[MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09

[Ryan Morton]

Bob:

 

Consensus is difficult to garner in an adversarial, parliamentary setting.
Letting a minority drive the process will necessarily occur in such a
setting.  Unless you take each chapter and vote on them separately, it is
almost entirely certain that you will not get consensus on the complete
document.  

 

On the value of consensus, it depends.  Some consensus "building" is more
about divide and conquer.  Sometimes consensus is built organically from the
ground up.  Starting with the things people agree on and building up.  It
seems like the divide and conquer approach is being used here (you divide
out the contentious issues, then ask, "is that good enough now?").  I don't
think it makes the document better, but it is expedient and has the ability
to send a strong political message to the commUNITY.  

 

That said, if you want to make the rewrite an election issue, that's
certainly your business.  As a industry representative who hopes to really
rally the community for the next election, I'd rather the rewrite not be an
election issue as that might destroy important elements of the rewrite.  I
certainly value the consensus you're trying to gain with the rewrite.  I
also know consensus building happens to be one of the most frustrating
exercises among 2 people let alone 12 or tens of thousands of people.  I
don't envy your job on that.  For what it's worth, go for consensus even if
it hurts.  What else defines a civilized, urban society other than the
ability to fight with one's neighbors about zoning every day of the year?

 

MBIA has also been especially quiet about the rewrite even though it will
define much of the building industry's business.  There's no snake in the
bush, most folks have been satisfied with the product.  We'd like some
higher building heights (especially for the smaller lots).  We'd like the
option to do ADU's but will wait until after the rewrite if necessary.

 

Ryan Morton

Government Affairs Director

Missoula Building Industry Association

406.543.4423 or 406.546.0902 (cell)

community at buildmissoula.com

  _____  

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:04 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09

 

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

406-728-1052

Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to
City business may be considered public or private records depending on the
message content. The City is often required by law to provide city records
to individuals requesting records, some of which are not public records and
have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is
required by law to protect private, confidential information. This message
is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender
immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090212/1e0dcabe/attachment.htm>