Full Text
CORRECTED COPY JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Mayor Engen at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 140 West Pine Street. Present were Alderwomen Kendall, Marler and Rye and Aldermen Ballas, Childers, Haines, Hendrickson, Jaffe, Nicholson, Reidy, Strohmaier and Wilkins. Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Bender, City Attorney Nugent, Public Information/ Communications Officer Merriam and City Clerk Rehbein. Finance Director Ramharter was absent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee 12/12/07 12/14/07 will be available at a later date x Sonata Park Subdivision (Summary of motions from PAZ December 12, 2007) ¾ Ordinance 3365²Adopt an ordinance to zone property legally described as Tract H-1 and H2, COS #4206, Tract M-2, COS #4214, and Tract M-1A, COS #4632, Located in the East 1/2 Section 10, T13N, R19W, P.M.M., also known as the Sonata Park subdivision, from Unzoned to RLD-2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37 as amended by PAZ Committee. Alderwoman Kendall said, Mayor Engen, I will make the first of a number of motions to get us started here on the Sonata Park Subdivision. I move that we adopt an ordinance to zone property legally described as Tract H-1 and H2, COS #4206, Tract M-2, COS #4214, and Tract M-1A, COS #4632, Located in the East 1/2 Section 10, T13N, R19W, P.M.M., also known as the Sonata Park subdivision, from Unzoned to RLD- 2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37 as amended by PAZ Committee. I would like to speak to the motion. MOTION To adopt an ordinance to zone property legally described as Tract H-1 and H2, COS #4206, Tract M-2, COS #4214, and Tract M-1A, COS #4632, Located in the East 1/2 Section 10, T13N, R19W, P.M.M., also known as the Sonata Park subdivision, from Unzoned to RLD-2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37 as amended by PAZ Committee. Alderwoman Kendall moved to adopt an ordinance to zone property legally described as Tract H-1 and H2, COS #4206, Tract M-2, COS #4214, and Tract M-1A, COS #4632, Located in the East 1/2 Section 10, T13N, R19W, P.M.M., also known as the Sonata Park subdivision, from Unzoned to RLD-2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37 as amended by PAZ Committee. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Kendall. Alderwoman Kendall if you a minute to explain why. I want to thank Jennie first for the great staff report that she did and all the work she put into it and the presentations and all the committee discussion. I want to acknowledge that the property owner has been willing to reduce the number of lots from the proposal that we saw at the neighborhood meeting which was in August of 2006. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the PUD performance standards that we KRQRUWKH I do have to admit that it¶V not much to stand on legally, but that plan was made by the neighbors and planners and approved by the City Council and the County Commissioners and it recommends limiting the property to 11 dwelling units Rattlesnake Plan because some of the major landowners did not participate or were not able to support it. (END TAPE ONE SIDE A)²but it was certainly before our first Open Space Bond and probably before the whole area up there was identified as a cornerstone of the Open Space System. It was also before the neighborhood plan was adopted. decisions have been made since then that were different and recommended a lower density. I also want space against the SURSHUW\RZQHU¶VZLOO I think we can justify allowing it to be developed at the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 6 level of the comp plan, and probably even more, 17 or 20 units as a compromise. I would support that. But this subdivision is before is more than three times the recommended number of structures and I just is close to the city limits, most of the county land between the property and the Rattlesnake National Recreation area is zoned 1 dwelling unit per 40 DFUHV,MXVWGRQ¶WEHOLHYH to ignore the Comp Plan and the Open Space GHYHORSHU¶VODZ\HUDUJXHVWKDWWKH than the comp plan allows, but our city attorney says something very different. Jim says that we have to allow the property to be served by the sewer, but he does not say it means we have to allow a certain density. I do want to touch on the sewer and ask a couple of questions about it. There is a misstatement will be presumably. The closest sewer main though is about 2,000 feet away as I calculate it over in Lincolnwood. like to hear more about how that happens. Also, it looks like the lawsuits against if the sewer can be extended from there if it gets done in the next year or so, which seems possible. The last things I want to say about this are about planning and zoning. I do believe that planning is important and I think as a community we need to embrace planning and people should not give up on their neighborhood plans, but I think can implemented through zoning. Today looking back, that was a flaw in the Rattlesnake Plan. If the recommended zoning can be successfully protested, a plan is not going to hold any have to go through this again. Mayor Engen tried to help by getting a mediator. Dave Strohmaier and I no to zoning. Thanks. Mayor Engen said, we have further discussion on the motion. Mr. Strohmaier. Alderman Strohmaier said, I concur with my fellow colleague and Ward 1 representative, Heidi Kendall on to be focused on the zoning. When I pick up going to be inspirational reading. going to say tonight and my final votes on this proposal, I figured I better go somewhere other than the materials before us for some degree of inspiration in knowing how to go about land use planning in the city the Sand County Almanac, and I just want to share one little quotation from his work to you, written in /HRSROGZURWH concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see planning, the future of our community here in Missoula, as an outward extension of respect for the land, our fellow Missoulians, and the rich diversity of non-human critters that also make our valley home. Land is not a mere legal location ready to be scraped to enhance our community supply of housing stock for residential or commercial development. Heidi hit on this a little bit, decision before us may seem to some as a chunk of land, what might seem as a mere 37 lots, just a few miles from Missoula central business district and close to services. We see some who might think that the house is packed tonight merely with folks who are a bunch of disgruntled and compare it directly with a Teton Addition, with a Millsite development plan. To do so is looking at this proposal very specific features of this site that have not been taking fully into account and have been given somewhat short shrift. The comp plan does speak to various characteristics of this particular planning area, ranging from higher density in the Lower Rattlesnake to lower density the further you get up the valley, and these are not arbitrary determinations. I think what has been glossed over to some extent is ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 7 council somewhat arm chairing the decision-making process, the planning process, completely within our prerogative to do so, I fear that we are turning a blind eye to the extensive work that indictment for planning in the city of Missoula. We have a number of plans currently in process. We have citizens working on Rattlesnake Valley plan update, we have citizens that as soon as just a couple of days ago from the Orchard Homes area who contacted us seeking a budget seem to be giving that very serious consideration. Just a couple issues related to the zoning that have that somehow not zoning this at the level that is being requested by the applicant that is not exactly what accords with the county zoning two decades ago is somehow a takings and I would strongly disagree with maximize the profit to any private property owner or to away from denying all use to this property, all economic use of this property, to what might be recommended by the density in the comp plan. Secondly, the people of the Rattlesnake, my constituents, are no more or less special than any other resident of the city of Missoula, which has come out in some of the comments in terms of the suggestion that folks in the Rattlesnake are somehow seeing themselves as exclusive or exempt from the pressures of growth that the rest of the city is experiencing. But unequivocally I would say that the North Hills of Missoula is ecologically a special place. I think that point needs to be distinguished from the about ecological integrity that I think is suffering throughout the western United States on many fronts. Finally, the last thing I would say is, this ties in with world of wild land ILUHDQGDVORQJDVWKHUH¶Vbeen lightning and cured tinder in the American West, there has been fire. The North Hills, Mount Jumbo have burned in the past, they will burn again. I think that even though there are mitigations for fire hazard built into this proposal before us, in this case, less is more in terms of fewer building sites, equating to great fire safety. With that, I will conclude by saying I will not support this zoning. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Marler. Alderwoman Marler said, I am actually going to support the zoning and with all due respect, Dave, I am Aldo Leopold into it from a different²to justify developing one house per really, as a conservationist² first of all, my strong preference would have been if Mr. Mooth would have donated all of his land for free to the City Open Space perspective can say that putting 1 house every 3 acres so close to an urban center is a conservation strategy. What if everyone in this room lived in a 3-acre lot? Where would our open space system be? Where would all the land in the North Hills be? Yes, the ¶ &RPS3ODQVDLGWKDWWKH1RUWK+LOOVDUHD cornerstone of our conservation Open Space system and then the community turned around and spent a lot of money to preserve the North Hills. We have over 800 acres of native prairies preserved in the North talk about subdividing this are not better for elk than 1 acre lots or DFUHORWV,¶PUHDOO\JODGWRVHHWKDWWKHUHZDVVRPH compromise reached and the developer was able to come down from the proposed 50-some lots and that WKH\ on this property that we had a few go-arounds with the staff negotiations about preserving some of that riparian area that I took very seriously and the staff did too. We have a big buffer next to the open space so that our little skinny connector piece in the open space is now a useable wildlife corridor. I MXVWGRQ¶WEX\WKH argument that everybody living on one acre of land is protecting a cornerstone of our open space or that of people in here for supporting the zoning, but there is some compromise here. I made a motion in middle of the day, but I made a motion for further clustering of these lots, if we made the lots a little ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 8 smaller, brought them more together, then there would be even more open space that is functional wildlife habitat and could be preserved as native prairie. That part of the reason that folks in the Rattlesnake want these big lots is just because of how it looks. It looks that if you vote for this that I have been up on Mr. pass. Thank you, everybody, for letting me get that off of my chest because this is not an easy position to be in. Mayor Engen said, Mr. Childers. Alderman Childers the own and support of this. I disagree that the plan is all we have. We have previous zoning. We have deliberations to zone land by a City Council that fell one vote short of a supermajority and I discussed this with our soon to not be resident historian. As he recalls, the zoning being considered was the higher density two per acre zoning and that feel short by one vote of a supermajority. At the time, a supermajority was not eight people like it is now. WKHQ,W¶VEHHQDORQJtime; it just takes a majority or even a tie and the mayor to pass a plan. So you should pass a growth policy piece that gives you the density you want and then go back and look at that growth policy as de facto zoning of the land that you were considering, opens the door to a lot of things that the folks in this room probably would not want. For instance, the majority of this council might decide that all the unzoned land up the Rattlesnake should carry 30 dwelling units per acre and not be able to zone it, but the plan could say that. And if in fact the plan carried the weight that some of us want it to carry, a developer could build 30 the plan does not looks like we have a supermajority to do this. This is not two per acre. This is not one to three acres, but LW¶VQRWWZRSHUDFUH,W¶VDERXWRQHSHUDFUHRIWKHODQGLVQRWEXLOWRQODQG,W¶VOHIWDORQH,WORRNV So I understand the affinity people have for the land the way it is and I sympathize with their desire to keep it looking as close to the way it is as they possibly can, but I believe that the person who owns the land has a considerable say about this. History has something to say about it. The concessions made by the Mayor Engen said, additional discussion on the motion? Ms. Kendall. Alderwoman Kendall said, I forgot to include the PUD performance standards that we got from the property owner today, and I think I need to ask Jennie a question about how we include these. Mayor Engen said, WKDW¶VILQH0V.HQGDOOMs. Dixon? Alderwoman Kendall said, Jennie, if I understood the e-mail correctly, this would be part of the motion that ZH¶UHFonsidering right now, is that right? Jennie Dixon Alderwoman Kendall said, but is this the appropriate place is really my question? ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 9 Jennie Dixon said, these PUD performance standards, they are appropriately inserted into this motion for Alderwoman Kendall MOTION To amend the motion. Alderwoman Kendall moved to amend the motion. Mayor Engen said, we can do that now. Jennie Dixon said, the proposed PUD as it came out of committee was to allow for the 37 lots and it² essentially the PUD supplements the RLD-2 requested zoning by requesting the number of lots from I think 53 down to the 37 that at RLD-2 except it states that lots less than 10,000 square feet may be subject to RLD-4 setbacks, so the section that was in what was sent to you today simply repeats that. My suggestion is leave that off. The lot coverage at 40% I think is something reasonable to include in the PUD zoning. And the building height establishes about 8 lots which would have a 26-foot height rather than the allowed 30-feet height. Again, to include that in the zoning. The daylight basement section is simply stating the obvious. The already existing regulations about hillsides apply, so I would exclude that requirement, a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer along any lot that has common line with the common area, it does not include specifications for how many, how big, how tall, exactly, but it does say a landscaped like to pursue. It requires native vegetation, which and then leave it up to the building permit review for what would be required in the landscaping, but it does not have specifications as proposed. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Kendall. Alderwoman Kendall include the lot coverage and building height, take out the vague, so I guess I will just leave that out for now and if we have a better idea to pursue that. Mayor Engen said, so Ms. Kendall in effect is clarifying her motion. Is there additional discussion on the motion? Mr. Jaffe. Alderman Jaffe said, a question for Jennie. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Dixon. Alderman Jaffe said, the 40% lot area, how does that compare to what the existing zoning that it would KDYHLI\RXWDNHWKHVHWEDFNVIURPORWOLQHVLVQ¶WLWDOUHDG\² Jennie Dixon said, the 40% lot area coverage allowance by structures, if you assume an average lot size of about 15,000 square feet, that gives you about 7,500 square feet that you could cover with a house, garage, outbuildings, that type of thing, which is quite a bit less than the setbacks but it still quite a large area of building coverage. Alderman Jaffe said, but it is less than what it was. Jennie Dixon said, yes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 10 Alderman Jaffe said, then also with the height requirements, what were the height requirements in the underlying zoning? Jennie Dixon said, RLD-2 allows 30 feet and they are proposing 30 feet except for, like I said, about ten building and then the homes up above those at 30 feet would then have views out to the valley, the desirable views. Alderman Jaffe said, so those are the lots on the downhill sides of the streets. Jennie Dixon said, yes, would be shorter. Mayor Engen said, additional discussion on the motion? Mr. Nicholson. Alderman Nicholson said, I think just to get it into the record, I think it needed to be said that both the staff with this PUD overlay. I'm very to people in Orchard Homes who were upset when we went ahead and put RLD-4 out there, and we had the Maloney Ranch where we just went through a 16 phase addition, we had 600 homes in it. I think the general argument that pervades all of this is Missoula is growing and people are going to go somewhere, and people in the United States have a right to live wherever they here. We are providing I think via this development and others options for people that live here now to move to or the people that are coming here. I really intend to support his development, particularly the PUD overlay on our RLD-2. I was more brief than David. Mayor Engen said, additional discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I will ask Ms. Dixon, do you have a clarifying comment? Jennie Dixon said, are you ready to take a vote on this motion, because I wanted to add one other thing on the landscaping that we were just discussing. Mayor Engen said, go ahead. Jennie Dixon landscaping along the 10-foot buffer of lots adjacent to common area to require a list of approved species and planting details to be submitted and reviewed by Parks and Recreation prior to final plat approval that would provide details in that native vegetation area. Mayor Engen said, that would be a function of the PUD? Jennie Dixon said, yes. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Kendall. Alderwoman Kendall said, yes. Jennie Dixon said, actually, it would not be prior to final plat approval, but prior to the adoption of the ordinance within 30 days. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Kendall has further clarified her motion. Thank you, Ms. Dixon. Any discussion? One is we had a public hearing and it was fairly opportunity to comment ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 11 Harold Hoem said, I want to talk about planning in general in Missoula and also particularly in the discouraging to hear city employees and officials and advisors downplay the value of our Rattlesnake Comprehensive Plan as the Sonata Park Subdivision proposal has been discussed. The climate in Missoula today does not seem conducive to good neighborhood planning. A particular concern is the arm chair second guessing of earlier plans by subsequent councils. This issue really needs to be addressed. resources, concerns regarding health, safety and welfare, and the human footprint of development. ,W¶V always going to be about degrees. Cluster development and conservation easements are only two of the tools supported by the 1995 Plan that address this compromise. It will be highlighted in an updated plan. concerns about the soils, the liquid pipeline which runs right through the middle of this subdivision, wildfires and more regarding this subdivision. By the way, when Dave mentioned Aldo Leopold, I have to fire. Being good stewards of the land means we have to plan conditions may be like in the future. We have to be aware of trends such as climate change and of the consequences they could have for our health, safety, and welfare. This is an age of fiercer fire. This is going to take careful planning. What assurances do we have, if any, that the citizen time and effort to update the comp plan would make a difference? Dave Berkoff town. I drove down here because I was watching on MCAT the discussion about Sonata Park and I avoided all the speed traps to get down here without getting another ticket. In addressing zoning, the area years but I do have to agree with Dave that the Rattlesnake Plan is something that City Council needs to address and look at. We in the Rattlesnake meetings, there was some undercurrent from other members of the City Council that the Rattlesnakers a really bad attitude about growth planning. We care about our area. I know all the other City Council give neighborhoods some input to what they want their neighborhood to look like, and the City Council and our city follows those directives that our neighborhoods give. Zoning and planning is, we might as well not and planning regulations coming up, and I really urge the City Council to put some teeth behind the neighborhood plans that are adopted by the various neighborhoods. Let us have the say in what we want our neighborhoods to look like. Please honor those. I know we have a lot of other subdivisions up in the Rattlesnake coming down the pipeline and one of the things that has not been addressed by the City North Hills or is being proposed in the of putting in a 32-unit housing apartment complex in a 6-acre lot right across from where his apartments are now. Unless we get our hand on zoning right now and say what we think is appropriate, on a large scale, this is going to a holistic manner. I really encourage you, if you allow this subdivision to go through and allow the zoning as proposed, that Rattlesnake area. I think in the long term subdivisions like this are not good for the area, and unless we look at what else is coming down the pipeline, this kind of zoning is problematic. Bill Turner support and agree with all the comments from the concerned Missoula citizens who are opposed to the proposed density of Sonata Park. The lack of support from citizens must be more than obvious to everyone. I watch the meeting last week, and I think I only saw one person supporting it,¶PQRWVXUHEXW to you is a question. proposed subdivision been made? I ask this because of its location, smack in the middle of the road to the buffalo. In my opinion, this trail is of equal importance to the Lewis and Clark Trail. In terms of time, its history dwarfs the times that the United States, Montana and Missoula and have been here. Creek ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 12 Crossing is so called because it was the logical crossing of the Rattlesnake between the saddle to the west, above where the subdivision is going to be going, and Lincoln Hills saddle. From there, it was a short walk to the mouth of the big Blackfoot River. Have the faintly visible roads and trails on the hillside been plotted on historical maps so that our great grandchildren will know who was here before us? In the ideal, this trail should be preserved for our great grandchildren. I would support the idea of zoning the unzoned lands north of Mountain View and west of Rattlesnake Creek to agricultural density of 1 home per 2 acres. Ella Chapman weight than they are apparently giving to the Rattlesnake Comprehensive Plan and to all of the public on planning and specific communities within Missoula. Each community within Missoula has unique qualities and we should not try to homogenize these communities or to pretend that development can be the same throughout the city. The Rattlesnake Community and the communities throughout Missoula have spoken in huge numbers protesting the Sonata Development as the developers have only given not only for the people living in the Rattlesnake, but for the people throughout the city of Missoula. The plan does not say there should be no development in the Upper Rattlesnake, only that it be appropriate for this very unique space. In as far as I have witnessed at the many public meetings that I have attended over the past year on Sonata Park and sat in my living room and watched, I have witnessed very little residents, who would want to see a smaller development in this area that is more closely following the Rattlesnake Comprehensive Plan and the character for this area. Missoulians want to maintain a low development density buffering a very unique wilderness interface. Living on Duncan Drive I have seen first hand enormous numbers of bikers and walkers and runners and people with their babies and most of open views, its lack of congestion, which is really hard to find within the city limits in Missoula. At a recent planning meeting last week, one of the committee members commented that the increase of traffic would be unsubstantial, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that comment. By adding nearly 40-some homes and opening the door to further similar development, traffic will more than double its current rate quickly. The area is not set up for this kind of traffic. The proposed development will negatively affect safety, pollution and noise of this area that abuts a wilderness area that is used daily by countless pedestrians and bikers and runners who come from every part of Missoula to use this area. My comments are not just about traffic increase. They are about the overall planning, the long term preservation of the character of this place. We should be proud of how hard Missoulians have fought to preserve this area. This development has witnessed unprecedented levels of protest and yet it seems to go forward nonetheless. :K\FDQ¶W\RXZDLWXQWLOWKLVDUHDLV]RQHG" it? proposed? Thank you. Mayor Engen said, more comment on the zoning? Eric Brown said, I live at 4425 Duncan Drive. ,¶OONHHSWKHPEULHI and they relate to zoning. First of all, I have to tell you I live in that neighborhood. I know of no one in the neighborhood other than people who have a vested interest, a moneyed-vested interest in this development that is in of that the people of this area feel that this subdivision would represent a nail in the coffin of change. As Rattlesnake, and are we special, and are we difficult to live with, bothers me a bit, too. I personally feel blessed WROLYHWKHUHEXW,IHHO,¶PNLQGRIVKDULQJLW,IHHOLW¶V²I go out there, seeing all the people, these are older people, couples, pregnant ladies, doing everything you can imagine, up and down there. All of us share that area. We are concerned about I think, listening and being aware of these issues. I really appreciate some of the comments made here. The comment about ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 13 clustering is an The issue seems to be how many homes, how many divisions have to be made on this land and how many other do to fire, to animal, native before us, think this thing through, go back to the comprehensive plan. by the way, when the comprehensive plan had room for 11 sites. Somebody came up with 50-some sites, even compromise. Thank you. Robin Poole said, I live at 27 and I think that you folks are paying a terrible price to the beauty of this town to allow development in the Upper Rattlesnake. ,¶PXWWHUO\amazed at the wildlife that is there. I development to go in is going to be the predecessor of allowing other developments to go in, and twenty putting in apartments or condos on the land I think is disgraceful. There are other parts of town that it could be in to allow 38 families to move into Missoula for the development of this land is just an incredible you pay your money, you take your chances. property for it. If I owned the VD\LQJQR,I,¶PSD\LQJ Bobby Grillo said, I live in the Rattlesnake Valley, and I thought it interesting, the other day I was at the meeting on Friday and Mr. Kaufman had mentioned he was attending a Forest Service workshop on urban and said about this type of development in this kind of sensitive interface area. The Forest Service announces open space conservation strategy. This is from the chief of the Forest Service, Abigail the 21st Century is an interconnected network of open space across the landscape, one that supports healthy ecosystems, renewable resources, and a high quality of life for Americans. The strategy charts a path forward for the Forest Service to conserve forest, grasslands, farms, ranches, and urban green spaces that provide vital ecosystem services and benefits for society. Open space benefits American citizens by providing clean air, abundant water, outdoor recreation, connected fish and wildlife habitat, scenic beauty, improved human health, renewable resource products and quality of life. The loss of grasslands. We lose approximately 6,000 acres of open space each day across the U.S., at a rate of four acres per minute. Land development is out seeing population growth, especially in rural areas where the projects that over 21 million acres of rural private lands near national forests and 44 million acres of private forest land will appropriate to deny the property owner the right to develop this land, but the property owner is certainly not entitled to 52 homes, 37 homes, but more in accordance with the existing comp plan that exists for the Rattlesnake Valley. Neil Mikelson said, I live at 4005 Duncan Drive. My wife and I have lived there for just under two years. We feel very fortunate to live in that neighborhood, a special place. All the same, I think that the that area and what it represents to Missoula as a unique space. I have to reiterate what I had sent to the City Council membership early on saying that it was basically setting a very dangerous precedent if we were to allow this development to go in as it is planned. I think it would, as many other people have stated, open the door for many other types of subdivisions to go in. I think we have a very unique opportunity to preserve open space in this area. I also agree that many of the people that I see, my wife and I always will say how fortunate we are to be up there, but we always see people biking, hiking, cross- country skiing on the roadway, families together. It is a unique spot. I think that part of city government is having vision, and I would ask that the City Council exercise their vision of leadership to follow the vision of the local citizens who put together the comprehensive plan, at least more carefully and more sensitively ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 17, 2007 - Page 14 than so far, I think that the people in this audience would say, has been followed. I would thank you for your consideration on that, and again, I think we have the opportunity, this one time, to set the tone for the remainder of development in this unique and frankly pristine area of Montana, if not just this city. Thank you. Dave Cooley said, 2620 Woodland. and great for being there. I just think Ms. Kendall pointed out a couple of thoughts that we should look at. The sewer to come across the creek, just to bring in 27 more houses than the 11 have already approved, seems awfully outrageous, whereas the neighbor of this property, Mr. Cooney, is agreeing to follow the comp plan, follow the regulations, and not needing the sewer just off the creek. I think by adding 27 more houses to bring a pipe to disturb the creek including traffic and everything else, just seems a little bit outrageous. I just hope the City Council will follow the comp plan and vote no for the zoning. Jim Parker said, 2618 Rattlesnake Drive, the side of the Rattlesnake that does have all of the density development in recent years and carries a lot of the Canyon, Grant Creek and other ways. So the Rattlesnake does have its burdens and I think if we look at some of the density development over the past 5 to 10, 10 to 20 \HDUVZH¶OOVHHWKDWSDUWVRIWKH Rattlesnake are amply week or other times, but getting back to planning. I want to thank our two council members from Ward 1 who I believe are struggling like all of you, and I appreciate that with planning in general and how do we follow plans and what is our legal responsibilities and what are our citizen responsibilities for good planning efforts as we try to struggle with growth in Missoula in many places. I want to thank the council members in Ward 1 for their comments and trying to hold true to neighborhood planning. One of the comp plan or somehow that we should consider the plans before it, this seems to me the reason we adopt relevant to go back to the plans before them and try to be guided by something that we have now need to be encouraging our neighborhoods to draw their own neighborhood plans so we can all speak to neighborhood plans are not the only plans that we seem to adopt and be guided by. We have open space plans, we have parks plans, we have transportation plans, we have weed management plans, and by give deference to the public input and the work that goes on with neighbors and planners and officials elected and brought in from the neighborhood, and yet we seem stuck at not wanting to do the same thing for neighborhood plans. We have a Northside/Westside Neighborhood Plan that we know has taken some sort of beating over the past years, we have this Rattlesnake Comp Plan that somehow we seem not to give the same strength to as we do our transportation plans, or our weed management plans, or our neighborhood plans themselves are bringing more citizens into the conversation and then adopt the plans, whereas some of the other plans challenge us to consider supporting this plan, the comp plan, the Rattlesnake Comp Plan, the same way you for the continued struggle to try to identify how we can support neighborhood planning efforts. Laura Childress said, I live at 1725 Madeira Drive on the other side of the Rattlesnake. I live near the tonight to support the Rattlesnake Planning Committee Plan from 1995 that would have zoning that would have lower density. My main concern is fire and evacuation in the event of fire in the Rattlesnake. I think when we get high numbers of houses, such as we work and saw smoke on the mountainside on my side, and when I came up my road, there was a fire truck, rural fire department, parked across my road, and the people down below had accidentally started a fire. They said it was spontaneous combustion. It was burning up toward my house. My daughter had come up and picked up my children and my pets and nothing HOVHDQGWKHILUHPHQVDLG³