HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-14 Four Points Public Comment from Dalton Cfilo, &9L&t 0 -1"�-1 q
-P)b�M--CI
My name is Lora Dalton; my address is 201 S 6'Avenue. I am the chair of the Bozeman
Historic Preservation Advisory Board.
Considering the information before you in this matter, I would like to sound a note of
caution about applying modern engineering standards to buildings constructed at the turn
of the last century. As one Preservation Board member pointed out in regard to the
engineer's report, an engineer or builder with more historic experience would likely have
come to a significantly different conclusion than the one presented by the applicant. There
are homes scattered throughout the city's core neighborhoods that are on rubble
foundations; homes that are built or supported in ways that are not considered best
practice today, homes that are a bit out of square all over, have slightly tilted floors or
sagging porches. I know personally of at least two homes in which the central beam
underneath is supported by basically a pile of rocks and old masonry and stuff—yet
families are living safely in all these houses, and they have stood through weather and
minor earthquakes for over a hundred years. The great difference between them and the
building in question is that they have people living in them and caring for them.
The owner of 430 S. Tracy bought the house, didn't maintain it properly or allow it to be
occupied, and now wants to tear it down because of its worsening condition. It is not a
matter of hardship—he bought it as an investment, with apparently no intention of
maintaining the historic property. The empty building attracted vandals, exacerbating the
deterioration. Yet, this historic home is still viable for rehabilitation, although it needs
more work now than it did a few years ago.
There are a couple of questions I hope you'll think about as you consider this matter..
First, if this demolition is approved based on the condition of this house, what is the effect
on other historic buildings in Bozeman that have similar issues? Would this be a
precedent that puts other viable buildings at risk?
And second, what is the relationship of this decision to the more general question of how
we as a community address the issue of people who allow a building to deteriorate and
then ask to tear it down? I do not believe, in this case, that was the intent of the owner,
but in the end, the effect on the neighborhood is pretty much the same.
Thank you.