Professional Documents
Culture Documents
And also:
Then we took up the zoning rewrite. Dave had thankfully dropped the
idea of revisiting the sign chapter. He had a pile of other minor edits
that passed without objection. Jason offered an amendment to the
section that establishes density in multifamily zones. Currently the
density ranges from 1000-2500 feet of lot per unit depending on the
number of bedrooms. The number of parking spaces is also based on
the number of bedrooms. The new rule attempts to simplify by just
setting a base square feet of lot per unit and the parking is calculated
off of the square feet of the unit instead of bedrooms. At the very
beginning of the committee review a million years ago, we pegged that
base amount at 1500 feet. Jason proposed changing that to 1000 feet.
The motion passed. So in a multifamily zone, like the current B, a
person can build at one unit per thousand feet of lot size as long as
they meet the parking, setback, and other requirements.
Then Jason restated the main motion to repeal title 19 and pass title
20. We had some discussion about whether it was appropriate to move
forward while there was pending litigation. Some thought not, the
majority of us thought yes. Jon Wilkins spoke about how he is worried
that maybe there is something here that we are doing wrong, or
maybe there is something hiding in the new code we don’t understand.
He also suggested that there is no time sensitivity to this and we may
as well wait as long as it takes to get every question answered to
everyone’s satisfaction. I’m pretty sure there will always be folks out
there planting seeds of doubt and universal satisfaction is not
attainable.
During the subsequent public comment, Joe Easton pointed out that he
had two projects on hold waiting for the new code. He is also the board
president for homeWORD and they have a project on hold waiting for
the new code. Jon Wilkins responded by warning us all that Joe had a
financial interest in all of this so we should discount his testimony. I’m
really baffled by that perspective. When we were discussing the
building height issue we were told we should defer to the architects to
tell us what to do. Don’t they all have a financial interest in the
outcome of that decision? When we were considering electronic signs
we were told to defer to the business owners and sign companies.
Don’t they all have a financial interest that is motivating their
comments? This would also go for west broadway business owners
who don’t like the diet and at least half of the people who give us
public comment on any given issue. I also see a contradiction in
saying you support good jobs in the construction industry, but don’t
believe the interests or opinions of a developer should be considered.
Without developers there isn’t a whole lot of construction. These were
all things I would have loved to discuss on the floor but it was off topic
and we didn’t have time.
In the end we voted to approve the new zoning code and send it to the
floor on October 5th. The vote was 7 to 4 with Renee, Lyn, Jon, and
John voting against. Dick had left to get to another meeting before we
got to the vote.
Bob Jaffe
Missoula City Council, Ward 3
1225 South 2nd West
Missoula, MT 59801
(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.