Ana səhifə

Journal of proceedings missoula city council meeting


Yüklə 157.08 Kb.
səhifə2/3
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü157.08 Kb.
1   2   3




Recommended motion:




Approve/Adopt/Deny the entitlement to claim an exemption for the boundary line relocation proposed for 714 & 714 1/2 Cooley Street, as required by Section 8.040.4.E.(2)(d) of the Missoula City Subdivision Regulations when lots with fee simple access to two (or fewer) public roads are to be redesigned or rearranged in a manner that results in the elimination of an existing fee simple access or reduction of access to less than five feet (5') in width, subject to the conditions included in the planning staff comment.





Mayor Engen said, with the staff report this evening is Ms. McCrea and we’ll work on a little technology while the Commissioners depart. Mr. O’Herron, would you like to reclaim a comfortable chair?
Mary McCrea, Senior Planner, Development Services, said, I’ll be presenting a subdivision exemption to relocate common boundaries. NormanJoseph Rock, Jr., represented by Tanner Wilson of Granite Creek Engineering and Ed Flemings of Ed Flemings Surveying request to refigure the boundary lines for property located at 714 & 714 1/2 Cooley Street. The property is located in Northside Neighborhood on Cooley Street near the intersection of Holmes Street. The property consists of two lots with two existing houses. The rear house was constructed in 1956 and the front house in 1971. The left diagram shows the layout currently with the common boundary between Lot 41 and Lot 42, running through both existing homes. The applicant’s goal is to place both homes on their own lot. City Subdivision Regulations require a public hearing at City Council for this exemption because the front lot will not have fee simple access to both Cooley Street and the alley. The front lot will have an easement to the alley but not fee simple access. The center diagram shows the original exemption request with both lots maintaining fee simple access to both the alley and Cooley Street, however, this layout creates a nonconforming sideyard setback between the existing house and the new proposed boundary line. The reconfigured boundary line is shown in blue and the center diagram and the nonconforming sideyard setback is shown in red. There’s no reconfiguration of boundary lines that would provide fee simple access to the street and the alley for both existing homes without creating a nonconforming sideyard setback. The right diagram shows an amended site map with the reconfigured boundary line in blue and a five-foot wide pedestrian access easement from the front lot to the alley shown in gold. The applicant also provided a 10-foot by 20-foot parking easement on the rear lot to maintain the off-street parking space for the front lot. The property is zoned RM1-45. The minimum lot size is 3,000 in this zoning district. The rear house will be on a 5,765 square-foot lot. The front house will be on a 3,212 square-foot lot. Both lots will conform to the minimum lot size of the zoning district. All setbacks on the rear house are conforming currently and will remain conforming after the boundary line relocation. The front house is conforming to the zoning setbacks for the rear and side yards. The current front yard setback is nonconforming, however, the nonconformity will not increase as a result of the boundary line relocation. There are three existing parking spaces accessed from the alley, two are for the rear lot and one is for the front lot. Title 20 requires two off-street parking spaces for each home. The front lot is nonconforming as to the zoning parking requirements. The amended site map includes a parking easement for one parking space thereby retaining the existing parking for the front lot. The utility easement has been provided for the existing sewer line serving the front house to cross the rear lot. City Engineering recommended a 15-foot wide utility easement along the eastern property boundary extending from Cooley Street to the alley. This easement will allow sewer and water lines to be replaced if and when existing lines are in need of major repair. The amended site map shows the utility easement per City Engineering’s recommendation. If Council chooses to approve the boundary line relocation, staff recommends the following motion upon the screen. Essentially it’s approval of the exemption subject to three conditions. Condition #1 requires the parking easement to retain the single parking space for the front lot. Condition #2 requires the pedestrian access easement providing access for the front lot to the alley and their parking space. And Condition #3 requires the 15-foot wide utility easement along the eastern property boundary for both lots as recommended by City Engineering. And that concludes my presentation. Ed Fleming, with Ed Fleming Surveying, is here if you would have questions for him as well.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. McCrea. Mr. Fleming, would you like to speak on behalf of the applicant?
Mr. Fleming was off the microphone.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. That was a no at this point. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone care to address any questions on this boundary line relocation proposal? Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. Are there questions from Council? Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, so is the alley paved?
Mr. Fleming said yeah.
Alderman Wilkins said, all the way through, the alley’s paved?
Mayor Engen said, we’re getting nods from the audience that the alley is indeed paved.
Alderman Wilkins said, thank you.
Mayor Engen said, any additional questions? Seeing none, Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, thank you. I move that the City Council approve the exemption with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Engen said, that motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we’ve had a public hearing. We’ll have a roll call vote.
MOTION
Alderman Jaffe made a motion to approve the entitlement to claim an exemption for the boundary line relocation proposed for 714 & 714 1/2 Cooley Street, as required by Section 8.040.4.E.(2)(d) of the Missoula City Subdivision Regulations when lots with fee simple access to two (or fewer) public roads are to be redesigned or rearranged in a manner that results in the elimination of an existing fee simple access or reduction of access to less than five feet (5') in width, subject to the conditions included in the planning staff comment.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Childers, Copple, Haines, Hertz, Jaffe, Marler, O’Herron, Strohmaier, Taft, Wilkins, Wolken
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wiener
Motion carried: 11 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstain, 1 Absent






3.

Ordinance establishing residency requirements for certain city department heads.




Recommended motion:




(First reading and preliminary adoption)  Preliminary adopt an ordinance of the Missoula City Council establishing Chapter 2.82, Sections 2.82.010 through 2.82.050 Missoula Municipal Code entitled "Establishment of Continuous Residency Requirements within the City Limits for City Department Heads."




Mayor Engen said, and this evening I’ll ask Councilwoman Wolken to offer her staff report, as it were, on this item.
Alderwoman Wolken said, sure. Well, I had actually talked with several Council people about this and I got some amendments from Mr. O’Herron this afternoon, some proposed amendments, so I’m happy if we can just send it back to the committee after the public hearing and have further discussion there so a staff can and employees can familiarize themselves with the two proposals out there. Your proposal, which I…completely acceptable, that’s fine with me and then the other proposal. So, I’m hoping that maybe we can do that and get some clarification from the full Council on what they’d like to talk about in committee, if there’s anything else anybody else would want to discuss.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Wolken. With that, I will open the public hearing with a reminder that the item will most likely head back to committee for further consideration. Anyone care to comment on the residency requirement this evening? Commissioner Curtiss?
Jean Curtiss said, I live in the City. I’ve lived here since 1974, paid taxes all that time. I just would like to say that I would hope that you would look at hiring people for the skills that they bring to the job and not where they live. So, my reason is that sometimes when people move here I know that you are in the process of looking for a new Director for your Development Services Department, for example. When that person moves here, when we bring in folks of the caliber that we want to work in some of those higher paying jobs, they often come with a spouse who will need to look for work and that sometimes means they choose to locate somewhere where they can kind of share the distance to work. We’ve seen that happen with some of the folks that we’ve hired, where they wanted to live between here and Hamilton cause maybe their spouse worked at the labs in Hamilton or something like that. Also, I know the property that I own, I bought from my grandmother’s estate. Sometimes people want to live where they live because of family connections. And I think that your past Public Works Director is a fine example of someone who did not live in the City limits but definitely always represented urban ideas and urban requirements with things like complete streets. So, I just think that where people live does not make them a better employee than where they don’t. Thank you.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else this evening? Ms. Matthew-Jenkins?
Kandi Mathew-Jenkins, 1211 Cooper, said, since apparently the last…didn’t take on the tape recording, I should quickly say what I said then and that’s I support employees of the City living in the City very much and also I would like to see that any employee that is going to work for the City government be in residence in the City for at least five years before applying for any position in the City. And, I can’t remember the other one but I think that Missoula, for as long as I can remember, I have been here since 1971, and for as long as I can remember we’ve always imported out of staters to do the job that Missoulians should be able to do. We have a University up here that has...if we’re concerned about environment, we have environmental students up there. If we’re concerned about our legal system, we have a law school up there but yet we bring in other people from New York, California and all over to sit on our boards, to run our planning and zoning and to eventually become Councilmembers of an area that they have no real vested interest in. And I think that it’s tantamount anymore to a community to be…their government to be participatory in the living environment that they’re also making rules over. And I really think this is a great idea, I really do, and I would love to see it extended. And I don’t want anybody’s job to go away. I think that as we change jobs, I forget what that’s called when you turn over jobs, that we take those into consideration and I think that that should be part of the deal. And I think it’s about time that Missoulians run Missoula.
Mayor Engen said, anyone else care to comment this evening? With that, I will close the public hearing and would someone like to make a motion to return the item to committee? Mr. O’Herron?
Alderman O’Herron said, I would like to make that motion and may I comment on it as well?
Mayor Engen said, yeah, you know, I should take some questions if anyone has any this evening that you’ll want to address on Wednesday. Okay. Questions? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, the only part I have a question about was the one sentence that said any individual employed by the City of Missoula that resides within the City limits on the effective date of this ordinance, including department heads and supervisory managers, may move outside the City limits but may only move within Missoula County. The part…the restriction of non-department heads…if I’m reading this right, all employees of the City of Missoula will be required to live within the County. Am I reading that right?
Mayor Engen said, you’re probably reading it right. I don’t know whether that’s the intention, we can certainly address that.
Alderman Jaffe said, alright, anyway, that…
Mayor Engen said, okay.
Alderman Jaffe said, I’m not sure that…why we do that.
Mayor Engen said, okay. Mr. Haines?
Alderman Haines said, are you taking just general comments?
Mayor Engen said, well, you know, it will be available for comment in committee.
Alderman Haines said, I understand that. I just wanted…
Mayor Engen said, particular questions tonight?
Alderman Haines said, I wanted to put something on the…in the record now that would…might…somebody may want to do some work before they get to committee.
Mayor Engen said, yes, sir.
Alderman Haines said, okay. I just would like to see, and I think you touched on it in some of your proposal, looking at it earlier today, I’d like to see some kind of a process for somebody coming in here either coming here or already here, it that could say to appeal to, I don’t know, like City Council or appeal to you and say, can I have an exception to this? I think with somebody that might have a 4-Her, for instance. You know, it’s kind of tough to raise a steer in downtown Missoula. It might be some reason that they might want to live out in there where they have a couple of horses or something like that. And I think there should be a process where they come and make the case for that and let us say, okay, we can do this, this is not setting a precedent for everybody but it is for this one particular situation, something like that, which I think we discuss in committee, but I want to see people thinking about it. Thank you.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Haines. Anyone else? Mr. O’Herron?
Alderman O’Herron said, thank you. I did also pick up on what Bob was talking about and I’ve got some comments that somebody posed…I think the Clerk’s office posted a version that I…of the last one…the last thing that we saw coming to our inbox I think was the Mayor’s deliverable on Saturday morning and I took that version in Word, excuse me, Microsoft Word and put in some fairly non-substantive edits but also some comments in comment boxes that show up in the right hand margin, but I don’t think they showed up in the pdf on the…what’s posted right now on our website. But a couple of comments I made, one of the one that Bob made, I think we have to clarify what the intent is because right now it sounds like a current City employee can move out of the City but can’t move out of the County and it’s not related to being a department head or not, so I think we have to clarify what the intent is or fix it. Also, there’s a…the next little paragraph which ends in the termination of the individual as a department head, so it’s failure of the department head or supervisory manager to comply would result in automatic termination as a department head but it’s not clear whether they would then take another status as a City employee or be terminated completely from City employment, so I think we have to clear that up too, whatever the intent was there. And I’m not sure if I’m going to support this or not when it comes out for vote but I did read through and find these edits and I wanted to at least get this part clarified before we deliberate for final consideration.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. O’Herron. Anyone else for anything on Wednesday, is that when we’ll be able to take it, Ms. Wolken?
Alderwoman Wolken said, I’d like to schedule it a week from Wednesday.
Mayor Engen said, a week from Wednesday. Thank you very much. Alright, well we’ll work on some of those puzzles and be back. Anything else on this item? Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, yeah, one thing that would be helpful and maybe this has been discussed previously in A&F but one thing that would be helpful to know is which of the list of City department heads and supervisory managers are already subject to Council confirmation. I’m not at all real enthusiastic about the proposal on the table right now but I think it would be a helpful discussion point to know what overlap, if any, there is between the positions listed here and the ones that we confirm already.
Mayor Engen said, alright.
Alderman O’Herron said, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Engen said, yes, sir.
Alderman O’Herron said, Mayor, may I make one more comment?
Mayor Engen said, sure.
Alderman O’Herron said, just for people paying attention to the process, whether it’s on TV or in the…if the paper covers it, it should be clear that at least the last couple of proposals we’re seeing for consideration only apply to people that are hired in the future. All City employees are exempt from residency requirements as are being proposed to be changed with this ordinance. So, anyone who’s employed by the City now, no matter where they live, are eligible to become department heads or supervisory managers but this would take…this would apply to people that are hired after it was adopted, so I think that has to be clear to everybody that cares because a lot of the comments we got through email were about all City employees and how it would affect them. So, at least we have to make sure everybody knows that the scope is narrow. Thanks.
Mayor Engen said, thank you. Alright, with that, that item has been returned to committee. We have no additional public hearings this evening.





VIII.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR - None




IX.

GENERAL COMMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL
Alderwoman Marler said it’s great to be back. She had a wonderful time in Viet Nam and wanted to thank the U.S. State Department for sending her there on a fellowship. Her father went to Viet Nam during the Viet Nam war and now she had a chance to go. It was a completely different experience from his but it was wonderful and she looks forward to talking to anyone who would like to hear about that trip. She has a lot of pictures. Thanks again to the U.S. State Department and to the Mansfield Center at the University of Montana. Also, she welcomed Dave Strohmaier back to the Landuse Planning Committee so he should from now on be listed as a committee member.
Alderman Strohmaier announced that Tuesday evening, from 7 to 8:45 at the Missoula Public Library, the City Parks and Rec Department will be hosting a workshop to take input on park facilities throughout the City of Missoula. Also, there will be a ribbon cutting ceremony on Friday at the new parking structure at the corner of Pattee and Front Street, which has been under construction for quite a while. This is an opportunity for people to take a look at it and to witness the Mayor cut the ribbon. The festivities begin at 4:00 p.m. and the ribbon cutting will be at 5:00 p.m. Also, Alderman Strohmaier will be participating in the Public Safety and Security Committee of the Missoula County Public Schools. This is in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre recently. We’re looking here in the City of Missoula about how we can improve safety within our schools so if folks have any comments that they would like him to take to that committee, they can contact him. Currently there is an application being reviewed by the Surface Transportation Board of the U.S. Department of Transportation to construct the so-called Tongue River Railroad in southeast Montana. We’ve had discussion here before about the proposed coal export facilities on the west coast and what that might mean for coal train traffic through the City of Missoula. To make that proposal happen there has to be a new railroad built in southeast Montana so if folks have an interest in that, he’d encourage them to write the Surface Transportation Board. He was in Washington, D.C. a couple of weeks ago making his case to members of Congress that the Surface Transportation Board should not only look at the environmental impacts of the corridor for the Tongue River Railroad but look at all the down line impacts from southeast Montana to Bellingham, Washington, which passes right through Missoula. If interested in that, contact either the Surface Transportation Board or your congressional delegation here in the state of Montana.
Alderman Wilkins announced that Wednesday at 11:05 a.m. to noon, they’re going to be talking about the amendments to accessory dwelling units and the parking that goes along with it. He knows there’s a lot of people interested in it because his phone keeps ringing off the wall. Here’s your time to chime in on some of this so he hopes to see people there.
Alderwoman Wolken said something exciting happened at the Legislature this afternoon. Senate Judiciary Committee passed out of their committee Senate Joint Resolution 19 which is a resolution encouraging the implementation of I-166 which is basically our state’s call to end corporate personhood and something that the Missoulian got to voice their opinion on at ballot referendum in 2011, so that’s very exciting. Hopefully, if people are interested, they can contact their Senators and ask them to vote for it on the floor. This was sponsored by Missoula County Senator Cliff Larsen. It’s pretty exciting and she hopes it passes the Senate and roll the dice in the house.





X.

COMMITTEE REPORTS




1.

Administration and Finance Committee




a.

Minutes dated February 13, 2013




b.

Minutes dated February 20, 2013




2.

Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee




a.

Minutes dated February 20, 2013




3.

Public Safety and Health Committee




a.

Minutes dated February 13, 2013




b.

Minutes dated February 20, 2013




4.

Public Works Committee




a.

Minutes dated February 13, 2013
1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət