[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 7-2-08

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,

We started the day today with PAZ. We had a few issues to discuss. None of
them much fun.  The first was a review of the proposed historic preservation
ordinance.  Here is the link:

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-06-23/Referrals/Referr
alHPzoning.pdf

This is the outcome of a long effort to try to come up with some enabling
legislation that provides some means to preserve historic properties and
districts at risk of redevelopment.  There are some who have no interest in
seeing this sort of thing move forward. There are others who are sympathetic
to the cause of historic preservation. But I don't think any of us could
support the ordinance as written. It basically sets up an entire new
reviewing entity that would have the authority to approve or deny any
remodel or construction project.

The council has no interest in creating a gigantic set of hurdles for
redevelopment, the associated infrastructure for managing this new system,
or delegating its authority to the historic preservation board.  A few of us
jumped on this point and Roger Millar from OPG indicated that OPG staff had
raised some of the same concerns. He thought it was a relatively easy matter
to revise the language to bring the preservation board back into the role of
advising rather than governing. This is an issue that is close to the hearts
of many in our community. I'm confident we can get to a point where we have
an ordinance that creates the right balance between providing protection
where it is needed without creating an unneeded burden on everyone else.

 

The next issue had to do with a complaint of conflict of interest on the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). I scheduled them together since all
the same people would need to be present.  Dennis Gordon had raised the
complaint a little while back and Dick wanted us to discuss it to clarify
the issue of conflicts of interest on our boards. There is a specific legal
definition of conflict of interest. It pretty much means that you would have
a direct and significant financial gain associated with a decision you are
making.  I think Dick's point was that claims of conflict get thrown around
every so often but there really has not been any. 

The specific complaint that brought up this discussion had to do with some
University owner project out at the fort that the HPC was reviewing. Two of
the people on the board were being contracted with by the University to work
on the project in question. Both individuals recused themselves from the
discussion.  The complaint was that their presence on the board, regardless
of whether they were voting, tainted the board's ability to be unbiased. 

It's a somewhat reasonable concern.  We discussed adding something to our
applications that asks for conflicts to be revealed but didn't make any
changes. In our interview process we ask a question about conflicts and
decided to leave it at that. The problem with this line of thinking is that
if you carry it to its conclusion you could not have anyone on our boards or
elected bodies who had any professional involvement in the community. Almost
all professionals have some relationship with the university, the hospitals,
various developers, engineers, or other entities who at some point are
involved in projects that come before the City.

 

Our next item was supposed to be an easy one but wasn't. The Mayor had
recommended that we confirm the reappointments of Michael Nave and Carl
Posowitz to the Board of Adjustment.  Jon Wilkins requested that we take
them up separately. We started with Michael. Ed said he couldn't vote for
him because of the way he handled Carter Court ignoring the advice of the
city attorney. We discussed it for a bit and voted. Ed was the only nay.
Then we took up Carl. Stacy moved the confirmation. Wilkins said he couldn't
support him because he thought he had a conflict of interest and in general
had a philosophical outlook different from Jon's. When asked, Jon did not
elaborate. We voted. This time Jon, John, Lynn, Dick, and Renee voted
against reconfirming Carl. Myself, Stacy, Ed, Pam, Jason, and Dave voted in
favor. Ed and I will both be absent on Monday so I'm not sure how this will
go.

 

After lunch we had a brief A&F meeting to discuss the riverfront triangle
MRA district. We set a public hearing to establish the new district.

 

The only other committee we had was Budget. We reviewed a MRA, finance, the
clerk, and council.  Nothing too exciting there.  We had a little discussion
about the Mill site. It is about two years behind schedule now. The delays
caused by clean up issues and general slowness of DEQ have cost about
$1,000,000. Of course the market has been changing over these two years as
well.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

Next week in PAZ we will be having the discussion on 'Stacking.' This is the
practice of dividing projects into groupings of five or fewer lots. This is
done for either efficiency of filing, or evasion of subdivision, depending
on who you talk to.  The issue surfaced in regards to the Lincoln School
project most recently.  The goal of the discussion is to get a clear
understanding of the rules and practice and decide if we want to direct
staff to make changes in the ordinance.  I will not be present at this
meeting. Marilyn has offered to chair for me in my absence.

 

The following week we will be having a general discussion about the future
of the Orchard Homes area.  There are a number of controversial subdivisions
on deck. We want to have a more general discussion about what direction we
are headed outside the context of a specific project. We are hoping to hear
from our planning staff, the development community, neighbors, and the
Community Food and Agriculture Coalition.

 

Thanks for your interest, 

 

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

 <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

406-728-1052

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080703/4586db4b/attachment.htm>