[MissoulaGov] committee Update 2-25-09 again

[hdgray at modwest.com]

Bob,

Another problem with the Dark Skies Ordinance is that the "Building Code"
requires a minimum of 1 foot candle of light to the Public way for exit
lighting and Light fixtures at all exterior doors.

Commercial buildings are located on the front property line in many
locations in Missoula, like Downtown and Hellgate Meadows. You cannot
provide a light at a door that only provides one foot candle of light zero
feet away (property line). This has been a constant problem.  Many
building owners would also like to provide light along the sidewalk for
safety of its patrons but cannot because of this ordinance.  It would be
preferable if the light was measured from the center of the right of way
along streets.

Sincerely,
David V. Gray


> [sent again to see if removal of expletive gets it through the city spam

> filter]

>

>

>

> Greetings,

>

> This morning in Public Safety we had Don Verue from the building

> department give a review of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The

> ordinance was approved a little over a year ago and mandates lighting

> standards intended to cut down on light pollution.   One of the concerns

> when enacted was that there would be a landslide of citizen complaints

> of non-compliant lighting. Thus far there have been eight. Six of which

> were resolved over the phone. It took a little while to get the

> architects up to speed on the submittal and design requirements for new

> construction but now most everything they see is compliant.  The one

> area that needs some adjustment is how to deal with small commercial

> installations. An example of a recent complaint is for an apartment

> complex that wants to add a couple of outdoor lights in their parking

> lot. It is only a couple hundred dollars for the electrician to do the

> installation. But to get the permit there needs to be some sort of

> lighting plan document. To create this will take some number of hours of

> work.  So the submittal requirements may exceed the cost of the actual

> installation. We asked Don to work up language to exempt installations

> under a certain size from the submittal requirements and bring it back.

> We will need to set a public hearing to revise the ordinance. The intent

> is that the small installations will still need to comply with the

> ordinance, they would just be exempt from the paperwork.

>

>

>

> In PAZ we started with another session on the parkland dedication rules.

> After much discussion we voted to require parkland dedication on minor

> subdivisions (3-5 lot) where the zoning allowed for multi-family.  The

> first vote (that failed) was to require it for lots greater than 5400

> feet. The idea being that affordable units are generally built on

> smaller lots and that multi-family units would be on bigger lots.

> Overall this is not really hitting what everyone wants. I want everyone

> to contribute to parkland but I don't want the cost of housing to go up.

> Of course this isn't possible.

>

> The next time we take this up we will consider changing the rule for

> what kind of appraiser is allowed to do the park dedication appraisal

> for minor subdivisions. We also need to look at alternatives to the way

> we calculate the dedication. We currently base it off of a percentage of

> acreage. We would like the option of basing it off of the number of

> units.

>

>

>

> We then switched gears and returned to the Chickasaw subdivision. We

> inched closer to support for some kind of project. But considering we

> recessed the meeting with a motion on the floor to deny the annexation,

> the future is still uncertain.  The proposal with the most support calls

> for three acres of agricultural land on the eastern portion of the site.

> This ag land will be a distinct saleable lot with deed restrictions and

> covenants.  The road will connect through to Stallion lane. There will

> still be 30 building lots. One item still in dispute is whether there

> will be a building lot allowed in the very SE corner separated from the

> rest of the subdivision by the ag parcel.

>

> Again we had to recess until Monday at 6:00pm. The neighbors and some on

> council still want the ag piece to be along the northern border so it

> serves as a buffer to the adjacent properties. A few still have trouble

> requiring any mitigation for agriculture at all.  Some may like the

> design but are uncomfortable giving preliminary plat approval for

> anything that is still so undefined. I'm pretty sure this was Mr.

> Wilkins' sentiment when he made the motion to deny annexation.

>

> I have no idea what will happen Monday night.

>

>

>

> In A&F we had Joel from MCAT give us an update on the Government Channel

> Cable Advisory Commission. This is the group that advises MCAT on the

> what programming to put on the civic channel.  We started the process to

> change the name of this committee to Missoula Civic Television Advisory

> Commission. In other business we made a new council rule that says if an

> item gets tabled it disappears after six months if it isn't acted upon.

> In most legislative bodies a tabled item goes away at the end of the

> session. But we don't have sessions. We just keep going on forever. So

> there was no provision for the disposal of tabled items.

>

>

>

> In Public Works we discussed a contract to hire a consulting firm to

> assess and develop a plan for how to deal with the stink that is coming

> from the vicinity of the sewer plant. I say the vicinity because it is

> not all the sewer plant. Eko-Compost is also one of the sources. There

> may be others. One of the problems has been that the odors are

> intermittent and inconsistent. But they are definitely a serious quality

> of life issue for anyone who lives on that side of town.

>

> There was some hesitance to spend $74,000 for an "odor characterization

> study."  Can you think of anything more absurd than hiring a fancy

> consultant to tell you something smells like poop?  But staff assured us

> that the bulk of the work actually had to do with designing an

> implementation plan for the facilities. This is a substantial project

> that could run into the millions of dollars so the initial planning work

> is well justified. We asked for staff to come back next  time with more

> details on how the money would be allocated in the contract.

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----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.