Updating the Rules
Missoula Zoning Debate Heats Up
The Missoula Consolidated Planning Board is hearing comment on a much-awaited update of the city's zoning and subdivision regulations. One lesson: definitions matter.By Peter Metcalf, 3-12-09
According to the current draft document updating Missoula’s zoning codes, a canopy is “a permanent roof-like structure extending from part or all of a building.” But a canopy can also be free-standing such as the covers over the pumps at a gas station, Gary Bakke of the Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce said. One man from the Rattlesnake suggested a definition for “density” be added.
Another asked that language on “group living” be more specific. And several people took aim at what is termed “accessory dwelling units,” essentially a second housing unit on the same lot. They argued the document’s language, if not tightened, will allow a proliferation of cheap rental units and substandard living conditions in established neighborhoods.
So it went Wednesday evening as the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board heard comment on a much-anticipated update of the city’s zoing and planning regulations. Whatever final form the definitions ultimately take will guide how terminology is interpreted throughout the document. The chapter on “Terminology” is a departure from the old documents scattered definitions and exemplify the revisions intention to make the updated zoning regulations more user friendly.
“The idea (for the chapter) was a one stop shop for the jargon,” the Planning Board’s Don MacArthur said.
Wednesday’s meeting was a continuation of public comments and Planning Board discussion that began Tuesday night as part of a public review process that is just getting underway. Several people offered comments of general support for the document and the process while a few women asked that the review process be slowed down to ensure full public participation and that the results come out right.
Even as the Board moves onto other chapters, the public will still have opportunity to comment on the definitions as they arise in other areas of the text, MacArthur said.
The Office of Planning and Grants says that the existing zoning regulations that govern development are woefully out-of-date, confusing and difficult to use. Last seriously revised in 1972, the rulebook is a hodgepodge of sometimes contradictory regulations cobbled together over the years as conflicts arose.
So two years ago OPG began the lengthy process of trying to modernize and clarify the existing code to bring it more in line with a 21st century Missoula, a decision supported by many of Missoula’s architects, builders and design professionals.
“The existing code is clearly broken,” Brent Campbell said, president and CEO of the WGM Group, a Missoula engineering and design firm. As a design professional, Campbell finds the new document clearer, easier to use and believes it represents a good compromise by all the interested parties.
But opposition to the rewrite has been growing lately. Opponents argue the updates will lead to more infill in Missoula and the deterioration of established neighborhoods.
The next meeting for public comment is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24th and Wednesday, March 25th. After the Planning Board finishes hearing public comments on the entire document, it will pass the document along with its recommendations on to the Missoula City Council for approval. That transmittal is most likely months away.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
It took 2 years for this draft document to be developed by professionals and those who's living depend on land use and building and development. Please give the citizens of Missoula at least that long to review the effects that the zoning changes will have on our properties and businesses. Much of our life savings and retirement planning is tied up in our homes,land and business and I need the time to understand the language and unintended consequences of making major changes to the current zoning laws.
As lay people we need at least as long to review this and understand how it effects us. I had been led to believe that our neighborhood wouldn't change and that OPG and the developers were working on it but they were "just cleaning up" the language.
The Code Rewrite has been described to the community from day one as comprehensive regulatory reform that would address policy issues. After discussion at numerous public meetings City Council directed staff to engage Missoulians in a policy discussion. The consultant and OPG staff have done their best at every step to clearly identify for the public and decision makers areas where policy decisions are needed. Please check out http://www.zoningmissoula.com for all the details.
Here is the chronology of the City Council's decision to embark on a comprehensive rewrite. Supporting documentation is available if anyone would care to see it.
OPG Interlocal Quarterly meeting February 28, 2007 - In a review and confirmation of City and County goals for OPG in 2007 I raised the issue of the scope of the rewrite. "By asking a consultant to make a list of what worked and what did not work in the current zoning ordinance, we would receive responses related to process and to policy. You can not open up Pandora's Box part-way." I was concerned that once we asked citizens what they thought was broken and needed to be fixed that we would be expected to act on what they came up with, whether it was a policy issue or not. After some discussion, Council President Childers requested that I make a referral to the Council Plat Annexation and Zoning Committee (PAZ) for expanding the focus of the zoning ordinance rewrite before selecting a consultant.
PAZ March 21, 2007 - I gave a powerpoint presentation that outlined the proposal to extend the scope of the zoning revisions to include policy considerations. The purpose of the discussion was to gather feedback from City Council for issues and concerns that should be included in staff's negotiation with the consultant. At the conclusion staff was instructed to include the broader charge in the scope of work for the project and committee members indicated that support for the more complete rewrite would be reflected in the vote to approve a contract.
PAZ April 18, 2007 - PAZ action on a staff referral to enter into a contract with Duncan and Associates for the "City of Missoula Zoning Rewrite Project." After discussion the motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract was approved unanimously.
City Council April 23, 2007 - The contract with Duncan and Associates was removed from the consent agenda and then approved 11-0 with one abstention in Committee Reports. Council member Wilkins abstained.
PAZ May 15, 2007 - Duncan and Associates Project Manager Kirk Bishop was introduced to the City Council. Council members quizzed him on his team and on his approach to a comprehensive rewrite.
Town Hall Meeting June 27, 2007 - Slide 2 of the powerpoint presentation given at the first public meeting describes the project as a "comprehensive overhaul of the zoning ordinance."
Actually , Roger you must have misunderstood my question above. I asked how the project to clean up the language became a REZONING...
That's why I don't go to meetings.
Chuck -- I think Roger did understand your question and went to great lengths to answer it. He addressed, with facts and documentation, your misconceptions that the zoning rewrite proposal was intended by your elected City Council only to "clean up the language" and that it's somehow a "rezoning."
Your most specific comment was that
... "there are lot's of chnges in density, heights, setbacks, more houses on smaller lots in existing neighborhoods and on and on.."
There are certainly rumors circulating to this effect, but in reality the recommended changes in density, height, and setbacks in the proposal as it stands now are so minor that your comment would have to be considered an exaggeration, to the point of misrepresentation. Also, it is not a rezoning, and those who believe it is should try to back up that claim with facts.
I'm not sure I understand why you are advocating two years' worth of meetings to consider this, when you don't go to meetings?
Although I have retired from the "community conversation" I would appreciate an up or down vote on this one.
Am I the only one who is a bit miffed by the "a few women" comment? Besides the fact that many people, men and women, asked and have asked regularly for a slowdown, I think the comment is really inappropriate.
This is a tough, divisive issue for everyone. OPG is working hard. The Planning Board is working hard. Citizen groups are working hard. Everyone is working hard on both sides of the issues here. Comments about "a few women" can really be unneccessarily inflamatory. Could we all be a bit more sensitive about how we characterize proponents AND opponents on these issues? That would be awesome. Thanks.