[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-2-11

Tim Skufca tmskufca at gmail.com
Fri Mar 4 07:27:22 MST 2011


Geoff,
You are exactly right: there is good density and bad. What made it most
difficult to side with OPG on this was that there wasn't a real project tied
to the zoning request. Yes, Jamie presented a possible project, and although
it was a good solution, it wasn't great. The reason it wasn't great is
because he was shackled with the parking requirement. A great design would
have started as a PUD. Then the huge expanse of parking lot could have been
tempered with some garden space. No where in Jamie's design did I see any
vegetable growing potential, or even a minor play area for children (or even
a horse-shoe toss space).

Incidentally, I challenge anyone to meet the allowable density of the
proposed zoning and still maintain the parking requirement. I believe it is
virtually impossible, even at a 45 ft. height. This is why the 90-some units
were not proposed in Jamie's design.

Tim



On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Geoff Badenoch <geoffb at ism.net> wrote:


> Once again, Tim and I find our viewpoints converge. I have always held

> that key parts of the community development di scussion went off track when

> the things became centered around DENSITY/Anti-Density. Density done poorly

> is what to avoid. Density done well benefits the community and the

> neighborhood. Who would embrace density done poorly? Only the people who

> make money from it. Give me a developer who knows how to make money from

> doing density well any day. It is more difficult and requires

> thoughtfulness, but with the right cooperation from the public and private

> sector, it can be done.

>

>

>

> As for Russell, I agree it is better to proceed correctly, but we must

> work more deliberately at proceeding. My mother used to tell her children,

> “You can’t go anywhere in neutral but downhill.”

>

>

>

> Geoff Badenoch

>

>

>

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

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Tim Skufca

> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:18 AM

> *To:* Bob Jaffe

> *Cc:* missoulagov at cmslists.com

> *Subject:* Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-2-11

>

>

>

> Bob, et al:

> The conflict on Catlin is difficult only because there is a well organized

> neighborhood voice opposed, vs. much to support upzoning. I was certainly in

> the minority in my support for OPG's recommendation (as a Planning Board

> member).

>

> I judge the issues put before us on the Planning Board by reviewing the

> project in light of the Ten Principals to Smart Growth. Every single

> Principal was invoked here:

>

> 1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices

>

> 2. Create walkable neighborhoods

>

> 3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration

>

> 4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of

> place

>

> 5. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective

>

> 6. Mix land uses

>

> 7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical

> environmental areas

>

> 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices

>

> 9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

>

> 10. Take advantage of compact building design

>

> I recently applied for an opening at Mountain Line and as I left the

> building I realized that if I got the job I would not be able to use the bus

> service to get to work because of the hours of operation. It's with DENSITY

> that will allow extended hours of service. It's with DENSITY that the

> pressure upon the farmlands on the periphery can be reduced , it's with

> DENSITY that enables a neighborhood to be viable, livable, and walkable.

> DENSITY is how an urban environment can build efficiently, with energy

> consciousness.

> One of the biggest concerns from the neighbors was based on how

> difficult parking/traffic is already, mostly due to Sussex school events. It

> is a bad precedence to allow the automobile to dictate our neighborhoods. We

> should be wise enough to plan beyond the automobile in our urban core. Which

> brings me to comment on Russel St: it is better to delay than to proceed

> incorrectly. This corridor will have a tremendous affect on the livability

> of the neighborgood. Let's do it right.

>

> Tim Skufca

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> wrote:

>

> Greetings,

>

>

>

> The main item for me today was the rezone request for 217 Catlin Street.

> http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5591 This is the

> property across the street from the housing authority project on Catlin

> behind the Good Food Store. The parcel runs the full width of the block

> between Catlin and Garfield. The current zoning allows for 16 units per acre

> at a height of 35 feet. The developer is requesting to rezone the property

> to 43 units per acre at 45 feet. It is a 2+ acre parcel that could yield

> about 94 units at the proposed density. The developer’s stated intention is

> to build a complex of multi-family buildings with a total of 72 one bedroom

> units.

>

>

>

> As one may expect, the neighbors to the project are unhappy. They say that

> they welcome development of the parcel, but not at two or three times the

> currently allowed zoning. Unhappy is probably an understatement. Some of

> them are passionately displeased.

>

>

>

> This is the first controversial development proposal we have seen in quite

> some time. Possibly it’s a good omen for the economy.

>

>

>

> The issues are that we have various growth policies and transportation

> plans and visions for the future that all promote the virtues of infill and

> compact development near the urban core in proximity to services. But where

> is the limit? A few years ago we approved the UFDA plan (Urban Fringe

> Development A??). This document built off the premise that the historical

> growth in Missoula has been about 2% per year. So if we project out the next

> 20 years or so we figure we need so many additional units to be constructed.

> Then through some semi-scientific process figure out how many of those units

> should be absorbed in each section of town. Then we can look at the zoned

> potential of parcels that currently have an assessed land value that exceeds

> the assessed improvements value. This represents readily developable land.

>

>

>

> In this particular section, Russell to Reserve, the zoned potential of

> developable land can hold twice the number of units that we anticipate

> needing. So one may question why we would even consider allowing such a

> dramatic upzone when the current zoning supports adequate development for

> our long term growth plans.

> What we are being told is that even though the zoning density supports our

> growth plans, it does not support the cost of development. The developer’s

> representatives, Jamie Hoffman and Ken Jenkins, told us that you can not

> build at 16 units per acre and make money. Jamie said that of the nearly 30

> multi-family projects he has been involved in over the years only a few have

> been less than 20 units/acre. Generally they get built in commercial zones

> not encumbered by density limits.

>

>

>

> If this is indeed the case, then we have a bit of a problem. I know we have

> gone over this before but it has been a while. It would be nice if someone

> in the development community could do a little presentation on the economics

> of real estate development. Here are my wild ass guesses on this project:

> $400,000 for the land. I would hope there is some economy of scale when

> building something like this so lets say $90 per foot. 72 one bedroom units.

> Let’s guess 500 feet each. That comes to $3,640,000. Round it up to $4

> million with parking, landscaping, and whatever else may be involved.

>

>

>

> Then you figure brand new one bedroom units will rent for something like

> $600. So that works out to $518,400 per year in income at full occupancy.

> Take out $75,000 in management and maintenance and you get $443,400 in

> income per year. Does that pencil for a $4,000,000 investment? I’m not sure.

>

>

> When a developer looks at a project and says that doesn’t pencil, they must

> be using some rough numbers like I just did. It seems like this is the sort

> of thing we should be privy to as policy makers. From what we are being

> told, our policy is based on a reality that no longer exists in this

> community. I think we need to get to the bottom of this.

>

>

>

> The public hearing on the rezone will be Monday night.

>

>

>

> In other news, we heard an update from the fire department on all that they

> do. They have concerns about loss of grant money but all is well. We also

> approved a project to improve the pedestrian crossings into the University

> and had a lengthy discussion about proposals from the Bike Pedestrian board.

> The most actionable amongst them a request to form a subcommittee to develop

> options for how we will finance sidewalk projects in the future.

>

>

>

> Thanks for your interest,

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council Ward 3

>

> 1225 South 2nd West

>

> Missoula, MT 59801

>

> (406) 880-2052

>

>

>

>

>




--
_____________________
*Tim Skufca*
406-207-9300

[image: MUDsmall.jpg]
www.mudproject.org*

Check Out These Upcoming MUD Workshops**:*

*Knot Tying *- 2/2/11 - 7pm-9pm (COMPLETED)
*Eco Friendly Plaster Alternative* - 2/12/11 - 1pm-4pm (COMPLETED)
*Backyard Chicken Basics* - 3/12/11 - 1pm-4pm
*Tree Pruning *- 3/26/11 - 1pm-4pm
*Electric Fencing for Your Garden and Livestock* - 4/6/11 - 5:30pm-7pm

* *
*To get more information or to register, visit
http://www.mudproject.org/events.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20110304/57112101/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20110304/57112101/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the MissoulaGov mailing list