[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

Thu Oct 22 11:39:19 MDT 2009

Bob,

Thanks for the update.  A few observations on the Historic Preservation Ordinance I thought might be important to point out:

A)  The need for review of a project (a Historic Preservation Permit) is only triggered by the need for a building permit.  
Painting, repair and replacement would not need review or a permit.
If an H.P. Permit is necessary, review would be a new component of the zoning compliance process, which already exists.

B)  The H.P. Ordinance anticipates pre-application meetings to get guidance from the H.P. Officer or the H.P. Commission well before any permits are needed - preferably before significant design work starts - just so everyone gets the gist of what lies ahead in the process.  The commission is very aware of the outreach and education part of its mission and would certainly promote such meetings.

C)  Small projects and projects in obvious compliance with the guidelines would receive administrative review and approval, not adding any significant time to the approval process.  Only larger projects or projects which may have trouble meeting the guidelines would be bumped to Historic Preservation Commission review (see next point).  If someone is nervous about review by just one person (the Historic Preservation Officer),  I believe they can elect to go before the H.P. Commission, instead.

D)  Larger projects typically go through four (sometimes more) classic stages - 
    1) Preliminary Design, 
    2) Design Development, 
    3) Development of Construction Documents (bid sets and specifications) 
    4) Construction.  (Commonly there will be a several-week bidding phase prior to construction)
Ideally, larger projects would be reviewed at the Preliminary Design stage.  Any H.P. Permit approval would then be waiting on the desk to be wrapped into the Building Permit, once the Building Permit is applied for (Prior to Construction).  This takes forethought by the design team to make sure that approvals are done at the appropriate time in the project schedule (early), which I anticipate will take some learning curve.  With the application done in a timely manner, this would not add extra time to a project's overall schedule.

E)  Regarding the notion of having the ordinance apply to only the "contributing" structures within a district (within a district, there are "contributing" and "non-contributing" elements of the district), two of the most important things to consider are:  1)  The district itself would be the "Historic Resource" and, ideally, should be dealt with as a whole.  I believe precedence is lacking for dealing with a district in a piecemeal manner.  2) As a Preservation Commission member, I don't want to be on the working end of the equation trying to explain to an applicant why the City saw fit to adopt a district ordinance that applies to one person but not his or her immediate neighbor, both of whom are in the same district.

I know there's a lot more to it and more points to be made.  I just wanted to touch on the themes you mentioned.

Steve Adler

From: Bob Jaffe 
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:50 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

Greetings,

This morning in conservation we approved a contract to spend about $12,000 to develop a new comprehensive trail map for the city.  It is being paid for with grant funds and going to a cartography firm in Boulder, Colorado.  It looks like a great project. My only regret is that we couldn't find a local company to give it to. The only local to return a bid would not agree to make the source files available to the city which was one of the requirements.

We also approved a contract to HDR engineering to prepare a plan and design documents for a bunch of fixes to the Northside pedestrian bridge. The contract is for $18,000. There is also a budget of about $125,000 to actually do work to the bridge.  The priority is to address water sealing issues with the steel supports beneath the concrete decking. There is a bunch of rust forming. It is not considered to be a structural issue but the goal is to make sure it doesn't become one.  Also on the list is to deal with the pigeons, making it easier to clean graffiti, Making it harder to hide and sleep in the structure (or find places to go to the bathroom), Installing water lines so the thing can get cleaned, make a little structure to hold the porta-potty on the south side, move the lamp post that is right in the way when you come off the ramp on the south side on your bike, make a little park on the north side, and figure out if there is anything we can do about the elevators. There will not be enough money to do all of this stuff but this is an initial wish list.  Once the structural issues are addressed we will see how much is left and then start a neighborhood dialog to see what people want.  

The money for this project is actually from one of the stimulus pots. We originally planned to spend it to do a bunch of park upgrades but the proposal was denied by HUD because parks were not considered infrastructure. So the money got redirected here.

In PAZ our main issue was the Historic Preservation Ordinance.  The basic idea is that the historic districts are a valuable asset in the community.  If we allow too many changes in the district that are incompatible with the historic character of the district we put the historic district's designation at risk. So the proposal is to require any project that modifies a property within an historic district to receive an historic preservation permit. There are a couple of main concerns. One is that this creates a whole new hoop to jump through for folks who are trying to build something. There can be delays of up to sixty days (ninety if demolition is involved) and additional costs. This may be reasonable if you are getting ready to tear down St. Joseph's School or build a bunch of houses all around the old Lincoln School. But what if you are just building a small addition on a single family home? The suggestion is that the vast majority of cases will be determined by the Historic Preservation Officer in a matter of minutes and no hearings will be required. But this makes some folks nervous.

The other concern is that this is some kind of violation of private property rights and creative expression.  Why shouldn't a person be allowed to choose what style home they want to build?  Again, I'm not sure how much of a concern this really is considering that the art museum addition and the "corner" building at Brooks and Higgins are both considered compliant. It's hard to imagine what you would have to do to be out of compliance. 

The idea of limiting the scope of the ordinance to contributing structures in a district or even just structures on the register of historic places was discussed.

The public hearing on this proposal is on Monday night. This is one of the ones that is very much up in the air going into the hearing. If you have a strong opinion on this I encourage you to come to the hearing or send your thoughts to council at ci.missoula.mt.us (and cc them here). Here is link to the draft ordinance:

http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2280

In A&F we discussed the zoning fees again. This time they put it all in context of the current fees and it sounded a little more reasonable.  Some of the changes include replacing the fees for Commercial Gas $5200; Liquor and Beer $5200; Enterprise Commercial $4160; and a few others that now under the new ordinance will be considered conditional uses and only cost $805. The sentiment on council is that no one wants to have to charge for anything but this is how we have chosen to pay for this stuff. Most city services are just covered by general taxes. But our land use review services are financed by fees with a 50% tax subsidy.  

Here is the link to the fee structure: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=2399. The hearing will also be on Monday night.

Last item of the day was a Public Works discussion of the use of our Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. This is how we finance stuff like Missoula in Motion, the Bike Ped office, Mountain Line, Street sweeping, bike lane striping, and a bunch of other related stuff. A couple of interesting points came up. One was the suggestion that maybe it is a good time for a wholesale reconsideration of how we address the issue of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in our community. By most accounts we have been very successful in our efforts over the last decade or two and maybe we should just keep doing  what we are doing. But it may be a good time to reevaluate what is working best and how we can most efficiently expend our resources. It was also pointed out that the Bike Ped office and its various programs only represent about 3% of the CMAQ funds. 

Thanks for your interest,

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

1225 South 2nd West

Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 728-1052

Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is often required by law to provide public records to individuals requesting them. The City is also required by law to protect private, confidential information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you

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

_______________________________________________
-----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/20091022/32e3ec1d/attachment.htm>