[MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,

This morning we had Jim Carlson step in for Ellen Lehey for the health
department update.  We mostly talked about the sewer/septic situation in
the Wye area where 93 crosses the interstate.  Due to the nature of the
soils and the hydrology the health department will not permit any more
septic (or private sewer) systems up there.  There is a current project
to run sewer to the area that has been in the works for years.  They are
having problems with exceeding the maximum levels for nitrates.  The
only source of nitrates in the water is from neighboring septic systems.
The effluent from a septic system contains 50ppm of nitrates. They are
seeing wells that are real close to 10ppm. So that means that the source
of 20% of the water in some of the wells is from neighboring septic
systems.

Yum.

We also talked about the move of partnership health care from the health
department building on Alder to the creamery building on Railroad.  The
Red Cross will remain in the first floor of the building for a few years
until their lease is up.  The PHC admin and dental clinic will move to
the second floor this summer after some remodeling.  Jim was not aware
of any plans on what will happen with the space being vacated in the
Alder street building.

 

In PAZ we had our first session on the Chickesaw subdivision. This one
promised to be a be a thorny one.  It is in the Orchard Homes area and
borders the properties of two of the neighborhood's most outspoken
organizers. The property was recently farmed by Clark Fork Organics. The
Ag preservation community had called for half of the ten acres to be
preserved. The subdivision to the north was platted with a provision for
a through street to be connected if this parcel ever developed. So the
neighbors there who have been living on a dead end are now faced with
the possibility for their road to be a connection between third and
seventh. The developer had offered to preserve 1.3 acres for farmland in
the NE corner. Staff was supportive of the Ag preservation arguments
made by CFAC and recommended preserving a three acre parcel in the SE
corner where the best soils are located. The staff recommendation would
have made the subdivision layout impossible so they included a provision
that said the developer could redesign it to recoup up to the total of
30 lots.  Planning board denied the subdivision 6-3. 

 

But instead of a big fight the developer came in with two new layouts
that they hoped could meet the goals of Ag preservation and the
neighbors.  One option had the three acres of Ag along the east edge
where the better soils are and had the road connection to the north.
The other option had the Ag along the north portion of the property on
the less desirable soils and precluding the possibility of the through
road.  The first option clearly was closer to meeting the desires of
staff, CFAC, and council as it saved the better soils and created the
connectivity. But plan B preserved the land next to the neighbors and
saved their dead end. 

So we will dig into the merits of the proposals next week and try to get
it settled.

 

We also had a visit from our zoning rewrite consultant who gave us a
presentation on the substantive changes to the code.  The issue everyone
is most eager to spill blood over is the Accessory Dwelling Unit
chapter. For most of us the ADU represents the preservation of the true
character of our community, the best opportunity for affordable housing,
and a way to assure diversity in our neighborhoods. But other folks
don't see it that way. Mr. Wilkins suggested that allowing ADU's would
lead to the destruction of his "pristine" neighborhood. 

The consultants, tasked with writing a code for the 21st century,
originally suggested that ADU's should be permitted by right throughout
the city.  But after staff's recommendation to avoid the contentious
issue they made it a zoning overlay that could be applied to a
neighborhood or parcel through a zoning change.

 

Our action today was to refer the document to the planning board to
review. So this starts the formal process of public review of the draft
that has been developed over the last year. Jon Wilkins, Dick, and Renee
voted against sending it to planning board for public review.  Ms.
Helligard and Mr. Hendrickson were absent.  The vote was very
significant for me. I interpret the votes against sending the document
to planning board for public review as an indication that regardless of
what is or isn't in the document these members intend to obstruct its
progress. 

It is no secret that the majority have goals that are in conflict with
those in the minority. We are faced with the dilemma of what concessions
to make in order to obtain consensus. Was this vote an indication that
concessions are in vain? Should we compromise what we believe to be in
the best interest of the city to obtain a consensus when in the end they
are still likely to vote against it?  Why should the minority be driving
the outcome of the process?  This is subject to change but at the moment
I lean towards pressing for our objectives and letting the elections
that come a few months after the adoption of the code be the communities
confirmation of support or rejection for our line of thinking. I am open
to hearing some arguments to the value of consensus building.

 

In other business we tangled over an apparent problem in our rules that
Ross Best pointed out where we do business in committees without a
quorum as long as we note it in the report. A strict reading would
suggest that no quorum means no business. But then there is the real
world where there are timelines and public who have taken time off of
work to come testify and the need to move forward. Also keeping in mind
that the committees only make recommendations to council.  We didn't
settle the matter and will have to take it up again.

 

Thanks for your interest,  

 

 Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

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

406-728-1052



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090211/d17c238e/attachment.htm>