Charlie Ream, Associate Planner, Community Planning, Development & Innovation
STAFF PRESENTATION
Development Services has received a request from James Sage of Missoula Engineering, LLC to rezone the subject property at 2145 W Sussex Ave. and legally described Lots 13-16 in Block 28 of Carline Addition, located in Section 29, Township 13 North, Range 19 West, P.M.M. from RM2.7 Residential (Multi-dwelling) to RM1-45 Residential (Multi-dwelling). The requested RM1-45 zoning district is a standard district that applies equally to other areas of the city with the same RM1-45 zoning designation. City Council either approves or denies the rezoning request and cannot approve it subject to conditions per MCA 76-2-302.
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s rezoning submittal packet and recommends approval.
See the PowerPoint presentation slides.
There was no additional public comment during the meeting. Three public comment emails had been received too late to put into the agenda packet.
Mr. Morrissey asked if there were on-site parking requirements and if there was a unit size limit.
Charlie Ream stated all parking is required to be on-site and the amount is dependent on the size of the units. New developments require either one or two spaces per unit.
Mr. Morrissey confirmed the developer wouldn’t be required to buffer the building height down to an adjacent residential zone with a lower height limit.
Charlie Ream confirmed.
Ms. Costello asked if the rules for spot zoning could be provided.
Ms. Tripard shared the spot-zoning test in a slide and noted all three criteria must be met to constitute spot zoning.
- The proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area.
- The area in which the requested use is to apply is rather small from the perspective of concern with the number of separate landowners benefited from the proposed change.
- The change is special legislation designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the public.
Ms. Tripard noted that the biggest argument for it to not be considered spot zoning is related to growth policy compliance. There are a lot of areas in Missoula where the zoning does not comply with the growth policy, and this is one of them. The growth policy allows for higher density than the current zoning allows for. Although this is a small area being rezoned to comply with the growth policy, ideally over time the rest of the neighborhood would rezone. She noted that all the neighboring properties would be eligible to rezone to the same district.
Mr. Hall addressed one of the written concerns that said that increased building is increasing prices. He noted that when there is increased supply it lowers prices. He empathized with neighbors facing increased density but also said that we need density. He stated several concerns were addressed by not having on-street parking. He noted that the growth policy anticipates that we grow from the center out and helps meet the goal of providing more housing. He stated that he understood the comments and concerns but was also in favor of the project.
Mr. Bensen asked if Mr. James Sage would explain what he was planning to do with the property.
Mr. Sage stated the plans were still being worked out. He stated he’d like to be able to build as many units as possible. He stated there are site constraints, but the location and transportation were prime, and he’d like to build between 6-9 units.
Mr. Bensen stated he shared the sentiments that Mr. Hall had. He believed putting people in mixed residential areas was a great idea and solution for the long run.
Mr. Pham asked if there were legislative bills that allowed multi-unit development on existing lots and if it impacted parking. He asked if the owner could build multiple units right away or if there was a parking requirement.
Ms. Tripard stated there were a few bills that had passed during the year. She clarified the bill was mandating allowances for multi-dwelling, business, and commercial districts. She stated that the bill limited zoning in B & C districts to require one parking space per unit. She said that the bill didn’t impact the property rezone since it was in a residential district.
Mr. Pham asked if the rezoning wasn’t approved, would there be no ability to require parking with new buildings that might make parking worse.
Ms. Tripard stated the existing and new zoning parking requirements were the same and they apply to new units even those without rezoning.
Ms. Gilels addressed public comment saying there had been cause for concern with some projects allowing for a significantly different building height. She said the proposed development is at the end of the block across from the commercial district. She believed it was an appropriate location, close to the commercial districts that had taller buildings.
Mr. Kanwischer addressed public questions and concerns with parking density. He said all Missoula neighborhoods were being impacted by higher density. He encouraged and advised the Planning Board to help people thrive by increasing livability and growing sustainably. He generally asked all developers if folks were being displaced. He wondered if there were programs in the community that tracked and documented these occurrences.
Mr. Sage stated there would be no displacement of residents on the property. He said the existing structure is an old welding and machine shop. He stated he grew up on the property and knows everyone in the neighborhood.
Mr. Kanwischer stated he wasn’t pointing a finger at anyone specifically but wanted to address his concern about displacement generally.
Mr. Loomis commented that incremental intensive neighborhood changes were dramatic and a shock to those affected. He gave an example of a similar project that occurred 20 years prior and how density, size, and height positively affected a neighborhood in Missoula. He said it also became a consistent pattern for developers. He said there would need to be an adjustment period for the community to get used to the change. He said he didn’t feel like more units equaled lower prices. He said if the supply increases and there is a demand for apartments those apartments may be affordable. He said the property was consistent with the land use and zoning.
Recommended Motion
The Planning Board recommends the adoption of an ordinance to rezone the subject property located at 2145 W Sussex Ave. and legally described Lots 13-16 in Block 28 of Carline Addition, located in Section 29, Township 13 North, Range 19 West, P.M.M. from RM2.7 Residential (Multi-dwelling) to RM1-45 Residential (Multi-dwelling), based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the staff report.
Ms. Gilels made the motion to approve the request and Mr. Bensen seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy said he was concerned that the staff wasn’t addressing all the growth policy goals in the analysis. He gave Goal 4, “provide for the diverse housing needs while protecting the strong sense of place in the community and neighborhood,” as an example. He said it was important to protect the character of the neighborhoods. He said he didn’t want to see Missoula neighborhoods be steamrolled into something unrecognizable. He asked how properties are going to be affected by height and setbacks when code reform is updated. He said as code reform approached those topics need to be addressed. He addressed public comment stating the consistent themes seemed to be parking, overdevelopment, noise, and safety. He said the issue of noise seemed coming up frequently. He said this was a topic that needed to be elevated.
Mr. Pham stated he was glad code reform came up. He said sitting on the committee for that, density is a huge concern while affordability was a top priority. He said the only way to address affordability was with supply. He said the price of housing had outpaced the percentage of income required for housing across the nation. He said a priority was looking at density and addressing the zoning code form. This would preserve neighborhood setbacks without sacrificing density.
Ms. Costello said she echoed a lot of the Planning Board's concerns with what choices to make for growth. She said it was a good site for more infill, especially with the adjacent commercial property. She said the Board was aware of Franklin the Fort's public concerns with zoning changes and taller buildings blocking out and shading out their yards and homes. She said it was hard to navigate all the different community needs. She said Sussex was a greenway and the density was a good thing. It was in a location that encouraged accessible non-motorized traffic.
The Board voted by roll call and the motion passed unanimously.