Testing Surveys

Test comment -n check for submission when there is no email ID in admin acknowledgement field.

Test comment -n check for submission when there is no email ID in admin acknowledgement field

Hellotesting

The online Draft version is unapproachable. Print is tiny, text is dense and occasionally nonsensical as if it was cut/pasted and not proof-read. There are too many moving parts, and the jargon is thick. I get that it's a draft, but it's daunting. Makes me, with humble expertise merely as a lifelong Missoulian, feel ill-equipped to comment. Makes my concerns feel irrelevant. Indeed, I'm not usually inclined to offer my two cents on topics I don't have a firm grasp on. But on this topic I feel an urgency that's caused me countless sleepless nights. So I'll try to talk mostly about what I do know. My primary qualifications are that I've lived in Missoula since birth. I attended public schools and the UM, worked here, shopped here, biked, walked, hiked, driven thousands of miles and scored many hundreds of parking spaces within our small valley. My spouse and I met here, made a life here, and our kids started out intending to make their lives here as well - all from a single place in Ward 6 that we somehow manage to still call home. For now. Having been designated as a high-density urban residential place-type (ca. 2015?), that stability came under threat by zoning changes that divided our neighborhood’s lots, obstructed our views and natural light, altered or destroyed routes and pathways, and increased my grievances toward on-street parking, commuter and commercial traffic, glare, screaming emergency vehicles, collisions and close-calls, trash, debris, dust, offensive odors, respiratory illnesses, the number of rental properties and homeless souls staggering through, looking for somewhere to go. And I can't help thinking, “There, but for the grace of God, go I…” because, in exchange for these enormous sacrifices, we're nickled and dimed to death by property taxes that are inching us closer and closer to being out on the street. These changes have helped bring an end to growing our own food, to having reasons to be outside, and to meaningful interaction with neighbors and strangers alike, among other things. Suffice it to say my mood has been foul, and now this proposal comes along and I feel like another hammer is about to drop. Granted, growing communities suffer growing pains. But Missoula can do better. As a lifelong Missoulian, *I* expect better. Based more on my lived daily experience than on my cursory comprehension of the Draft, please afford me this chance to articulate some specific thoughts or observations about how we might hope to do better, to remediate inequities and restore balance that might bring us some peace of mind and offer a sense of stability. 1. Dial back density targets in UR The proposal's suggestion to distribute diverse housing types across ALL neighborhoods is encouraging. But the stated “Inward Focus” priority is at complete odds with that vision. Mixed-income neighborhoods, where diverse households have mingled, where their kids have historically grown, learned, played together, was disrupted in the past two growth policies. Balanced housing distribution and opportunities will ensure that every neighborhood shares both benefits and challenges equitably. 2. Remedy Economic Segregation in Zoning Likewise, past policies aimed at curbing sprawl have, in practice, reinforced class divides. Take Lower Miller Creek, for example, where taxpayer-funded infrastructure (vis a vis the abandonment of Cold Springs School and adoption of Jeannette Rankin) primarily benefited wealthier residents, leaving areas experiencing increased density, like Ward 6, underserved. Such imbalances foster inequity, and where there's inequity, there's resentment. 3. Demand Compliance, Accountability and Transparency Future policies must safeguard against development that exploits public resources for exclusive projects, meanwhile ensuring underrepresented areas receive just and equitable investment. 4. Preserve, Expand and Create Green Spaces and Pathways in Ward 6 Distribution of these types of amenities in Missoula is glaringly imbalanced compared to others, and increased density in UR would just make that worse. We deserve the same consideration for green spaces and opportunities to be outside that lower-density neighborhoods enjoy. 5. Recognize the Environmental Impacts on Residents Dealing with Density Trends Increased density in areas like Ward 6 has led to significant environmental challenges. Visible ground ozone, light pollution, absurd traffic patterns, noise, glare from concrete and vehicles that radiate scorching sun, seasonal inversions, wildfire smoke, etc. is all exacerbated by the loss of trees, lawns and gardens, and absurd traffic patterns that concentrate pollutants in already burdened areas. A pledge toward equity would distribute density more evenly across wards and zones with thoughtful, common sense consideration of environmental impacts. 6. Reassess Parking and Transit Proposals Reducing off-street parking without viable, imminent public transit alternatives, exacerbates congestion, safety risks, and environmental challenges. For many residents juggling work, school, and family, cars remain a necessity and possibly always will. Even the most robust public transit system is unlikely to meet the diversity of needs that drive us to drive. Missoula needs more off-street parking options, not fewer. Covered structures or underground lots would help alleviate some of the aforementioned environmental impacts, as well as improve safety and increase maintenance efficiency. 7. Reopen South Avenue to Eastbound Traffic The closure of South Avenue at Malfunction Junction has diverted traffic, with its noise, emissions, carbon deposits, and safety hazards, into residential neighborhoods as far as 2 to 3 road miles away. Reopening South Avenue with a roundabout or bypass system would restore intuitive traffic patterns that ease congestion and encourage commuters to stop taking short cuts through residential neighborhoods. 8. Emphasize Desirable, Affordable Cottage Courts and Duplexes among ALL areas, and Include Provisions for Manufactured Housing Options More housing supply is not a solution to high housing costs. That's just a fact. Missoula’s previous growth policies have not delivered on their promises to improve affordability or quality of life. Instead, they’ve created inequities, environmental challenges, and frustration among residents. Missoulians are income/class-diverse, yet policies that brought us here today have largely functioned to segregate the Haves from and the Have-Nots. If “equity” is to be a goal, we can't prioritize “Inward Focus.” … Haste makes waste. I feel rushed here, pretty sure I’ve neglected something important. My concern is that the City is also rushing, neglecting something important - namely, us - the people just trying to relax in a place we consider our home. Missoula has become a miserable place to live. There was a time when it was pretty mellow. I urge us, please, let's aim to make it mellow again.

Nonsensical Idea

Dear Planning Board Members:

I am submitting the following comments as a long-time resident (45+ years), and design professional with 30 years’ experience in Missoula. The 2045 Long-Range Plan should be the guiding visionary document of what our city wants for the next 20 years of growth. It will define our future zoning code and subdivision expansion over the remaining undeveloped land that surrounds the city. The plan will contribute to remaking existing neighborhoods as the homes and commercial buildings are reaching their useful life in the oldest portions of town. The past zoning policies have been those of exclusion taking away equity and affordability from our children and grandchildren as laid out in the Our Missoula Equity and Land Use Report. The lessons learned from the report are hard earned as our city’s policies have enforced exclusion, over inclusion, of all economic classes or the needs of the residents to live sustainably.
The 2045 Land Use Plan should meet what is needed on a day-to-day basis, in ten years from its adoption, for development policy. It should exceed the needs of current development demands for more housing and sustainable development as it is our long-term vision for the future. It will start to be overly restrictive after much of its term has passed with no guarantees the City leaders will make updates to it, which has occurred under current planning. Citizens who participated in the public meetings and left comments on previous drafts wanted more density throughout the city and mixed-use development, so neighborhoods were not dependent on driving to work, stores, and other city services. The draft of this plan falls short of meeting those citizens’ desired needs in several aspects. The draft does have many good concepts concerning annexation goals, habitat preservation and urban interface. I hope the considerable public input will allow the board to make the needed changes to this plan to ensure that future generations have an equitable and affordable place to call home.
1. Terminology: There is a new term for inequity, in zoning parlance, and it is called “Form”. Form does not create good land use planning, it is a new trend in zoning policy, which is avoided by many municipalities due to development potential it takes away. Form rules are what will stop future affordability in city regulation, much like single-family-zoning policy did for the past 70 years. The term “Form” in this draft will be used to create tools for zoning codes to drive up the cost of future construction through overly restrictive and lengthy bureaucratic processes. It lowers density by taking away buildable volume on redeveloped land. Form policy will limit affordable housing by requiring more expensive construction to make increased density of housing fit in a small volume similar to a single-family home. For Commercial development it would drive up cost in a similar manner as the volume and area will be limited by form policy but the need for more space, to serve a growing community, in the city core will be reduced on the land available for redevelopment. “Our Code Diagnostics” page 90 shows how Form removes volume in Form based codes lowering potential density from a development. This is a loss of volume that does not exist in the current codes. I suggest references to “Form” be struck from the plan and replaced with built environment or similar adjectives.

2. Housing Choice and Access - Policy objective #1 and Residential Place Types: This policy desires smaller dwelling units as the missing middle, regardless of what the market supports for residential development. It highlights the misunderstanding of development costs, construction costs and affordability of residential construction within the document. Small is not a viable solution in constructing affordable freestanding single-family homes. The land costs are similar for a small home as a large single-family home. Small single-family homes have as many trades involved as larger homes but with far less area to spread out costs per square foot. New 600 s.f. single-family homes are selling for $750 per s.f.. Larger multifamily developments on the other hand could be built for far less cost per square foot, plus less land costs per unit. That savings is passed onto buyers as new small condominiums are selling for around $407 per s.f. but the buildings are larger and taller than older single-family buildings. Promising a building’s scale for new development being compatible with existing-single-family homes scale is not possible as the new development needed, to meet the housing goals set by the city, are much denser per area of land. References to new construction being similar to single-family-home size and area should be removed from the draft.
3. Industrial Place Types: Historically Missoula’s industrial areas allowed residential housing and where known as “D” zoning districts. The 2045 Long Range Plan does not allow residential work force housing or support services in the Industrial Place Type. This will cause many employees to commute to their industrial jobs, increasing congestion and vehicle pollution. This should be changed back to the principles that Missoula was founded on and that is Mixed-use neighborhoods throughout. Industrial zones need housing for the employees that work in them. Proximity of housing to manufacturing allows for multi-modal transportation to work and home. The building codes require separation of hazardous uses from less hazardous uses such as office, retail and dwelling units. It is not really a zoning safety issue, but a building codes and environmental law concern.
4. Civil, Open and Resource, Parks and Conservation lands Place types: These Place Types should remove Historical Sites from their building types. Historical sites exist across all Place types in Missoula with multiple historic districts and buildings. Historic homes, farms, ranches, community centers, educational institutions and commercial buildings occur all over the Land Use map. Civic and Public place types should only be placed on land that is publicly owned or has a publicly owned conservation easement upon them. No privately owned land should be included that has no public ownership included in its ownership title.
5. Street Type modifications should include public parking on both sides of the street for all street types. This parking is central to creating community streets for neighborhood business. Street parking acts as a protection barrier for pedestrians, psychologically and physically. The parking provides a lively interaction zone for the community to participate with the built environment in front of the building. Within the urban core no street should have on street parking removed for vehicle efficiency, automobile, bike or multimodal, as the street will become a pedestrian wall across the town such as The Strip on Brooks. If streets do not have on street parking commercial development will turn inwards away from streets towards parking lots as the streets will be devoid of pedestrian activity and the Parking lot is where customers will arrive to a building.
Sincerely
David V. Gray LEED Green Associate
Principal Architect

I attended the Public Hearing on November 19. I had prepared a statement to read at the meeting, but the meeting ran longer than I anticipated and so I ran out of time. The following statement is what I was planning to read at the meeting:
******** statement:
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am a resident of Missoula and an active member of the Missoula cycling community. I co-founded the Zootown Ebike Club as a mechanism to facilitate the bi-directional communication between the cycling community and land use planners. I offer these comments in that context.
I first want to acknowledge the work by City staff and the advisory boards in creating the "Our Missoula Draft Land Use Plan" I agree with the selected emphasis on urban infill as opposed to sprawl. I complement city staff and the leadership in the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation office and the Our Missoula office. The draft Land Use Plan is a statement of principles and goals that must now be realized with revision of the Uniform Development Code. I am speaking in support of the Specific Implementation Actions (page 118 of the draft land use plan) and I look forward to the new code requirements that will achieve these plans; I am particularly interested in code revisions to implement two of the action items:
• Action # 26, "Through the Place Type Map and Zoning Map Update, increase housing opportunities in residential areas that have good access to services and amenities by walking, biking, and transit."
• Action #50, to "Develop street standards that prioritize safety, multi-modal level of service, and enhanced placemaking."
From a cyclists' perspective these implementation actions must include:
• More cycling infrastructure (wider bike paths, secure bike parking, and better street design - with protected bike lanes). I think about some personal examples that I hope will be addressed with revision of the UDC:
o I have Friends who describes years of bike commuting to work along Reserve Street as "Combat cycling." It is reassuring to see that the city is planning for a major safety redesign. I hope that code revision will eliminate the need for 'combat cycling elsewhere in the city.
o Most cyclists must ride while staying aware of driver frustration as they ride the "tightrope of a thin white line separating traffic from a crumbling road edge. Again, I hope that code revision will add cycling lanes to improve safety and designs that reduce traffic conflicts with cyclists.
• I understand that the goals of the Land Use Plan must be accomplished within the constraints of construction costs and budgets. However, in that environment we need to think of bikes and ebikes as part of the solution:
o Bike commuting reduces car traffic and demand for car parking.
o Bike paths and bike lanes should be treated the same as roads: they are not a good place to pile leaves or snow.
o City expenditures on roads and parking can be offset with bike commuting and effective implementation of the Land Use Plan.
I am looking forward the future work to achieve the vision of the Land Use Plan in the revised uniform development code.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

I read the Missoulian article Nov 21, 2024 about Our Missoula 2045 plan, and it made me wonder how annexation is factoring into the plan, so I read the portions of the draft plan focusing on annexation. On pg20, the map mostly makes sense, although it seems the areas north of 3rd and west of Reserve, and south of Mullan, ought to be included in Plan A. I realize a large majority of Target Range are fiercely opposed to annexation, but really, it seems like it also ought to be in A. I don’t live in those areas, and don’t know all the considerations, so these are just my perspectives. I also realize that while annexation has to be considered when drafting the Our Missoula 2045 plan, it is the responsibility of others to identify the areas to be considered for annexation.

I also realize the plan is focused on the next 20 years, but I feel like you ought to do some very general projections and planning for the next 100 years, and include that in the 2045 plan. My prediction is that in the next 50-100 years the entire Missoula valley floor, from Mount Sentinel to Huson, and North Hills to Blue Mountain, will be urban, with 3 city centers. Probably 3 different cities that are part of one urban district that work together on common needs, with city centers in Missoula (already existing), the Wye, and Frenchtown. All of these cities would have their own infrastructure (water, sewer, etc) and major shopping centers. Some major services, like hospitals, may still be in Missoula only. Not sure if all 3 could meet the definition of the 15-minute city, but it ought to be a rough goal.

The online Draft version is unapproachable. Print is tiny, text is dense and occasionally nonsensical as if it was cut/pasted and not proof-read. There are too many moving parts, and the jargon is thick. I get that it's a draft, but it's daunting. Makes me, with humble expertise merely as a lifelong Missoulian, feel ill-equipped to comment. Makes my concerns feel irrelevant.

Indeed, I'm not usually inclined to offer my two cents on topics I don't have a firm grasp on. But on this topic I feel an urgency that's caused me countless sleepless nights.

So I'll try to talk mostly about what I do know. My primary qualifications are that I've lived in Missoula since birth. I attended public schools and the UM, worked here, shopped here, biked, walked, hiked, driven thousands of miles and scored many hundreds of parking spaces within our small valley. My spouse and I met here, made a life here, and our kids started out intending to make their lives here as well - all from a single place in Ward 6 that we somehow manage to still call home. For now.

Having been designated as a high-density urban residential place-type (ca. 2015?), that stability came under threat by zoning changes that divided our neighborhood’s lots, obstructed our views and natural light, altered or destroyed routes and pathways, and increased my grievances toward on-street parking, commuter and commercial traffic, glare, screaming emergency vehicles, collisions and close-calls, trash, debris, dust, offensive odors, respiratory illnesses, the number of rental properties and homeless souls staggering through, looking for somewhere to go.

And I can't help thinking, “There, but for the grace of God, go I…” because, in exchange for these enormous sacrifices, we're nickled and dimed to death by property taxes that are inching us closer and closer to being out on the street. These changes have helped bring an end to growing our own food, to having reasons to be outside, and to meaningful interaction with neighbors and strangers alike, among other things.

Suffice it to say my mood has been foul, and now this proposal comes along and I feel like another hammer is about to drop. Granted, growing communities suffer growing pains. But Missoula can do better. As a lifelong Missoulian, *I* expect better.

Based more on my lived daily experience than on my cursory comprehension of the Draft, please afford me this chance to articulate some specific thoughts or observations about how we might hope to do better, to remediate inequities and restore balance that might bring us some peace of mind and offer a sense of stability.

1. Dial back density targets in UR

The proposal's suggestion to distribute diverse housing types across ALL neighborhoods is encouraging. But the stated “Inward Focus” priority is at complete odds with that vision.

Mixed-income neighborhoods, where diverse households have mingled, where their kids have historically grown, learned, played together, was disrupted in the past two growth policies. Balanced housing distribution and opportunities will ensure that every neighborhood shares both benefits and challenges equitably.

2. Remedy Economic Segregation in Zoning

Likewise, past policies aimed at curbing sprawl have, in practice, reinforced class divides. Take Lower Miller Creek, for example, where taxpayer-funded infrastructure (vis a vis the abandonment of Cold Springs School and adoption of Jeannette Rankin) primarily benefited wealthier residents, leaving areas experiencing increased density, like Ward 6, underserved. Such imbalances foster inequity, and where there's inequity, there's resentment.

3. Demand Compliance, Accountability and Transparency

Future policies must safeguard against development that exploits public resources for exclusive projects, meanwhile ensuring underrepresented areas receive just and equitable investment.

4. Preserve, Expand and Create Green Spaces and Pathways in Ward 6

Distribution of these types of amenities in Missoula is glaringly imbalanced compared to others, and increased density in UR would just make that worse. We deserve the same consideration for green spaces and opportunities to be outside that lower-density neighborhoods enjoy.

5. Recognize the Environmental Impacts on Residents Dealing with Density Trends

Increased density in areas like Ward 6 has led to significant environmental challenges. Visible ground ozone, light pollution, absurd traffic patterns, noise, glare from concrete and vehicles that radiate scorching sun, seasonal inversions, wildfire smoke, etc. is all exacerbated by the loss of trees, lawns and gardens, and absurd traffic patterns that concentrate pollutants in already burdened areas. A pledge toward equity would distribute density more evenly across wards and zones with thoughtful, common sense consideration of environmental impacts.

6. Reassess Parking and Transit Proposals

Reducing off-street parking without viable, imminent public transit alternatives, exacerbates congestion, safety risks, and environmental challenges. For many residents juggling work, school, and family, cars remain a necessity and possibly always will. Even the most robust public transit system is unlikely to meet the diversity of needs that drive us to drive. Missoula needs more off-street parking options, not fewer. Covered structures or underground lots would help alleviate some of the aforementioned environmental impacts, as well as improve safety and increase maintenance efficiency.

7. Reopen South Avenue to Eastbound Traffic

The closure of South Avenue at Malfunction Junction has diverted traffic, with its noise, emissions, carbon deposits, and safety hazards, into residential neighborhoods as far as 2 to 3 road miles away. Reopening South Avenue with a roundabout or bypass system would restore intuitive traffic patterns that ease congestion and encourage commuters to stop taking short cuts through residential neighborhoods.

8. Emphasize Desirable, Affordable Cottage Courts and Duplexes among ALL areas, and Include Provisions for Manufactured Housing Options

More housing supply is not a solution to high housing costs. That's just a fact. Missoula’s previous growth policies have not delivered on their promises to improve affordability or quality of life. Instead, they’ve created inequities, environmental challenges, and frustration among residents.

Missoulians are income/class-diverse, yet policies that brought us here today have largely functioned to segregate the Haves from and the Have-Nots. If “equity” is to be a goal, we can't prioritize “Inward Focus.”
…

Haste makes waste. I feel rushed here, pretty sure I’ve neglected something important. My concern is that the City is also rushing, neglecting something important - namely, us - the people just trying to relax in a place we consider our home.

Missoula has become a miserable place to live. There was a time when it was pretty mellow. I urge us, please, let's aim to make it mellow again.