[MissoulaGov] committee update 1/21/09

[hdgray at modwest.com]

Hi Bob,

I do not see the relevance of dedicating park land based on number of lots
in a subdivision.  The size of the property being subdivided seams to be
more applicable for usable park lands dedication.  I have asked the parks
department in the past if they would be willing to entertain new small
parks in the F2F Neighborhood so the Neighborhoods could be corrected of
its shortcomings in parklands. The Parks department said they did not want
small parks but larger parks that would be less expensive to maintain.

If this is still the case I think the parks department should bring to
council what it feels is the smallest area of park land they could
maintain on it current budget cycle. Any subdivision that did not have
enough property to provide that minimum size park would be exempt under
the minor subdivision procedure. I think this could encourage affordable
housing within the developed areas of the city & not waste developer,
citizens or councils time or money deciding if a subdivision should give
the city free park land that the parks department does not want and will
not maintain.

The current multifamily standards takes care of land dedicated to
occupants of multi-dwelling developments. "35% of the land must be
landscaped" if I remember correctly. This is over twice the required
landscaping of any zoned district or use. Why add further burden to this
denser form of possible 1st time and elderly housing by adding additional
parkland expense. If a multifamily development does not meet the 35%
landscaping requirement then a cash in lieu could be a viable option that
could then benefit the surrounding neighborhood and tenants of the
development.

Sincerely,
David V. Gray


> Bob,

>

> I am a big supporter for park lands, their creation and maintenance. We

> currently don't have enough of either. Having said that, affordable

> housing

> is, in my opinion, the most critical issue facing Missoula now and into

> the

> future. This includes workforce housing not just low income housing. Every

> decision we make must take that into consideration. We must find ways to

> keep the price of all housing from doing what it has done over the last 20

> plus years. The economic theories (trickle down/supply side) of the past

> 25

> years have proven themselves not to work for most of us.

>

>

>

> Rod Austin

>

>

>

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Lori Davidson

> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:08 AM

> To: Jim McGrath; Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1/21/09

>

>

>

> Hi Bob,

>

>

>

> Another aspect of the parkland dedication discussion was whether the

> dedication should apply to existing structures or only to new building

> lots/vacant land.  At the Housing Authority Board meeting last night two

> of

> our Board members pointed out that in some cases, as with the 4

> single-family homes we own that are built on one lot, parkland dedication

> was exacted when the lot was created.  Should a second dedication be

> exacted

> because the owner subdivides for sale to individual owners?

>

>

>

> Lori

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>   _____

>

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath

> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:46 AM

> To: Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1/21/09

>

> Bob,

>

> re the parks issue.

> I was surprised to learn when I got on council that the only thing zoning

> seems to do a good job protecting the community from was home ownership.

> I remember a guy on the Northside who owned a duplex and wanted to sell

> both

> units to individual families-- he had to go through a PUD. I think that's

> still the case. Adding a parks exaction would be even worse (I know you

> are

> currently exempting 2-lot divisions, but the issue doesn't change much).

> I also was surprised to learn that an owner of a large lot zoned single

> family could build as many additional detached units as he could pencil

> but

> couldn't sell them. nor could he built the same number of units sharing

> walls, even though it was more efficient in many ways, including land.

> If someone owns a lot with four houses on it, at least three of them must

> be

> rentals (unless it's a commune I suppose -- I think communes should be a

> permitted use only in the university neighborhood, ha ha, just kidding).

> Now

> in order to allow new homeowners to buy them, not only do they have to

> subdivide but they have to carve out a tiny park. Another brick defending

> us

> from homeownership.

> To me parks have always been a public good and the argument you make for

> sidewalks is much more relevant for parks. Hey, my neighborhood as a

> permanent SID for street lights! which probably half of us don't care for

> --

> the lights, not the SID which probably have few fans. how fair is that?

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Bob Jaffe

> Sent: Wed 1/21/2009 10:12 PM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1/21/09

>

> Greetings,

>

> We started the morning again with a series of board interviews. Animal

> Control, Open Space, and Planning Board. Lots of great applicants.

> After finishing all the interviews we were in PAZ discussing the park

> dedication amendments.

>

> Subdivisions are divided into two groups. Minors are five lots and

> under. Majors are six and over. We currently only exact a parkland

> dedication on majors. Recent changes in the state law allow us to

> require parkland dedication on minors. The debate generally focused on

> the issue of affordability versus the need for parks and park

> infrastructure. There are a number of policy goals being developed that

> encourage infill. So should we be creating new costs for small

> subdivisions? Sometimes individual subdivided lots will contain multiple

> dwelling units as in the case of apartments or condos. So we debated

> whether to exempt minors where the lots would have single family homes.

> We also considered the case where a lot has multiple homes already

> existing and the property owner is subdividing them in order to sell the

> homes to individual owners.

>

> It got pretty complicated but we ended up asking Jackie to come back

> with two versions. One that is more restrictive and applies the

> dedication to 3-5 lot subdivisions on lots greater than 5400 square

> feet. The size limit is based on the theory that 5400 foot lots would

> only be for single family homes and generally for projects targeting a

> more affordable home price. If a developer thought their project should

> be exempted because it was targeting affordable homes or for some other

> reason they could ask for a variance.

>

> The other version would exempt single family housing.  So if the

> individual subdivided lots are going to have multiple dwelling units on

> them the developer would need to dedicate parkland (or pay cash in

> lieu). We will take this up again in a couple of weeks.

>

>

>

> In public works we started with the slant street sidewalk project. Last

> week, Doug Harby from public works explained how the project areas are

> defined and prioritized. This week he explained the various policies

> involved with deciding which sidewalks needed to be replaced within a

> project.  It is generally driven by the people who sue us after they

> trip and fall.  I believe he said we are currently $30,000 into

> defending ourselves in a suit that involved an edge on a sidewalk that

> stuck up only 4/10 of an inch. So we want to take care of trip hazards

> as well as anything that will become a trip hazard during the life of

> the project. This means the next twenty years. So if there is any

> deficiency they will want to fix it. This of course gets controversial

> when we tell people they have to pay thousands of dollars to replace the

> sidewalks in front of their home that only has minor cracks in it and no

> immediate hazard.

>

> I asked about preventative maintenance and Doug said the sidewalks that

> last the longest are the ones where the people take care of the

> boulevards. If the trees are reaching across to the front yard to find

> water they will wreck the sidewalks over time. He also said people are

> allowed to perform preventative maintenance on their sidewalks like

> sealing cracks and replacing broken corners and grinding.

>

>

>

> In this particular project there was the opportunity to use some grant

> money to pay for some of the improvements. Some the slant streets have

> very wide right of ways. The homeowners were given the option to have

> grant funds pay for the sidewalks if they went in on the outer edge of

> the right of way creating the 25+ foot boulevards that are so nice in

> that neighborhood. If the homeowner wanted to put the sidewalk at the

> code minimum seven foot boulevard than they had to pay.  There were a

> handful of very large assessments. One property owner hit with an $18000

> assessment came in to voice his concern.

>

>

>

> Every time we do one of these projects there is an outcry from some of

> the residents that this is a community benefit so they should not have

> to bear the cost alone. The cost of neighborhood sidewalks should be

> evenly spread throughout the neighborhood if not the whole city.   I

> pretty much agree with this but every time I have brought it up I've

> been thoroughly shut down by public works staff with all the reasons we

> can't change the way we finance sidewalks.  For sure it is problematic

> but the idea of street maintenance districts has been gaining some

> acceptance lately.  If the economy had not turned sour we would probably

> have seen them introduced for FY2010. My guess is the idea of

> introducing this new "tax" will be put on hold for a while.

>

>

>

> We also voted to approve the contract amendment for the peer review on

> the 3rd and Russell project.  The request evolved into an updated and

> more sophisticated traffic analysis of the corridor and various

> intersections. The consultant will help to integrate the new information

> and any changes in design it informs into the final EIS. We selected a

> firm Kittleson and Associates.  The price tag on the review ballooned to

> $186,000. This caused some sticker shock. But this is a thirty to forty

> million dollar project. There has been great public outcry as to the

> design of the project. This analysis should help to validate the current

> design or modify it in a defensible way. I'm hopeful that a more

> sophisticated traffic model will show that some of the design features

> can be reduced. If we are able to knock out one turn lane from one

> intersection we save more than $186,000.

>

>

>

> Here is a copy of the contract:

>

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2009/2009-01-12/Referrals/HK

> MPeerReviewAmend4.pdf

>

>

>

> 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.