[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

I would definitely agree with Dave. Seems if we now need an architecture  
czar in Missoula, that individual had better be a registered architect in the 
 State of Montana. I'm fairly certain State law would mandate it.
 
Additionally, under no circumstances should people be forced into this  
historic requirement without their consent. If they volunteer for it that's  
fine. Not everyone is so enamored with Missoula's past, that they should have  
creative ideas for the designs of their businesses and homes enslaved by 
it.  Additionally... the verbiage in the ordinance is so vague and 
confusing.... I  have no doubt it will lead to more obstructionism, more lawsuits as to 
how it  has been interpreted, and yet another disincentive for investment 
in these  areas.
 
I seriously hope the City Council sends this ordinace back for a complete  
re-do.... making it very clear to include only legitimate historic  
landmarks in future drafts.
 
Thank You,
 
Carl Posewitz
 

 
 
In a message dated 10/22/2009 11:59:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
hdgray at modwest.com writes:

 
Hi Bob, 
I will not be able to make it  to Monday’s hearing about the historical 
preservation ordinance because I will  be out of town.  I would like to point 
out some issues I have with the  draft. 
1.        If the ordinance is to  apply to commercial buildings requiring 
an architect’s stamp or Design  professional per state law and the building 
code the work will need to be  under the complete control of an Architect 
licensed in the state of  Montana.  If the Historic officer is being allowed to 
act as an Architect  or design professional a complaint will be filed with 
the board of Architect  for violation of the Architectural licensure laws by 
that  individual. 
2.        If the Historical  Preservation Officer is to have architectural 
and zoning control of Property  (land, buildings and otherwise) in districts 
as an “anything he chooses to be  good is allowed” ordinance then this 
creates a incredible hardship for  property owner’s in these areas.  If an area 
is to be truly preserved in  character that character needs to be defined 
by the owner’s of the properties  and rules to preserve that specific 
character need to be drafted with there  input.  That is a far cry from is proposed 
in the ordinance.  The  new Neighborhood Conservation districts allowed 
under the new zoning code  would be a better tool and have greater public input 
than the current draft  ordinance which has had very little public input. 
3.        Any Historical Preservation  Ordinance proposed, I believe, 
should have strict educational and additional  professional experience 
qualifications for the Historical Preservation Officer  position.  A professional 
degree in architectural history, Historical  Urban design principals, 
architectural design and building code interpretation  should be added so the officer 
understands the historical relevance of  building and development styles 
over that past centuries.    A  Historical officer requiring some “fun windows”
 be added because the house  next door has them is the wrong direction for 
true preservation of a building  or neighborhood.  I have dealt with 
historic officers requiring  2nd floor additions to not be stacked over the 1st 
story  walls so citizens could tell where an addition was added.  This is  
regardless of the fact that an adjoining building abuts the one receiving the  
2nd floor addition and the offset requirement would create a 2 feet  wide by 
12 foot deep water and snow collecting pool between the two structures  that 
would be impractical to maintain or keep water tight.  Two other  
experience with historical preservation officers involved the officer not  allowing 
insulated glass windows of the same shape and size be allowed to  replace the 
large single pane windows of separate commercial projects.   The existing 
energy sucking windows were not the original windows but an  upgrade from 
whatever was installed when the building was built. These foolish  requirements 
of Historic preservation officers that lacked architectural and  practical 
experience should not become the norm for Missoula’s historic  treasures. 
4.        If this rezoning draft  ordinance is to be allowed it should be 
voted upon by the individual  properties it applies to.  I have witnessed 
Historical Preservation Board  Members file historic register papers for 
properties against a property  owner’s wishes.  This Ordinance would now give the 
control of those  properties to the very board that created an unwanted 
burden to the property  owner’s in the first place. 
5.        What is the rush with  ramming this ordinance through without the 
adequate public comment and input  needed for true preservation of Missoula’
s Architectural heritage.  Have  4 or 5 Neighborhood Council, public 
charrettes and property owner meetings to  discuss the ramification of having and 
not having a historic preservation  ordinance. Discuss what should be 
included and why so sound decisions  pertaining to a sites preservation can be 
made. Invite professionals to be  apart of the process so there experience and 
knowledge can be included in the  ordinance they will have to interpret. 
Sincerely, 
David V.  Gray 
Ward 6 
Born, Breed and raised in  Missoula. 
 
 
From:  missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com 
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com]  On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009  10:51 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_ (mailto: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_ 
(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_ 
(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/20091023/4dc77a9f/attachment.htm>