The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board conducted an extensive work session on September 16 to review draft revisions to the city's demolition regulations, marking the first formal presentation of code language that would significantly expand and clarify how the city regulates the removal of historic structures.
Community Development Director Erin George and Deputy Director Rebecca Harbage walked the board through the proposed changes, which consolidate scattered demolition standards currently spread across multiple code sections and introduce new protections for structures outside the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). The revisions are one piece of a larger Landmark Project effort overseen by the City Commission and Community Development Board, with additional code sections still in development.
Expanding Protections Beyond the NCOD
A major shift in the draft is the proposed application of demolition review to any structure 50 years or older anywhere in the city, not just within the NCOD. Under the proposal, applicants seeking to demolish such structures would be required to submit a Montana State Historic Property Record Form, prepared by a qualified professional meeting Secretary of Interior standards. Staff would then review the form to determine whether the structure qualifies as historic under the city's definition. If it does, demolition regulations—including a potential stay period—would apply citywide.
The board expressed general support for this expansion but raised several questions about implementation and unintended consequences. Board member Allyson Brekke emphasized the need to prevent applicants from circumventing protections through incremental demolition of parts of structures, suggesting the current proposed 50% gross square footage threshold was too high and lacked clear definition of what constitutes "50%."
Board members discussed whether protections should apply only to primary structures or to all structures on a property, including accessory buildings like garages and carriage houses. After extended discussion, there was consensus that any structure should potentially trigger documentation requirements, but the board asked staff to research definitions used in other jurisdictions and the International Existing Building Code to clarify what portions of a building should count toward the threshold. Staff agreed to bring refined language back at the October meeting.
Two-Part Stay Structure and Hardship Documentation
The draft proposes replacing the current one-time 2-year demolition stay with a two-part structure: an automatic 1-year stay during which no termination is allowed, followed by a potential second year. At the 1-year mark, applicants must submit documentation of alternatives they have considered—such as efforts to sell, relocate, or rehabilitate the structure—for staff review. If documentation is deemed adequate, the stay may terminate; if not, or if nothing is submitted, the stay extends for a second year.
Board members generally supported the two-part approach as providing an incentive for applicants to explore options. However, board member Chelsea Holling noted concern that applicants might terminate the stay after demonstrating they explored selling the property, even if they received market-rate offers they chose to reject. Staff indicated that receiving such an offer could itself be deemed insufficient documentation of exploring alternatives, potentially triggering extension of the second-year stay.
The terminology of "hardship demonstration" also drew discussion. The draft proposes renaming the current "remaining economic life test" to "hardship demonstration" to align with terminology used in other jurisdictions. Board member Mitchell Korus suggested more specific language—such as "economic hardship of rehabilitation"—to clarify what hardship means. Staff agreed to explore more explicit wording.
Documentation and Submittal Requirements
The draft consolidates demolition-specific submittal requirements into a single section and clarifies what documentation is required. For any demolition within the NCOD or of a historic resource citywide, applicants must submit site documentation, high-resolution photos of all exterior elevations, and resource information including address, date of construction, and character-defining features. For historic resources, applicants must also submit the Montana State Historic Property Record Form completed by a qualified professional.
The revision adds detail about the "hardship demonstration" required for demolition of historic structures within the NCOD—specifically referencing the International Existing Building Code standards for habitability and requiring cost estimates for both rehabilitation to habitable condition and demolition with redevelopment to minimum standards.
Board member Chelsea Holling questioned whether the requirement to document all internal and external elements being removed or altered extended to building systems like furnaces, noting this seemed broader than staff had previously indicated. Staff clarified that the board had not yet comprehensively reviewed all existing COA submittal requirements and would do so as a separate task.
Primary vs. Accessory Structures
The draft applies demolition regulations only to "primary structures" within the NCOD, prompting board discussion about whether carriage houses, storage buildings, and other accessory structures should also require approval. Board members cited examples like historic neighborhoods with significant carriage houses and homestead properties where outbuildings are part of the overall historic resource.
After discussion, there was general agreement that demolition review should not be limited to primary structures. However, the board suggested that accessory structures might not require applicants to submit plans for "subsequent development" (replacement structures), since demolishing a shed or garage should not necessarily mandate rebuilding something in its place. Staff indicated the ordinance would be revised to apply review requirements to all structures but to exempt accessory structures from the subsequent-development requirement when the primary structure is remaining.
Qualified Professional Requirements
Board member Michael Wiseman raised concerns about the city's reluctance to provide direction to applicants about which professionals to hire for the Montana State Historic Property Record Form. While city attorney's office recommended against requiring or preferring specific firms, Wiseman suggested the city maintain and publicize a list of qualified consultants or at minimum reference the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) list of qualified professionals. Staff indicated they would explore whether maintaining a city-approved consultant list, similar to wetland consultant arrangements, was legally permissible and administratively feasible.
Noticing and Public Engagement
The draft expands on-site noticing requirements to include all proposed demolitions within the NCOD and any demolition of a historic resource outside the NCOD, regardless of whether a stay applies. This is characterized as notification for neighborhood awareness rather than establishing a comment period. Board members also discussed the value of educating real estate professionals and property owners about historic preservation requirements earlier in the property transaction process.
Next Steps
Staff indicated that the Community Development Board is preparing draft code language on additional topics including COA standards, deviations, and the expanded role of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board in reviewing landmark nominations. Some or all of that material will be brought to HPAB for review in October, depending on progress.
Once the board completes its input, staff will combine all pieces into formal ordinance format for comprehensive legal review of code placement, numbering, terminology consistency, and definitions. That formal ordinance will return to HPAB for a recommendation, likely in December or later, followed by required public hearings before the Community Development Board and City Commission.
The board meets again on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, at 6 p.m. Board member Chelsea Holling also announced plans to explore incorporating historic preservation into a potential Montana Main Street wayfinding program downtown, and board member Danielle Nicholas offered to lead historic tours for interested staff and community members.