[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Steve Adler]

In response to David Gray's points:

1.      Assuming the project is public or commercial, the project itself will be under the controls of a licensed architect, who is responsible to his client - as intended by state law.  The Historic Preservation Officer will not be acting as an architect, nor should he/she.  The Architect is to be the Owner's advocate.    If we followed this train of thought, how many people down at City Hall would then have to be licensed architects?  Building officials and inspectors?  staff for the Board of Adjustments, Design Review Board, Public Art Committee, etc?   

2.      I believe the point is exaggerated.  Any Committee, Commission, and Staff has rules, guidelines, standards, State Law, and precedent to follow.  Having the power to dictate "anything he chooses to be good is allowed" just isn't reality - and would not/should not be tolerated.  Yes, more specific  rules (guidelines) should be drafted, which will then  plug into the ordinance for each district.  Such guidelines should be drafted by each district.  Each group should definitely have a say in what they choose to implement in their own neighborhood.  "Top-down" doesn't work very well, that way.  

        What is currently proposed it the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.  (See reference below, from the National Park Service website.  It's a concise summary of the guidelines available and the context for the guidelines chosen for the ordinance as a "default setting".  The NPS administers the guidelines).  The idea behind this choice it two-fold.  The city is not a museum, but a living, changing community.  It has to allow for changes, adaptive re-use and new structures in a historic context.  The other point is that they are the most nationally accepted, most defensible, and most-used standard which is as good a first step as possible to fill in until neighborhoods can develop their own, more specific standards.  The Ordinance could not have been proposed without offering some guideline to adopt with it.

3.      Re-iterating point 1, yes, the Historic Preservation Officer should certainly have qualifications involving architecture and history.  The experiences listed were unfortunate and should definitely be avoided.  I do however ask, that people don't assume guilt of involved parties, based upon other bad experiences, before there is an opportunity to prove out the system we are contemplating adopting.  Just as individuals have rights, a common theme here, all people (HPO's and board members included) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  That's a pretty basic American precept.  

I understand the fear that any public process or ordinance could "go south", but to assume it will before it is ever even adopted is, I believe, unfair.

4.      I'm not even sure how to respond to point 4.  It's a very personal opinion and relies on personal experience.  To some people it may be an "unwanted burden" (opinion).  To others, it is a "desired tool" (also opinion) to protect what they hold dear:  their neighborhood character.  What  people make of it is up to their own judgment, which is their right.

5.      "What's the rush with ramming this ordinance through" . . . ?    This ordinance has been in the works with some neighborhoods for the last 8 years and has been in continued public process for the last 3 years - complete with open public meetings, neighborhood outreach, mailing lists, etc..  There has been no rush.  OPG has posted neighborhoods and sent letters to every potentially effected property owner, in accordance with Zoning Law.  To wax personal, I am a professional (architect with historic experience) and have been continually involved these last 8 years.  And I'm not the only one.  I believe what has been requested has already been fulfilled.

Thank you for your patience and time,

Steve Adler,
Adler Architects, Inc.