City focuses code reform on residential districts
Martin Kidston
(Missoula Current) With the flavor of Missoula's neighborhoods on the line and the ability to boost density through infill development on the table, the City Council on Wednesday dove into specific areas of the new land use plan while offering amendments on issues related to residential districts.
The session punctuated the challenge ahead as the city mulls through the breadth of code reform in a push to streamline development, address the city's housing stock and create opportunities for housing affordability.
“We are doing something unprecedented,” said council member Sean McCoy. “We have to shape this clay as we go. We have to take it, and if we make mistakes, go back and do it again. We have to weave through our best process as we go.”
The city began Wednesday's effort by taking up specific amendments regarding residential districts, including a no-max limit on dwelling units per building in certain zoning districts. It also explored changes to the “floor to area ratio” to boost infill development, and tools to promote residential building over commercial projects.
“If the goal is focusing inward on infill development to encourage or promote affordable housing and equity in housing, we have to allow developers to have all the tools they need to be able to make those developments come to fruition,” Campbell said of his amendment. “With the price of land – the increase of everything – we need to make every effort to accommodate as best we can the flexibility to bring projects to fruition.”
As written, the current proposal looks to strike a balance between preserving neighborhood character while also introducing greater density into those neighborhoods. As one staff member put it, the language provides “a tool we can use to make sure buildings aren't out of scale with what's on the ground right now.”
Broken down, the current language would allow the same number of living units on a parcel, but in an array of smaller buildings. If amended with the no-max exception, the change would allow the same number of units but in a larger building.
“This does not dictate density or the number of units allowed on the parcels overall,” said city planner Cassie Trippard. “With our without this tool, you'd get the same number of units on the parcel. It's just you're going to get the larger structures on larger parcels than you would without the tool. It might just have you break up the buildings into separate buildings than what's allowed in a one structure.”
Trippard added that as written, the newly adopted took would help introduce missing middle housing into areas currently considered low density neighborhoods.
“This is a tool to introduce four and six plexus, more infill but keeping building sizes in line with what's on the ground, rather than introducing a higher intensity building that's out of scale in these neighborhoods we're introducing density into,” she said.
But the language as written may have unintended consequences, if several recent projects are considered. Among them, the Villagio – a large permanently affordable, multi-family project with 200 units – may not be possible if caps remain in place.
Council member Mike Nugent said the Villagio entered the planning phase with a goal to achieve a number of smaller buildings. But as the project went on, the development team found that it wouldn't pencil as planned, forcing a shift to the larger buildings that were eventually built.
“My concern, if that (current language) was the current zoning when the project came forward, we wouldn't have the current 200 affordable units, because it just wouldn't pencil,” Nugent said. “If it doesn't pencil for a Missoula Housing Authority, there's concern for the same in other areas as well.”
Council members considered other amendments to residential districts as well. One, offered by council member Jennifer Savage, looks to increase the floor-to-area-ratio in one specific zoning district to make way for more infill development.
“I want to allow for more infill. I want to make sure infill projects can pencil. I've heard for years that's been an issue,” said Savage.
For similar reasons, council member Betsy Craske sought to increase the maximum height of buildings in two zoning districts. The measure was adopted by the Planning Board in December and could be considered as code reform moves forward.
Craske cited a recent public survey which found that 81 percent of residents don't believe Missoula has enough housing options for all family sizes and income levels. Another 58 percent said the lack of housing options makes it hard to envision long-term residency in Missoula.
“Two-thirds of residents want the city to prioritize more homes for reduced costs, even when it means taller buildings,” said Craske. “We need to acknowledge a basic reality: If we keep our existing residential neighborhoods caped at the current height limits, we will not produce enough housing to meet the needs of our community.”
Craske said the results of code reform must consider Missoula's housing needs for the next 20 years.
“This one-story increase gives us flexibility to build more family-sized, missing-middle housing in places that already have infrastructure and access to jobs, schools and services. It doesn't introduce high rises and does not change neighborhood scale.”
The city is expected to work through code reform over the next several weeks.