[MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09

[Jim Sayer]

Bob -- so what will be the final process on the ADUs (or 'granny flats')? Goes to planning board and then city council?

The debate over these units is somewhat surprising b/c granny flats have been used in so many cities -- urban and suburban -- to very positive effect. The key is to make sure the zoning is accompanied by design standards, to deal with issues of privacy, scale, coherence, parking. I've seen some absolutely fantastic, unobtrusive added units in suburban 1/4 acre lot neighborhoods that have been used by students, elderly parents, single professionals, and small families. All of these people can add to the magic and sociability of a neighborhood without detracting from the basic character and livability of a neighborhood.

There's an interesting article in the new Atlantic on this very subject about economic competitiveness and the importance of urban planning. You can find it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography/6

It relates more to large metro areas but has some messages I think Missoula can learn from. Of special note is that while you're still an attractive place, make sure you pursue policies that encourage more mixed use and denser development that boost affordability and create a great urban quality of life. There's a general consensus that we want to keep our city core vital, protect our farmland, and attract a variety of industries to complement our current university/health care/services mix. (This was pretty much reflected in both UFDA and the Long Range Transportation Plan.) Smart zoning with good, clear accompanying design standards is an essential ingredient to reach these goals.


--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> wrote:
From: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09
To: "Kathleen Snodgrass" <kippie_snodgrass at hotmail.com>, missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 7:55 AM




 
 







Allowing ADU’s in certain areas and not others may be the
sort of compromise that will be arrived at.  

   

   

   





From: Kathleen Snodgrass
[mailto:kippie_snodgrass at hotmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:35 PM

To: Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com

Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] committee update 2-11-09 





   

Not
so sure just exactly where in the "Y" area the high nitrates are, but
nitrates do come from other things than septic systems...like cattle feedlots
or even pasture land that is heavily utilized.  Not that I'm saying they
shouldn't have sewer instead of septic systems out there in the clay, but it IS
possible that the nitrates in the drinking water are comming from cows instead
of humans, depending on location.  Does that make it any yummier? 



   





Also, is there any chance that the City's
new zoning regs could allow accessory dwelling units in some neighborhoods and
not others?  The Heart of Missoula, Northside, Westside, the slant
streets, the area north of Brooks between Russell and Reserve, Hellgate
Meadows, and the area around the Mall north of Brooks are neighborhoods where
accessory dwelling units would be perfectly compatible with the neighborhoods.
 On the other hand, ADUs would destroy the existing neighborhood character
in other areas such as much of the Lewis & Clark neighborhood, Mansion
heights, etc.  You can't blame people for not wanting the character of
their neighborhoods to change, and in my opinion, there's enough space in
Missoula that we should be able to keep the neighborhood variations that make
such a wonderful city mosaic.  Isn't there any way to allow for location
in this??? 



Kathie Snodgrass 

kippie_snodgrass at hotmail.com 

2702 O'Shaughnessy Street 

Missoula, MT 59808 

406-541-8639 









 







Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:03:43 -0700

From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

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. 



   







Get
more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now 



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. 

 

_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts
to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090213/68555603/attachment.htm>