[MissoulaGov] Committee update 6-17-09

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,

In conservation this morning we discussed parkland possibilities in the
Franklin to the Fort neighborhood. There are two good potential sites.
The parcel owned by MRL just north of the mall, and the forest service
storage depot.  There have also been discussions with some private land
owners regarding some smaller parcels. Considering that the forest
service piece is already in public ownership it is probably the best
possibility. In talks with the district a few years ago the word was
that the forest service had no interest in changing things on that site
in the foreseeable future.  Both Dick and Dave, who have worked
extensively with the forest service thought this could be a more
fruitful discussion if it were higher up the chain of command at the
regional or national levels. It's a 13 acre site. I've heard that the
objections had more to do with finding new buildings than the open
storage area. Maybe we could just pick up the back five acres.  

 

PAZ was a challenge today.  We had our pre-public hearing informational
meeting on the zoning rewrite. Roger did a presentation on the
substantive changes and controversial issues.  We then got through a few
questions and comments when Dave asked the five signers of Tuesday's
editorial if they were intending to participate in an effort to approve
the document or if they were of the opinion that it was so fatally
flawed that they were going to vote against it no matter what.  I
allowed them each to speak their piece in response which consumed pretty
much all the remaining time.  It was painful to give so much quality
committee and air time to so much bad information but there was also
some real value in it.  One of the complaints I often hear is that these
folks just lob ambiguous objections to everything that serve to cloud
the issues and confuse people who are less informed.  Today I heard
itemized lists of objections and issues articulated in a way that they
can be taken up and responded to.  But I do have some doubts about the
productivity of the discussion since a number of those issues have been
responded to numerous times already. 

 

Renee again brought up the idea that this was just supposed to be a
cleanup of the code with no substantive changes. On two occasions in the
last few weeks we have received documentation on how it was pointed out
that it would be impossible and wasteful to take on the task without
addressing some of the substantive issues. The council members commented
significantly on the expanded scope and there were 11 votes for it.  To
say that we didn't know what we were voting for and that somehow the
agenda was secretly changed is simply flat out false.  

 

The issue of the second legal opinion on whether this process is a
general amendment or a change to property owner's zoning is also still a
sore spot. It is true that Ed refused to take up the idea of hiring an
outside attorney in COW.  But all the same we received one from the
staff attorney for the National Association of Home Builders compliments
of MBIA. Their attorney supports the decision of our city attorney.  But
Lynn said she has spoken to numerous land use attorneys who say we are
wrong. I would like their names so I can also learn their objections.

Mr. Wilkins had concerns about anything in the new code that allowed for
additional salable lots. There are a few changes that allow for some
parcels that could now have duplexes or two detached homes in a single
ownership to now have two homes on two parcels. Jon's position is that
this hurts affordability since the value of these parcels goes up once
you can split them.  I would agree that the value of the parcel goes up
but it also creates two homes that are more affordable. Where before you
had one home for say $300,000, now you have two homes for $200,000. So
the overall value went up but it also has created more affordable homes.
Jon suggested that the duplex is better since it creates rentals that
are needed and helps create income for the resident owner.  I would make
that same argument for why we need more ADU's. With duplexes you are
more likely to get two rentals with a non-resident owner. I agree we
need more rentals but I'm a fan of creating more opportunities for home
ownership. 

 

This is exactly the sort of policy discussion we should be having.
Hopefully we can spend more time on this sort of stuff rather than the
merits of sending yet another mailing to every homeowner in Missoula. 

 

In the end Lynn made a motion to send the whole thing back to planning
board to reconsider again but this time as a rezoning.  She also wants a
mailing to every property owner explaining exactly what the new code
would do to their specific property.  We were unable to get to a vote on
this today so it is still hanging and will need to be addressed at our
next meeting. 

 

In A&F we approved the lease agreement for the 2009 equipment purchases
and the sale of bonds for misc. curb, gutter, and sidewalks and the
improvements to Pineview park.

 

In public works we took up the motions to order in sidewalks and approve
the bids for the project on Lolo street. I believe the motions failed
with just four or five of us voting so we will discuss this further on
Monday. We also discussed establishing a school speed zone on Reserve
street at CS Porter.  The issues were whether it should be a 24X7
reduction or a 7-5 with the blinking lights. 35 mph vs. 30 mph. was also
discussed. I believe the way we sent it to the floor was for a 24X7
reduction to 35 with the blinking lights reducing it further to 30 from
7am to 5pm. We need to hear back from MDT if they will go for that idea.

 

In BCOW we were going to discuss the employee benefits committee and the
health plan stuff. Unfortunately I had to cut out to help with some
family stuff so I don't know how that went.

 

Thanks for your interest,

 

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

1225 South 2nd West

Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 728-1052

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090617/ff36c310/attachment.htm>