[MissoulaGov] committee update 7-15-09

[hdgray at modwest.com]

Bob,
Reviewing your comments of this blog I can see that you do not appreciate
nor understand the complexities of hillside development. The current
zoning ordinance has a broader view of what hardships exist to property
owners, Designers and Contractors on “flat ground” and “hillside” parcels
for additions to and new buildings.  The definition of Building Height is
key to the preservation of existing architectural styles and affordability
of new construction within the developed valley floor and hillsides of
Missoula.  As addressed in the Missoulian this morning the valley floor is
mostly developed and the hillsides have the remaining available potential
for new development. The zoning rewrite has done a very poor job of
allowing more infill within Missoula’s existing neighborhoods.  It does
have a tool for preservation of neighborhood character but not greater
density potential, on the contrary the zoning rewrite reduces the
multifamily zoned districts by 50% of what is currently allowed.

The zoning code must address all categories of construction from
affordable housing, middle & upper class homes and commercial development.
 The definition of Blight is when the value of the structure is less than
the cost of the land the structure is on.  If we followed your ideology
that smaller is better you create a hardship for property owners that
purchased a $500,000 lot for their new home.  Why should that family be
forced to live in your 1000 square foot home because some Council members
do?  A bank would probably not approve a loan for a home that was of less
value than the land it was intended to be built on.

It was very clearly shown to the committee yesterday that a tabletop
“Absolute height” approach would lead to flat roof buildings.  Roger
Millar stated at the Planning Board hearing in which this new approach was
introduced that the definition would lead to more flat roof buildings. 
Laval’s drawing showed with the blue “Absolute Height” line that a flat
roof was the only option for the buildings that are on the hillsides.  It
was pointed out by Architect Kate Sutherland that the garage could not be
moved to the downhill side of the home, as was suggested by OPG, because
City engineering dictate the maximum slope of a driveway, not to mention
ice in the winter, so you cannot create enough driveway length to get to
the downhill side of the structure.  Kate also pointed out that a Garage
would have too much building depth to have a pitched roof with the
“absolute method” for hillsides. The Majority of lots are narrow and deep
so you cannot sprawl a building parallel along the contours of a sloped
lot as proposed by other public comment.  A building can only go down the
slope to fit on the lot a majority of the time.  If the city council
wishes to greatly increase the expense, hardship and destroy the ability
for homes to blend in with existing neighborhoods by all means keep with
OPG’s preferred “Absolute Height” method that is allowed but not used by
the majority of Missoulian’s today.

The “Envelope Method” it is not about changing grade today, it is about
being able to find a solution that is affordable, complimentary to the
neighborhood and allowing a variety of architectural styles now and in the
future.  Why this approach should be considered only for the elitist upper
class of Missoula is wrong and counter productive to finding consensus. 
The Envelope Method is simple, measurable, enforceable and consistent.


David V. Gray
Paradigm Architects
1731 S. 11th West