Document Missoula_doc_a7cdd8421e

MISSOULA CONSOLIDATED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 21, 2009 - 7:00 PM Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 West Pine Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Clary, Vice Chair Heidi Kendall John DiBari Kelley Durbin Jonathan Haber ALTERNATES PRESENT: Tim Skufca MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Ibey Don MacArthur Jerry O’Connell Jerry Petasek ALTERNATES ABSENT: Don Latham STAFF PRESENT: Tim Worley Roger Millar Philip Maechling Sharon E. Reed OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Adler Jodi Allison-Bunnell Perry Ashby Carol Baberger Colleen Baldwin Jennifer Bardsley Carol Bellin Deirdre Boges Jack Boyd Matthew Brainard Michelle Bryan Mudd Kim Briggeman OTHERS PRESENT: Janene Caywood Ken Duce Donna Erickson Delia Hagen Dan Hall Hugh A. Jesse John Koenig Kevin Krebsbach Jamie Ryan Lockman Helena Maclay Manning Sandra Marks Allan Mathews Jim McDonald Linda McKay Mary Meese Mike Monsos OTHERS PRESENT: Ryan Morton Tracy O’Reilly John Paoli Carl Posewitz John Quandt Pola Rest Bruce Rowland Dorey Rowland Bill Schaff Tom Seiler Linda Smith Angela Stratton Daniel Warren Carol Worth B. Zoning Ordinance - Historic Preservation Ordinance – The Missoula Historic Preservation Commission in consultation with the Historic Preservation Officer and the University of Montana Law School Land Use Clinic has drafted a Historic Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote and safeguard the historic integrity of Missoula’s historic resources and neighborhoods, and to stimulate neighborhood revitalization. The ordinance would apply to properties currently listed in the national Register of Historic Places and properties in Missoula’s nine listed and eligible National Historic Districts: Missoula Downtown District, East Pine Street District, Northside Railroad District, Lower Rattlesnake, University of Montana, University Area, Historic Southside, McCormick Neighborhood, and Fort Missoula. The list of National Register of Historic Places sites in Missoula can be found at http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgweb/HistPres/ along with a draft of the proposed ordinance. Jennifer Clary: Okay, so we will move on to the next, which is the zoning…the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance addition. And we’ll just give a couple minutes for Philip to set up. While we’re waiting, can I get, like, a raise of hands about how many people would like to speak this evening? Okay. Sharon Reed: Madame Chair, I would just like to mention that one of our alternates is present, Tim Skufca. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Sharon Reed: All of our City Board Members are present, also, so can he fill in for either a County member that’s missing or for Don MacArthur, who’s the Board-appointed… Jennifer Clary: Yes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sharon Reed: Okay, in case a vote comes. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Okay, we’re ready, so we will have a staff report. And just so we know, just to clarify this, Philip will get 20 minutes, essentially, to present and we won't have a…well, we will have the proponents and opponents, but we won’t have a developers’ representative talk. And what we’d like to do is, not to limit your discussion, feel free, please, to give your opinions, for sure, on this, but we would like to ask that you come up, talk for about three minutes and let the other people that would like to speak, speak. And that will kind of, you know, get us to be able to actually start the discussion as a Planning Board on that. But we appreciate all of your comments that will happen this evening. Thank you. Philip Maechling: Good evening, members of Planning Board and public, I’m Philip Maechling, I’m the Historic Preservation Officer here in Missoula. And the Historic Preservation Ordinance that you have in front of you is a draft project that has been in the works over time, over the past eight years. And what we’d like to do is have Mike Monsos, the Chair of the Missoula Historic Preservation Commission speak first, then I will do a short slide show, some of you have seen some of the slides, it’s an abbreviated version of that but the public, I think, would be interested in seeing what the City’s Historic Resources are. Then Michele Bryan-Mudd, but the Land Use Law Clinic will make a short presentation on the Ordinance itself. And then Roger Millar will have some comments. So, Mike. Mike Monsos: Thank you very much, again, I’m Mike Monsos. Thank you very much for the consideration of this, we appreciate it. The first question that kind of pops up to everyone is why exactly do we need an Historic Preservation Ordinance and we just feel that there is a number of great reasons. This town really needs to recognize and preserve the aspects, the architectural fabric, the history that makes Missoula unique—the things that make this something different from every other town. And there’s some great buildings here, and there’s some great architecture, and there’s some great history that we need to preserve. Just like if someone is building a building now, 50 years down the road, I would hope that, you know, people after us would give it the same consideration and save those. It also is important because Historic Preservation only works from the ground up; it’s a grassroots organization that needs to happen here. We’re the ones that know what we have. We’re the ones that know where we’re living, what we want it to be like. It’s important at this level, that’s why we’re getting federal regulations, we’re not getting the national organizations telling us what we have to preserve, what we’re going to do. It needs to happen here and this Ordinance gives you the tools with which to do that. You’re going to have a chance to look at this and have rules and parameters and ways to actually respond to people who have concerns over saving something or not saving something. And what this does for us, it gives us the chance to measure and look at and save these things that are treasures to us and that are important to us. It also inserts preservation into the process at a decent time. None of us want to be the ones chained in front of the bulldozers or around the trees or that whole thing—that just doesn’t work, that just gets people upset. We don’t need to create an air of us versus them. What we want to do is get an Ordinance so that the tools and the people and the professionals and the talent that we have in town and on the Commission can insert themselves into the process and say, have you considered this; what about this; these things might work real well so that some really good choices can be made and so that everything can be weighed at a time when it’s easy to do that. When the construction and the design and all of those aspects are not reinventing the wheel. So we’re hoping that you’ll consider this. We really think it’s a major piece that can help you guys a lot in keeping Missoula kind of what we love. Thank you very much. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. ---PAGE BREAK--- Philip Maechling: This is map showing the Missoula Urban Area. And what it shows is the core historic areas in Missoula, these are the Missoula’s National Register Historic Districts. And it’s a very small portion here enlarged to show you the urban core. The little triangles represent buildings that are individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Missoula Historic Preservation Commission was established in 1987 and it has three professional members, six neighborhood members, a Design Review Board and an MRA member, an At-large member, and two alternates. And their scope of work, essentially, is to include the identification, evaluation and protection of historic resources in Missoula. These are the historic districts that we have. There are eight historic districts with one district determined eligible, that’s the downtown. The Northside, the Lower Rattlesnake, East Pine Street, The Downtown Historic District Outline, then on the southside of the river, the furthest away, of course, is Fort Missoula, we have the McCormick Neighborhood, the Southside Neighborhood, the University Area Residential Neighborhood or primarily residential, and the University of Montana Campus, which is also a National Historic District all the way up to the top of Mount Sentinel. The National Register of Historic Places is a federal program that’s established with the National Park Service and to be listed in the National Register, you need to meet at least one and often more of these four criteria: • either there were historic events that took place on a particular location or in an area • there were historic people who were engaged or involved in a particular site • the site contains design elements that are of importance historically and have retained their integrity • and/or there is a potential for archeological research and study. This is a building that many of you have seen listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It was restored to this paint color, it’s a little hard to believe for some people who are used to seeing it…I think I lost the slide…as a bare brick building. This is the McCormick Neighborhood Historic District and you can see there are a number of architectural styles and the residential neighborhoods that we have as historic districts are not all landmark buildings, but collectively and together, they represent a period of development over time from the earliest settlements in Missoula, in this case, in this neighborhood, from the 1890s until after World War II. These are places that have retained their integrity—this is the East Front Street area, some of the most dense housing in the City of Missoula is in the downtown and often in historic buildings that have been converted from single-family use to more than one household. These are landmark buildings in the downtown, also listed in the National Register of Historic Places; and they tell part of the story of the settlement; the Higgins Bank Building, of course, being C. P. Higgins, and the Bluebird Building having a theater hidden inside it. Also now, of course, adapted for many new uses and taking advantage of some tax credit programs that are available. The only protection we have involves federal buildings and federal properties in the sense that they must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. This is the federal building, of course, which began in 1908 and was continued on in construction through 1937 and it recently had to repair and replace its windows and some of the doors. They were done extremely carefully, using original materials and the results, I think, as you see, are certainly pretty successful. The Roxy is another building that’s listed in the National Register as part of the University Area Historic District. This is what it looks like now. This is what it looked like last year. This was also work that was done in ---PAGE BREAK--- collaboration with our office and Tim Skufca, who’s on the Planning Board was actually the architect who designed the finished product. This is an A. J. Gibson design-build project from the 1890s, Missoula’s best-known historic architect. This is in the Lower Rattlesnake Historic District and its owner received an Historic Preservation Award and actually, there’s a letter from the owner in your packet, who supports the Ordinance. This is the Bonner Company Town, it’s one of two company towns in Montana that we’re aware of. It’s now being proposed to be an Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. Environmental benefits—easy to see the greenest building is one that’s already built. This building is a prime example of adaptive reuse of a building. I don’t believe the architects, when they entered this as a design problem realized what an interesting structure you’re looking at directly overhead, it was all hidden by a drop ceiling. Less energy and resources are required to rehabilitate existing buildings than to demolish and replace and it sounds intuitively correct, but there are people who would think, well it’s always better if you demo the old building. If you do, you lose the embodied energy in the building, all the energy it took to create the building. The question of rehab versus new construction—rehab costs are roughly the same as new construction, sometimes they can be less. This is Jay’s in construction and reconstructed from an image of the original Missoulian Publishing Building from 1890. Dollars spent on new materials circulate through your community only once, dollars spent in labor circulate through the community up to six times. Seventy percent of rehabilitation projects, generally speaking, is labor. Labor dollars are extremely good for the community. There are other benefits of rehabilitation, there are some kinds of tax credits, federal and state tax credits, including low income tax credits and federal rehabilitation tax credits. The Palace Hotel is really two buildings, one built in 1909, the other built in 1941 when the addition to the Savoy Hotel was built. It was a very modern building at the time. We look at it and sometimes think of it as two buildings, but it’s really one. The Missoula Tax Credit Program has done about one-third of the tax credit programs in state of Montana. This is another example of adaptive reuse of an existing building. This is the interior of what we used to know as the Missoula Children’s Theater, the Missoula Mercantile Warehouse Building. This is the building, it now houses the Trailhead and the Pearl Restaurant. Another tax credit project, completely modern on the interior, respecting and restoring the exterior. This complied with federal rules and certainly would have complied with the Preservation Ordinance that we have in draft form right now. We’re all familiar with these buildings; we sometimes forget what they looked like in 1994. Buildings listed in the National Register in the downtown. Fort Missoula is protected with Historic District Zoning; so is the University Area Apartments. This is Eric Hefty’s project, called The Corner. This went through the Historic Preservation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. It is by no means a false historic building; it is a very modern building. This is the University Area Apartments designed by A. J. Gibson in the 1890s, restoration work and adaptive reuse will be done on these buildings as well. This is the open space that connects the new building and the old building, so the question of old and new coming together, it’s a really interesting design problem and certainly one that can be met as a creative challenge, not as a creativity-stifling kind of an effort. Again, the street view. The Art Museum expansion also went through the same process, went through the Preservation Commission, went through the State Historic Preservation Office, had to meet federal guidelines, the Secretary of Interior Standards. This is what it looked like when it was built in 1903, it had a thoroughly modern addition added to it ---PAGE BREAK--- in 1913 and now it has a thoroughly modern addition as a statement of architecture in the present, completed in 2005. This is the A. L. Bonner Mansion, this is what it was replaced with, that was in 1965. We lose things that sometimes we wish we didn’t; sometimes we have to lose things. This is an historic building…this is not an historic building, actually, it’s a piling together of three different buildings that simply were old building parts and it was replaced with this Whittier Court project on the North Side, which also won an Historic Preservation Award. This is something that is out behind the Reserve Street Corridor and it is an example of a modern building trying to look like an historic building. This is not what the Preservation Ordinance encourages. This, on the other hand, is an addition, I believe built by this contractor who advertises with his business card that he’s won Historic Preservation Awards. This is an entirely new second story, a modern second story. So that’s a little bit about Historic Preservation in Missoula. Now, you have a couple of the staff report. I’m not going to go through the staff report, but rather what I would like to do is turn the discussion of the Ordinance itself over to Michele Bryan Mudd. Michelle Bryan Mudd: Thank you for having me this evening. I was reflecting on the fact that I occupy a somewhat ambiguous position this evening in that the Land Use Clinic, first under the direction of John Horwich, and later myself, assisted the Historic Preservation Commission a few years ago reducing their ideas to writing of what they think would be the best process for preserving some of the significant cultural features that Philip just displayed. So we helped them reduce some of those ideas to writing and brought in models from about ten different states around the country and gave them ideas of things they could do. Since then, that document has seen many hands and changed in many ways, so I can’t really be the advocate representing that our Clinic wrote this whole thing that you have before you. But I do feel like I can still be helpful and resource to you in explaining the way this current version is put together and some of the choices that the community has in the document. So there’s a little bit of a flowchart that’s up on the screen and I’m hoping that you got a handout as well [did we do handouts?]. If you look at the Commission’s draft that has been presented to you, it builds on the purposes that Philip discussed, the reasons for having it. And, really, I think that that driving rationale for the Commission was that simply listing a property on the Register at the federal level does not protect it at the local level. And I think Philip gave you an example that a landowner could still, if the landowner wished, demolish the historic building even if it’s on the Register. So the Commission was interested in how can we go about preserving some of these unique cultural resources. So beyond that purpose, then, what’s important in this document is a few of the definitions that you’ll see in the Definition Section and they’re important, then, in three big pieces of the Ordinance that we’ll talk about in a minute. Some of the definitions that I think are very important are the Commission’s definition of Action Subject to Review. Of which there are four and then definition No. 9, What an Historic Resource is, is another critical definition that, really, all the other provisions hinge on those two definitions. From there, what you see, really, are three pieces to this Ordinance. The first piece being Designation; what properties are going to be subject to this Ordinance in the first place. And what the Ordinance provides at 20.30.050 (which I think there’s a typo on my version, it says 20.67.50), but it should be 20.30.050 Designation Criteria for an Historic Resource. So that’s the first piece of the Ordinance that really is the scope: what does it encompass, what properties fall within it. And what the Commission has proposed is that it be the properties listed in the Register or those eligible for listing. And if you look nationally, that’s a fairly typical provision, you have some that are narrower in what they capture and some that are quite more expansive. A narrower one probably wouldn’t have the eligible for listing, it would just have the listed. I think that the Commission put eligible because the process of actually listing takes quite a while and so they could have the protections in place while the listing process is moving forward. Some communities say not only the National Register or what’s ---PAGE BREAK--- eligible, but any other type of property that’s locally-significant, even if it wouldn’t qualify for the National Register. So you got sort of spectrum there, and it’s, you know, it’s up to the community to decide how broad do we want to cast the net. And then what the Commission has done is said we’re going to simply use the National criteria, then, for deciding what is historic, we aren’t going to come up with our own, we’re going to use sort of a tried and true national criteria and those have been set out in that Designation Section. The nice part of that is that they are sort…there is consensus around this criteria, they’re used throughout the country. The downside being that if you had something locally that you wanted to protect it might not qualify and thus wouldn’t be protected in the same way. And then the other important thing to recognize is that the definition of a resource can mean an individual property or it can mean a whole district. And within a district, as everyone recognizes, there are a variety of properties, some of which might individually qualify, some of which really there isn’t anything significant or historic about them, and then there might be unimproved properties. So all of those are caught up in the district and in listening to the public feedback on this draft and in looking it over, I would say that would be one area where the community could clarify. If all of these different types of structures in a district are being designated, do we want to treat them all the same, or do we want to treat them differently depending on if they are historically-significant or not historically-significant or if they’re just unimproved properties that might someday build a new structure. So I think that’s an area where the reader might not readily understand by reading this how their property, if it’s in a district, will be treated. So then, moving on to the next step. Once you’ve figured out what properties you want to have covered by the ordinance, then there are certain things that will happen to those properties, those designated properties, that may trigger community review to ensure that the historic integrity of that structure is preserved and that’s the Certificate of Appropriateness process, it’s pretty standard language that you see in Ordinances throughout the country. And what the has proposed are four activities…actions subject to review that would trigger community look at what the landowner is proposing and those are alterations, new construction and relocation and demolition of the property and each one of those activities is defined and if you look at 20-30…or 20.30.090, you see that one thing that is not covered is ordinary repair and maintenance. So the Commission wasn’t interested in reviewing absolutely everything that the landowner does, but if it rises to the level of an alteration which is defined, then they want to be able to take a look at it. Jennifer Clary Sorry to interrupt you… Michelle Bryan Mudd: No problem. Jennifer Clary: …but we’re getting there… Michelle Bryan Mudd: Okay. Jennifer Clary: …time for sure. We’re over, so… Michelle Bryan Mudd: All right. So (excuse me) if you look past that section then you’ll see the different ways that the Commission is going to look at each of those activities. There’s something in here built in for alternative compliance, the Commission recognizing that there might be some kind of exceptional, practical difficulty or undue hardship that prevents a landowner from achieving what might ordinarily be expected under the Ordinance, so there is an Alternative Compliance Section. And then the third piece of the Ordinance is the Review Process, at 20.30.093. And what you see happening in this Ordinance is two tracks: you’ve got sort of the fast-track, where if it’s a very straight-forward alteration, the Officer can issue a quick decision; if it’s a more-complicated alteration, or the landowner wants to relocate or demo, it’s going to go to the full Commission under this proposed Ordinance. However, the fast-tracked item ---PAGE BREAK--- could be moved to the full Commission hearing if an interested party requested. And I would say that was an attempt to provide a timely decision, but also avoid the Officer being seen as arbitrary if someone wanted a hearing before the full body so that all sides could be aired. And so then what the Commission did was, again, looked to the national model for its review criteria and it adopts Secretary of the Interior criteria for what are appropriate alterations to the structure. So, again, looking at the national level with the option of a district supplementing the standard review criteria with district-specific design guidelines. Recognizing, I think, that not every district looks the same and so there’s the option of a district coming forward and that would be done through a public hearing process, it would be an amendment to the zoning where more-specific design guidelines could come forward. And the final thing I would add is that I think a reader of this proposal would also like to see at the end, how do I appeal this decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness. And I believe that that’s addressed in an Administrative Section of the code, but I think it would be helpful to a reader to have it here as well. So it’s easy to find, what happens next. I’m happy to answer questions later, if you have any further. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Roger Millar: Great, and I will just wrap up real briefly, since we’re running out of time. I’m not an Historic Preservation person, we have Philip on our staff who deals with that. In April, I became eligible for listing myself, and I…I grew up an Army brat, and when I was a kid we used to fish off of a fort in Panama that was built in the 1500s and I went to high school in Germany in a town that was built in the 1300s, which was considered a relatively modern European city, so I personally think that anything…kind of the American assumption that anything that’s older than I am is historic, is charmingly American, you know. But what I wanted to do was just give you guys a little bit of advice and kind of let you know why I have been advocating to bring this forward. Two reasons I have been advocating to bring this forward for a thoughtful hearing on the part of the Planning Board and the City Council. One is that the volunteers that participate in the Historic Preservation Commission over the eight or ten years have put countless hours of meetings. You guys do your late night meetings on Tuesdays and sometimes Wednesdays and the HPC stays until the wee hours on Thursdays once a month and they put an extraordinary amount of effort into this and they and their Ordinance deserve a fair and considered hearing before the citizens of Missoula, so rather than just keep it there and them frustrated, it needs to be addressed and community needs to decide one way or another what we’re going to do. The other reason that I requested that it be brought forward and Council agreed with our recommendation and referred it to you is Lincoln School. I’ve only been in this job for about two and half years and the first year of that was Lincoln School was the issue. And we, as a community, had no recourse—no way that the public could express its frustration other than calling my office, complaining to City Council members, complaining to Planning Board members and the like, but our hands were tied. There was no format, no forum, no regulation in place that protected what many people thought was a very valuable—and is a very valuable community resource. And so the second reason I recommended that it be brought forward is that you and the Council have an opportunity to decide on a forum for that kind of conversation if it happens again (and it will) or make the decision as a community that we don’t want that forum and have that happen again without a mechanism for having the conversation. So you really have before you two things, here, you have new regulation and I think Michele and the Land Use Clinic and the Commission taking their product did a great job putting together what is a fairly-typical Historic Preservation Ordinance. You know, a dozen or so we looked around the country in putting this one together and there’s nothing radical here. There’s nothing here that hasn’t been adopted by hundreds of communities around the country, so it’s new to Missoula but it’s not new to the United States and it’s not, perhaps as radical as some might think. So, one thing you need to look at is what are the regulations, the notion of the designation, the appropriateness of the review process. And another important thing to look at is what properties should this be applied to. You have a spectrum from on the one side, none, or what you have today is Fort Missoula and the ---PAGE BREAK--- Roosevelt Block or some very few discrete, selected properties, that would be one end of the spectrum; and the other end of the spectrum would be every house, every building, every structure in the City of Missoula. And then, along that continuum you have, just the properties that are listed individually on the Historic Register. You have the listed properties and the contributing properties in the historic districts. You have all of the properties in the historic districts. And then you have all of the properties in Missoula. So, you really…I think what Council is looking for is advice from you. The Historic Preservation Commission has given its advice: here’s the process we recommend and we recommend it apply to all the properties that are listed individually and all of the contributing and non-contributing properties in Missoula’s Historic Districts. So when you take comment and ask questions of the Commissioners and Philip, you know, question one is does the process seem reasonable and question two is which properties should this process apply to. So, with that, I think staff’s presentation is done and we’ll be happy to answer questions after the public hearing portion. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. So we’re going to open this up to the public and what we decided to do was actually just take all comment, so whether you’re a proponent or opponent, just take your turn and hopefully limit it to around three minutes and public comment. Hugh Jesse: Madame Chair, members of the Planning Board, my name is Hugh Jesse, I’m Director of Facility Services for the University of Montana and I’m here tonight representing David Aronofsky, legal counsel for the University of Montana, who wasn’t able to make it here. But he wanted the Planning Board to have benefit of correspondence that he had sent to the Office of Planning & Grants. What I’d like to do right now is to…excuse me…thank you… Roger Millar: I believe it’s in the Staff Report as well, and so... Hugh Jesse: [inaudible] Roger Millar: Another copy. Hugh Jesse: Just because there’s a typo. The documents we have here is a letter from David Aronofsky to the Office of Planning & Grants relative to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and where…in…you know…David is saying that the Ordinance requires an important technical clarification and that being that a zoning ordinance cannot apply to state property. Yeah. It doesn’t change practically anything on how we operate or how you operate with your new Ordinance, it’s just a requirement. And I can read this later if you want. The second document is a copy of the Board of Regents policy on how the Montana University System is to treat Heritage Properties. And then, finally, there is four, five emails here that’s going between David Aronofsky, Michele Bryan Mudd, and also the City’s legal counsel, Jim Nugent, who agreed with his position on this. And we’re available later, since there’s a lot of people in the room here, and we can go through the letter if you want or we can do it now. Later? Jennifer Clary: Thank you, later. Thank you. Don’t be shy. Janene Caywood: Good evening, my name is Janene Caywood and I live at 1002 South 6th Street West, here in Missoula, and I would like to speak in favor of the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I should probably tell you that I’m a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Montana Preservation Alliance and the local Preserve Historic Missoula, so I do appreciate historic preservation. My husband, Milo McLeod, and I have worked in the field of cultural resources management and historic preservation for over 30 years and during that time we have participated in many preservation and rehabilitation projects using the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines that are referenced in the draft Ordinance. And we found them to ---PAGE BREAK--- be both practical and flexible in application. Besides projects for our clients, we have used the guidelines for working on our own house, which is a contributing property in the McCormick Neighborhood Historic District. And since purchasing that home 25 years ago, we have invested heavily in improving it, taking care to preserve its character-defining features. We would appreciate the opportunity to develop design guidelines that are specific to our neighborhood historic district so that our interests and our investment is protected. District-specific guidelines will ensure that our historic neighborhoods retain their character-defining features. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Allan Mathews: Hi, my name is Allan Mathews, I know most of you, I was Historic Preservation Officer in Missoula here for 11 years, from 1990 to 2001 and during that time, when I started we had two historic districts and when I so-called retired, we had seven. A lot of the fabric of the historic fabric of the downtown was improved during those years. Actually, in 1989, when they tried to make the downtown a historic district, there’d been so many terrible remodels downtown that it did not qualify as a historic district. Now, because of all of the restorations, it does. So, the…a lot of the buildings downtown that went through these restorations, I think the majority of them qualified for historic preservation tax credits because they followed the Secretary of Interior standards for design. And, you know, if you read through those, they’re basically common sense, they aren’t that complex, they basically say save as much of the historic fabric of the building as you possibly can. So that’s somewhat of a protection. People that took tax credits on their historic properties to do these restorations, actually, there is some sort of protection for those restorations because of accepting the tax credits means that they can’t destroy the historic exterior fabric of the building without having to pay some money back. So that’s about the only protection we have other than the Fort Missoula Historic District and the Roosevelt Block. Listing, I’ll say it again, it will be said many times, but you…people in the community and all over think that if you’re listed on the National Register you cannot make any changes to your house, which is absolutely untrue, there is no protection from totally destroying the historic fabric of your house. There’s no protection, all protection has to come locally. So that’s what we’re here about, having some sort of local protection. Now the downtown, by listing on the National Register, there are some benefits, of course. There are some huge benefits and they become valuable properties when they are listed, especially when its an historic district and one of the reasons is that we get one of those really ugly brown signs out on the highway, right by the exit, with an arrow that says “Historic District.” And, you know, entities, like the Institute for the Study of Tourism out at the University, they have consistently found that the one of the top three reasons why people flip on that turn signal and get off at that exit is because there’s a sign that says there’s a historic district that way. What that is going to do for the downtown is amazing, it’s going to bring millions of dollars into the downtown. So, really, our historic downtown, when it’s designated (I guess it is, it’s sort of in limbo right now, but I think it’s been approved) this will direct people, this will direct thousands and thousands of people into the downtown that are vacationing and want to see historic sites and they’ll be downtown with their wallets, and they spend a lot of money. Now, in the residential areas, listing in the National Register has been shown to increase property values and to preserve property values. But right now, you know, when I was preservation officer, I had so many calls from people that would move to Missoula and they would say, now where are the historic districts, because that’s where we want to look first for a home. And, you know, this was pretty amazing to me because at first a lot of the realtors were opposed to this kind of National Register listing, but they found out that people are searching for this type of a neighborhood. Right now, a couple could come in, say where is the…where are the historic districts, you could show them the map, they could go in there and they could buy the most beautiful of historic homes in the most beautiful of historic districts and right now there’s no protection, their neighbors, the next house, the house across the street could be horribly, really, altered to the point where the idea of how good it felt ---PAGE BREAK--- to live in a historic district with this historic architecture was, you know, just demolished, basically. Our present Ordinance, you can do horrible things to houses that are in historic districts and we’ve all seen it. So this Ordinance, basically, lays the groundwork for historic districts to come up with historic guidelines that fit their area and allows for a review of any kind of major alteration, not the color of your house, but alterations and the idea of a Certificate of Appropriateness policy is to make the minor alterations go through the process really faster with the major ones being approved by the Preservation Commission. I’m going to read the last…I wrote out a bunch of stuff, but it’ll take too long and I’m already taking too long, so I’ll just read my last paragraph. While Missoula is lauded for the great number of properties listed in the National Register at the present time, only Fort Missoula and the Roosevelt University Apartments have the protection of design guidelines and review. As such, Missoula lags behind the 2,300-plus historic districts in the nation that have a design review process. Those include districts or individual properties in Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Helena, Livingston, and Virginia City. Livingston has had design review of its downtown properties for over 20 years. You know, it’s time Missoula protects its historic resources and this ordinance is a beginning to do that. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Ryan Morton: Ryan Morton with the Missoula Building Industry Association. It’s interesting as I read the Ordinance, as I have members that are both sides of this issue quite strongly in our association. So I’m just going to go through the Ordinance, not really…hopefully, not really taking a side. But first of all, I would suggest that in terms of the districts, the historic districts, if we want to preserve them in a certain way, we already have a tool coming up in Title 20 with the Neighborhood Character Overlays that I think that might be a more appropriate way to be dealing with it so that it’s not…so that option is not competing with what may be passed in this ordinance. The second concern I would have is over the timeline, I’m not entirely clear on the timeline. That tends to be a big hang-up for opponents. And I would also encourage you to increase opportunities for administrative review, in particular the interim permit in hazardous or unsafe conditions. Instead of having the Commission grant the interim permits, since they only meet once a month, that might be a good opportunity to have the Officer do that instead. The next point on 20.30.50, like Ms. Mudd stated before, the receipt or…Determination of Eligibility is of concern. I have no problem with properties that voluntarily got listed, if, you know, that’s what they wanted then they can go through this process to change their property. The next item was on 20.30.94, it says…on Section One, it says, if the Commission is unable to process the request within 60 days and so on and so forth, the Commission may request an extension of time from the applicant. I think that could happen anyway. I think at some point, you know, in many administrative reviews that when you pass the deadline, approval is assumed. I think that should be dealt with here, not…and if the Commission does want ask permission, they would still have permission to extend the time, they could still do that, even if that clause was changed. And the last one had to do with 20.30.96, Section Two, this is just another reason why using the districts just to bring them all in is probably going to be difficult for people to understand. This new construction in historic districts is not required to conform to specific architectural styles but they should be compatible with this character but they should still distinguish themselves to not create a false sense of history. And I think that’s incredibly difficult for people to consider moving forward. And I think if you just had a neighborhood character overlay that listed this is the kind of building you can build, that people would be much more clear as to what they could build and not build. ---PAGE BREAK--- So those are just suggestions and I think, like I said, in terms of the specific properties, go ahead, the process looks fine to me. In terms of the districts, I’d ask you to reconsider. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Ken Duce: Hi, my name is Ken Duce, I’m a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, I got on in April. I’m also a retired historical architect with the National Parks Service. And when I got on in April, I was the only person who voted against this Ordinance that was on the Historic Preservation Commission. I’m very concerned with the way it’s written right now. The Secretary of the Interior standards… Sharon Reed: Can you pull the microphone a little closer, please, there you go. Ken Duce: Okay, are very…is a good document but it’s open for…as any document, it’s open for interpretation. There were numerous…in the Parks Service, there are numerous discussions and exchanges of what’s the better solution. There’s always different solutions, it’s a very…it can be quite controversial, so when you put the power in a Board’s hands of what is appropriate and what’s not appropriate, how do you interpret this, I think it’s a very scary thing for myself, as an architect, to be dealing with a local Board which may or may not have the expertise and experience that full professionals have. And full professionals have a lot of disagreement on just exactly what they say and how to interpret them and how this property may or may not fit. If this Ordinance were around in the 30s when the Art Deco movement was going through, there were several wonderful examples of Art Deco, Art Nouveau Buildings in the University that probably wouldn’t been built, had this Ordinance been in effect. So I’m very concerned with what…what this Commission can do in terms of Certificate of Appropriateness for new buildings. I do think that it’s a wonderful idea to save as many historic buildings as possible, and I would propose that we take a look at the National Historic Preservation Act itself and how it deals with Historic Properties that are owned by the federal government. They have a whole, I think, that if I remember right, it’s Section 106, and eligible or listed properties on the National Register are required to have a required consultation process, but it’s a consultation process with the owners or the managers or historic properties so if the Forest Service owns a historic property they have a consultation process through the State Historic Preservation Office that they’re located in and the national advisory council on historic preservation but in the end…so this consultation process is mandatory, but in the end, the manager of the property can say, thank you for your advice, but I’m not going forward with it, I’m going to change the building this way because of needs, I’m going to tear the building down, whatever the manager feels is necessary. So it’s a real consultation-discussion process when a Certificate of Oc…my concern is that a Certificate of Occup…or a Certificate of Appropriateness is listed or is the requirement then…then the owner of the property, the architect, the developer, are quite frankly right at the mercy of whatever the Board consists of at the time. And so that is why I’m against that, but I would very much be in favor or a slowdown process, the ability for the Preservation Commission, the Preservation Officer, have you considered this, have you considered that, and try to convince the owner that this is important. And if we don’t do something like that and there was some discussion in some of the earlier meetings with Council about just eliminating review with new buildings, we’re eliminating review of buildings that aren’t listed on the property. Well, then that would ensure that people never listed their property. It’s difficult and for the last 50 years, it’s been difficult to get owners to list properties on the National Register because there’s this rumor that you can’t do anything with them. As somebody mentioned earlier, that is absolutely not true, but that is not what most people think. Well, if we make it so that you can’t do anything without a Certificate of Appropriateness then I con…I would say that they’re…that lends credence to that and there will be less people that will be willing to list their properties on the National Register if that’s a criteria that we use to pass this. So I would much rather see us look to the 106 process and having a consultation process and not a mandatory requirement. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you ---PAGE BREAK--- Mary Meese: Good evening, my name is Mary Meese, I’m a resident and an owner of an historical site. Sharon Reed: I’m not picking you up, can you please pull your microphone down just a little. Mary Meese: How’s that? Sharon Reed: Is the light on, the green light? Mary Meese: I’m personally affected as I have a listed property for sale which is zoned C-1 commercial and was placed on the historical register, not by myself but by someone else, I don’t know who, exactly. And I affected by the 60-day demo clause negatively impacting any prospective buyer from my property since that buyer, if purchasing for the commercial aspect of the property, which is zoned C-1 Commercial, multipurpose, residential. If that person comes in to buy my property and sees this proposal facing him, he more than likely will look elsewhere for a property which does not have these restrictions upon it. But my property may not fit in with a lot of the other historical properties. I’ll give you a short background: my husband died in May of 08 and my 34-year old son died unexpectedly four months later. I inherited my husband’s property in which he utilized the office space, bottom floor, and he rented the upper two units. I was forced, after my husband’s death, in late summer, to formally evict two tenants for nonpayment of rent. I paid the court costs and the renters’ dog feces were scattered throughout the basement. I cleaned this up. After this negative experience, I was advised that if I did not wish to become a landlord, and with fall and winter approaching to sell my property and was advised further that the property would better show in the Spring of 09. And so I winterized, locked up the property. In the late fall, homeless persons vandalized my property, smashing windows to gain entry to the amount of approximately $10,000. Upon boarding up my property, a second vandalism occurred in early spring. The lower back door was kicked in, one individual urinated repeatedly in the basement and then there was clean-up and re-boarding of the premises. All during this past year, there were no rent monies incoming, yet I have been paying a rather high month mortgage plus all the property taxes, SIDs, and sewer costs at considerable expense from my retirement savings. Thus I am unable to afford remodeling or renovating of the property as there is considerable damage to electric, plumbing, window replacement, doors, flooring, etcetera regards restoration. Tax credits are of little use to me, I need a buyer for my property. And so I listed my property two months ago with an agent who is historically-friendly. Although my property is listed as C-1, commercial, she endeavored for many weeks to enlist an historically-oriented buyer. This included the Historical Society, with no success. While the majority desired this property to be saved, they believe the property in too much disarray to warrant the expense of repair for rent or renovation to its original state. Thus, my property currently is more saleable without the historical structure than with and more so if this proposal is accepted. As I read through OPG’s proposal, I see nothing, if little, which addresses my situation and I must say I see this proposal as more intrusive into my life. My husband purchased this property 18 years ago and has paid the property taxes, sewer fees, and SIDs for all those years. And it was not the Historical Society nor the City who paid these property taxes and the other assessments. And so, therefore, I wonder where they get the right to tell me, a 60-day demo clause when it negatively impacts the sale of this property. I’m astonished that OPG would draft such a document with such disregard for the individual property owner’s concerns and this document places a significant hardship upon my rights to sell my property. Federal law sites none of these restrictive requirements which this document represents and I believe that federal and state law supersedes City law. OPG’s excessive regulation in this instance is…goes further than the federal government, which does not recognize as significant in ---PAGE BREAK--- preserving historic sites, otherwise their federal regulations would have so regulated. Thus, OPG is taking advantage of that fact and overstepping its authority in placing unnecessary regulation on City property owners with this proposed ordinance. So I urge your committee to reconsider or to consider those of us who do not concur or benefit from this Ordinance. And I believe that we should look toward incentives rather than dictates and concur with the previous speaker. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Jennifer Rosco-Bardsley: Hi, my name is Jennifer Rosco-Bardsley and I’m a homeowner, I live at 1032 Sherwood Street on the Westside and I’m involved with the PTA at Lowell Elementary, for four years I’ve been secretary, vice president or treasurer. I’m also the Bike/Walk/Bus Coordinator for the Northside and Westside and so I’m concerned about the neighborhood I live in and I’m involved in the community. One of the reasons I chose this neighborhood was not for the historical aspect, I chose it because it’s eclectic and full of character and people are unique and I think it breeds diversity, which is one of the reasons why I think most people move to Missoula, because we support people that like all types of design, all types of people, all types of everything. I built a home on the Westside that is a modern design. Here’s a picture of it, maybe some of you guys have seen it. It was designed by a architect from Helena and it’s been featured in magazines supporting getting people to come to Missoula to buy real estate and I often have people knock on our door, asking to walk through, I had to put a sign up, you know, for people not to do that because I have small children and it freaks me out. And, you know, I have to say, while I love historical architecture, I’m an artist and I studied architecture but I’m a painter…I have to say my main concern about this is that all new construction can only be historical design in our neighborhood is not okay. There needs to be room for all types of design on the Westside and the Northside and these are just the communities I want to speak on behalf of for myself. You know, Missoula is just chockfull of artists and writers and creative people that need outward expression and our homes, you know, sometimes dictate that value to people and not everybody wants a historic house, you know? You know, I can nod to it but I don’t want that. I have to add that I was on the Historical…the 100 year celebration for Lowell Elementary and helped organize that celebration for A. J. Gibson’s building, but I just want to add that historical design cannot be the only type of architecture in these areas for new homeowners…it’s not Missoula…people need to be able to chose other types of design. And, that’s it. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Carl Posewitz: My name is Carl Posewitz. I wanted to, I guess, first start off by saying that I’m very in favor of historic preservation. The architecture firm I work for to-date has received four awards for historic preservation. In Philip’s presentation he showed Jay’s Bar, which was one of the projects that we were the architects on. It’s been my experience, and really the slide show that Phil showed us, sort of speaks to this a little bit that though the system we have right now isn’t perfect, it works pretty well, it works okay, we’ve got some amazing historic properties that have been preserved and renovated and listed. But I think the key to all of those projects is that that’s what the owner wanted to do—they chose that property, they chose that path, and the results, I think, show that. Probably the biggest problem I really have with this Ordinance and Jennifer echoed it and so did Ken, is that it starts to look like City Government is mandating a certain architectural concept for everybody that’s within these boundaries. The Ordinance talking about appropriateness is extremely vague as to well what is appropriate, who defines what is appropriate, is it one person in City Government, is it a Board of obviously history-orientated individuals. It’s not clear, you know, what’s appropriate other than your design is supposed to be appropriate. So it casts a pretty long shadow over anybody with a parcel that’s in these boundaries. I would tend to be more in favor of an Ordinance that went project-by-project, selected building-by-building, rather than casting a very large net and collecting all sorts of properties that A, the owner is not really interested in being encumbered in this manner; and B, a lot of properties that just, you know, don’t really have any historic significance. Number two is, I think that if you’re looking to get your design evaluated for appropriateness, it should not be done by the Historic Preservation Commission purely because it’s not really an unbiased body evaluating your ---PAGE BREAK--- design, they’re very…and I have no problem with people that are into Missoula’s past and history, I think it’s fantastic, I’m just saying that there needs to be room for other viewpoints and ideas within our community and I see this as putting a real chilling effect on that. Also, I feel like if you’re going to go and grab these districts for their historic resource and put this ordinance over the top of the people that own property in those districts, that they should at least have a say in it, some kind of a vote, you know, 51 percent of the people in the district vote to be in this district then, great, I can live with that; I just have a real problem with what I feel is a real, small, intense group of people that are really kind of forcing their will on the rest of the community at some level. So I’m definitely not in favor of that, either. You know, I walked through the University Area last night, and there’s every imaginable architectural style you can think of in there. So if every one of those designs in appropriate and they all got there without needing a Certificate of Appropriateness, why do we need to do this to ourselves—that’s the question I ask. It would be pretty bad, you know, to look back 50 years from now, as an earlier speaker mentioned, and look in these districts and they may say what were these people doing, they were all imitating the past, they weren’t…I mean a big part of Missoula’s history is the freedom for local artists, architects, designers to pursue their creative visions. We have a very elaborate complex zoning system in place in Missoula that already defines setbacks, heights, uses, lot coverage, in many cases wall heights, the brackets are in place to maintain a certain level of design. Not everybody, you know, likes everybody’s house; that’s just life, basically. And no amount of Ordinances in the world is ever going to change that. As one final clarification, as I read this Ordinance tonight, you do need to get a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint your house. It clearly says any alteration that changes the appearance (and if you paint your house, the appearance is different) needs a Certificate of Appropriateness. That, to me, is overkill. So those are my comments tonight and I thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Delia Hagen: My name is Delia Hagen and I’m a native Northsider who actually attended Lowell School. I now live on River Road. And there are many reasons I support this Ordinance. Full disclosure: I’m a historian, I’m a graduate student in American History, I’m on the Board of Preserve Historic Missoula but my comments tonight will focus on the implications of historic preservation for real estate investment values. This is my focus because the response by some developers in town borders on hysteria—some of the stuff you’re reading on list-serves that are circulating around town, people are just…frankly, they seem hysterical and irrational about what this Ordinance does and what it’s like to live with a Historic Preservation Ordinance as a real estate investor or as a developer. I have been heavily invested in Montana real estate for over 13 years; I own or have owned properties in Arlee, St. Ignatius, Dillon, Billings, Helena, Missoula. Most of the properties I’ve owned are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, this is true as well of several of my Missoula properties. The specter of the so-called list that keeps circulating around on these list-serves (everyone is so afraid of the list—it’s fear-mongering, it seems like to me what’s been going on with this Ordinance.) It’s actually, as people have mentioned, an existing list, it’s the National Register of Historic Places, the list are those properties in Missoula that are the National Register. Unfortunately, as people have mentioned, being listed on the National Register of Historic Places offers no protection for historic buildings, which, like many natural resources on which we depend, are irreplaceable. I mean, we’re talking about things that cannot be replaced--they will always be decreasing. And I think sometimes we lose sight of that, like this is just a debate about individual taste when, really, we’re talking about resources that will never be available to us again once they’re gone. So, you know, as with natural resources, though, they may be in private ownership, the public has a clear and justified interest in preserving them. Those interested in real estate development have an even greater reason to ---PAGE BREAK--- promote historic preservation, because preservation protects one’s investment. In the past several years, as the real estate market has lurched to a crawl, I’ve easily sold half a dozen properties. Why? Because they’re well- preserved properties in well-preserved historic neighborhoods. There’s a finite supply of such properties and this helps them retain value, even in a depressed market. New homes can always be built, we can always have more of them, there’s always spaces where they are appropriate. The number of historic homes and neighborhoods from any given era, on the other hand, decreases daily and cannot increase. Those facts mean intact historic homes retain value that new homes simply can’t in a fluctuating market, like we have today. But in order for historic homes to retain their value, the character of the surrounding neighborhoods must be preserved. Opponents of the Ordinance ask you to buy into the idea that preservation zoning inhibits private property rights. I propose the opposite—the absence of such zoning leaves my property rights unprotected, for anyone can permanently destroy the character of an entire neighborhood based solely on their individual temporary desires. In the process, they not only destroy irreplaceable resources that belong in many ways to generations before and after ours, they also undermine my property values. The unchecked right to wantonly destroy resources that impact others is the true threat to private property rights. Opponents of this ordinance will also have you believe that it will mandate conformity and freeze properties in time, vesting aesthetic decision in a single City staff person and creating a so-called regulatory nightmare. And I think, I mean, frankly, as we’ve heard, such fears are kind of ridiculous. Thousands of communities across this country have historic preservation ordinances. Developers and property owners manage to profitably exist in those communities and for the most part, peacefully. I mean, it hasn’t halted—I lived in Berkeley and remodeled, bought and remodeled and sold a house there, they have one of the strictest historic preservation ordinances there is, there was…it didn’t…it tied my hands in no way while I was remodeling this property. I mean, in California, of course, has incredibly tight zoning and people have mentioned, this includes cities in Montana. As with any regulations, a few will disagree with the intent and the fact of historic preservation codes. The community as a whole, however, will benefit. Property values will be protected, neighborhood character preserved and skilled jobs created and I can attest to how much skilled labor is involved in restoring historic properties. Instead of spending the money to Home Depot and it going off to, you know, Delaware, or wherever the corporation is based, you create jobs that are both rewarding for workers, pay better and are heavily local— your economic impact is much more local. I’ve undertaken innumerable remodels of historic buildings and the idea that historic preservation zoning would have inhibited these is, in my experience, like I said, kind of laughable. The ordinance does not apply to interiors in any way, shape or form. It would never be invoked—the whole painting specter is silly—it applies to exterior alterations that are significant and irreversible. And the design guidelines that it proposes in neighborhoods could adopt themselves would protect all owners of properties in historic neighborhoods. I wish we’d enacted historic preservation years ago. My neighbors at one of my Missoula’s properties recently constructed a second home on their lot. I don’t fault them for doing so, I intend to build another home on my lot, my extra lot in my historic home next door; but, the problem is, that they constructed a building that in no way respects the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding homes. And as a result, my adjacent property is worth less, both in terms of current value and in terms of development value. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that are reference in the code would not forbid modern buildings. They would have allowed my neighbors to develop their lot while at the same time protecting my investment; so, actually, serving the entire community. I hope the Planning Board will recommend passage of this Ordinance to the City Council, thereby protecting all of Missoula’s property owners and real estate investor, not merely the few who’s sole interest in their own immediate profit to the disregard of other people and other values. Thank you and I’d be happy answer any questions because I have strong feelings about it. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Thank you ---PAGE BREAK--- Matthew Brainard: Madame Chair, members of the Board, for the record, my name is Matt Brainard, I’m a property owner and occupant of some property on the Northside, right over here on Woody Street and I sent in a letter to Mr. Maechling—did you distribute this letter? Philip Maechling: I did. Matthew Brainard: Thank you, then I won't bother reading it; you all got it, and you know my sentiments. I will tell you that the area that I have a property there on Woody Street is what I refer to as the “zone of death” in Missoula. We have interstate 90 on one side, we’ve got the railroad tracks on the other, I had friends who were out there in Huson, Frenchtown, when the chlorine spill went down and there are probably some areas in the city that are not really that well-suited for residential use. The particular area that I’m in is light industrial commercial and respects the residential properties that are there. It just seems to me that in the spectrum of applying this Ordinance from specific properties to a blanket approach for everything within the district, you have to make the choice. The language as I read your proposed Ordinance seemed to be very inclusive that it was the blanket approach. I think that you’ll do much better, I think the demonstration or the information we got tonight shows that the voluntary system has worked in Missoula. Those properties that are worth restoring people have respected that, they’ve gone ahead, put the money into it. I don’t think that you’re going to gain a lot by trying to do things in a mandatory fashion. One size does not fit all. You know, you’ve got the choice between the carrot and stick, what kind of leaders do you want to be? Finally, are you going to use incentives to improve the neighborhoods, to improve the properties, to improve the attitude of owners or are you going to issue edicts. I’ve got a great of Scots and Irish blood in me and I resent the stick—I really don’t like that. And a lot of other folks in this town don’t like that, either. Now, we refer to Montana as the “last best place.” It seems to me that it’s on its way to being like everyplace else, that seems to be the excuse for almost every regulation that I see anymore—well, they do it here, they do it in this state, they do it in that state. Now, we have our own way of doing things, here. And the best way is do it out of the sense of community because people want to and they see somebody else do something nice, they go ahead and emulate that, they follow that. That’s the way to get the results that you’re looking for. As far as for architecture, the styles of architecture, if you haven’t seen it, I would suggest that you all go get a copy of The Fountainhead, the movie, and watch that and begin to understand what these architect folks are talking about. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Bill Schaff: My name Bill Schaff [inaudible, microphone not on]. Sharon Reed: Is your microphone on? Jennifer Clary: Is the green light on? Just push that button in front. Bill Schaff: Ah-hah? Anyway, I own property between 4th and 5th, between and Higgins, when Kettlehouse and La Petite is, that half a block. And I…from my view, it looks like I will included as a blanket into this historical cluster or whatever it’s called. I don’t feel like I should be included in something unless I elect to be, I own the property, I have owned that property since the 80s and I own it and I hate to see things change that aren’t my choice. First of all, the past design versus current design—who’s to say…when I look at historic districts, who’s to say that something that’s being designed tomorrow might not be better than what’s done yesterday. And if we take that ability to design different looking things that right now we think are weird, but later on we might think are ---PAGE BREAK--- great, I don’t want to lose that ability to do that or have to deal without-the-board that maybe just looks at historic is the only thing that matters. So, there again, I want it to be my decision to include my property in a historic district, not the government’s or not the big hand of government. And who’s to say the neighborhood won’t be improved with some different designs that what is termed “historic?” So I’m…you know, I think we don’t want to take the talent people…I’m not an art person, that’s for sure, but I appreciate and admire people that have that talent and why do we want to take that away because it has to be historic. I look at it, the property that I have, is somebody wants to make mine historic, well, buy it from me, it’s for sale—for the right price. And if you just want to just like, what it is, the wildlife easements, or whatever people buy big tracts of land and the Elk Foundation comes on and puts on a, you know, requirement that the Elk have to…you can’t develop it. Well, if that’s what we want to do for historic, buy the property, put it on there and then resell it. But don’t come and tell me I can’t do what I want to do and like I said earlier—who’s to say that what I do isn’t better than what’s there now. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. John Quandt: Hello, my name is John Quandt. I’d like to say that I’m for historic preservation of specific buildings. I did receive the notice that I will be included in the blanket and I would say my house is probably of no historic significance whatsoever. It is very important to keep our historical landmarks and protect them. I don’t believe that allowing the house across the street to be built how they wish if my house was a historic residence. It would completely take away the value. The cities that I’ve lived in where the historic residence was the minority, the value was worth more because it was the minority of what was there, of historical value. Not all of the homes in these neighborhoods have historical value and they shouldn’t necessarily be held to that standard. You know, we went through…another issue that kind of comes to mind is that we spend an awful lot of time as a city debating over setbacks, lot sizes, in order to make things more affordable to new home owners. And now we’re going to go and throw over a blanket historical Ordinance to improve the value of the properties. And so now we’re taking and throwing another ordinance on top of ones that were supposed to improve the ability to afford a home and we’re trying to…we’re making it cost more. And as a homeowner that’s great to me, but as new homeowners trying to come in, or people that purchased property looking to build, now if that goes in the ordinance after they bought the property and before they built, maybe now they can’t afford to build that home that they want to. So, I think there’s things we need to think about before throw out a blanket over these properties. If we could find a way to approach property owners that have properties of specific value, historical value, and go to them in that manner, I think that that would be preferred. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Jack Boyd: Hello everyone, my name is Jack Boyd. I’m in opposition of historic preservation…of this Historic Preservation Ordinance. I’m not a homeowner but I hope to be and I feel like this could cause a lot of problems that I don’t want when that time comes. A lot of my points have already spoken, but I do think that a swath of Missoula that they’re speaking of are too large and a lot of good points were brought up and I don’t want to respeak about those things but the idea kind of reeks of a gated community paradigm and I just…it makes me feel uneasy. So that’s it, thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. John Paoli: Hi, my name’s John Paoli, I’m a property owner right downtown, an architect, done some historic work, got an award for one, was a little offended that I didn’t see it, but that’s okay. I’d just like to address a couple of points. One is the blanket theory of the historical overlay and what Roger said in terms of this community and its age, its antiquity. It isn’t the old, it might not be that tough to actually catalog the properties that you’re interested in saving or in preserving. To do a blanket overlay on a zone to me is a little over-reaching. And in terms of the Commission, I guess I would voice some of the same points as Carl in terms of what that Certificate of Appropriateness is, who is this Commission, why can’t it stay within OPG because that’s where ---PAGE BREAK--- Philip is, he has…that is where the resource is right now and I don’t understand why it needs to be a separate committee to kind of legislate from the bench, if you will. Let’s see, what else…I guess that’s it, just the blanket overlay and the committee itself and how that is going to be founded and organized and who is actually the arbiter of this appropriateness. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Helena Maclay: My name is Helena Maclay… Jennifer Clary: Is the green light on? Okay. Helena Maclay: Now it is. Jennifer Clary: Yes. Helena Maclay: I was born and raised in Missoula. I recently bought from my mother’s estate, her house, our family house at the corner of Eddy and Ronald. My parents bought it in 1944, in 1957 or so, my father added a shed roof over the entrance to Eddy Avenue that was what he could afford. He cut the house into four apartments in 1948; and by the time he had three little children who couldn’t get along on one floor, he relinquished the upstairs apartments. But we had a renter in the basement in that same location for many years. Now it’s a single- family residence, it is not my primary residence, I have a house out…another 100-year-old house out south of Lolo. I have chosen not to list my residences on the National Trust for…Register them because my fear was that some day, there would be Ordinance just like that that came along. If I opted into this and the little diamonds that Philip showed, those houses have apparently planned for this event, where the community will help them do what they volunteer to do. For those of us who haven’t volunteered to do it and who live in the University Area, I decided well, now, I’ve just renovated this house. I hired Jim McDonald as our architect because it’s an A. J. Gibson house, and I recognized that I should try to do something consistent with my neighborhood and with the house. We used fake materials, shall we say, Fypon or Fiberglas instead of wood fillers. We used powder-coated balusters made of steel, we used a lot of concrete to put in a handicapped ramp, we tried lots of different things because I was I worried that while I lived there I’m going to have a heck of time maintaining this house. I see no deference to that in this Ordinance. No encouragement. In fact, I have a fear that somebody’s who’s not as wise as the people on the current Commission will decide that I should live in Monticello, not on the corner of Eddy and Ronald. And that’s what this Ordinance allows. I don’t advocate that there be specific standards for my home or my neighbors. I understand that if my neighbors change the appearance of their house by lighting it in a way that’s really offensive to me, that there are lighting ordinances and other things to do it. But as a practical matter, just like my family did growing up there, there are mistakes of judgment made and there are curings of mistakes over a period of time. I didn’t need an Ordinance to get that done. I am concerned because when I read the Ordinance…now, I’m a lawyer, I think I read pretty well, but I couldn’t figure out whether my house was treated the same as the houses that replaced the Bonner Mansion right kitty-cornered from our house. And in fact, I think Michele Bryan is saying to us that the Ordinance as drafted doesn’t make that distinction. Everybody else tonight is, I think, correctly calling this the dragnet into the historic district so that my house, that I have sensitively-treated and I think everybody should admire I think should probably be treated differently than the apartment houses over across from Sentinel High School. But this ordinance doesn’t do that, it doesn’t say how to do it. When I tried to find if my house was listed, I went to all the suggested websites in the cover letter that you sent me and all I could find was the list that shows that there a few of these places with the little diamonds on the map and then there’s a big circle around where I live. Now, I talked to Jim McDonald and he says well, you’re a contributing resource in that house. Well, the only reason I think I could find that is if somehow I could find application for the registration of the historic district. I ---PAGE BREAK--- don’t think there’s an inventory of any of these things that I can go consult at OPG. But I stand to be corrected. I haven’t found it on their websites or anywhere else. So, I tore down a garage at my house. I did it because Jim McDonald told me it was a contributory…contributing resource. But I find no evidence of how he reached that conclusion. And I can’t tell if we applied this Ordinance what would happen to my garage? I think, probably, I’d go in there and I’d have to ask the Commission…first, I’d ask Jim to disqualify himself, and then I’d explain that this was an asbestos-riddled thing. But because this is not my primary residence, if I turn to the exemptions or the variances from all this, I couldn’t comply. The only time you get a variance on design alternatives for this is if it’s my primary residence; and I don’t lie to you, it isn’t my primary residence. This is like my lake house. I mean, it’s here, I live there some of the time but I have a primary residence somewhere else. I suggest to you that we shouldn’t be making distinctions about who lives in the house before we decide whether we vary in the ordinances as they are applied. If my neighbors are stuck with it, I should be stuck with it, whether I live in it full time or not. Finally, I agree with Ken Duce, it’s really seductive to talk to…talk everybody involved in this to say we’re dialogue with you, we’re going to chat with you and bring to your attention that you might be doing terrible things to your renovation of your house. But this not a dialogue as written, it is an unknown for me and for everybody else in my neighborhood and I agree that the well-meaning people, including my wonderful architect, Jim, on this Commission would probably let me do what I did: tear down my garage, make major changes on the exterior that are in fact more consistent with A. J. Gibson’s design than what was there, but I don’t know. I can’t tell. I don’t…I can’t tell at all. And I think this ordinance as written does say if you change the appearance, if you change the material, that is if you change from wood windows to clad…iron…you know, metal-clad windows that that is not routine maintained. It falls within the purview of this. I would suggest that you exclude those things. And, finally, I think you should exclude the effects on landscaping. There’s mention of landscaping. I’m in a district, I would like to xeroscape landscape. It’s entirely inconsistent with my Victorian house, but it’s today’s trend. If I put in the irrigation system, are you going to ask me how I’m going to landscape with the water that I’m spending on my yard. Generally…I mean, I live…I try to live with my words in protecting my historic resources. If we’re going to have an ordinance such as this, I think it needs to be more predictable for people so they know if they’re included in it or not. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Tracy O’Reilly: Hello, my name is Tracy O’Reilly, I live at 710 South 4th West in the McCormick Historic District and I support this overlay. I am on the Historic Preservation Commission but my interest in this goes back before the Commission was involved in drafting this Ordinance. My Historic District started talking about getting district status sometime in the early 90s, shortly after our Neighborhood Association was formed. We worked on that sporadically and it’s a long, hard process and eventually, with some grant money from the City and assistance from Philip Maechling and the Historic Preservation Office, we got our Historic District. Then we realized, this is wonderful, we can pat ourselves on the back now, we live in an Historic District. But it gives us no protection of the character and flavor and pattern of build out and I guess what we think of as the face of our neighborhood and I’m specifically talking about, you know, coming from A Neighborhood, you know, the face of other neighborhoods altogether makes up what we think of as our community. So, I was excited…we were excited, we started talking about how to get some kind of historic protection. We talked just as a neighborhood association, and we met with Southside Alliance and the University Area, their homeowners’ group, just everybody who can come, we started talking about how to get an historic overlay written. It’s a difficult process, so I am really pleased to see this moved as far forward as it is now. And I hope that you can sift between all the different comments and make intelligent decisions here. One thing that I’ve heard, a misconception numerous times, in testimony tonight is that this would mandate that all new construction be historic. I think that’s, at least from our intent, the furthest thing from the goal of this ---PAGE BREAK--- ordinance—it does not mandate any particular styles. And it does not require anybody to do anything until they would want to do alteration or construction. So there’s no imposition just from having an Ordinance like this that offers some protection for Historic Neighborhoods. The design standards haven’t been written and I would encourage that they be district-by-district so that people have that say. So that misconception is really crucial, because people have come to you and said, we don’t want to be told we can’t build a modern building. We see modern buildings mixed with historic buildings, they eventually all become historic. The variety of styles that’s possible and appropriate is how we end up with the fabric of community, the modern connecting to the old. And I would posit that rehab of existing structures, as was stated earlier, not only provides local employment…local investment in local labor but also can provide and maintain affordable housing stock. So, that’s pretty much what I’d like to say. I would love to see some protection for my neighborhood, the pattern of flow of how setbacks and heights and massing and footprints, all that is the discussion that I think is appropriate and not styles as you saw in the slideshow, there are modern buildings that actually went through review process with Historic Preservation Commission and I appreciate your time tonight and all the people that have gotten up here to speak. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Jamie Ryan Lockman: Hi, I’m Jamie Ryan Lockman, I’m the MRA Rep to the Historic Preservation Commission. I grew up here in Missoula in the South Hills, which is not a historic district. When my parents built their house in 1968, the hill was immediately closed off to building, so I grew up in wide open spaces in Missoula that are now covered by acres and acres of houses. Historic Preservation to me would be, you know, wide-open spaces. I came to terms with the fact that Missoula is a very nice place to be, that lots of people want to be here. The reason I’m on the Historic Preservation Commission is that there are elements of Missoula worth preserving. And I think the Ordinance is an attempt…a pragmatic attempt to do that, to make people aware that elements of Missoula History are worth preserving. Missoula is not that old—if you were to go back East, we would be considered a new town. So what history we do have is valuable and that we should consider that in our planning. Thanks very much. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Jodie Allison-Bunnell: I’m Jodie Allison-Bunnell, I live at 418 Woodford, that’s in the Slant Streets, which is not a registered historic district. I live in a home which likely would be a contributing structure, were we to proceed with a listing for the Slant Streets. And the home that I did some very substantial remodels to last year. Like Ms. Maclay, I think thought about, well, how would have affected me, if this Ordinance had been in force when I did my remodel. And if I think about how we did that, we worked with a good architect, we looked carefully at the type of modification we made, which substantially changed the front appearance of our house and we documented other similar elements in the neighborhood, other houses built at the same time, imitated some of those same curves and stylistic elements. And so, I have to say based on that thoughtfulness that our ability to document it, you know, this very likely would not be a problem. Now, I don’t want to support an Ordinance that tells me what color to paint my house anymore than I want to live in neighborhood that tells me whether I can have a clothesline or fruit trees or any of the things that are frequently restricted in modern subdivisions, which is the reason why I’d never live in one. So, that was another one of my questions is well, is the charge that this would dictate what color you can paint your house, would that be a factor? Having been assured that that is not the case, I absolutely support this Ordinance. I believe that Missoula does need this Ordinance, having come from a place, southeastern Washington, who’s history starts in 1945 and where everything was wiped out before that, I was thirsty to live in a community and so I was very happy to come here 12 years ago. Finally a place with some history to it. ---PAGE BREAK--- But what I do see and some of the questions coming up is that there a couple of clarifications needed. What exactly does maintenance mean, is that where painting is covered? Does it cover such things as painting, roofing, does it cover windows. You know, we can modify that language of the Ordinance with language something like including but not limited to the following things, that would clarify. Then this question of overlay districts versus contributing properties versus listing properties. This list also needs to be clarified since we do have a lot of variety in these districts. As well as the question of new construction. Really, I think this is a good Ordinance, it’s something that we need, we’ve seen teardowns and replacement with some very dreadful structures in the University District and we need to have a mechanism as a community to address that, to have these conversations. And so I think this is a good start. With a few refinements I think we have a very viable Ordinance here. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Steve Adler: My name is Steve Alder, I’m a member of the Historic Preservation Commission and also a practicing architect in town. So I’m kind of sitting on both sides of the equation at the same time. I’d like to kind of review some of the basics and history of how we got here and also respond to some of points I heard. So if I skip around, pardon me, I’ll try to be brief. We have been at it for about 8 years with the efforts redoubled about three years ago when three historic districts came forward and said we want some design guidelines, we want some protections on our neighborhood. When we got the Land Use Law Clinic involved, we had to back up from that. We had started by developing some guidelines that could be applied to those three historic districts. And the Land Use Law Clinic said, whoa, wait a minute, you need the legal groundwork before you can even think about doing design guidelines. And that’s basically what brings us here and that’s what this Ordinance is, it’s the start, it’s legal groundwork and the Ordinance is something that neighborhoods can then plug design guidelines into if they so choose. Again, this is local preservation, it’s something that really does need to come from the ground up. It started from ground up with people asking for some protections and now we’re going back and trying to do this in a proper legal manner. So one of the things, one of the kind of two rocks, I guess, that we’re caught between is vagueness and specificness. Right now we’re trying to get the foundations down, so things are kind of vague, we hope to develop the specificity and the predictability that a lot of people here desire. But we’re not quite there yet, so what…part of getting here has also been a lot of public process and very early on in the public process we addressed what the scope of work is, kind of the scope of work that we think would be appropriate to be covered and let me say as somebody who’s been a part of the process for 8 years, we have no intent of trying to control house colors and paint colors. Granted, the Ordinance as it stands is a little vague, it doesn’t actually say yes or no. I would certainly be willing to put that in and say no, no jurisdiction over paint colors, that’s fine by me. From a historic preservation standpoint, paint is low impact; paint is reversible, so we’re not going to worry a whole lot about paint, we’re going to worry more about building form and more substantive issues. Regarding process, kind of why we’re here, this is the public process, this is where we need to hear what people have to say and what’s appropriate to include or exclude and these are the choices before us as we go forward and hopefully fine-tune this Ordinance to what really needs to be applied to Missoula and what people here want to be applied to Missoula or not. So we need to find that balance. And tonight you’ve heard everything from don’t you dare tell me what to do with my own property to I want some protections on my property. Again, where do we find the balance, where is that going to fall. That’s going to be largely up to you and up to City Council. So I’d be happy, quite a bit of experience with applying design guidelines in historic districts, with judging, being on the previous Design Review Board, not the Missoula Design Review Board but another one in an historic district. I would be happy to talk about some real practical issues and how things usually apply. One comment to get into the specific, regarding the 60-day demolition clause, which, evidently is endangering somebody’s sale ability or would—the 60-day demolition clause is actually very light when you look at what’s ---PAGE BREAK--- adopted around the country. The absolute standard, kind of the minimum standard, is usually 180 days. A minority of historic districts go up to 240 days and in extreme cases they go up to 360 days. So a standard we’re looking at is six months and in this Ordinance we’ve reduced that two months. And not only that, but we do have a hardship clause in there, which we are really legally required to have and that applies to the demolition delay as well. If somebody is experiencing a hardship, like a demolition delay, they can come forward and make their case and have that waived, possibly, depending on the legalities and the Board decision. One of the really practical aspects that Ryan Morton mentioned was the 60-day limit and typically, in my experience, if you have a limit in which you have to make a decision, and I believe you guys maybe operated by the same standard. If you’re not able to make a decision in that 60 days and that time lapses, it is generally considered that then the application is granted. So if that’s any detail that’s a little more comforting to you and I think that’s something the Commission would certainly be willing to live with, if you wanted to specify that. Another comment I found interesting was Mr. Duce’s comment that in the 30s Art Deco never would have been allowed. Well, in the 30s, as regards the U district, in the 30s, the University District wouldn’t have qualified as an historic district. So it kind of brings up the point of over time and over evolution, some things do become valuable to a community. And, then again, it gets to the balance of what’s the appropriate balance between private rights and protection. And, let’s see…quite a few people mentioned the broad net. I would like to reiterate that this is Board that operates much the same as all the other Boards in town and they have to look at an application on a case-by-case basis. So casting the broad net, I think, is a little bit alarmist, in my book and that we do have to look at individual cases and consider individual merits. In the formation of this we were also caught by two criticisms which we’re, again, trying to find some balance between. If you leave the judgment up to one person, namely the Historic Preservation Officer, that’s too much power in one person’s hand. The other criticism was if every application has to go before a Board, that’s way too onerous. And both of them have some credibility. And we’re trying to find the balance between that of the things that are simple, the things that are essentially no-brainers, the things that are to be encouraged can go right to one person and get a really quick approval. The things that are going to be more controversial, the things that need a little more deliberation, and the things that you don’t want just one person making the decision on, goes to the Board. So we’re trying to find the balance between that. And in the Ordinance it does say that if the applicant chooses, they can basically bypass the individual and go to the Commission for a judgment. So in this case, if someone is not happy with what Philip, or the current Preservation Officer, whoever it may be, is telling them they can take their case to the whole Commission. So I think we’ve hit a pretty good balance on that aspect. And I hear there’s a lot of fear out there, too, of people fearing what this may mean or jumping to conclusions about what this may mean. And that tells me we’ve got a little more work to do, and a little more conversation to have and try to get down to more specifics. Again, what people are asking for in specifics and predictability really tells me that they are asking for a draft of actual design guidelines which, again, we’re not there yet, we’re at the underpinnings for being able to plug design guidelines in. So I’m asking that we be able to keep the communications open and be able to respond to some of those people and their concerns. And I would invite them to actually help us craft the more specific, more predictable elements that we still need. And I think that’s about it for now. I’m trying to keep it short and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Carol Worth: I’m Carol Worth. A lot of what I wanted to say has already been talked about this evening so I won't reiterate that. But a couple of the things that appeared to me when I read through it was…the biggest red flag for me was the Certificate of Appropriateness and who would actually be sitting on that Commission and ---PAGE BREAK--- make those determinations and especially if those committee members changed over a period of time would, you know, is there going to be a set of rules of what is appropriate and that gets handed down to the next people on that Commission so that that remains the same. Otherwise, I feel similarly to the gentleman here who has property. I have some commercial property downtown and I feel as though people who own the property, that this was not an Ordinance at the time when we purchased it, should somehow be grandfathered in and that should also extend to the first sale of the property to assure that the owner’s hands aren’t tied when they go to try to list their property and suddenly have to have restrictions for the people coming in, looking to buy it and possibly limit our spectrum of who would interested in the property. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Jim McDonald: My name is Jim McDonald, I’m an architect with A & E Architects in Missoula and I also own a property in downtown Missoula, the Bluebird Theater Building. I also own a home in a non-historic district that probably should be one on Strand Avenue. I just want to clarify a few things. I agree with and support the Ordinance and basically because it is a way to get historic and protect our historic resources that are very important to our community. One of the things that I have been involved over my 30-some years of architecture is historic properties. I’ve been involved, using the Secretary of Interior Standards which we were talking about as part of this Ordinance and most of those…thousands of properties, if you count every little cabin and 11 parks that I’ve been involved in, but (National Parks) but we’ve involved with Tax Act projects, 11 of the Tax Act projects out of the 13 in Missoula, I have been involved in using the Secretary of Interior standards we’ve been able to be very creative and not only protect the historic building but also bring it up to contemporary uses and needs and meet all the present day codes in order to make it valuable and operable for the particular tenant or owner of that building. The other that I’m involved with is a lot of new structures within historic districts. Our famous one is the National Landmark District of Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone National Park. We had to follow the Secretary of Interior standards for a new, contemporary building that was compatible with the National…this is National Landmark, not just National Register, this is National Landmark status, which is higher than even the National Register buildings we’re talking about here. We had to meet those standards. There were only two other requirements besides the Secretary of Interior standards. One was that we had to put a wood shingled roof on the building, that was part of Yellowstone National Park standards; and we had to be 1200 feet away from Old Faithful Geyser, and we met those two requirements easily. But we designed a building that is very contemporary, it’s a concrete building, concrete based, to meet mainly seismic considerations. It has recycled timbers in it that we used in order to create…used recycled timbers but also to create a timber effect that we felt was very compatible with the historic log structures that were in the Park but still very contemporary. It’s a timeless building, it’s not something that, you know, whatever’s a part of the architecture today, it’s something that is going to be timeless and hopefully in a 100 years, it will become historic, too, or 50 years, whatever the requirements might be. So that has worked very well, we got a lot of national recognition in that. We’ve been involved in several other projects in several other parks as well as some projects with private developers, meeting those requirements that they wanted just because they wanted to meet those requirements and look at those options of the Secretary of Interior standards. We also have used alternative materials, like I say, concrete, we’ve worked with…well, just even today as the Main Hall at the University of Montana is starting its renovation the roof, which has been wood singles for years, we’re just not getting the life out of that material anymore so it’s essentially a rubber roof being put on that building that was approved by the preservation Commission for that particular project. It is compatible because it has the shape and feel of the roof, the shingle roof, but it’s a material that can last a lot longer than the 30 years we’re getting out of our wood shingles. We also used, I mentioned to Helena that if her project would have been brought before the Commission, I’d of course have to excuse myself, I think there wouldn’t be any problem of any part of that being accepted using the ---PAGE BREAK--- alternative materials and designs and even tearing down the garage would be a very appropriate design and use for her building and would be approved by the group. I think the one thing that’s good about this Ordinance and it’s reflected somewhat in what Bozeman is doing— Bozeman has used the same Ordinance for 19 years and they have developed both in their downtown very contemporary structures but they are very compatible with the historic district. The First Interstate Building, the same architects are doing the Interstate Building here, did a totally different building that is very compatible with the downtown historic district in Bozeman. There’s also a new buildings on the east end of the downtown district, including the new library, which is a lead project that I believe, and I may be wrong in this so I don’t want this to be until I really find out but it is within the historic district and I believe it was approved by the Commission in order to be built. And it’s a totally new modern building using sustainable green materials and is a very contemporary building in the downtown district. I think what’s good about this Ordinance is that…is what this gentleman mentioned here is that we don’t want everything to look like everywhere else. The boxes that are being put up, the box stores, the…if we want to do design that is compatible with historic district and we feel is very important. And architecture is more than just a building, it’s a sense of how it fits into the neighborhood, the community, and makes it all work so that we’re proud of what we have and is not like everywhere else. Thank you very much. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. We actually would like to take a 5-minute break right now and then…is that okay? Yeah, how many people do we have left to speak, because I’m thinking about at least ten, if I’m right. Yeah, we’ll just take a quick 5-minute break and then we’ll come back. [Break] [Meeting reconvened at 9:30 pm] Jennifer Clary: I’d like to call the meeting back to order. Can everyone take their seats, please. So the next person up for public comment, please. Linda Smith: My name is Linda Smith and I’m a homeowner in the Slant Street Neighborhood and I wish I was in a historic already but I’m not. And my understanding is that this proposed Ordinance will cover the existing historic districts only to begin with and it’s not a blanket coverage of the whole city. And that’s what I understand. But based on my experience of attempting to, or undertaking, really, a major renovation of a historic building, which also has turned out to be a contributing…in the contributing factor or fabric of the University Historic District, I basically decided to come tonight to speak in support of Missoula having a Historic Preservation Ordinance. It may need to be worked on a little bit more but we really need to have something in place. In 2001, my sister and I received an award from the City for adaptive reuse of a historic building and having the City acknowledge the amount of time and money borrowed to pull off what was, to us, an immense project meant a lot of us and our architect and contractor. And I realized how fortunate we were now, I realize it, to have found an architect who was so knowledgeable in the design of historic railroad buildings. Missoula’s previous Historic Preservation Officer was also very supportive of the project from the beginning consulting with our architect. So reading…I attempted to read through the proposed Ordinance some and I think it provides a framework and ground rules necessary to accomplish its purpose, which as I read it is to promote and safeguard Missoula’s visual historic, provide economic benefit to the City through all the skilled jobs that will be necessary to renovate historic buildings. It also responds to the neighborhoods who have worked so hard to create historic districts and the Historic Preservation Commission’s interest in helping them create historic districts, to draw attention to and protect historic buildings that are unique to Missoula. I think it’s important to layout some ground rules and create a local inventory of significant historic resources and primarily buildings that all City agencies would be aware of so that the permitting process doesn’t damage them. ---PAGE BREAK--- And if more than repair and maintenance is necessary, I think a Certificate of Appropriateness process, something like that, provides a mechanism to guide citizens wanting to improve or make changes compatible to historic buildings, architecture, use of materials, design standards, etcetera. We actually needed a lot of help trying to do the project we did. And we really didn’t know how to proceed, it was pretty difficult for us. So our experience working with the previous Historic Preservation Officer was very positive. Our current Historic Preservation Officer is also very knowledgeable about historic preservation techniques and very open to sharing that knowledge with anyone wanting to educate themselves about how to preserve Missoula’s historic buildings. So I think it’s very important for the City to be paying attention to what is being proposed for our historic buildings along the way so we don’t lose them little by little; so I think, what an Ordinance can do. And in the process, help us learn more about valuing historic buildings and protecting them. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Dan Hall: My name is Dan Hall. I’m the president of Preserve Historic Missoula, we’re a local organization that advocates for Historic Preservation. And I realize that it’s late and in the interest of being brief I would just like to say that our Organization supports the passage of this Ordinance and in one other comment that we’ve heard again and again tonight, these historic districts were created by people who live and work in these districts. And I think we need to acknowledge and respect that. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Mike Monsos: Hi, Mike Monsos, I was up here earlier. I just want to make a comment. I really appreciate all the comments that we’ve gotten. It’s important from the Historic Preservation Commission standpoint that we get this input as much as possible. I want to make sure that everyone is as informed as possible so that there aren’t any misconceptions about it. The fact that we’re having this dialogue, the fact that we have viewpoints from alternate sides going on, I think makes the case for needing this Ordinance. We need to be able to have something in place so that we can discuss this. We can’t sit down and say model A here is the perfect example of what you have to do and therefore this is the only thing you can do. That is not going to happen. I’ve written too many papers on new construction in historic districts and had too many arguments with my students in my historic preservation class to know that there’s no one right or wrong answer. But we do need to have the dialogue, we need to be able to look and speak openly and clearly about it. We’re not trying to put things into a little shell. We’re not trying to preserve something so that we never move forward. We embrace new ideas. We love the fact that new construction can be innovative and exciting. That’s the stuff we’re going to be recognizing in 50 years. All we really want to try to do is hold up on the really bad design, the really bad ideas, and hopefully we can decide what those are and work towards that. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Carol Bellin: My name is Carol Bellin and I live at 720 South 5th Street in the McCormick Neighborhood. I’m a homeowner there and I’m an involved parent and activist for public education and I’m here in support of this Ordinance, I got the mailing about this Ordinance and felt it was important to come and say I do hope that whatever revisions are necessary that this Ordinance move forward. I was sorry that I had to miss the beginning of this dialogue because I was at a school meeting, I’ll have to rely on MCAT to catch up on what some issues need to still be addressed. But I’d like to say that in my involvement well, first, as a homeowner in the McCormick Neighborhood that the whole process of our neighborhood becoming a district proved to be really very compelling, it really moved me to feel a part of Missoula as I went through that process and there were so many notebooks that described the history of so many of the buildings that were all around me. I try and impart this value of treasuring and understanding who we are through our past to my child and I’ve also really learned a lot as an involved parent, as a school board…former school board trustee in recognizing the value of our historic public buildings, including our public schools. And I also was really involved with the recent centennial celebration of Lowell School and in the process of coming to learn more about the history and understanding the ---PAGE BREAK--- building itself and the history of Mr. Gibson and the neighborhood that it was built in, I certainly hope that…I also lived on the Westside but came to learn through the history of this some really unique qualities about the Westside neighborhood, for example. And so I just think that there is so much for our community to gain from providing some protection. While I was on the school board I can’t tell you how frequently I would hear comments like, well, we just tear down every building that’s 100 years old, it’s no longer relevant for our needs. And that is so untrue. Comparing some of our public buildings, our older buildings actually are much more solid structurally and while they may need some modernization and renovation they certainly need…deserve to be preserved. So I hope that we will be able…you will be able to find any necessary revisions in order to see this Ordinance passes. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Manning: Hi, my name is Manning and I am a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. And I think that having this testimony that we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge all the work that citizens, neighborhood councils put into crafting this Ordinance. We did run a complete public process and people were allowed to come and offer up what they wanted to see in terms of historic preservation and how they could work to protect their neighborhoods. There were a number of options made, for example, historic district overlays, an Ordinance and the public selected the Ordinance process which we then carried through. All of our meetings were open to the public, we had 60 people at meetings and as the public progress goes, you know, they dwindled until there were maybe 30 people but all-in-all, Philip maintained a very large mailing list and people were informed throughout this and available to ask questions, comment, provide input all throughout the process. But this start out, this was the wish the neighborhood councils and folks did want to see move forward. So I just wanted to make sure we acknowledged their work. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Do we have any other public comment. Okay, I’m seeing none so I’m going to close the public hearing and we’ll discuss as a Planning Board. Anyone? Heidi. Heidi Kendall: Okay. I have to admit that there are some things that I’m very confused about and what is really helpful to me in something like this is having an example. And somebody, I think it was Roger, brought up the Lincoln School example. So let me ask the question this way, if we went back to the time when the church owned the Lincoln School property and we know that it had been platted ages and ages ago, the whole block had been platted so there were little lots on that property. The Lincoln School is there, it’s on the list, it’s not just eligible, it’s actually on the list. Say the church was putting it on the market for sale. What happens when they start discussing with potential buyers, you know, what can be done with it, how much they want for it, agreeing on an asking price? What are the issues involved in this sale that would change it so it didn’t have the outcome that it did? Roger Millar: Well the actual sale of the property wouldn’t be affected by this at all, other than just as it was sold a property listed in the National Register now it would be sold as a property that was under the guidance of this particular Ordinance. The way the Ordinance is drafted, if an action, and you know we talk about all these actions subject to review, the actions subject to review has to rise to level where a Zoning Compliance Permit is required before this kicks in. So you don’t need a Zoning Compliance Permit to paint your house, you don’t need a Zoning Compliance Permit to change your windows, they did need a Zoning Compliance Permit on the Lincoln School for a Planned Neighborhood Cluster. And then at that point, there would have been a parallel process initiated with the applicant to go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process and that particular project, I suspect, would have been significant enough that it would have gone to the Commission rather than being decided by the Historic Preservation Officer and there would have been a public hearing at the Commission. They would issue whatever Certificate of Appropriateness decision they chose to make and if the owner of the property or any other affected party disagreed with the decision, it would have been appealed to the City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Heidi Kendall: So can you give any kind of idea—anybody, I mean maybe Philip or Mike—what would happen if the interested buyer of Lincoln School would have said, this is what I’d like to do with it, what’s…what is happening to it right now. What would the outcome of that be…would the Certificate of Appropriateness be given for that project. Roger Millar: Honestly, I don’t want to speculate on the Certificate of Appropriateness for that project as it was designed at that time, it’s important to recognize that absent these regulations, the purchaser of that property was ready to tear it down and build condos there and was convinced by his architect to pursue the Planned Neighborhood Cluster that preserved the actual building. But another example, which is a real example because we do have the Ordinance in place now for Fort Missoula and the Roosevelt Block is the Corner Building there across from Hellgate High School. That property, in order to build on that property, the owner of that property had to go through a process that’s darned near identical to this and get a Certificate of Appropriateness for that building and that building, which is a subject of much discussion in my neighborhood, made it through that process. It’s not a quaint Victorian, you know, it’s not a replica, it’s a modern building, whether you like it or don’t like it, and it made it through that process with a Certificate of Appropriateness. Heidi Kendall: I appreciate all that, but I don’t still have any idea how this would have affected Lincoln School. I mean, we can’t say one way or another whether would change the outcome, it sounds to me, like. Roger Millar: Well, the applicant would have brought that design to the Historic Preservation Commission. I can’t speak for the Commission. If the Commission said hey, that’s hunky-dory, they would have gotten a Certificate of Appropriateness and maybe the people in the Rattlesnake who didn’t like the design would have appealed it to the City Council and we would have had a debate there. But exactly what would have come out, what it would have looked like. This is not a clear and objective standard. You know, in zoning you have a spectrum from clear and objective standards to flexible process. This is the flexible process end of things. We have the Secretary Standards for determining appropriateness, neighborhoods would have the ability, under this ordinance, to develop clear and objective standards for their own neighborhoods, in their own historic districts, if they chose to do that. But this is very much…it’s not a…if you go to Sante Fe, their Ordinance says you can anything you want as long as it’s made out of adobe—very clear and objective. This is more a well, you can do whatever you want on the property but we’re going to talk about it before it happens. Jennifer Clary: Yes. John DiBari: So if I understand what you’re saying correctly, is that of course we wouldn’t know what the determination would have been but by virtue of approving something like this, we would have least had a framework for a community discussion to recognize what the possibilities and opportunities were. Roger Millar: That’s correct. John DiBari: I have some other questions, can I go? Jennifer Clary: Yes. John DiBari: So, for my benefit, being that I’ve not dealt with Historic Preservation in the past, can you shed a little bit of light on the process that is involved with one becoming a building that’s registered historic; and two, how a district, a historic district, comes into being. ---PAGE BREAK--- Philip Maechling: There’s two things that happen. Individual buildings that are listed in the National Register are generally nominated by the owner—sometimes they are not, but generally, they are nominated by the owner, the owner…there’s a form that the National Park Service has, there’s a property form, research is done, the history of building is documented, the owners, the architect, the architectural style, and the building itself is described; and in the nomination, a determination is made that it’s eligible for listing in the National Register. At that point, it goes from a local review process (and sometimes there isn’t a local review process because there’s no requirement for that) it goes to the State Historic Preservation Review Board for review and evaluation, they either make suggestions to strengthen the nomination, they have a meeting and discuss it, they accept it, forward it to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places at the National Parks Service or they send it back for revisions understanding that it will be determined eligible and it will ultimately be passed forward again to the keeper of the National Register. Historic Districts are surveyed, every single building is documented and described, its integrity is evaluated, its significance is evaluated. So, for example, in the downtown, there are 400 and…I’m thinking 480 properties, I can’t remember the exact number, and of those about 82 or 83 percent of them are determined eligible for…as contributing buildings or contributing sites in the National Register of Historic District, in the downtown district. So, for example, that district then, it’s written up, I have notebook full of all of the districts right here and there’s another notebook at the front desk and some of them are on our Historic Missoula website. But, anyway, those districts are then evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Review Board and reviewed and evaluated and discussed and if there are changes that need to be made, they send it back to someone like me, in some likely…in some town and changes are made at their request and then its forwarded to the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, again, for listing as an historic district. Roger Millar: Philip, could you add some discussion—with a National Registered property, a specific property, when they are in private ownership they’re generally, they’re initiated by and with the consent of the property owner… Philip Maechling: Generally. Roger Millar: How does a property owner in a National Registered district get involved in the process and what power or what control do they have over the process? Philip Maechling: The State is required, after the nomination is made, to send a letter back to the owner and also to the jurisdiction saying a property has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, do you concur or do you object? If the property owner objects, the site is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places but the keeper of the National Register makes a determination of eligibility, saying you are eligible because the facts haven’t changed. You know, it either retained its integrity or it didn’t, it has some significance and it meets one of those, or two or three of those criteria or it didn’t. So it’s not a subjective evaluation, in fact, they are not a lot of fun to read sometimes. But…because they are pretty dry. The determination of eligibility is made, then, by the keeper of the National Register and at a point in time the new owner could say, oh, sure, I think that’s a great idea. That happened with the Dixon Duncan Block on North Higgins Avenue where the owners objected to its listing, the building was sold, the new owners said great, we’d like a plaque. And so that’s a possibility. With historic districts, every single property owner that’s in the district, inside the boundaries of the district gets a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office requesting the owner to respond if they concur or if they object and then they send those letters back. In the downtown district, I believe, out of the 400 and some properties, we had 20 objections. And you would need 51 percent of the owners to then have a district be considered eligible but not listed. John DiBari: So for those buildings that are considered non-contributing to the character of the district, to what standard are they held in the context in the district. ---PAGE BREAK--- Philip Maechling: In the context of this Ordinance, they are treated the same. Anyone who applies for a building permit or needs a zoning compliance permit, would be subject to the standards in the Ordinance, whether there was a building there or not. John DiBari: So if I have a building that was built in 1984 and all the rest of them were built in 1884, and I want to change something to my building is that…I would assume that would be considered a non-contributing structure and would the changes that I would plan on making rise to the level or review by the Board or review by the…your position, the administrator? Philip Maechling: More than likely they would be reviewed by me and they would be signed as a non- contributing building. But they would be subject to some kind of review and i…one of the reasons they are, and this is true in most historic districts around the country is if there’s an established pattern that the historic district has on a particular block then respecting that pattern could be one of the things one would evaluation. For example, imagine a street with all of the buildings have a 20-foot setback and the building proposal was to be a zero-setback in the front yard where you have a common street wall, easy site lines, safe, open space, consistent kind of to that street and someone proposes a building that would go right to the front property line. That would be something that probably I would suggest would go to the Board. Jennifer Clary: I do have some follow-ups to that. So, this is my big question would be let’s say a client comes to me and they want to do a second-floor addition or an addition on to their house, the main level, something like that, to change that. They are in the district; they are next to an A. J. Gibson project, something that could potentially be on the Register. The process that they would have to go through is very cumbersome and expensive. And because essentially I don’t think that would be something that you would necessarily sign-off on. Because I see it as now they’ve got to hire me to develop, you know, as we…I forget what level that is…I have got to create potentially elevation drawings, site plans, who knows what would be required to express what their intent is on their project. So that costs a lot of money. They still don’t know if can do this project yet or not. Then, they complete their COA then it takes…they work with you on that. Then it goes into the Commission’s hands, it can take 60 days before they’ll even know if they can proceed with the project or construction documents because nobody in their right mind would start with trying to do construction documents and this process at the same time because they could spend a ton of money and completely fail and the project…you know, you just throw those drawings away and have to start all over again. So, to me, that process, I have an issue with the 60 days, I have an issue with how the whole process works and I’ll get into more later as we discuss as a Planning Board but is that really the way this work, if I had a project as I described. Philip Maechling: If you have a concept in mind and you brought that concept to the Commission as a sketch, it’s a very simple concept, I have this concept. That would be a way of getting it going. And if the concept in fact, was something that was easily, you know, approvable, even at the Historic Preservation Officer level that could be done well in advance of incurring any kind of…anything close to working drawings. Jennifer Clary: But I would still… Philip Maechling: Eric Hefty came and he is an architect and was the developer. He came with a sketch of what he was proposing to do. And it was discussed, people…there was site visits were taken, there were elements that he was proposing to put on top of the Roosevelt Block that were clearly going to alter the A. J. Gibson block of buildings. And so the suggestion was take those off and when you’re ready to come back, come back, but the concept was approved on record. Jennifer Clary: How long did that process take? ---PAGE BREAK--- Philip Maechling: Well, he was done with approval from the Commission a year and a half before he ever got into working… Jennifer Clary: But how long from the time he came with a sketch to the site visits. Do you know? Philip Maechling: Well, his was a little bit different because he took extra time. He came to the Commission and then he was gone for three months and he didn’t come back. The Commission acted as soon as…the way that it works is if you can get it to me 15 days before the Commission agenda is set, it gets on the agenda. Then the Commission goes and visits and does whatever it needs to do, if that’s what it takes, between the introduction of the project and the next meeting. So the answer could be as quick as 30 days. Jennifer Clary: So that’s how the COA process would work, then. Philip Maechling: It could work faster if it was me, just doing it myself. But it’s not set up to take 60 days. Jennifer Clary: I just feel like there’s no guarantee with anything, it’s not linear. Unidentified Speaker: Can I have just ask a point of clarification? Jennifer Clary: We’ll ask you if we want that, thank you. I guess I just don’t see it as a linear process, I think it’s… Philip Maechling: It should be a linear process, I can tell you that the more work that’s done up front, it’s simply faster. Jennifer Clary: ...but it’s just so subjective…okay, go ahead. Jon Haber: I’m not reading this to say what you are saying it says, I’m reading this say that in order to be subject to this at all, it has to be a contributing resource, which means it has to be an historic resource, so if you’ve got a non-contributing resource in an historic district, this wouldn’t apply at all. It would apply in the example you talked about where you have new construction. Philip Maechling: It applies to, if you read the way the action subject to review is written, it applies alterations and new construction and to relocation and to demolition. Jon Haber: ...of historic resources, except new construction in historic districts. Contributing resources are historic resources and non-contributing resources are not historic resources. Philip Maechling: And new construction. Jon Haber: Right, but the example that I was hearing was modifications of existing structures that are in the district that are not contributing themselves, correct? Jennifer Clary: Correct, but they are next to. Jon Haber: Right. Jennifer Clary: ...they’re in, you know, they’re in that… Jon Haber: And this does not apply to those because they’re not listed. Historic resources have to be listed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Jennifer Clary: They’re in the District. Philip Maechling: They’re in the District. Jon Haber: Right, but that doesn’t…within a district you have contributing resources and you have non- contributing resources, correct? Contributing resources are defined as historic resources… Jennifer Clary: ...However... Jon Haber: ...and historic resources are defined as those things that are listed. Jennifer Clary: But it’s also the fabric. So it’s not just this project I’m talking about that isn’t a contributing factor, that’s one little entity, that’s one little being. But the fabric that’s created by all of the buildings in that district is what…and I believe in, a 100 percent, I’m not anti-that at all, but I’m just saying that the process is very cumbersome for someone, now, to remodel their house. Jon Haber: And my point is look at the first definition of the things that are subject to review, that house is not subject to review. Roger Millar: If you look at 20.30.050 on page 4, I believe, accordingly, any property listed in the National Registered or that has received a determination of eligibility for NRHP is automatically classified as an historic resource that is subject to this chapter. And all of the properties in the historic district, whether they are contributing or not are listed, because the entire district is listed, so… Jon Haber: Okay, that’s a different interpretation than I get. Roger Millar: Well, I mean, there’s the definitions and there’s a designations… Jon Haber: I found the designation section to be particularly confusing, so… Roger Millar: And that’s where, when I was talking earlier, this is probably one of the more critical parts of it, is this 20.30.050, because the way its written right now, everything that’s in the Register or has received a determination of eligibility to be in the Register is an historic resource subject to this chapter. And that’s a point along that spectrum and you guys can dial it over further or back, you know, that’s one of the things you need to talk about. Jon Haber: Well I think if that’s the intent, then, in the section actions subject to review it should say what you just said because I get…this example we were talking about doesn’t make it to step one, the way I read it. John DiBari: So for instance…can I ask a question? Jennifer Clary: Yes, go ahead. John DiBari: So, for instance, we could, as a Board, recommend that the Ordinance read that this does not…that this Ordinance would not apply to non-contributing residences with an historic district if that was our desire. Roger Millar: If that was your desire…if your desire was to say this Ordinance only applies to Roger Millar’s house at 433 Plymouth, you could do that. But, yeah, you could do that. Yeah, you have that ability. ---PAGE BREAK--- John DiBari: Okay. Sure. And one follow up question to before…is there a fee associated with making an application for this and is there a different fee for zoning officer versus Historic Preservation Board review? Philip Maechling: We haven’t discussed fees. So there’s no fees at this point. A Zoning Compliance Permit, if you get a Zoning Compliance Permit stand-alone without getting a building permit, or having a building permit application, there are fees for that. Roger Millar: A Zoning Compliance Permit is $100. Jennifer Clary: So essentially, you’re just kind of banking on the fact that the person that does this will then get a building permit and that will pay for your time. Roger Millar: I would anticipate that we would come forward with a fee structure at some point in time. Jennifer Clary: Okay, okay. John, again. John DiBari: So back to the 60 days, that’s put in there to essentially provide a ceiling for the amount of time it potentially could take, given the fact that the Historic Preservation Board might have a booked agenda one month. Philip Maechling: That’s correct. John DiBari: And, although it doesn’t explicitly say this, perhaps the Board could also make a recommendation that explicit language be put in there that if you guys blow it, essentially, and don’t review it in 60 days, that it would automatically be approved. Philip Maechling: Unless the owner granted an extension. John DiBari: An extension. Philip Maechling: It could be. Roger Millar: But we need to be explicit about that. What the legislature did in the 2009 session was subdivisions…it said if you don’t approve a subdivision within 60 days, it’s $50 a lot until you do get it approved. That’s one approach. The automatic approval is another approach. That’s what we’ve seen with DEQ and gravel pits. John DiBari: So there’s a range of options available there. But the intent is that we could sort of tinker with that and… Roger Millar: Absolutely. Jennifer Clary: I have a question…some people raised the question about windows and paint, front doors, potentially. Elaborate on that. If you’re in a district and you want to paint your house, can you paint your house? Philip Maechling: Paint away. Jennifer Clary: Okay, can you change your windows to…from a wood window to a clad window? Philip Maechling: Right now, you’re not required to get a building permit to change windows, to change doors, to do routine maintenance, to paint. You are required to get a building permit to put a new roof on. So…but we have no standards for roofs, so I can say safely that we would sign a roofing permit as soon as it came in. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: And if you look at the text in the Ordinance, it says, actions subject to review or development activities that require review…blah, blah, blah…prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit. And then if you look at…on page 5, 20.30.090, a zoning compliance permit for an action subject to review shall not be issued until the Commission issues a Certificate of Appropriateness. The zoning compliance permit is the driver, and we issue zoning compliance permits as a part of the building permit process, so if the action doesn’t rise to the level where a building permit is required, this Ordinance wouldn’t be triggered. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Yes, John. John DiBari: I think Ryan Morton actually brought up an interesting point and that…I’m wondering if you could speak to how you, at OPG, conceptualize the nexus between the proposed Neighborhood Character Overlay and this Historic Preservation Chapter in the same Ordinance. Roger Millar: I think the Neighborhood Character Overlay can be developed for a neighborhood that either is an historic district or has a neighborhood plan. So a Neighborhood Character Overlay could be developed for a brand new neighborhood. This Ordinance applies to if it was adopted, as it’s drafted currently, would apply to all of the historic districts, whether they had Neighborhood Character Overlay or not. I envision that one of the ways that we could get neighborhood or district-specific design standards would be through the Neighborhood Character Overlay process. One of the things about the Neighborhood Character Overlay, as you’ve recommended it to the City Council, is that it goes beyond just issues of design, to use and other things. So a neighborhood could develop design standards that were in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. A neighborhood could take the option of developing a Neighborhood Character Overlay that included design standards and additional information. John DiBari: So in some respects they could be complementary and in other respects, for those neighborhoods that don’t meet the characteristics or criteria for an historic neighborhood, they could essentially be doing the same sort of things to protect the neighborhood character and create design standards and the like. Roger Millar: Correct. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Skufca: If a homeowner or a block is adjacent to one of these districts is there a process that they could go through to join it and be included. And likewise, if a block felt they didn’t want to be in, is there a process of being removed from this district? Philip Maechling: Yeah, there are two processes. The process to be included in the National Register Historic District would be to expand the district, the boundaries of the district and you would have to do the same research that is done, the forms would have to be, the buildings would have to be analyzed, the sites analyzed and the nomination would have to be amended to include new buildings. We’re working on that in the downtown district right now with a small area that was left out. To be delisted the buildings would have to be altered such that they no longer retained their integrity. To be taken out of National Register Historic District. There’s a process for removal from the Historic Preservation Ordinance in here, you can petition the City Council to be taken out of…to longer be an affected property, essentially, in a historic district. The Council could opt out. But, again, to opt out would require that the site no longer retained its significance and its integrity. In other words, the changes happened to the building that caused it to lose its eligibility. Roger Millar: Which is an alteration that you’d need a Certificate of Appropriateness for. Philip Maechling: Right. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: Which is kind of problematic. Philip Maechling: But it could happen. Tim Skufca: So what is the process The Corner Building went through? You said it was similar to what this and why is that? Why was that property any different than what’s in this now? Philip Maechling: Eric Hefty proposed an Historic Zoning Overlay for his triangle and it went through a regular rezoning, and it was zoned with the Roosevelt Block University Apartments Historic District Standard and then it had design standards with it and it had a Certificate of Appropriateness Process, an application process, submittal requirements, the same that Fort Missoula has, almost the same as what’s in this Ordinance. And then he said, listen, it’s…and he also had a building that by a prior action of City Council had to be removed. If you remember, there was a little gray wooden building on that corner. That was an old gas station with underground tanks. That building had to go and he had never removed it. So as a condition, to sort of get to being able to develop that block, which is a very, very difficult block if you look at it from a strict zoning setbacks and parking standard, he said okay, let’s do it this way, we’ll do the historic thing, I’m interested in keeping the Roosevelt Block and the Apartments, the Gibson Block, essentially, maintaining the integrity of it, I like the fact that it’s listed, he was, at the time, thinking about getting Tax Credits for the Roosevelt Block as well. And so it as a carrot and it was a set of rules to go through for him to be able to do a large building on that site when the zoning that was in place at the time wouldn’t have allowed it. So there was a good reason for him to do it. It took probably eight or nine years for him to get from that point to actually where it is now, which is not finished. But that was the process. Jennifer Clary: Okay, you can go ahead. Tim Skufca: Steve, you said that this ordinance is being developed but we’re not there, yet. So what’s the next step? If this isn’t it, then how are you going to get there? Steve Adler: Well I believe I was referring to the specificity and predictability that people seem to want. So we don’t have neighborhood-specific guidelines developed yet. First of all, we need to have the legal underpinnings, we need to have an Ordinance that allows for neighborhoods to develop that specificity. So right now this is kind of stage one. This is, you know, just getting something off the ground that then can develop in to more specific guidelines and more predictability based on neighborhoods and I’m…I believe it really needs…that specificity really needs to come from the neighborhoods, it can’t be a few Design Nazis imposing something on a neighborhood, it really has to go through the public process, and come from the neighborhood and be accepted by them in order to be put into effect. So we’re talking kind of two stages. Right now we’re enabling neighborhoods to develop more specificity, if they so desire. But then it’s going to be up to the neighborhood to actually take that step, to get down to the detail and the specificity that some folks said they want. Roger Millar: Madame Chair, if I could add to that. Jennifer Clary: Uh-huh. Roger Millar: Until the neighborhoods have neighborhood-specific standards, the Secretary of the Interior’s standards would apply. So the way the Ordinance is drafted today, the Secretary of the Interior standards apply city-wide to the properties that are affected by this Ordinance. If a neighborhood wants to develop standards that are specific to that neighborhood, we would go through the process of developing them and they would replace the Secretary’s standards for that neighborhood. Jennifer Clary: But that would be a public process. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: That would be a rezoning process, yeah. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Jon. Jon Haber: Yeah, I had a couple of things I heard from the audience tonight that I thought were reasonable suggestions for changes. We haven’t imposed any amendments yet, but these might be. So I thought I’d ask for staff reaction to them. One was the proposal that the interim permit be obtained from the Historic Preservation Officer instead of the Commission in situations that sound like they might be urgent. Philip Maechling: That’s how we do it now. Roger Millar: What section is that in? Jon Haber: 100. Roger Millar: On Page 12. I have no problem to changing that to “the Historic Preservation Officer may grant interim permits to stabilize or mitigate immediate and serious threats.” It makes sense. Jon Haber: The second one had to do with the qualifier…qualification of being a primary residence in order to have the alternative procedures. What would the rationale behind that be? Philip Maechling: This is probably a good time to pass this around. We’ve drafted some changes and one of the changes is to that precise language. Roger Millar: These are some staff-recommended amendments. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thank you. Philip Maechling: So in discussing that particular item, at first I drafted a word change to say “primary residence” I just changed it to be the owner. Jon Haber: This is for what section? Jennifer Clary: Section, please? Philip Maechling: Jon, do you want to…it will take me a minute to find it. It’s at the top of Page 7 of what I just handed out, 092, and I’m just going to suggest that that line simply be removed. I actually said that it should be the owner, but I think if you just take that out, the line entirely, then “by reason of unusual circumstances not of the applicant’s own making, the strict application of this chapter would result in either…” makes more sense. There’s no reason why there should be ownership that I can think of. Jennifer Clary: So strike number one? Philip Maechling: And as we looked at it, there’s no reason why ownership should be…it’s not a land use criterion. Jon Haber: So what line are we striking? Line number one? Philip Maechling: Correct. ---PAGE BREAK--- Jennifer Clary: Okay, I’ve got something fairly major. And it’s actually something that I thought about and then some other folks came up and talked about this. I think what we should do, and I want, definitely, opinions, is create a separate Board that has two members of the Historic Preservation Commission, potentially two members of the Planning Board, two members of the BOA, potentially just an architect in town and a lay person, someone that’s not associated with anybody’s anything, just someone that owns a house in Missoula. And that could potentially be the Commission that this COA process, then goes through. What does anybody think of that? Anyone? Anyone? Tim Skufca: For what reason do you think the way that it’s delineated here is inadequate? Jennifer Clary: I guess my real concern would be that the Historic Preservation Commission looks at things just specifically about their historic value. Not to say that I’m not…I’m not saying that they don’t look at things, like Philip has mentioned about the Corner Building and that’s a very modern building next to an older A. J. Gibson project. But to me, having a more of an even-membered group, although it’s different…I mean it doesn’t mean that members of the Planning Board wouldn’t lean toward a historic nature of something. But, to me it just seems a little more fair, a little more progressive, potentially and I’m using that word carefully. John DiBari: Could you please put the slide back up that illustrates who are the mem…who the current…what type of people are the members of the Commission as it currently exists. Philip Maechling: Sorry, there’s got to be another way of doing it. Okay. Roger Millar: Whoa, one back one. Philip Maechling: Oops, doing two different things here, there are three Professional members, that would be architects, landscape architects, people who are design professionals. John DiBari: These are people with a license to practice architecture, landscape architecture… Philip Maechling: Either a license or they meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for…the qualification standards for doing Secretary of Interior-level work. So those are three professional members that are in the design or history professions. Then six neighborhood members, a Design Review Board appointee, Missoula Redevelopment Agency appointee, then one at-large member and two alternate members. They are all, except the DRB and the MRA, are appointed by the City Council, they have a review process. Heidi has been on the PAZ Committee that has done the interviewees, they are asked questions about interests but they are lay people who are representatives of their neighborhoods. The 20.50 or 20.30…the new Ordinance that you just set forward to the City Council has it differently organized and there are five geographical regional Commissioners, one at-large Commissioner and then three professional Commissioners and it actually says, “possess professional experience in such fields as Architecture, History, Architectural History, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Archeology, Urban Planning, American Studies, Cultural Geography or Cultural Anthropology. Professional Commissioners, to the extent possible, meet the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards.” So, and that’s an attempt to have the expertise here to be able to give, you know, professional advice to citizens. John DiBari: And the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction in this process whatsoever, correct? Philip Maechling: At this…if the City Council is to review appeals, then the Board of Adjustment is not the appeal body. John DiBari: And neither does the Planning Board. Philip Maechling: That is correct. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: You have jurisdiction in that approve, or recommend approval of the Ordinance. John DiBari: The Ordinance, but not… Roger Millar: Not the Certificates of Appropriateness, no. John DiBari: Right. Roger Millar: And… Jennifer Clary: So my… Roger Millar: My thought on it is one, logistically, I hate to think about finding the resources to staff another Commission of the City and, two, I think that the composition of the Commission is likely to evolve given the new mission. You know, there’s…we have and you’ve recommended some changes to the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, significant changes, and as well as the Planning Board itself with Conditional Use Permits. I think with this in place, you’re going to see different people stepping up and volunteering to be members and I think you’re going to see The Council looking at membership differently over time. Jennifer Clary: I guess my thought around my suggestion was really that people on Planning Board, people on BOA, people on Historic Preservation Board, they see a great deal of what’s happening and the changes that are happening and pros and cons of all of that. And so that’s why I was thinking those members, even though I know BOA hasn’t anything to do with this, but it’s just that they see a lot of, you know, potential hazards, I think, to development, too, good and bad…not just hazards, but, you know, good and bad. I just think that’s a good qualified Board. Not that I don’t want to sound like the Historic Preservation Commission is not qualified, I don’t want to sound like at all, I’m just throwing it out there. Because I think that they are highly-qualified individuals, believe me, I do, I respect a lot of them on the Board. Yes, so…anyone want to save me on that one? John DiBari: I was going change the subject. Jennifer Clary: Okay, change the subject; that would be great. John DiBari: I have a specific question on…now I have to find it…it’s 20.30.094, No. 3. I just want a little explanation on, it’s the second…it’s the fourth word on the second line: absolute. I’m curious about the intent surrounding that word. Roger Millar: Yes, and we mean it. I don’t know. Absolute discretion, it’s to me like partial discretion, qualified discretion, i… John DiBari: Well I’m just wondering if it’s…it sort of led me to think well, does that mean there’s no appeal. I know that there is an appeal, it just seems like absolute means final. Roger Millar: It’s a word that you might… Philip Maechling: Remove. Roger Millar: …propose removing. John DiBari: Okay. And can I ask another question? ---PAGE BREAK--- Jennifer Clary: Yes. John DiBari: And this is more of a general question. I think we’ve heard some really good testimony this evening from folks about the wonderful examples of what’s come out of voluntary efforts to protect and preserve historic resources but I’m just…what we don’t have a good sense is the failings of that voluntary process. You know, what…I don’t know if you could put a number on it, but what have we lost? Can you give us a sense of what we’ve lost because we don’t have something like this, besides the Lincoln School? Philip Maechling: You know, in putting the slides together, I chose not to do bad examples purposefully. If you would like to schedule a field trip, I would be glad to take you, or you can take yourself up Rattlesnake Drive, you can take yourself to Alder Street, you can take yourself around town and if it looks like it doesn’t fit there, it probably doesn’t. And you can look at the back end of the Courthouse if you want to see a project that needs to be removed. The Courthouse Annex is a prime example of probably another way could have been done to deal with that building. So, absent that, we are starting to see the scraping of resources and if there’s way to preserve the resources and add on to them, that saves the story or part of the story in a way that total demolition and obliteration of a site does it, too. Does that answer your question? Jennifer Clary: Okay? Heidi. Heidi Kendall: I was just going to be argumentative. Philip Maechling: That’s okay with me. Heidi Kendall: And say I agree with you about Lincoln School, I think, at least at the moment that’s an unfortunate situation and it was very difficult for Roger, as he mentioned earlier and to be on City Council when that was being done. But Alder Street? You know, I’m not a design person, I’m not architect, I’m not a historian, but I think those buildings are cool over there. So, you know, I don’t know…it really troubles me to think that…and this is my big struggle. I mean, I was going to ask the same question: what are we trying to protect people from, here? Zoning is really clear to me—you’re trying to protect people from having pig farms next door to them, from having gravel pits next door to them, from having whatever undesirable thing. But this is a totally different thing because it’s subjective. And when I look through this I see, I forget where it is, something about how the criteria for the Certificate of Appropriateness has to look at the area that the property is on and stuff like that. So I think that in the case of Lincoln School, what would happen is that the Certificate of Appropriateness would not be issued for very many things for that piece of property as it used to be. I think that’s probably true. Because that was a school yard, you know, it had…that property, you could certainly say, and I think historians would say, is critical to the preservation of that history of that property. And I don’t know what the actual listing says, but I bet it’s that whole area and not just the building, I don’t know…that whole City…what looks like a city block, there. So it seems to me as I’m think through this, that it would be like another pre…what do you call it when you do a subdivision? You have a meeting with the planner first… Philip Maechling: A pre-app. Heidi Kendall: A pre-app, and so people would do is they would come in and see you and the church that had owned it, or whoever might be interested in buying it would go in and see you and say, what do you think we could do with this property and they would have a lot of meetings with you to talk about that and they would come up with something that you think the Historic Preservation Commission would approve. You would do a staff recommendation to them saying, you know, I’ve worked with this property owner and this is what I think that the Certificate of Appropriateness would be. And then the Commission would say, yeah, this is good; or the ---PAGE BREAK--- Commission would disagree with you and say, no we don’t think that, that there are no options for this property, that it has to be preserved exactly the way it is, we think you could some other things. But that would be a very difficult process to do in a, you know, in a couple hour meeting. You know, it just seems to me that there’s…it’s so subjective, there’s so many directions you could go. It’s not like a Planning Board meeting; it’s a much more involved thing. And it’s a decision, you know. Ours are recommendations to the governing body. These are my concerns. Roger Millar: You know, I understand the concern, believe me. And when I talked about the pain of Lincoln School for me, you know, it’s my job but it was the community that was in pain for quite awhile. And that was what was important about having some…some way out of that. But I don’t see this being any different from consideration of a subdivision. Some of them are easy and some of them, as you know, are quite painful. There’s subjectivity there. You know, zoning—it complies with zoning or it doesn’t, subdivision is a design thing and this is a design thing. But it’s…you either have the Sante Fe clear and objective standards or you have a design process and a consultation and discussion process. What I was glad to see from the draft that you guys saw a year ago to today is that the final decision, ultimately, rests with the City Council. So, you know, if you have that problem with the Commission, either the applicant has a problem or the neighborhood has a problem, they have an out to somebody who approaches it from a much more generalist perspective. But, most of what we do, most of what my office does is easy. Most of what comes through here is going to be easy. A little bit of what comes through here is going to be darn tough, just like the occasional subdivision, the occasional zoning compliance permit. Heidi Kendall: If I could ask one other question. What happens if Philip is absent for a couple weeks, on vacation or something, I mean does Roger appoint somebody else to do those since they have deadlines? Roger Millar: Well we have an Historic Preservation Officer, but we also have the professional members on the Commission; and if we had somebody that was in a hurry, we could probably work something out. Heidi Kendall: Like a contract, on a contract basis? Or they would just volunteer? Roger Millar: Or have the applicant bypass the officer completely and go to the…we could address it. Philip Maechling: Yeah. I mean, I’ve been out of town, Allan was out of town, we had not Officer for awhile, a couple years ago, five years ago, and things moved on. Demolition permits get signed, the officer doesn’t go apart because individuals in our office aren’t there. No one is that important. Except for Roger. Roger Millar: I was going to say, especially not important would be me. But, you know, we have a local Historic Preservation Officer, we have the State Historic Preservation Officer, there are lots of options. But, again, I think we can schedule Philip’s vacations accordingly. John DiBari: I just wanted to say I really appreciated what Heidi had to say and I think during this process things actually a little bit better for me and sort of the way I’ve interpreted this whole intent here is what this Ordinance is set out to do is to protect against the wanton and accidental destruction of our historic and cultural resources. And I think that’s the…at least that’s the message that’s sort of come to for me. And, yeah, there’s probably a lot of ways you can work with that, but that’s a pretty clear guiding principle and I think that’s what I’m getting out of this. Jennifer Clary: Go ahead. Kelley Durbin: I guess the biggest concern and maybe this is the obvious one and that’s why no one is talking about it is the people that I’ve spoken with that are struggling with this it’s because who are you to tell me what to ---PAGE BREAK--- do with my personal private property. And I appreciated Delia’s argument about at least helping me frame it in the mindset of natural resources, though I don’t, you’re really going to have to talk to me and convince me on that because I don’t really see them being like natural resources but I liked to be able to at least understand that we have a community obligation to protect certain things against the interest of maybe one person. But at the same time, I would like it if someone could give me the compelling argument for how you justify to somebody, yes, I know you bought this and yes, I know that you’re the one that’s going to incur the expense and yes, I know that you are the one that may or may not make changes to your property. What do I say to them? Anybody? Philip Maechling: Well, I guess I might start by saying that this has to do with what kind of changes that are made, not that changes are not made. This is all about making changes, this is about adapting old buildings to modern uses, it’s about putting additions on existing buildings without obliterating the story, without obliterating what makes that…what made that place what it was, whatever it might be. So it’s more about restoration, rehabilitation, in addition to existing resources and those things that really are resources are all part of the story. Whether they were built in 1880 when it was a new building, or whether it was in 1918 when it was a new building, or whether it was in 1942 or 1955 when it was a new building. It was new building, but it’s about putting new things on historic buildings in a way that makes some sense. Rather than…and I could make a suggestion that you drive up Van Buren a few blocks around Cherry and take a lot at the craftsman building with the box with no windows on the back of it. And there are other ways to do that that would look like it might have belonged there and not look like it was dropped there from a model kit. And I think that’s the answer. The Alder Street answer, it’s not about the architecture, it’s about the siting of the buildings, where there was a consistent pattern of setbacks, about ten feet, on a street where there’s an angle and then choices were made to building right to the property line, blocking the view down the street. That’s a different… Heidi Kendall: But that went through the Design Review Board, didn’t it? Philip Maechling: It may have. Yeah. And so…but that wasn’t the decision that was made, a recommendation wasn’t made. The CBD, the Central Business District, and you probably don’t know the history of it but for residential uses it had a requirement that there be front yard setbacks in all the residential areas. And also it had an open space requirement in the residential neighborhoods in the Central Business District. Those were to allow for that kind of to be retained rather than to be altered. Those criteria were removed in 1980s for a reason that I’m not quite sure. And so that’s the cause of the residential areas that are zoned Central Business District not to have that that was established historically. It’s the that’s part of the story, in a lot of ways, and when you go down the street that’s the sense and that sense is lost. Does that make sense? Jennifer Clary: It does, but I’m struggling with this. Because on the one hand I do believe in it, I love to see historic buildings. Philip, I mean, I’ve talked to you about projects that I’ve worked on and I understand what you’re saying about that fabric and that could be lost like that with a bad project. But it’s also really subjective to say how something is going to be approved or not approved. And it’s also very, like Kelley’s comment, what do you tell that person that owns that property that they might not be able to develop what they want to on their own personal private property. That makes me nervous. Roger Millar: And the only other thing that I would add to it is that, you know, what people are interested in when they talk about their property is value and preserving value and enhancing value. Anytime somebody comes in and they’re concerned, they’re concerned about the value of their property being affected. Property only has value in the context of the community that it’s in. You know, somebody tells you that, you know, I can destroy the block and my property’s going to retain its value, the people all around that particular property are also property owners who have concerns. And so it’s part of being a part of a community, you know, if you believe that your property has value regardless of where it is, I’m happy to trade you for some land in Oklahoma or, you know, there are places that Missoula is not. And it’s part of being a part of this community. And, again, the task that the Historic Preservation had was to come up with this and now you, and then ultimately the Council have to decide, you know, do we go down this road, and if we go down this road, how far? I’m…we’re ready to ---PAGE BREAK--- staff it where ever you want to go but this isn’t our product, this isn’t staff saying we should do this, this is the Historic Preservation Commission and the people who sat through years of meetings saying this is the direction to go. We’re just trying to make sure that it makes sense and that it’s legal and that we have process. You’re absolutely right, it’s a subjective process, I mean the standards, the substance of it is subjective. What we want to make sure of, when you get into that kind of process is that if the substance of it is subjective, that the process is very straight-forward and that there’s an end, that you don’t put people in a squirrel cage and have them run forever. Jennifer Clary: One more comment and then…you know, I kind of like the idea that there are these little gems, like even your little triangles where you show those projects that are significant. When I ride my bike in my neighborhood or in other neighborhoods around town and I see this really cool building that to me it’s cool, like The Babs, you know. Just other apartment buildings that are older. Those are…they stand out to me more. And the Alder Project that you’re talking about, I like the fact that there is that mix of something really modern with something, you know, older and has different character. I like that in neighborhoods, period. It creates more character to me. So, that’s part of why I’m struggling, too, with this, but… Jon Haber: Back on subjectivity and it gets us back to your proposal for a different body. But to make the process less subjective one way to do that is have a Board of people that’s diverse addressing the question. I guess the reason I didn’t support your proposal is because when I look at that and recognize that it’s appointed by elected body, I got to think that that can be made into a fairly objective with that group of people so I think that mitigates the fact that individually there’s a lot of subjective opinions involved. So I think it could work. I did…one other thought related to that was the Board of Adjustment came up earlier. This is a zoning ordinance, so there is also a variance process that would be associated with it, correct? And I was wondering why there was a need to create an alternative variance process, basically, the alternative compliance process. Roger Millar: There’s…what’s proposed here is an alternative compliance process which is typical in an Design Review Standards and what City Council told us when we talked to them is that they wanted any appeals of Historic Preservation Commission’s decisions to go to them rather than to the Board of Adjustment and so that’s why it’s drafted the way it is. But it’s alternative compliance as opposed to a variance, it’s kind of you can take the clear and objective or you could go down the process path. Jon Haber: It reads very much like variance criteria. Roger Millar: It does. Jon Haber: I assume that someone could still ask for a variance. Roger Millar: Somebody could ask for a variance, sure. Philip Maechling: From the City Council. Roger Millar: Well, no, they could ask for…this is…it’s in the Zoning Ordinance, they could ask for a variance. Jennifer Clary: Philip, did you have any additional? Philip Maechling: Yeah but I forgot it. Oh, no! It goes back to the notion, the notion that has been talked about of requiring historicity or whatever it is, requiring that old buildings be built. And it’s not about building old buildings at all, it’s not about pickling neighborhoods, it’s not about, you know, freezing some sort of a process. We’re not…and it’s not about creating a false sense of history, this is not Williamsburg. Williamsburg is filled with phony buildings. It’s not Virginia City, Virginia City has got…I’m one of the managers of Virginia City, it’s ---PAGE BREAK--- got some new stuff in it that looks old, this is not about that. This is about how to deal with new buildings and new construction in a historic context. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: I just want to, I guess, process…it’s quarter to 11:00 and we have yet to make a motion and I think there’s probably, I have probably at least a half-dozen motions noted based on what people have said and what we’ve talked about plus what potentially might come out of staff amendments that we were handed tonight and I just…I guess it’s time to ask can we finish this tonight and how do we want to go forward. Jennifer Clary: How many other people have multiple things, still, to talk about and…anyone? Tim? Tim Skufca: I don’t. Jennifer Clary: What do we feel like, do we think we should continue? Kelley. Kelley Durbin: I guess one thought that I have on something like this is having heard all the comments that we’ve heard tonight, I would like some time to process. Just walk away from it and reread it and think about what I heard and maybe even meet with some of these people and go on my fieldtrip and gather some more information. That’s just me. Roger Millar: And schedule-wise, there’s absolutely no hurry on this. Council are deep in what you guys were in, in the spring. And so this would not go to Council until when and if they adopt Title 20, so, there’s no reason to stay up late and knock this out. Jennifer Clary: Heidi. Heidi Kendall: I was just going to suggest that maybe we could try and get a list. We’re so good at creating lists of things we want to talk about later. So we could maybe suggest what some of our possible motions are that we could consider at our next meeting about this. Jennifer Clary: Okay. John. John DiBari: Two questions, actually, one for Roger. Is…could we view this chapter independent of the rest of Title 20? Let’s say that Title 20 dies, could we make a recommendation that this be adopted as part of Title 19? Roger Millar: Yes. John DiBari: Okay, then the second question is I’m not sure is we want to hear from anyone in the audience before we break tonight, specifically the gentleman from the University of Montana had some suggestions and I know a few other people rose to chime in at some point, so, of course, that’s your discretion. Jennifer Clary: Nope, I’m fine with that, if people want to do that right now. Hugh Jesse: Hugh Jesse from the University of Montana. David Aronofsky made some recommendations on how the technical modification might take place on the letter that he sent he said the University’s concern is easily met by adding a technical clarification sentence either in Section 20.30.120 in the proposed Ordinance, or a stand- alone new section as follows. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to authorize its application to federal and state government agency properties including Montana University System Properties. John DiBari: So I would add that on our list of motions, if we’re going to start keeping a list. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: If I could? That’s the law. Does it need to be in this Ordinance for it to be the law? I mean, it’s kind of belt and suspenders, but… Hugh Jesse: I think that’s what Aronofsky’s concern was, that we put belt and suspenders so it’s clear… Roger Millar: Staples and superglue, too? Okay. Hugh Jesse: Thank you. Okay. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Anyone else? Carl Posewitz: My name’s Carl Posewitz. I’d just…I think the biggest problem I have with this is that there is no specificity as to what in the heck is appropriate. So when you’re going through the example of sitting down and trying to work on a project with somebody that’s in this envelope, you have nothing to…you have no start point as to what is appropriate. To use The Corner, I think you could walk in one day and try to get…that might be inappropriate on Monday and it might appropriate on Tuesday, how do you know? There’s no definition of what is appropriate. I hear all this talk about, oh, we’re…oh, we want all these different kinds of buildings here, we want modern, we want new, we want old, we want remodels. Well, then, what’s the need for the Certificate of Appropriateness for if we’re already welcoming all these various design philosophies into this arbitrary boundary line? I just want to say just, too, again, Lincoln School is tough, that’s tough, I totally, you know, was sort of shocked when I saw that. But I think as a community to go fishing with a hook instead of net, because we’re catching way too many fish that we don’t want in this net, so thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Delia Hagen: In terms of guidelines of what’s appropriate, as Roger Millar has pointed out, what we would use, what the Ordinance specifies using until we have neighborhood design standards are the guidelines that are actually available on the table out there. So if you’re concerned about guidelines for what’s appropriate, that’s what referred and… Tracy O’Reilly: The Secretary of Interior… Delia Hagen: Yeah, the Secretary of Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards, it’s available for you out there to reference. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Steve. Steve Adler: One suggestion, if you’re open for more meeting, more input…earlier on, I was willing to kind of go out on the limb that Roger didn’t want to go out on, on Lincoln School and try to discuss how that could have been handled, if such an Ordinance was in place, but I realize we’re running short on time. So if you want to have further discussion, I’d certainly welcome that. And as a member with some experience in that, I’d be happy to talk to you about how one Board member would handle a situation like that. Jennifer Clary: Okay, thank you. So, do we want to continue this to our August 4th meeting? I know that you wanted a list, but are we looking at doing that? Roger Millar: Are you doing Seeley on August 4th? ---PAGE BREAK--- Jennifer Clary: Yes. Roger Millar: Do you want to move it to the meeting…the meeting after that? Jennifer Clary: And Mary said either way, we could do it the 4th if we wanted to, we could do it the 18th. We’re totally open the 18th, I think. Roger Millar: I’d move it to the 18th, the 4th could be… Jennifer Clary: Do it the 18th? The 18th? John DiBari: Sure. Jennifer Clary: Okay, we’ll do it the 18th and continue this meeting, but we’ll obviously continue to talk right now, so if you wanted to stay, we’re still discussing it. Do we want to create our list? Okay, John? John DiBari: I guess I could just thumb through and figure out where I wrote “Ms”. So one of the places we took up was Section 20.30.94, Section 3 and that was the word “absolute.” So we can put that on the list. Who’s keeping a list, by the way? Jennifer Clary: I have “absolute” down there. John DiBari: Besides the official record keeper? Roger Millar: The list will be in your minutes. John DiBari: Okay. I wasn’t sure whether there was another place. Then Section 20.30.100—where the word Commission could be replaced by “Historic Preservation Officer.” We didn’t talk about this one, but I’ll throw it out there—the definition section, which is 20.30.020 that could potentially get moved in to the definition section of the Ordinance itself, if that seems appropriate. You know, our terminology section. Jennifer Clary: In Title 20, you mean? John DiBari: In Title 20, yes. We mentioned this, adopting the proposed language by the attorney from the University of Montana. And then, I think that two substantive ones that I talked a little bit about was whether we want to address this idea of non-contributing structures within an historic district. And then what we do with regard to what happens if we don’t make the 60-day approval process. And I’m not sure how many other potential motions there might need to be given the staff amendments that came out; actually, I just saw one, it’s Section 20.30.92, where we strike No. 1. That’s on page 6 and 7 of the Staff Amendments from this evening. Heidi Kendall: Strike what? John DiBari: Strike No. 1 from 20.30.92, I think that was a recommendation, correct, Philip? Philip Maechling: That’s correct. And then in 20.30.096, Criteria—I’m suggesting adding a piece and the language may not be right, but it’s close to allow for alternative materials at the end…one, two, I’m suggesting a third. ---PAGE BREAK--- John DiBari: Okay. Philip Maechling: In part responding to Helena Maclay’s issue of substituting a material when the visual affect or the product is indistinguishable and there are alternative materials to strictly-milled wood, you know, siding. I’m not suggesting vinyl sidings in panels as an alternative because it doesn’t have the same dimensions, it doesn’t have the same weight, it’s not treated the same way, it’s not painted the same way. John DiBari: I think there was one other one where we talked about ownership, and I’m not remembering what it was. Philip Maechling: That’s correct. That’s striking that entire sentence in the Alternative Compliance portion. It’s immaterial who’s applying, in a lot of ways, I was thinking just keep the language there but you don’t even need to keep the sentence. Jennifer Clary: Okay, so I’m little tired, but I do have a question about the process. If I have a project and I come before you and it’s one of the projects that we’re talking about, that might be a non-contributing. You can sign off on it right there, but does it have to go through the Commission? Philip Maechling: Yeah, the Officer can sign if it’s clearly in compliance with the Standards. Jennifer Clary: Okay, so when we potentially have that motion on the non-contributing houses, we can clarify that process? Philip Maechling: Sure, yeah. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Philip Maechling: This one is yours. I hand it off. Heidi Kendall: I would like to add a little detail to the maintenance and all that stuff. I mean, I don’t know if we need to specify that paint is okay, but I’d like to talk about that and maybe if there’s some other obvious ones that we should list specifically. John DiBari: Well maybe the way to handle it is to be more explicit or reiterate this idea that if it doesn’t rise to the level of a building permit, then it’s maintenance. Heidi Kendall: Yeah, something like that. John DiBari: I don’t even it’s in there, right? Philip Maechling: It’s right at the top of Action Subject to Review. It’s says: “Prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit…” Roger Millar: Which is Plannerspeak for “you need a building permit” but I think… John DiBari: We can make it plainspeak. Roger Millar: …we can make it more clear and say, you know… Philip Maechling: Or a building permit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Roger Millar: Ordinary repair and maintenance is an action that does require a building permit and does not change, you know… Heidi Kendall: Belt and suspenders. John DiBari: So let’s put that in there as a motion. Heidi Kendall: And then I’d like to at least talk about 20.30.096, just eliminating existing setbacks in that first sentence, the end of the first sentence…existing setbacks illustrating historic patterns of development shall be retained. I just want to talk about that, because I’m not sure why that’s…why that has risen to the importance that it’s actually the only thing that’s mentioned specifically. And I wanted to talk more about the false sense of history part, somebody…one of the public comments raised that and I don’t really understand what that means, either. Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: I think it would be interesting to talk about Demolition by Neglect… Kelley Durbin: What? Jon Haber: …demolition by neglect, I’d just like to hear a little more about that, I guess, 070. Jennifer Clary: Anyone else? Tim Skufca: The only other comment that was made was, is there any data of how these Ordinances do affect affordability and… Roger Millar: I don’t know that there’s specific data, but I can ask Philip to see what he can find. This might be a good question for the National Trust. Philip Maechling: Yeah, I’m not aware that there is. Affordability is not…affordability is a word that’s used all the time and it’s…in Missoula affordability…you know, nothing is affordable because nobody has any money. Roger Millar: Well, The Palace Apartments are affordable. Philip Maechling: The Palace Apartments are affordable if you’re…if you’re low income, yeah. Heidi Kendall: There’s a numbering problem on definitions. Action Subject to Review is No. 1… Roger Millar: Yeah, there’s two No. 1s. Heidi Kendall: …and then Alternative Compliance is also No. 1, so that all needs to be reviewed. Jennifer Clary: Anything else, anyone? Okay, so we will move to close this hearing and reopen this on August 18th. Thank you.