[MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance

[Roger Millar]

John,
 
All of the privately owned properties listed individually in the
National Register are listed with the consent of the owner at the time
of listing.
 
For Historic Districts (per the National Park Service), "If a majority
of private property owners do not object, the State Historic
Preservation Officer may approve the nomination and forward it to the
National Park Service to be considered for listing. If the (District) is
approved by the National Park Service, it is officially entered in the
National Register." It is my understanding that all property owners were
notified of the potential creation of our Historic Districts at the time
they were considered, all of which was before my time in Missoula.
 
With the exception of Ft. Missoula and the Roosevelt Block, historic
properties are not covered by our current Historic Preservation
Ordinance (Chapter 19.60 of the Missoula City Zoning Ordinance) nor were
they covered at the time property owners either gave their consent to be
in the National Register (individual properties) or did not object to
being listed (Historic Districts). As the proposed ordinance would be a
rezoning of individual properties and distinct geographic areas, we will
be notifying all affected property owners (and property owners within
150 feet) of the public hearings on the proposed ordinance and posting
the individual properties and districts. Affected property owners will
have the right of protest and if enough protest a supermajority of City
Council would be required to enact the ordinance.
 
We have 68 structures in Missoula that are listed individually in the
National Register of Historic Places. We also have 9 distinct Historic
Districts that are listed in the National Register. You can check them
out on a map at
ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Maps/UFDA/LowResMaps/HistoricResources.pdf.
The 9 Historic Districts have a total of 1,978 parcels of land in them.
I don't have the number of parcels in each District that have
contributing buildings yet, but will have it prior to the hearing. The
City currently has a total of 21,694 parcels of land. Thus the ordinance
as drafted would affect approximately 9 percent of the parcels of land
in Missoula.
 
There are hundreds of Historic Preservation Ordinances in place in
cities and towns across the country. The ordinances run the spectrum
from affecting all properties within the jurisdiction to only affecting
properties listed individually in the National Register of Historic
Places to only affecting one or two specific sites. Hopefully we can
come to a decision as a community as to where along that spectrum
Missoula should consider changes to historic structures.
 
The ordinance as drafted by the Historic Preservation Commission would
affect properties listed individually in the National Register and all
properties contained within Historic Districts listed in the National
Register. On Wednesday I suggested that City Council consider the
individually listed properties and only the contributing properties
within Historic Districts. City Council of course has the right to
decide whatever it wants within the law after the Planning Board makes a
recommendation and a public hearing is held.
 
I am an Army brat and went to high school in Stuttgart, Germany.
Stuttgart was founded in the 13th Century AD and is considered young by
European standards. I find the notion that everything older than me is
potentially historic to be charmingly American. Please understand that
personally I have only two desires regarding this proposal:
To see the work of the Historic Preservation Commission (who have been
at this task for over a decade) get a public hearing and consideration
by the Planning Board and City Council. 
To have a process for public consideration in place (or a decision by
the City Council that a process is not necessary) before we have another
project like the Lincoln School find its way to OPG.
Hope this helps.
 
Roger

 
 
Roger M. Millar, PE, AICP
Director
Missoula City-County Office of Planning & Grants
435 Ryman Street
Missoula, MT 59802-4292
 
Phone:  (406) 258-4657
Fax:  (406) 258-4903
 
 
 
üPlease consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail.



>>> John Torma <johntorma at yahoo.com> 6/13/2009 1:14 AM >>>

Roger, please let me know if I am understanding this correctly.

Not every "contributing structure in a Historic Districtthat is in the
National Register of Historic Places" is itself listed on the Register. 
So, simply by virtue of the fact that an historic building (albeit, not
on the Register) exists within an historic district (that is on the
Register), that building would be subject to this ordinance whether or
not that building's owner(s) wish it so.  Is this correct as the
ordinance has been drafted and/or as you have recommended to the
Council?

Thanks for your help.

John Torma

From: Roger Millar <rmillar at co.missoula.mt.us>
To: Rod Austin <raustin at missouladowntownbid.org>
Cc: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 5:00:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance

I think so. On Wednesday I recommended to City Council that the
ordinance apply to any structure that is in the National Register of
Historic Places and to any contributing structure in a Historic District
that is in the National Register of Historic Places. Under that scenario
if you had to demo a structure on the list to build a new building you'd
be subject to the review process. If you built a new building on a
vacant parcel or had to demo a non-contributing building to build a new
one you would not be subject to the review process.
 
Roger M. Millar, PE, AICP
Director
Missoula City-County Office of Planning & Grants
435 Ryman Street
Missoula, MT 59802-4292
 
Phone:  (406) 258-4657
Fax:  (406) 258-4903
 
 
 
üPlease consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail.



>>> "Rod Austin" <raustin at missouladowntownbid.org> 6/12/2009 4:45 PM

>>>

Roger,
Isn't this pretty close to what you suggested? Thanks. Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of
joe at joeeaston.com
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:03 PM
To: joe at joeeaston.com; hdgray at modwest.com;
missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com; Roger Millar
Cc: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance

(ooops... I was txting while driving)

That these proposed design standards not apply to *every* new
construction in any historic district... Especially Downtown.

Jme
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: joe at joeeaston.com

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:58:45 
To: <hdgray at modwest.com>; <missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com>; Roger
Millar<rmillar at co.missoula.mt.us>
Cc: <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>; <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance


I would support the draft ordinance if :

There was very clearly no opportunity for any structure in any historic
district to be conscripted to The List; and 

That there not be
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: hdgray at modwest.com

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:27:25 
To: Roger Millar<rmillar at co.missoula.mt.us>
Cc: "Donahue, Janet <janetdonahue" <>,<Invalid address>;
<bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>; <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance


Everyone,

It appears from the conversations that the historic Preservation
groups
are essentially trying to have the city seize private property from
the
it's owners without compensation with this proposed ordinance.

Roger stated below he recommends that the ordinance only apply to
properties that are already in the National Register but, not
necessarily
with the property owner's permission. In the Ordinance a building
permit
could not be issued without a certificate of appropriateness. Why are
the
Historic Preservation Groups so willing to take away Citizens property
and
rights to meet their goals in place of asking the historically
significant
property owners to add preservation measures to their Deeds for the
purpose of historical preservation?  Proactive and grassroots work by
the
Historic Preservation groups to work with building owners could go a
long
way towards protecting City treasures without creating such a negative
impression of what Historical Preservation is and how it should be
done.

Sincerely,
David V. Gray


> Janet,

>

> Googling "Historic Preservation Ordinance" resulted in 670,000 hits.

We

> must not be unique! You might want to try the National Alliance of

> Preservation Commissions (http://www.uga.edu/napc/index.htm) or the

> National Trust for Historic Preservation

> (http://www.preservationnation.org/) as resources.

>

> The draft ordinance was prepared by the Historic Preservation

Commission

> (HPC) with the help of Michelle Bryan Mudd and the Land Use Clinic at

the

> UM Law School. The Clinic reviewed numerous similar ordinances

throughout

> the United States in the preparation of the draft.

>

> Per the draft ordinance:

>

>             Historic Resource includes designated improvements,

buildings,

> structures, signs, objects, features sites, places, Historic

> Districts, and landscape elements or features, as well as

> Landmarks, which are listed, or have been determined to be

> eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic

> Places.

>

> Also per the ordinance:

>

> 20.67.50        Designation Criteria for an Historic Resource.

> The City recognizes that within its jurisdiction there exist

significant

> Historic Resources that should be protected.  Accordingly, any

property

> listed in the National Register, or that has received a determination

of

> eligibility for the NRHP, is automatically classified as an Historic

> Resource that is subject to this Chapter and included in the Local

> Inventory. The City also recognizes that the federal process of

listing a

> property in the National Register does not require that the property

be

> protected.

>

> Criteria for Evaluation

>

> The quality of significance in American history, architecture,

archeology,

> engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings,

> structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design,

> setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

> A. That are associated with events that have made a significant

> contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

> B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our

past;

> or

> C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or

> method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or

that

> possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and

> distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual

distinction;

> or

> D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important

in

> prehistory or history.

> As drafted the ordinance would apply to properties in the National

> Register and properties that have received a determination of

eligibility

> to be in the National Register. I have recommended that City Council

> consider limiting the application to just properties that are

actually in

> the National Register and deleting the eligible properties. This

would

> help to insure that property owners did not object.

>

> From the National Park Service web page:

>

> During the time the State Historic Preservation Officer is reviewing

the

> proposed nomination, property owners and local authorities are

notified.

> All property owners are given the opportunity to comment on the

> nomination. Owners of private property are given the opportunity to

concur

> in or object to the nomination. If the owner of a private property

(or the

> majority of such owners of a property) or a district with multiple

owners

> object to the nomination, the State Historic Preservation Officer

forwards

> the nomination to the National Park Service only for a determination

about

> whether the property is eligible for listing. If a majority of

private

> property owners do not object, the State Historic Preservation

Officer may

> approve the nomination and forward it to the National Park Service to

be

> considered for listing. If the property is approved by the National

Park

> Service, it is officially entered in the National Register.

>

> Other useful stuff:

> A map of historic resources in Missoula can be found at:

>

ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Maps/UFDA/LowResMaps/HistoricResources.pdf

> As drafted, any decision of the Historic Preservation Officer or the

HPC

> would be appealable to the BOA. This language is in the Code Chapter

> authorizing the HPC in the proposed new Zoning Code (Section

20.90.030). I

> have recommended to City Council that they consider shifting the

appeal

> from the BOA to the City Council.

> As drafted, the standard criteria for evaluating appropriateness

would be

> the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR

Part

> 67). Property owners within historic districts would also be able to

ask

> City Council to adopt (through the zoning code amendment process)

> district-specific standards.

> Hope this helps. I am looking forward to a thorough, public

discussion of

> the HPC proposal.

>

> Roger

>

>

> Roger M. Millar, PE, AICP

> Director

> Missoula City-County Office of Planning & Grants

> 435 Ryman Street

> Missoula, MT 59802-4292

>

> Phone:  (406) 258-4657

> Fax:  (406) 258-4903

>

>

>

> ü Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing

this

> e-mail.

>

>>>> Janet Donahue <janetdonahue at msn.com> 6/11/2009 4:30 PM >>>

> Bob,  Are there similar ordinances throughout the United States that

could

> be compared to this one?  What is the definition of an "Historic

> Resource"?

>

> Thanks,

>

> Janet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:28:41 -0600

> From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] historic preservation ordinance

>

>

> Here is the link to the draft ordinance:

>

http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1488_______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> 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.



_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

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. 
_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

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. 
_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

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/20090613/afac4d7e/attachment.htm>