Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Historic Preservation Initial GuidanceFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Historic Preservation Initial Guidance Date:Friday, October 18, 2024 4:25:44 PM Attachments:Initial Guidance public comment.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Could this public comment please be forwarded to the following: Historic Preservation Advisory Board,Community Development Advisory Board, Community Planning Collaborative (as part of Landmark Program feedback),Community Development Department, Historic Preservation Officer,and the City Commission, I drafted these attached comments to give at the Historic Preservation Advisory Boards meeting on October 16th, but when the opportunity came, I used my time to speak about SB407 instead. Please read the attached pdf as part of my feedback on the Initial Guidance report from Community Planning Collaborative. I am requesting that all the survey results bemade publicly available including the freeform written comments submitted bythe survey respondents as part of engagement on the Local Landmark Program. Personally identifying remarks and email addresses should be redacted, but the community needs free and fair access to this data in order to trust the project is proceeding in adirection compatible with public input. I would also like to submit the following response I received from Senator Morigeau when I inquired about what part of SB 382 supersedes SB 407. Interim Director George suggested in the HPAB meeting on October 16th 2024, that SB 382prevented the Historic Preservation Advisory Board from using the powers reserved to them in SB 407. When I asked Senator Morigeau what part of SB 382 supersedes SB 407, this was hisresponse: "The work that historic preservation boards do is critical, which is why my bill, SB 407, intentionally ensured that the preservation work wouldn’t be impacted by SB 407. How SB382 is being utilized, does sound concerning and does sound like we need some clarifying legislation this upcoming session. I don’t know enough about how they are using SB 382 tonegate the work of the preservation board, but can you provide me with the section and language they are using and referencing from SB 382? Sen. Shane A. MorigeauSD 48 - Missoula (406) 546-4290 shane@shaneformt.com" I responded that no actual text from SB 382 was cited. I would like to request that staffprovide clarification on exactly which part of the text of SB 382 they believeprevents the Historic Preservation Advisory Board from using the powers reserved to them in SB 407. For clarity, here is the text of SB 407 that pertains to the HPAB: (5) This section may not be construed to limit conditions imposed in historic districts, local design review standards, existing covenants, or the ability to enter into covenants pursuant to Title 70, chapter 17,part 2. Local design review standards imposed by a local government must be clear, objective, andnecessary to protect public health or safety or to comply with federal law. (8) (a) Except as provided in subsection (8)(b), when reviewing an application for a zoning permit orvariance from local design review standards , the determination of compliance with local design reviewstandards as provided in subsection (5) must be conducted by employees of the municipality, and themunicipality may not require review by an external board. (b) Subsection (8)(a) does not apply to historic preservation boards reviewing an application for a permitor variance to structures or districts that the local government has designated as historic or that are listedon the national register of historic places as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as itread on [the effective date of this act]." - Authorized Print Version – SB 407 ENROLLED BILL I don't believe we can proceed with the update to our Historic Preservation Program or the creation of a Local Landmark Program without understanding this situation fully. I am notsuggesting that the Historic Preservation Advisory Board should be reviewing every COA that is applied for. But the fact that one staff member is responsible for reviewing all of them(100's per year we're told) is unsustainable, shameful, and sets our Historic Preservation Program and Officer up to fail. WHAT ARE WE DOING? I think most of the community would like to see HPAB have review authority over applicationfor demolition of structures, sites, or places designated as historic by the city of Bozeman. I agree with Board Member Michael Wiseman that the NCOD or any other historic preservation policies should NOT be removed before a suitable replacement policy is fullyformed and ready to implement. I think an excellent role for the HPAB would be in working with the residents in designating local historic districts and landmarks and what sort of regulations surround those designations. I also agree with Board Member Allyson Brekke that the zoning districts on the map need tobe addressed and changed because they no longer reflect what we desire for our community. The map was drawn decades ago when building regulations were very different. Theregulations have been updated many times, but the map has never been changed. The UDC and this update to Historic Preservation is the time to address the map in conjunction withHPAB. Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments, Alison B. Sweeney Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT 406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com Thank you for taking public comment tonight Alison Sweeney, 503 S 14th Ave I want to thank the consultants for releasing the Initial Guidance document so the community can gauge the direction things might be going in at this early stage. I would like to request that all of the survey responses be made available to the public as soon as possible. The tabulated multiple choice, but also the freeform written comments with any identifying information such as personal emails redacted. The reason for this has largely to do with trust The City, as an entity, does not enjoy a high level of trust from the community. It’s my belief that a large part of that has to do with what we see coming out of the ground in our neighborhoods. We can’t understand why existing development guidelines are not being applied? It seems to many of us, that anything can be sacrifice in the pursuit of density, including trees, historic buildings, neighborhood character, open space, and compatible design. I believe this community highly values the NCOD and what it has been able to do for Bozeman. So the statement on page 6 of the Initial Guidance document suggesting we “repeal and replace the design guidelines for historic preservation and the NCOD to provide more clarity for new development in particular in coordination with the UDC” rings HUGE alarm bells for me! We need to be very careful with this! Did the survey results suggest we get rid of the NCOD? Do Bozeman residents, particularly inside the NCOD, think this is a good idea? What I fear for Bozeman, is that a new Historic Preservation program will end up protecting less than it does now. A few things designated as “landmarks” and it’s open season on the rest. This would be an enormous mistake. Even the nation wide community survey that the city pays consultants to include us in returned results saying we need to do a better job at Historic Preservation. When redevelopment pressure increases, as it is at this moment, we need to protect MORE! not less. I appreciate the consultants suggesting a Historic Preservation element be added to the growth policy going forward. I think the fact that our growth policy doesn’t currently cover this issue at all is an egregious oversight. We must do this, with community involvement! Thank you