[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 7-2-08

[Steve Adler]

Bob,

I was a little alarmed to read your statement,    "It basically sets up an entire new reviewing entity that would have the authority to approve or deny any (underline added) remodel or construction project".    I think that (inaccurately) introduces a frightening prospect.  

The ordinance only applies to those historic resources which are 1) surveyed, 2) found to meet the designation criteria, and 3) are so designated by the city.  After the discussion about not delegating City Council authority to the Preservation Board, I take it that "so designated by the City" really means "approved by the City Council".  Thus, the ordinance would only apply to what the city council, itself, says it will.

Added to that, minor work especially "repair and replacement" is exempted;  small projects and projects which clearly meet the design criteria under the ordinance jurisdiction would go through administrative approval (preservation officer, as currently written) ;  large projects would come before the Preservcation Commission.  In crafting the ordinance we have tried to be very sensitive to the potential burden it might have on applicants.  Hence the various levels of review.  I do agree with you , though, that there is a careful balance which needs to be struck.

Informal talk among Preservation Commission members after the PAZ meeting indicates we will be bringing that input to the Commission and proposing some changes the ordinance suggested by PAZ and Roger Millar.

Steve Adler, 
Preservation Commision Member



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Jaffe 
  To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 
  Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:34 AM
  Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 7-2-08


  Greetings,

  We started the day today with PAZ. We had a few issues to discuss. None of them much fun.  The first was a review of the proposed historic preservation ordinance.  Here is the link:

  ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-06-23/Referrals/ReferralHPzoning.pdf

  This is the outcome of a long effort to try to come up with some enabling legislation that provides some means to preserve historic properties and districts at risk of redevelopment.  There are some who have no interest in seeing this sort of thing move forward. There are others who are sympathetic to the cause of historic preservation. But I don't think any of us could support the ordinance as written. It basically sets up an entire new reviewing entity that would have the authority to approve or deny any remodel or construction project.

  The council has no interest in creating a gigantic set of hurdles for redevelopment, the associated infrastructure for managing this new system, or delegating its authority to the historic preservation board.  A few of us jumped on this point and Roger Millar from OPG indicated that OPG staff had raised some of the same concerns. He thought it was a relatively easy matter to revise the language to bring the preservation board back into the role of advising rather than governing. This is an issue that is close to the hearts of many in our community. I'm confident we can get to a point where we have an ordinance that creates the right balance between providing protection where it is needed without creating an unneeded burden on everyone else.

   

  The next issue had to do with a complaint of conflict of interest on the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). I scheduled them together since all the same people would need to be present.  Dennis Gordon had raised the complaint a little while back and Dick wanted us to discuss it to clarify the issue of conflicts of interest on our boards. There is a specific legal definition of conflict of interest. It pretty much means that you would have a direct and significant financial gain associated with a decision you are making.  I think Dick's point was that claims of conflict get thrown around every so often but there really has not been any. 

  The specific complaint that brought up this discussion had to do with some University owner project out at the fort that the HPC was reviewing. Two of the people on the board were being contracted with by the University to work on the project in question. Both individuals recused themselves from the discussion.  The complaint was that their presence on the board, regardless of whether they were voting, tainted the board's ability to be unbiased. 

  It's a somewhat reasonable concern.  We discussed adding something to our applications that asks for conflicts to be revealed but didn't make any changes. In our interview process we ask a question about conflicts and decided to leave it at that. The problem with this line of thinking is that if you carry it to its conclusion you could not have anyone on our boards or elected bodies who had any professional involvement in the community. Almost all professionals have some relationship with the university, the hospitals, various developers, engineers, or other entities who at some point are involved in projects that come before the City.

   

  Our next item was supposed to be an easy one but wasn't. The Mayor had recommended that we confirm the reappointments of Michael Nave and Carl Posowitz to the Board of Adjustment.  Jon Wilkins requested that we take them up separately. We started with Michael. Ed said he couldn't vote for him because of the way he handled Carter Court ignoring the advice of the city attorney. We discussed it for a bit and voted. Ed was the only nay. Then we took up Carl. Stacy moved the confirmation. Wilkins said he couldn't support him because he thought he had a conflict of interest and in general had a philosophical outlook different from Jon's. When asked, Jon did not elaborate. We voted. This time Jon, John, Lynn, Dick, and Renee voted against reconfirming Carl. Myself, Stacy, Ed, Pam, Jason, and Dave voted in favor. Ed and I will both be absent on Monday so I'm not sure how this will go.

   

  After lunch we had a brief A&F meeting to discuss the riverfront triangle MRA district. We set a public hearing to establish the new district.

   

  The only other committee we had was Budget. We reviewed a MRA, finance, the clerk, and council.  Nothing too exciting there.  We had a little discussion about the Mill site. It is about two years behind schedule now. The delays caused by clean up issues and general slowness of DEQ have cost about $1,000,000. Of course the market has been changing over these two years as well.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

   

  Next week in PAZ we will be having the discussion on 'Stacking.' This is the practice of dividing projects into groupings of five or fewer lots. This is done for either efficiency of filing, or evasion of subdivision, depending on who you talk to.  The issue surfaced in regards to the Lincoln School project most recently.  The goal of the discussion is to get a clear understanding of the rules and practice and decide if we want to direct staff to make changes in the ordinance.  I will not be present at this meeting. Marilyn has offered to chair for me in my absence.

   

  The following week we will be having a general discussion about the future of the Orchard Homes area.  There are a number of controversial subdivisions on deck. We want to have a more general discussion about what direction we are headed outside the context of a specific project. We are hoping to hear from our planning staff, the development community, neighbors, and the Community Food and Agriculture Coalition.

   

  Thanks for your interest, 

   

   

  Bob Jaffe

  Missoula City Council, Ward 3

  bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

  406-728-1052



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
  Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
  List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080703/26192606/attachment.htm>