably a good idea if you want your process to go quicker, you might want to explore getting a professional to update that inventory form.

Um, and there are there are people in town who do this who are very familiar with the build landscape.

Um, and so we do see we do see updated forms.

The situation where we wouldn't require an updated form is if the form if the form in uh 84 said it was not contributing because the structure had been altered significantly.

And that's that's a pretty common reason why buildings are not contributing, meaning all the nice, all the historic parts of the home that were originally made it the character defining elements, um, as we say, have been removed or removed or altered, or additions were done to the front of the structure that damaged the the building to an extent that it would be very difficult to bring it back to a condition that was historic.

Uh and oftentimes there's no documentation of what the home looked like, so you could not actually you know achieve that.

So there are many of those buildings as well, and those are fairly easy for staff to make a determination on.

Um non-period homes as well, like uh, I think in the 1984 survey they called them intrusive elements into a district.

Let's say a 1950s rambler that was built into uh you know an early uh 1900s neighborhood.

We would still be able to look at that, look at the area, and even though that building is older now, there still isn't a district for it to contribute to.

There still isn't a context for it to be considered in.

So that too is a fairly easy call for our office to make a determination without updating the inventory form.

And as Aaron said, we we don't we don't like to unnecessarily require the update.

Um, but there are edge cases where we do need that information in order to feel confident in our administration of the code, we need the facts.

Um, and we did in that case, we recommend they they get that update or require it if they're you know pushing the issue.

Um, because the answer would typically be no, you cannot do that if we don't if if if we don't have clarity in the in the documentation.

Got it.

Thanks.

I can add a little bit to that.

So I in anticipation of this meeting, knowing I was gonna be sharing numbers, I did some research this morning to just make sure that I looked at what these properties are for 2025.

Um, and just looking at the list that I pulled, it looks like nine of the 13 had more recent inventory forms than 1984.

So they're anywhere from 2006, 2012 up to 2023, even.

So a lot of those I think are being prepared at the time of application for demolition, but for the most part, those more recent inventories confirmed the non-eligible non-contributing um finding from the 1984 form.

There are, you know, comments like the extent of the alterations disconnect it from its historic design.

Um, like Brian said, there's one that was said um it was likely relocated to the site, they couldn't find it in history looking back.

Um there is one, um, however, that noted in 2019 that it's non-eligible, it was built in 1980.

Um, but on that one, they do say, hey, we recommend that if this reaches the 50 year threshold, there'd be another inventory.

So I would say most of them received more recent inventories, which is great to see.

Yeah.

So I was gonna ask do you see any permits come through or request for demolition permits of houses that are not inventoried but are older than 50 years or older than 60 years or so like I mean they didn't hit them all in the 84 survey either.

So just curious if you see some come through and you're like, man, this doesn't have an inventory form, there's nothing to update, but you know, it looks like it's older.

Yeah, there are very few because the the boundaries of the NCOD haven't really changed um over time, and so most of the most of the focus was of course on the oldest uh areas.

I'm not specifically aware of areas uh I do know there are some that weren't covered in that 84 survey, but I I don't have a sense of the scale of those.

But just from my if I just think back to the most of the ones that we're processing, they almost almost all of them have an 84.

It would be the outlier, right?

It would be the newest homes uh on the edges in some of these areas, you know, say outside of North 7th um corridor where there's a lot of new, a lot of new fabric, and I think um I I think it again it just points out the case-by-case nature of these uh these reviews, they're very specific to you know the structure and then finding out facts about the history of the structure.

Um, but we don't what we do know is we don't have any new districts that have been adopted.

Um we don't have any actively, we don't have any neighborhoods actively pursuing you know new districts.

So some of the information I think that we're getting from the consultants about some of these uh, you know, character areas or the we're seeing them look at some of these areas around town with their sort of you know beginner eyes uh consulting firm kind of in the community that we do have some areas that have decent historic fabric that aren't in neighborhoods, and I think that's why we're um moving down the road of a you know landmark uh process to potentially ignore the acknowledge those areas.

And I just for some added data too um when I made the budget request for the survey dollars in fiscal year 28 um recently the city commission had a budget discussion, and I did get a question from a commissioner and email through the city manager.

So I had to really dig into this inventory um data and send some information.

And in doing that, um we tally that we have 2,412 inventory properties on that historic reservation inventory, historic property inventory, and within the NCOD, we have uh 2,797 parcels.

So if that gives you an idea, um I'm using my calculator can tell you how many that means are unsurveyed.

So math on the fly.

385 properties are unsurveyed within the LCOD.

Within the NCOD, correct.

Yeah, I I guess the other comment I would make on that is that the people investing in the district are wanting to be in the oldest.

You know, this is generalization, but I think it's largely true.

They want to be in them in the areas with the most character, and the areas with most character in the biggest trees are the oldest neighborhoods.

Um and so these properties that are new are on the outside.

I'm not uh I'm not suggesting that people aren't uh making improvements to those properties, but the demolition activity and the reinvestment activity is much stronger in say our northeast older areas of the northeast neighborhood or uh you know in the historic districts or around the historic districts on the south side of uh Main Street.

So that may be one reason why I'm not it's not front of mind that we're seeing COAs and having to update forms for these newer buildings because they're newer, and um again that makes them have a longer life before they need to be uh renovated or expanded or changed.

Any more questions on these numbers before we turn it back to Adrian for the remaining slides?

Quick logistical question.

Um I don't remember seeing this presentation in the packet.

Is that something we'll be able to have access to?

Yeah, so we often don't have the slides ready in time.

We get the the packet ready and we get the attachments to the packet ready, we get that to you guys in time, and then we use that remaining time to finish our slides.

So, yes, we can make these available.

Thank you.

Aaron says Allison, I just want to thank you all for getting these numbers.

I think I was one of the board members that asked for the numbers, so I appreciate it.

A few things I just heard that I think is important are important to emphasize is that how a community member might be feeling or seeing demolition, right?

I mean, just noting that some of the stuff that was approved in 2024 could actually be occurring now, so the number of 2025 might even be higher in essence in like terms of activity on the ground, and I think that's really important to think about and in terms of how our community is responding to demolition and even myself.

Um, I would love to just know um the how many were actually in districts.

So I I just I'm assuming the non-contributing would still be including properties that are in a historic district but are considered non-contributing.

That just might be a future research project I would ask of city staff.

And then I would just emphasize something that um Mr.

Kruger said about you know, when they're looking at dated inventory forms, their staff is thinking about the context of the surrounding area, and I couldn't agree more.

That's why it's really important for our local landmark district program to be thinking about those areas that haven't been recognized up to this point.

Um, because honestly, those properties that are just isolated or isolated, I guess, in a demolition request, they really have no chance of of making it.

So we're essentially losing properties from potential districts, and that's I think the most concerning part for me.

Allison, so this is Rebecca.

Just because I was doing the research this morning for 2025, I can say that there was one of the non-contributing properties that was in the historic district.

I thought you might have done that already, Rebecca.

Awesome.

It's only for one year, but so.

Okay, great questions.

Thank you all.

Adrian, if you're ready to proceed, go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

So that was a great discussion.

Um, and just to put Bozeman's demolition process in context with how other communities regulate demolition, I have some of my thoughts here.

So one is that it's uh very typical to differentiate between um a process for historic or non-historic or contributing or non-contributing structures, that different level of review is very common in a demolition process.

Having the new construction component is also common, and that is a best practice.

Um, again, that goes back to what I was saying earlier about wanting to prevent vacant lots.

Um the challenge is enforcement of the construction, that is hard to do.

Um, but the theory is if you're requiring some um new construction permitting or review, um, it's more likely that that will happen.

So that is that's a that's a good best practice that you all have.

Um had the we're I'm gonna mention what we looked at in the phase one report next, and I'll talk about the economic viability section, but um that terminology is not so common in a demolition process, but economic hardship provisions are um they are typically voluntary, so someone is coming forward saying the reason they need to demolish is because an economic hardship is present um related to the property itself.

Um, so Bozeman I do feel is unique in the economic viability being a mandatory requirement for historic structures.

Um also very typical to have an unsafe structure provision that is uh very important to have actually for life safety issues.

Um, but I like that Bozeman adds that COA requirement and ensures that new constructions compliant with NCOD regulations.

Um Bozeman has probably one of the best demolition delay provisions in terms of time limit that I've seen.

Two years is great.

I wouldn't recommend changing that, but I'll talk about what I do recommend in a second.

Um I do agree, and the questions were already there from the board.

The higher number of non-historic structure demolitions speaks to a need to ensure that inventory forms are updated.

Um I understand looking at um 1984 forms, and if they were altered at that time, uh they might not be historic, but we also have to be thinking about uh historic, or I'm sorry, changes to structures that are potentially historic now in their own right.

So um, you know, maybe some changes were made to the building in the 50s that are potentially historic.

So that's not the case for every situation, but there are these things to think about with inventory.

So um my mind is on the same track with some of the questions questions the board had about the non-historic demolition numbers, and then um this would be a question as to state law, but non-historic structure demolition does not require notice, like the historic structure demolitions do.

Um ordinances I've personally worked with, um, any demolition in a district, contributing or not required notice that we that at least put a community um on notice that there was a demolition proposed.

So that's just something I observed and something to think about.

Um next slide, please.

So taking us back to phase one, we had some pretty specific recommendations about demolition.

So just want to go over those again with you, and some of this relates to some of the comments tonight and discussion.

So demolition or movement of a historic, so looking at the historic structures.

So that is definitely one of the things in terms of thinking about the landmark program outside the NCOD, a demolition regulation could be applied, similar to the NCOD.

And then for the existing demolition language that Aaron went over, we had these specific suggestions.

One was to alter that economic viability provision to have clear standards and a process, being consistent with state law, of course.

It sounds like the guidance that Aaron and the building official have worked on helps with that, but there is the potential then to codify some of that to make it the requirement.

We talked about revising the code exception language.

That might have come from Sarah actually, so I'd have to go back and refresh my memory on what that was specifically.

And then the last two are related to the two-year stay provision, which again I would not recommend changing that time period.

I think that is really great that the code already has that.

I do think that there needs to be more clarity in the code around what happens at the end of the two years.

I think that's one of the questions that came up from the board.

There needs to be just more specific language spelled out on what the applicant needs to provide to demonstrate their efforts to find an alternative to demolition.

And then there is this provision in there about an early termination of the two-year stay that also needs specific criteria as to what is required to be able to get that early termination.

It's pretty open-ended at this point.

Next slide, please.

So demolition related to any structure, historic or non-historic.

We did talk about requirements that require an updated inventory form if it's more than 10 years old, period, whether it's for a contributing or I'm sorry, a historic or non-historic structures, the language in your code.

That's why we also in phase one talked about creating a local inventory form.

Maybe that, especially for properties maybe that are locally landmarked, that could be used as the basis because the state inventory forms are quite intensive and costly.

So that was also something in phase one, that inventory form.

1984 is very outdated for a survey.

I was talking, Aaron asked me, I think last week, best practice is five to ten years.

Does that in reality happen with most local governments?

No, the survey work is intensive and time-consuming and costly.

But 1984 is over 40 years old.

It's that's quite outdated at this point.

So that that the inventory is definitely a big question.

We talked about where it's a housing or residential proposed for demolition, evaluate with state law whether the city can require the same number or more of housing units be constructed back as a potential, you know, to retain attainable or affordable housing and ensure that you're not losing the number of housing units, and then um there isn't there are no real standards for relocation structures, and so in the event of uh proposed relocation, that should have some criteria and then um the unsafe structures requirements that's really gonna be those I believe we also worked on with Sarah um I think that is really gonna have to be in conjunction with the building official and it sounds like some of this has already been underway these um two recommendations regarding unsafe structures and having more clarity so I think that um those are good conversations that are happening already and then next slide I can't remember if there's one more Adrian real quick can you sorry go back that's it I just wanted to add for the unsafe structures one recommendation I have having dealt with a few of these uh is as I noted earlier um this is under the chief building officials' authority um it's it's really not my it's not my authority I have the authority to um override his decision specifically on an unsafe structure so currently in the code it's a little bit odd in the way that it's worded it references that process and that goes through and then he can make that sort of recommendation but that's slight conflict with building code building code authorizes him to authorize the demolition and so in practice it adds kind of an additional step where we have our COA process we're conducting a review I'm the signatory on a COA but in practice with an unsafe structure it ends up looking like I am making the demo decision based on the chief building official's recommendation whereas in reality it should be his decision on the demolition so um I hope that's not confusing but my recommendation is that uh that wording be tweaked so that it really is just citing the chief building official and his authority in that section and not having authority for me to issue that when I don't really I shouldn't really have it so that makes sense.

Okay.

Adrian a question about the surveys um and you're saying that geez we ought to be updating these every five to ten years I'm just trying to understand maybe a little better what sort of updated information are you looking for or what could really change otherwise maybe say if a structure is becoming unsafe or something like that.

What else is going on that you would run these surveys every five to ten years that seems honestly like a lot of work but it is and that's you're you're not wrong and it is a lot of work and that's why it's a best practice but in reality very uncommon.

I don't think I've ever seen a city doing that.

For example the the last local government I worked for in Miami our survey was also 40 years old and so um the county uh had over 2000 properties that needed to be resurveyed or newly surveyed um and it was we were projecting that was going to take 10 years just to get that done so um that's why I say it's a best practice but it's not super common.

And the thought process behind it is that you know the 50 year threshold for something historic is every day something is turning 50 right potentially so every five to 10 years you're starting to move into potentially different categories um I think some of it is you know if you think about architectural styles and architecture changing 10 years is probably more likely that you were starting to see changes in architectural styles and this kind of thing.

But yeah it it's not that is not common that that happens so you know you guys aren't um alone and not having updated surveys um but a comprehensive survey being over 40 years old, it is time to start planning for how to get that comprehensively updated.

Um, and again, it doesn't have to be done all at once.

In fact, it probably won't be.

Most historic resource surveys um I'm familiar with, and some of the ones that we're currently involved with, they're they're being done in phases because it's just not possible to do wholesale um surveys the way they used to do them.

The the states do require more information than they used to.

Um, so the cost has gone up, the labor cost to complete the surveys has gone up.

So yeah, it's it's definitely something the city needs to look at doing, but it most likely will be a phased approach.

Okay, thanks.

I guess the biggest thing with those I can see are the properties that have say just crossed the 50-year threshold or ones that maybe weren't inventoried before, but now have a better reason for being inventoried, so it's not like you maybe first prioritize older ones that were already done, but you look at some new ones that are say coming into the fold.

Yep.

And I think Yeah, you can do that.

So oh, I'm sorry, I was just gonna say that's a great way to think about as the city is thinking about how to um start to plan for resurvey work, is what you want those priorities to be.

Um I will say for the most recent survey we've been working on, we looked at properties built through 1980.

Um in the survey area we were looking at, and then um in Miami when we had such a huge volume to be surveyed, the way we did the first phase was based on um uh resilience issues, so areas that were in flood zones that have not been surveyed already, and um there was a specific um overlay within the county that allowed for increased density uh bonuses, and we wanted the survey in the areas that were within that density bonus option because they were under a lot of development pressure.

So those were our you know, you can think about how you would want to prioritize survey areas that would be relevant to Bozeman.

Thanks, Adrian.

So just to add to that, if the um budget line item is approved for fiscal year 28, for those who are not used to fiscal years, that is July 1st, 2027.

So I timed that intentionally so we could get through these projects, the landmark project and the NCOD project, and get our new uh historic preservation planner on board so that we could um then take that on as a project after that.

So when that time approaches, if that money was approved, we will certainly talk with HPAP about the approach because there are a variety of different ways to go about that, as Adrian mentioned.

I mean, one would be looking at you know those 385 properties that that have not ever had a survey.

That's kind of what I would initially uh suggest, but um it's also gonna depend on you know what the cost actually ends up being and how many properties we can do.

Uh, but we definitely would have a discussion if there's a different focus that HPA would recommend uh at that time.

So I was glad to hear that you guys often will require an applicant to update or revisit the survey, so at least you're kind of getting eyes on it.

I was gonna ask if it's reasonable if an applicant comes in, their property is not on an existing survey, maybe it was too new, or maybe it was uh, you know, for whatever reason didn't have any kind of survey, um, or even if it was considered intrusive or not eligible, but it's now over 50 years old.

Is it reasonable to also or do you typically trigger require an update in that case?

Or would it be reasonable to?

I think that is a valid suggestion as for what we do now.

Um, Brian, it sounded like there was a little more nuance to that.

If you want to touch on that.

Well, I had a similar question for Adrian, just if she would consider it best practice, you know, I'm kind of just thinking about like impact fees, right?

So if someone must demolish a structure, would it be realistic, reasonable, best practice to have someone update the inventory form?

Period.

Like that's just a requirement up front and up front.

Yes, we talked about that when we were working on phase one.

Um, and we talked about it for even demolition of any structure anywhere.

Um my first job I had, I worked with our building official, to just at least require baseline document photo documentation of any structure being demolished so that we could have something.

And that's where some of also this local inventory form idea came out, because it does seem very unrealistic to ask a property owner of a property bill in 1992 that wants to demolish it, to do a full Montana inventory form.

But some level of documentation can be good because at some point that could have been a historic structure in the future.

So yeah, there's different options.

We definitely talked about this with Sarah and Aaron during our phase one, and what that kind of documentation could look like for any demolition.

Yeah, so back to the back to your question, I think what one thing to keep in mind when you're when you're doing updates is that larger surveys done methodically, like by a project are more valuable than a pro a property by property update.

And why is that?

Because uh just because the house is now old doesn't automatically put it into the definite definition of historic structure.

And one of the one of the ways it then becomes a historic structure is if it's in a district, and if it's new, it's of course not in that, but it's that language about being a in a potential district, and the only way to identify significance of potential districts is to do broader surveys and identify these time periods where the city expanded and there was maybe a notable builder or a notable uh architect that did all the same homes, or you're trying to capture one element of the history of Bozeman, which is really storytelling, right?

That's what the significance is you're you're telling a story about why why that's important to Bozeman and those broader surveys are are the way to do that.

Um I think Allison will get a kick about this comment, um, because we worked together long ago.

Staff has been advocating and pushing for updated surveys for my entire career.

And they've been either cut off at the director level, not not under Ms.

George, but or they they get sliced out by the city manager or somebody else before it gets to the commission.

Um, you know, I'm not saying that in general, but we've known that this has been an issue because we're talking with people and they're asked, we're talking with property owners, somebody buys a new house.

Well, why didn't the city update this?

If you need this information, well, budgeting, it's expensive, um, you know, it's an investment and it it's not one and done.

It needs to be done over an interval.

Um so yes, it's important.

We could go survey uh a 50s home and we find out that it's 50s, and the architect describes the type of construction, and there's nothing really notable about it.

Um until you like start looking around and you expand where the limits of when that plat was done, right?

When the subdivision was done, when the when the buildings were actually built, is there is there something unique?

Is there a national story, something happening national at that period of time that they were building all these same types of homes and it indicated you know Bozeman's connection to a larger story?

Um those are the things that are important, I think, to to find out so we can uh determine whether or not they would be potentially contributing to a district, and those those district sort of determinations are are harder because you do have to look beyond the block.

Sometimes.

You have to look around the neighborhood and the context of how that part of town devolved.

Thanks.

So doing an ad hoc, you kind of missed the bigger picture overall.

Uh I could uh yeah, you you could.

Again we we have lots of uh there's districts in the core town, but when you talk about the the edges of the NCOD, those are the newer areas.

But even in some of those areas, we may have a an old building that used to be surrounded by nothing, right?

And then it got platted around it.

It used to be a farm and the city caught up with it.

That might be a story, but then the landscape uh of that property is you know that the significance of it is well it's the last man standing, right?

Because it was enveloped by the expansion of the city.

So I think the larger, the larger patterns, and and that's what I think the Lammar program is speaking to, and some of the criteria discussion earlier, um, is some of that storytelling that we can that we can piece together that may not reach the level of national register, right?

Park service sort of level of scrutiny, but is nonetheless important to the community and maybe worthy of um you know protection and potential review for alterations.

Okay, so we've come to the the end of our slides.

So um up to the chair if you'd like to um have further questions or discussion or go to public comment.

Erin, here's maybe a random question, but I'm guessing you can share some of the information in general terms.

I'm curious, maybe others are too.

What is say the salary range for historic preservation officer out there?

Obviously, it's commensurate on experience and all that, but what would be in the city's budget as a range?

I'm just curious.

Jim, so I'm going to decline to speak to the salary.

But if anyone would like to see it, it will be on the ad when it's posted in the next couple of days.

Yes.

Yeah, I was gonna say let's stick to the topic at hand.

With that in mind, um, let's do public comment if there is any.

Uh Daniel Cardi, Bozeman resident.

Um, one thing we haven't heard um any discussion about tonight is a deconstruction ordinance.

So if that's something the board could weigh in on, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

Uh, for your record, I'm Rick Karen.

I live at 609 South Sixth in Cooper Park.

Um I'm a member of the Cooper Park Steering Committee of the INC, but I'm here on my own accord.

Yeah, I think the the demolition of these historic homes, it's starting to creep into our south side neighborhood now, is a really an existential threat to the integrity of our core neighborhoods, I think.

And I know I know that um a lot of these old homes uh are you know not worth rehabbing.

There's I mean, I've I've seen all of them because I've passed out brochures for neighborhood parties to all of these homes for a number of years now, and so I get to see all of them.

And um and there's some that are really falling into disrepair.

The homeowners have leased them out until until there's nothing left of them, and you know, the floors are warped and and the paint is gone and the and you know rot is is starting to creep in.

There's a lot of homes that are just not salvageable, and I know that.

So I'm more concerned about what's going to go in to replace some of these old homes in our neighborhood rather than you know, trying to save every one of them, or not going to.

We're not gonna save them all.

I know that.

Um, but um replacing replacing structures that fit into the fabric and characteristic and style is uh is something that I'm real focused on.

And I'm a civil engineer, I do spent 40 years running a consulting firm doing civil structural work.

Um, so you know, I've gone in and done a lot of rehab work on on some old homes in our neighborhoods, and um uh, you know, and and you know, people who've invested a lot of money in in a lot of these homes to upgrade them in accordance with NCOD requirements that came into effect in the early 90s, um, and so there's a lot of investment, and and when homes get torn down as long as they fit into the fabric of the neighborhood, I'm okay with it.

And and you know, but you know, residents don't get a chance to review that the way things are structured, and that's what concerns me.

So thank you.

Uh Natsuki Nakamura Bozeman resident, uh member of the economic vitality board, but not speaking on that behalf.

Um, just wanted to say I am a renter in midtown and I live in a house always deemed intrusive, but it has been there for I think 60 years plus, so I'd be very supportive of a new um inventory, especially for these potential historic districts that haven't had a chance to become a historic district yet.

Um also went on a recent extreme history walking tour that featured one of the houses in the North Tracy district that was I think originally deemed intrusive but had a lot of historic significance that was highlighted on the store.

So again, very supportive of trying to highlight some of those pieces that we may not that have maybe um more miss in the 84 survey.

Um also wanted to support the general comment of the deconstruction ordinance or otherwise um shifting the economics of demolition.

Um, from the discussions seemed I know we can't ban um demolition by neglect, but it seems that um from the discussion that there's no penalty of someone basically just letting their house decay until it's a point of unsafe.

So if those things that we can do to um whatever we can codify to just minimize demolition by neglect and try to keep these houses as homes.

Thanks.

No, okay, pulling my notes here.

Okay.

Um I think we should just ask Adrian or Adrian about deconstruction ordinances and other communities and what that looks like, and is it just run by the free market and or is it an actual government process?

Yeah, so um Aaron and I chatted earlier today about deconstruction um possibly coming up, and I think also given the time I know you guys are probably um trying to wrap up soon, that probably is a topic to put on an agenda um coming up because Sarah Rosenberg and I did actually do a decent amount of research on deconstruction ordinances.

We mentioned it, like I said, in the phase one report.

So, happy to go into more detail on that.

It is um more complicated than you might think, only because um it really requires what's called a circular economy.

So you need to have a market for salvage material.

Um, and you have to have people trained to do the deconstruction.

So, um if you're interested, in the meantime, check out San Antonio, they're kind of like a real leader in municipal deconstruction.

Um Portland, Oregon has it.

I'd have to go back.

We made a we we did a bunch of research, but San Antonio is a great one to check out.

Um, they do, it is part of the city, and they do contractor training.

They do a whole bunch of really cool stuff.

Um I'll just say very briefly, we also reached out when we were doing our research to some of the staff who work with these programs, and their recommendation was um what we generally heard was if if you are a city interested in this, you really need to start with a task force or a working group of people from different sectors because it is, it does involve a lot of layers, and you need uh buy-in across disciplines for this type of program.

So, yeah, happy, happy to chat more about that in the future though.

Thanks, Adrian.

And I'll add to that that when we talked about this during the phase one report time, because this topic came up then as well.

We did include some information in that report, so encourage you to refer back to that.

We spoke with our sustainability manager, and uh were reminded that uh there was an action identified in the climate action plan for the city that referenced a demo or a deconstruction handbook, and that is something that she has on her radar, and uh I can we can circle back with her about uh what that might entail and this working group concept and kind of what her thoughts are because I think uh that would be something that uh sustainability would lead as opposed to community development.

Can I extend the meeting for 15 minutes before you talk?

Okay.

Thanks.

And I just was gonna ask kind of on that note, how much more time will we spend on this topic in particular here?

Like is this sort of the meat of our conversation around this is today?

And we're gonna move on, or are we gonna re- sounds like we'll be revisit some parts of it, but good question?

So um, you know, reminder our first topic tonight was the um kind of purpose statements and the criteria for landmark designation.

So we would love to hear if there's you know there's any direction in terms of um how the board feels about those materials.

If that if you're comfortable kind of setting those aside for now, that that's mostly in the heading the direction you want, or if you want to give us feedback on that, that's kind of part one, and then part two is we've taught you tonight about our existing demolition regulations, kind of what's happening around the country, putting it in that broader context and tying it back to our phase one report recommendations.

So I think the next step on the demolition is for you all to give us feedback on what are your concerns, uh, what do you want us to look more into so that we can then go back and start working on um updating the draft that we're starting to work on for that portion of it, and then the hope is we would come back with some draft language for that piece.

Uh that could be our next step uh before we then move to the next piece of you have from memory, Rebecca, that list of the order from the last meeting.

Well, so our next and our next meeting in July will focus on NCOD again, design guidelines.

Uh so we're giving you a little bit of whiplash.

Um, I don't know yet what that presentation will entail and whether there potentially will be time to draft some demolition code language, get that to you and discuss it on that same night, or if that would end up being in August.

So things like the deconstruction ordinance for us to talk more about it is like now the time, or do we put it on our because that's like a huge thing?

Do we put it on the agenda for the July meeting?

Like where are we at?

So I would um suggest I mean we have a pretty big scope for this project and the NCOD design guidelines, and um I'll circle back again to that phase one report, which was identifying the recommendations, which was recommended for approval of that report by HF, which then went on and was approved by city commission, and that was outlining our next steps, and so we are now proceeding with those steps, and so I would suggest that a demolition ordinance is not in the scope.

We need to get through the other pieces, and as I noted a minute ago, sustainability really needs to take action on the um the deconstruction aspects uh first, but it's not to say we can't revisit it when we have more time.

Come back, but it's just we we already have all these actions identified that we need to make progress on.

Do we have an avenue for question and answer outside of this?

Question and answer about like I wanted to go back and talk about some of the criteria.

Um, but I also have some other questions around demolition.

Do we want to just hit those now and spend the time?

Or is there because what's kind of going through the back of my mind is is this an appropriate time to set up like a subcommittee of some people who can dive into this a little bit more and digest some of this for the board or coordinate some comments from the board to give you guys feedback for the next round of revisions?

That's um up to the board.

So, you guys, the subcommittee concept is a reminder, would I think need to be under a quorum numerically just to allow you to meet or kind of time without it being one of these meetings?

Right.

Okay.

What are your questions and comments?

Uh I wanted to talk through the difference between theme and aspect of heritage or culture, just to clarify that.

I wanted to ask about what are the penalties for illegal demolition.

Um, and then wanted to reference some of Adrian's comments about um requiring more housing if housing is removed.

But some of those might be longer conversations than people want to sit for.

Yeah, I feel that we spent the majority of tonight talking about the city's current demolition regulations and standards.

I feel like it would be the most logical thing for us just to provide any further discussion on that because I think that's one of the things staff is looking for, correct?

Yeah, so it's um feedback on what you learned tonight and what you think is working or not working, so we can take that back and start thinking about changes to the regulations.

So I'm a little bit nervous, and let's say we want to just go longer about um sorry, some of the items that Mike just said, you know, really looping back to the landmark questions.

I'm not confident we could do both tonight.

Can I suggest we go back to landmark then and let's try to hammer that out?

Because that's that feels like a bite we could swallow in one evening, and then additional comments on demo because I know I have big concerns about um and not so if you could put it well, the demolition by neglect, and that's what I was getting at with with Brian.

Is um, you know, there's a specific example in in the Cooper Park neighborhood of a rehab house that has a it's beautiful and it has a demo permit in, so what's to prevent.

I'm just using this as a case example, somebody from leaving the windows open for two years and then gets all moldy and nasty and all of a sudden it's uninhabitable, right?

And so those are some of my demo concerns.

So I don't know the appropriate spice to you that feedback now, or how we yeah, properly.

It doesn't matter if it's neglected after two years, though.

It can be whatever, it can be a pristine condition that they wait the two year stay, they get to demo demolish it.

Well, so some of those questions say there needs to be a good faith effort to find alternatives, right?

So that's language that needs um seems to need short up, and then you know why we can't prevent demolition.

Are there things to this disincentivize going that route that could actually economically bolster um bolster things such as you know increased fees and that kind of thing?

So there's a few more things on demo, and I just I didn't know the proper format if that's now or later.

Chair, I would suggest we do a little internal poll right now.

We want to finish the meeting talking about demolition, which I feel like was 85% of most of our meeting discussion tonight.

The landmark criteria.

I mean, we could talk about that.

I I think it's gonna, I think it's gonna go into a lot of additional questions and demolition is fresh on my mind right now.

I'm prepared to just, I mean, list the gaps that I've seen for a long time.

Um, and then for staff to take that as they need, um, I'm gonna ask staff which one is gonna hold up the process on your end since we have two big projects going.

It's a great question.

So at last month's meeting, the board did decide to move forward piece number one, which was the landmark criteria purpose and policy first, and then demo code.

So that was what we were going on with the order of operations.

As Erin mentioned earlier, I think it we're getting to the point where there's just it's piling up, right?

It feels like there's a lot that the board needs to discuss.

And if if we don't find a way of sort of coming to some uh maybe interim resolution on pieces and setting them aside so that we can focus on the next piece, I think it's going to continue to feel like it's a lot.

So my ask would be if if possible, if we can wrap up the landmark piece, that would be excellent.

Um, it is of course up to the up to the board to decide how to approach that, and also I want to recognize you do only have you know one meeting per month to work through all of this, so that is challenging.

Um, and it's also up to you to decide how long your meetings go.

What seems like landmark like that seems like it's pretty tangible and close.

Is that what you were saying, Mike?

That like there's a few terminology things to clarify.

And then we're doing NCOD next month.

That seems like demo could fall under an NCOD discussion, or no?

Aaron Shakinger.

Well, the yeah, next month we it we wanted to um present what we heard from the public in April's sort of public engagement push on the NCOD design guidelines project, because we're also gonna be sharing that um with city commission at some point after that, so um, and the neighborhood folks group in the I think first.

So I think um that will probably take up the bulk of that meeting.

So um I guess I would just agree that it'd be good to get um at least some direction on at least one of those topics.

Maybe think about um, you know, emailing and some feedback is also okay if that you feel like your your comments are really are shorter or easier to write down.

Um that's another method too.

I would also add on the demolition code one potential approach, which would is not my favorite because I feel like we did get a lot of questions, and we heard some I think some opinions and perspectives and desires coming through in the questions.

We could go work on a draft code language based on just the questions and discussion and send that back to you for revisiting at a future meeting if we don't have time to actually go through line by line and have you give us recommendations tonight.

Okay, um, uh I want it to be a group discussion, but I would lean towards the landmark so that we can check one thing off that seems a lot more tangible.

We won't be here till midnight talking demolition.

That's kind of where my head was at, and I don't want to gloss over the whole demo side, and maybe it's more helpful if we send you guys comments, thoughts or whatever, and you could put out a summary of kind of here's here's the like could we do that and just have you guys then paste it and blast it out so we're not hitting quorum.

I don't know how to get around, like so you are certainly able to send your thoughts and copy the whole board as long as there's not like the reply all discussion that then happens.

So you could send your thoughts, copy the board to us, copy the whole board, then everyone will see it, and then um we could certainly compile a compilation of those emails if you wanted us to, but I don't know if it's necessary because you can copy everybody.

Okay, so what's the board's appetite on a subcommittee, which we're allowed to create?

Because I I completely think that what I think is Rebecca who said it earlier.

It's this is gonna pile up.

I'm already thinking how I'm supposed to miss a meeting in July about design guidelines, which I'm like trying to figure out wrapping my head around that.

It's gonna keep piling up.

I hate the idea of just having stuff go through email.

I think it's not transparent for the public, and I would rather have subcommittees meeting in addition to the you know once a month meeting and then reporting back to the board.

I would agree.

I am volunteering myself to be on the subcommittee.

Two got one more.

How many can how many can we have?

Three?

Yeah, three would be the number you could have without being in quorum.

And and just for the public, I don't want it to sound like it's because we're not trying to be transparent, but is when it needs to be a public meeting and we need to record it, that means it needs to be in this room, we need to have somebody operating the audio equipment.

It's just the scheduling of that gets pretty difficult.

And so if board members want to talk among themselves, they can as long as they're under a quorum.

Anyone else?

But I only I mean, I want the board as a group, I want everyone to feel comfortable with that method.

I honestly do not think we were we're gonna get through all of this.

I mean, we literally just spent how long do we just talk about demolition?

And it was fascinating.

I loved it, but I just but it was a long conversation, so and it's just gonna keep getting harder in the summer months as some of us will likely be traveling.

I will join the subcommittee.

I was gonna nominate Ashley.

I at least those three of you.

Yeah, okay.

So if I want to give my comments regarding this, but about demo, right?

Okay, so if I want to give my comments regarding demo because it's something I feel strongly about, I give them to you all to take into consideration on the subcommittee, and then we make then you make recommendations to the board based on the work you do, and then we talk about it, or yes, or you can send them to us, and we can individually have that discussion as well, bring it to the subcommittee.

The subcommittee can then talk about what everybody talked about separately all together.

Oh, yes, okay.

I'm gonna email my comments to those two.

And then you can just ask that staff can help us out where we can just provide a brief moment on future agendas where the subcommittee reports out, and and that to me kind of makes my transparency heart happy for the public to so they know what was what was discussed.

Yes, we can include that on future agendas, yeah.

So just like a 10 minute slot on the agenda for a quick update.

Yeah, 10 15 minutes, yeah.

Correct.

And just a reminder to please make sure that you were not having a discussion via email that ends up constituting a quorum, as a total board, right?

Rebecca, correct?

So that would be any more than any more than three people emailing in a conversation is a quorum.

Okay.

Yeah, that's a good point.

So it's if a board member wants to send.

Well, Mike's gonna be head of the subcommittee.

I just made him the head of the subcommittee.

So people could just, yeah.

So members of the board, the greater board, would it be safer just to direct comments to one person in this subcommittee?

Yeah, that's fine.

And uh, yeah, I'm happy to do that.

Yep.

It's Aaron and we avoid a core.

Okay, okay.

So for the record, I got Mike's gonna lead the subcommittee.

We also have House and Alice and Brecky, and then who is the third?

Ashley, okay.

So we will add time for that on the future, at least the next agenda, and let us know if if you need that in future agendas.

Um, and to clarify, is this subcommittee to talk about demolition as a starting point?

That's what you're starting with.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Yes, I think I think so, Aaron, and and I guess we will like check in as as projects continue if like if the focus needs to turn to something else.

I would encourage you to take notes when you have a discussion because I think your Commission liaison.

Commissioner Sweeney, when she uh watches the video and learns of this, I think she's gonna be interested to hear what was discussed in the subcommittee, and that way um any interested members of the public can also review that.

Um of course you don't have to, but I that's just a suggestion.

Let's extend the meeting till 8 30 and pivot to talk about landmark.

Should we just go another 30 minutes, Chair?

I mean, are we really gonna finish in 15 minutes?

Sounds like you got a lot to say, Alison.

Well, I'm just no, I think I don't think we've even like touched on this topic yet.

I had like one top thing I want to talk about, but we can go another 15 minutes, that's fine.

Okay, we'll go 30.

I'm in the comfort of my own home, so I also recognize that's different than you all.

If you can be here in 10 minutes with some snacks, not good.

I have some too.

Okay, Alison, do you want to go?

Do you want to have some things too?

No, I want you actually to start because I think we might have some similar questions, and I think you have it more prepared than I do.

Okay.

Uh I wouldn't go that far, but I just going through these.

Um the criteria, like I like the way this is laid out.

I think it makes sense.

There's just a couple of things I kind of wanted to clarify.

And I I appreciate that you went from two categories to one.

Uh, I think that's just simpler.

Um, item C meets one or more of the following eight.

So one thought is is any is it is anything that's really legitimately worth considering gonna meet less than two of those.

Uh and is two a good threshold, or do we keep it at one?

And then just kind of a clarification on um what the intent the difference in intent is between the aspect of heritage or culture and the theme.

They were just a little fuzzy to me, and I wasn't sure how distinct they really were, and if there was just a nuance that I'm missing, and what does try to parse out?

That was for A.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry, I was just getting the document pulled up.

Um will you repeat that last question for me?

The aspects of heritage or culture and theme.

That was your question.

Yeah, what the difference in intent is between those two categories, like because they seem very similar to me, but I'm wondering what's what's dividing those two.

Yeah, that's a good question.

Um I'm trying to think of a specific example.

Um maybe it's not coming to me immediately because they are kind of similar.

So it's not it could be a good question.

Um maybe it's as much as just saying.

You could add theme to aspect of heritage or culture.

So it could be it's associated with a theme or movement.

Um that might be a way to even further condense, but I'm also gonna reflect on what our intent was in when we drafted this.

So I might have to follow up with you on that, but I think it's a good question.

I think having the the word where you said movement, like theme or movement, that made more sense to me.

It's more it's just more tangible.

Could movement though be categorized under events or activities?

I think events or activities, well, it also does say movements, doesn't it?

See, this is why we all look at this together.

Um in my mind, events activities are usually more isolated.

Like they're maybe they're narrower than like a theme or a movement.

But yeah, I think this is this is the kind of conversations we need to be having.

Movements are specifically listed under events or activities.

Yeah, and some of that I think that's because when I was consolidating when I was working on this draft after our last meeting, I was playing with the aspect of heritage or culture text, because I remember specifically thinking about social or cultural movement, um and even so I think I didn't catch that it was already in number two, the movement part, so that that might be just on me when I was playing with this after our last meeting.

I'm inclined to think that one and eight could be merged.

I think that's what I'm hearing.

Maybe others thinking, no, maybe it seems like that was kind of where the discussion might be going.

Yeah, I I think you could easily say aspect or theme of heritage or culture.

Yeah.

And that's and that's capturing what we were all talking about, right?

It's just making sure we have that option.

Now, having said that, I do feel a little bit aligned with Mike.

I think I heard him say, are we really gonna just require one?

I guess I'm I I honestly don't know if I know how I truly feel about that.

Um, so that just so that folks say, if A, sorry, A, B, and then one of C, right?

Is our thought process.

That's how it's drafted.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

I just wanted to explain that for those that are watching or listening that um the slide just had the the name of the category and not the description.

And so that's what Rebecca has pulled up that is in the packet.

So I just wanted to explain that why the screen changed.

So each one of those categories has more detail with it as an explanation.

And did I hear correctly?

It may be designate if it's a if it's A and B and C.

Adrienne?

Yes, that's right.

It's you'd have to meet it's it's a three-part test.

You'd have to meet A and B and something from C.

Okay.

Then in that case, I think one or more is fine, knowing that like they both like it'll automatically get something else just by its very nature.

Yep.

Uh I don't know.

I'm gonna push a little bit.

Well, I think go ahead, Mike, go ahead.

A is the age, right?

B isn't really a uh a criteria of contribution, it's whether or not it's is still intact enough to convey those contributions.

So, I mean, B is a different category.

So yes, it's old enough, yes, it's in good enough shape to convey what's important, and then what's important.

Is it just one of those?

Is it two of those?

And and part of my asking is I don't think anything that would be really considered to your point would hit less than two of those.

Um so is it is it better to say hit two of those?

Uh and go with that off the bat.

Which is obviously it's kind of my preference, but I.

So I will say, and um this, the one or more I have brought up before as um from my perspective, but again, this is Bozeman's landmark program, so this is why you all are having the conversation for what works for Bozeman.

My perspective on the one or more, um, is from having seen ordinances that require a specific number of criteria be met, being limiting for um resources that are maybe of more cultural significance.

So for example, um say you have a concrete block building that was built in the forties, and it's completely, you know, it doesn't meet creative achievement, it's not related to a landscape, it's not particularly distinctive design.

Um, but it's really significant because of the person who built it, even though it's just a little concrete block building, but it was their barber shop, or and they were important in the community for a reason.

So it's by having it be one, you can meet more, you could meet five, um, but it's it's just intended to keep it as broad as possible to think about places that are important for cultural significance.

Um, but again, that's this is just a draft.

So that it this the whole goal of the local Lammar program is to make it something that works for Bozeman.

So that's um definitely within Yell's purview to make edits to reflect that.

I think I agree with Adrian that there's no downside to one or more.

I agree.

I mean, that was my initial question.

Was is one sufficient?

This is good for making progress.

So are we in agreement that one or more is sufficient?

Yes.

I can't see your head nods.

Yes, yes, one or more, yes.

Your little dots on my screen, okay.

Then I guess I would just um I think I just want to make sure that B has enough included.

Like I'm thinking about the aspect of heritage or culture.

I'm just making sure we feel like the list in B would support something like that, right?

It would be six or seven, most likely, because the other aren't really relevant.

Do you see what I'm saying, Adrian?

It's like it's I'm trying to think of just making sure of the package.

Like when someone's building an argument on how they meet this criteria.

No, I'm not following.

I'm sorry.

Is anyone else following me?

So it's just making sure, though, right?

So if I have I'm trying to think of an example, um it basically it's it's like this aspect of heritage, culture, theme, whatever we end up calling it, uh retention of location is not really relevant.

Design features and overall form are not really relevant, like like one through five is very physical in nature, right?

Like form-based, yeah.

So I just want to make sure we feel comfortable that six and seven would be enough to support that type of nomination or designation.

Adrian can asked to same with you now?

Clarifying question, aren't these seven coming?

Or inspired by the national register?

Seven.

They're inspired by, yes, and that's too, you know, the language says um in evaluating this criterion consideration may be given to.

So I think that that, you know, again, of course, all of this is gonna have to go through your legal team.

I think that that is broad enough that you could as long as you're meeting the first part, the first clause where it says it retains sufficient characteristics to convey its significance, and you all feel you find evidence to support that.

Um the second part of this clause in evaluating this consideration may be given to that's really a guide.

Um, so I think the list is guidance for how you find evidence for the first part of the subsection.

Um, can I chime in?

But I do see what you're saying.

Yeah, please.

So I just want to um kind of walk us through the way the code language is kind of structured, and I think it might help.

So um it's a three-part test.

So the way it's drafted here.

Uh you need to meet all three of A, B, and C.

A is simple.

I don't think anybody's confused by that one.

B, I think the crux of that is the first part retain sufficient physical, spatial, artistic, environmental, cultural, or intangible characteristics to convey its significance.

That's a key part, and then it's providing this list as the elements that may be considered in determining that.

And the one through seven are or so it's not saying any particular number of those have to be provided.

So hopefully that's helpful.

And then C, like you said, is one or more of the following eight criteria.

Because the list of seven is just like give you ideas, correct.

And also from a process standpoint, a landmark nomination is gonna come in.

There's a nominator that fills it out, property owner signs it, uh, and it's getting reviewed by the historic preservation planner for all of this, they're going to have to write up some kind of staff report to summarize their review and recommendation based on staff, and they're gonna present that to HPAP, and then you as a board are going to be evaluating these things as well.

So it's guidance for staff, but it's also guidance for the board and eventually commission who would be the final decision maker.

I think these seven do give enough guidance.

I I mean, and just even the the and number six, the intangible qualities.

I mean, that's very open.

I feel like people could use that, you know, to to convey whatever they're trying to convey.

I agree.

I agree, I do too, but I have a question.

Uh and this is really more process, um, and to I guess to keep things um clear both for applicants and for us as we start to review these things, um, and I'm gonna circle back to the one I mentioned earlier up an A above the significant documented historic and cultural value.

Uh, and and Adrian, you and correct me if I misunderstood, you kind of alluded to the fact that this process was could actually be part of that documentation.

Um, and I'm just wondering if we get what I'm what I'm trying to think of are cases where we all feel good about something, we move it forward, but it had some very intangible qualities.

We get another project that has some intangible qualities that none of us feel like we really want to approve.

Are there demonstrable reasons for us to say why we liked one and not the other?

And I and I I appreciate we're talking about history, we're talking about stories, they're very intangible qualities, and they're they're important.

I'm like it's I want to see this succeed, but I don't want it to become a weird uh popularity contest of oh, I got mine through the board, you did you know what I mean?

So I'm just wondering if there's a way to keep that clean.

And maybe there's already a process for that, but yes, so um, yes, and that that's very important.

Um there's a few reasons why having a defined process for that is important.

One is um, yes, you never want a process or a board to have any kind of perception of um non-equitable treatment of applications, so um having a good criteria and process for that is very important, and then um from uh especially where these are and I know we talked about we're not to the process yet, but that they would require a zone map amendment potentially.

Um if this is in my opinion, and again your legal team would would work through this, but um you have to have evidence to support your decision, and it needs to be clearly articulated and it needs to be um written and on the record.

So the ways to help you to help HPAB with that is that um there would be an application, of course, for a landmark designation.

So the applicant is going to have to provide um information as to why they think they meet that criteria, and then the application would be reviewed and analyzed by um your staff person who is going to have to validate that information and provide any additional information.

So um landmark reports.

I mean, the good the good news for staff is that landmark applications, even I think in the event of a new program, like where you have people who are interested, and so you'll be starting from scratch.

I still don't anticipate it's gonna be like a mad rush, and you're gonna have all of a sudden 500 people coming in for this because there is that level of um they have to demonstrate why their property is eligible, so that's some homework on a property owner's end or a dis the district is even a much bigger process.

But then from staff's perspective, this is good too, because um, for example, the last I did we did a landmark report uh for a landmark local landmark designation last fall, it was a hundred and thirty page report.

Um that included the appendices, but um there was a lot of documentation as to why that was a a significant resource.

So um that all comes to you as the board.

So you're not just sitting up there by yourselves like, well, it looks good to us, like you will have evidence to to weigh whether or not you think it meets the criteria criteria or not.

So you won't be left stranded to to say, well, this one maybe has something and this one maybe doesn't.

The last thing I'll say is um, and again, this would be uh I always want to defer to your attorneys, but typically with processes like a landmark, um they are pretty site specific.

So no two properties are ever the same, so one might meet a criteria and one doesn't, and that's not necessarily because they weren't apples to apples.

So um, but again, that's all gonna be evaluated through an application and a report, and so you'll have something from which to base your decision on.

Jump in really kind of a long answer.

Thank you, Adrian.

I just wanted to add to that, thank you.

Uh, that we make it very easy for uh boards and commissions, and that when we do our review and we write that staff report I talked about, we will we will make findings, and so um that's how we do all of our other kinds of um land use reviews, and the community development board's really used to that.

Um but the staff member will present their analysis and their findings, and then um the board will discuss and ask questions among themselves, take public comment, then when it comes time to make a decision, the motion will say something like I hereby, you know, adopt the findings in the staff report and move that the uh that we recommend to the city commission the following, and so it's it's referencing the findings in the staff report.

If you all disagree with the findings in the staff report, that's when the difficult part is where you have to actually make your own findings, and that just means you're making a statement on the record explaining your reason for a particular decision.

Thanks.

And sorry if I jumped ahead on because I know process is coming, but I just thought was kind of front of mind of how that was going to play out.

Um, and this is something actually, Mike, you brought up in um part A under purpose and policy.

So the significant documented history, and I think we touched on this earlier.

What constitutes significant?

Just so that it doesn't become a gray area thing.

This might have been my comment from last meeting of don't just gloss over, like do your research.

Don't just say, oh, my neighbor's memory from when he was a kid was that George Washington lived there.

No, you actually have to do the research.

So have enough significant documented historic information to back up the claim.

So Adrian, what are you considering significant in this case?

For sub for the subsection B.

I have to make sure I'm looking at the no in purpose and policy it says uh recognizing sites and districts that possess significant documented history.

Well, I could have documented history or I could have significant documented history.

So I think that's where this is the purpose of the landmark program.

Anything that becomes a landmark by virtue of the criteria we're looking at is going to have that significant documented history.

So I mean it does that make sense.

Like it's how you are implementing this purpose, references back to this.

I'm not sure if that if that makes sense to you all, but basically it's laying the groundwork for establishing this type of criteria.

It's saying the purpose of this program, which is to designate landmarks, is to make sure that these spaces have significant documented historic cultural value.

Yeah, I understand the purpose.

Oh, sorry.

I think the question is what constitutes something like a documented history that's like okay, that all looks good versus like, oh, they didn't provide enough, it didn't have enough significance.

I just don't want this to be something that becomes gray later.

That's where the question comes from.

Yeah, no, it's I mean, that's kind of I think that ties back to what we were talking about with the criteria.

Is that the criteria and the application and the staff report and the findings are all what helps you to make that determination if something is significant and documented enough to rise to the level to be a landmark?

Um it can't be too gray.

Now documentation, I mean, there are standards for documenting history and culture.

I mean, it's you know, the types of um primary and secondary resources you use to document things.

Um that's important, and that's some of what would be looked at.

Even something like oral histories that can be documented, those are accepted by the National Park Service as a uh citation in national register nominations.

So all of that is gonna be part of what goes into the staff report and the findings to help you determine significant.

It might be that there's a comma between significant and documented versus the significance referring to the documentation that's significant, comma, documented, blah blah blah.

I think that might clarify some of this.

I see what you're saying.

Can we just add recognizing cultural significance?

So another point in talking about this, um, when you look up just a general meeting of the term significant, it has uh could have a numeric meeting, it could also have an emphasis meeting.

So I think we will talk with our our legal staff and maybe see if that might be a term that's worthy of a definition.

Uh I don't I'd be curious to hear if um there's a definition nationally, so I think that's one way you could address it too to help um, you know, convey what we mean by that term.

But if if I understand what Adrian's getting at, some of the larger point is that by virtue of the fact that we're putting this through this process and creating this, we are giving it that significant documentation.

That's what we're recognizing.

So people are bringing that to us, we're recognizing that's enough.

Am I right on that?

Yeah, that's that is what I was trying to say, but in a more concise way.

Thank you.

I would also agree with Aaron, uh, Director George, to think about a definition too, if it's if it's worthy enough to consider.

As someone that has to interpret code often, I think the main thing I would like to clarify for using that is do we mean a significant amount or do we mean significant as important?

And I think it's more of the importance, not the quantity, but I think we can clarify that.

So what I'm hearing from feedback so far, just if it's helpful to kind of um coalesce here.

I'm hearing that this general three-part test in the landmark criteria.

I think I'm hearing support for that.

Uh no concern with the 50 years I've not heard.

Uh B, I'll okay.

Well, I was I was I was gonna throw it out there.

So right, am I doing my math right, Adrian?

Right?

So we get to 76.

Is that yeah, okay.

So uh I mean I I feel maybe we could go a little bit further, like 45.

50 years or older.

So yeah, if we did 45, that would make 1981.

It's 80, right?

81 is our cutoff.

I just wanted to get the board's thoughts.

Why do you think about 45 years?

A lot of 70 architecture has recently been torn down in the somewhat recent past, and I just want to kind of, you know, thinking about Bozeman's downtown.

Are we only gonna celebrate red brick?

There's some other things that are happening there.

But Alison, 1976 is 50 years, correct.

But what if we want to go older than 76?

Sorry, younger than 76.

And I remember we this will apply in the future too.

So as we move forward in time, right?

50 years will then be later.

Just to be devil's advocate.

Why only five years for a national standard of 50?

Like that's just too close.

Okay, that's fair.

I just wanted to just think about I have always struggled with the 50 years, so that's probably where I'm coming from.

Uh, what the correct amount or year should be, I don't know if I have thought enough about that.

I would just keep it at 50.

That's my and that's only just because it's an opinion.

It's just like I it's it seems like a reasonable amount of time to become historic.

I guess I'm comfortable with 50.

When I worked for the Park Service, it was 50.

Once something was 50 years old, it was historic.

So I guess I have comfort.

I'm comfortable with the 50s.

Year mark.

I am as well just because it's a national standard.

Easy to follow.

I will I will throw a little wrench into this discussion, which is it is not uncommon for preservation ordinances to add some kind of language that is um like 50 years or older, unless a resource is of exceptional significance, and it allows this like out to designate something younger.

Um legally, I've always struggled a bit with that kind of provision because I've never seen it defined.

Um it's usually not defined.

I think it's fine to have something like that in an ordinance if you define it, or put some parameters around what that means.

So just throwing that out there as a something to think about, keep the 50.

Let's move on, okay.

So back to my summary.

I'm not gonna commit either way to that one.

I'm I'm fine with 50.

I think of arguments for less, but I don't know that they hold up.

So okay.

So I heard more than a quorum interested in the 50 years or okay with it.

And then the other thing I heard was that uh in item B, one through seven provided sufficient guidance.

I'm seeing enough head nods, okay.

And then item C I heard concurrence on one or more was good, okay.

Last thing I think we would ask for feedback on is the content of C.

Were there any concerns with the items under C is there something that's missing or that shouldn't be in there?

I couldn't think of anything that was missing, but I think we were gonna combine eight and one.

Number one would be aspect or a theme of heritage or culture.

So drop it to seven, and combine them.

So one being aspect of heritage or culture and eight being theme, you would like to combine those?

Yes, okay, seeing and that's our consult.

Yeah, as our consultant themes fit.

I mean, just I think I think they were trying to do the same thing.

Yeah, and Adrian, if you remember like what if there was something specific that made you think of that, let us know.

But you know, separating those out, but otherwise they seem to go together.

Yeah, no, I um I'm taking notes and I I merged number C1 to be aspect or theme of heritage or culture.

I I think that I think that works.

Okay, I think we have sufficient feedback on the criteria.

Were there any concerns with the purpose statements?

No, I'm fine with the purpose.

There was just a comment I made about um the use of the word significant and then you know whether we need to do a definition and then adding a comma after that.

Yeah, so it's clear whether it was referred to the amount of documentation or significance was referring to the the thing.

Yeah, and that's in A of the purpose, a comma after significant, and then explore a possible definition.

Okay.

Anything else on the purpose?

Okay.

Great feedback, thank you all.

We have something we can check it off.

Is that all the feedback we got it all?

For the for?

Yes, for purpose and the criteria, I think that's all we need to set that aside, and then when it comes, it'll come back to you again in the final ordinance with those changes made.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

Um I'm looking at the schedule.

I think that's it.

Okay.

Meeting adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.

I want to do a shout out to Chelsea.

I want to do a shout out to Chelsea.

Chelsea, what year did you join the board?

I think this is my tenth year.

Nice.

Yep, that's that's what I thought.

I was remembering I yeah, okay.

That was my that was my memory.

I just couldn't remember, but I it was like right when I was on my way out.

You were coming in.

Yeah, that sounds right.

We'll miss you.

Yeah, you guys all have my email, so I'm around.

Thanks, Adrian.

Thank you all.

Have a great evening.

Thanks, Adrian.