HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-16, Pertzborn, UDC, NCOD, Public CommentGreetings –
I apologize for the 11th hours comments on the subject. I am not sure I will be able to attend Monday’s
meeting, but this subject is significant and I wanted to submit some outline comments for
consideration. The latest 202 page staff report is a lot to digest. I would hope that careful
considerations and enough time to both comprehend and carefully finish a model ordinance is the
goal.
- We have seen tremendous investment in the NCOD for the last 20+ years – in the forms of
restorations, renovations, adaptive reuse, infill and redevelopment. I believe what we are
seeing what is exemplary, and the result is vibrant and interestingly unique model
neighborhoods.
- I do not believe we have seen or will see a pattern of speculative demolition.
- Blanket historic preservation policies can stagnate districts and occasionally have a negative
effect on a community. Age and design doesn’t save the day (see: Butte). Education, economics
and objectivity are important factors.
- Historic significance is key. Defining this is paramount. Simply being a historic property or
eligible to be historic seems very vague and subjectively unpredictable. Replace historic with
historically significant? I am a firm believer in the notion that history is good, bad and ugly. I am
also a firm believer that history is made every day and that false historicism is disingenuous.
- Whereas I think this section of the UDC needed updating – I do not believe any of the changes
would have prevented the Brewery Wall, West Koch House demolition or other similar
circumstances. Best intentions and unforeseen conditions don’t equate to devious behavior.
- In many documented cases, demolition/redevelopment have resulted in excellent projects that
contribute to a neighborhood, reflect goals of our various community plans, and result in
projects that will likely be considered significant in the future. Fred Willson did a host of
redevelopment projects in his day, many of which we cherish and protect today.
- I believe that in some cases, demolition before the issuance of a building permit is in the best
interest of the community. An applicant should be able to apply for this condition and present
logical facts supporting the situation. Conditions such as bonding or other mitigating factors
could be applied. Simply delaying the removal of a non-conforming building mostly adds to the
expense of a project and takes away funds that could otherwise go toward making the project
better and completing a desirable project sooner.
- Subsequent development that includes an underdeveloped (without a building) site is not
necessarily a bad thing. The City did just that when they removed the old house west of city hall
to create an interim community garden. The future is an expansion of City Hall.
- The pattern of the NCOD is that there is not much of a pattern. So called “gaps” are actually
common as are a variety of lot sizes and building types. A strong community develops where it
is logical. Fewer things work in a declining community.
- Several of the issues in this section result in the Building Code (read: life safety; energy use, etc)
conflicting with historic preservation. We need to have this conversation and be mindful of the
edits made. The old saying “they don’t build ‘em like they used to” is sometimes a good
thing. Frankly many older structures have significant life safety issues. All is fine . . . until it
isn’t. I am often reminded of our seismic zone when working on older buildings. Defining
“unsafe” is a big deal.
Thanks for your careful considerations and efforts to make our community great. I am hopeful for an
insightful debate on this section and another round of edits before finalization.
Respectfully Submitted,
RJP
Robert J. Pertzborn, AIA
Principal I Architect
intrinsik architecture, inc.
111 north tracy avenue
bozeman, montana 59715
t. 406.582.8988 m. 406.580.0422
www.intrinsikarchitecture.com
______________________________________________________________________