[MissoulaGov] Planning Board on Tuesday

[Joe Easton]

Some of the answers in the FAQ prepared by the Historic Preservation
Commission show that the proposed ordinance is indeed 'as sweeping' as
written.  To wit:

 

"Your neighborhood may be listed in the National Register of Historic
Places." (answer Question 2)

 

I would argue that the Historic Place designation promotes a role in the
history of Missoula that took place in your neighborhood, but not
necessarily that each of the 1800 structures covered by this ordinance had a
role in that history.  Visitors can respect and understand that Worden,
Higgins and McLeod walked down the same streets as we do without ensuring
that every home retains its previous historic context.

 

"By having a local  ordinance, you can be assured that a new property owner
across the street from your house will help maintain the historic character
of the district.  In this era of growth and increased mobility, new owners
may move into an area and not respect the character and buildings of the
historic district." (Answer, question 3)

 

I object to this exact notion.  Even if your house is not listed on the
National Register, this ordinance insists that all future work requiring a
building permit be reviewed in an historic context (as defined by the
officer and Commission in reference to broad National standards).  In other
words, if I owned a 1960s Ranch in the University Area, and commissioned
Frank Gehry to design a new home for me, the ordinance gives the Commission
the ability to deny me a building permit.

 

"Demolition of historic resources in the affected area requires HPO review
and approval.   Approval will be granted if there is no practical.
Alternative.(sic)" (answer question 7)

A goal of the ordinance, as described to me by Mr. Maechling in a meeting
with me to further understand the goals of the ordinance, is to provide the
Officer an amount of time to find a potential buyer of your house that would
preserve or extend the historic nature of your home/location if your new
design did not meet the standards of the National Register.

 

"The purpose of the designation is to preserve historic and architectural
structures through the application of a specific set of standards for
development on the property.  The historic preservation ordinance may
supersede some underlying zoning regulations with regard to architectural
style, setback, height, lot coverage, parking and demolition."

 

The purpose may be to preserve historic and architectural structures, but
the ordinance as written applies to *every* lot and structure that exists in
a Historic District, whether or not it was built in 1910, 1960 or 1980.  It
is possible that the HPC would deny a Certificate for a new structure that
in all other ways met the zoning standards for that zone, including
Downtown.

 

"All contributing structures are subject to the ordinance."

While applying for designation on the National Register obviously took owner
approval, to be listed as a 'contributing resource' only meant being
included on the List of Contributing Resources created by the Historic
Preservation Officer, with or without owner approval.  The ordinance should
be written to require new affirmative owner participation in the ordinance,
and/or a method to petition City Council to remove a structure from the
List.  As written, Council may initiate, but owners do not apply for
removal.

 

"The HPC decision can be appealed to the City Council."

 

This is not clearly included in the current draft ordinance.  Additionally,
there should be an avenue for property owners to avoid review in a Historic
context altogether, such as an application to the Board of Adjustment.  

 

"The historic preservation ordinance does place additional restrictions on
the exterior of historic properties.  The ordinance is designed to protect
and preserve properties and neighborhoods.  Thus, the ordinance can be
beneficial to a property owner by preventing undesirable changes to
neighboring buildings that could take away from property values and the
ambiance or enjoyment of the property."

 

As written, the ordinance places additional restrictions on properties that
are not listed on the National Register, but included on a List created by
the Historic Preservation Officer, with or without owner approval.  The
underlying zoning, especially Downtown, is the largest driver of potential
value of a building for sale - what is its highest and best use.  If any
ordinance is passed, there should be separate standards for review for
residential neighborhoods, and the Downtown/CBD.  Could anyone argue that
preservation of a flat parking lot has a historic context worth preserving?

 

Thank you for reading,

 

Joe Easton

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090721/351e28e0/attachment.htm>