Full Text
Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 12, 2007, Page 1 Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee Minutes December 12, 2007 10:05 am ± 12:00 noon Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine Street Members Present: Heidi Kendall (Chair), Jon Wilkins (Vice), Jerry Ballas, Ed Childers, Dick Haines, John Hendrickson, Bob Jaffe, Marilyn Marler, Don Nicholson, and Dave Strohmaier Members Absent: Stacy Rye Others Present: Collin Bangs, Virginia Braun, Robin Carey, Catharine Catey, Jackie Corday, Brian Derry, Jason Diehl, Jennie Dixon, Doug Hacker, Harold Hoem, Jan Hoem, Marsha Hoem, Nick Kaufman, Mary Manning, Mary McCrea, Kent Means, Roger Millar, Renee Mitchell, Jim Nugent, Kevin Slovarp, Ben Slater, Tom Steenberg, Keila Szpaller, W.I. (Tony) Van Der Poel, Pam Walzer, Bill Weikel, and Nina Cramer I. Approval of Minutes December 05, 2007 were approved as presented II. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda - None III. Staff Announcements - None IV. Consent Agenda Items V. Regular Agenda Items A. Sonata Park Subdivision, a proposed 38-lot residential subdivision on 34.08 acres located in the Rattlesnake Valley, west of Duncan Drive, adjacent to Teddy Turn (memo).²Regular Agenda (Jennie Dixon) (Referred to committee: 12/03/07) CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 14, 2007 Jennie Dixon, OPG staff, announced that this was an action item and the Committee could make motions to forward to the Council. Some of the issues and questions that had been attention included: x The Riparian area; x Weeds; x The Yellowstone Pipeline; x Possible fire hazards; x Agency issues with trails, impact fees, and drainage retention; x Bear proof garbage cans; and x The Geology of the area and if there could be a condition for a Geo Tech Study. Ms. Dixon reported that City Council had heard various options for the number of lots, x Staff is recommending 34 lots x The original REQUEST for 38 lots. x Thirty Seven Lots at the public hearing. x Proposals of 10 or 11 to the one lot per two acres. Ms. Dixon offered to answer any questions. Chair Kendall had a list of questions about the Comp Plan, zoning and sewer, which were not on Ms. 'L[RQ¶V/LVW Dave Harmon, representative for the neighborhood group, wanted to add to the list compliance with the Comp Plan, which he felt was one of the biggest issues. Chair Kendall shared that there had been some email yesterday to committee members asking for questions and some folks did respond to Ms. Dixon with questions. Councilman Strohmaier had sent out a memo outlining his questions and concerns. These concerns included the length of the cul-de-sac variance and clarification of the descriptors of the cul-de-sac, and fire concerns, wildfire in the area. Ms. Dixon explained the difference of rural versus urban-suburban cul- ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 12, 2007, Page 2 de-sac length. The proposed subdivision exceeds rural length by 50 feet. Councilman Strohmaier asked the Fire Department if the variance length would have adverse safety impacts and if there was a concern about tragedy fires, response time, fire hazards such as fuels, and citizen and fire fighter safety. Fire Chief Tom Steenberg responded that when they reviewed this subdivision the Fire Department looked at: x Slopes; x Response time; x Fuels (the homes being built would elevate some of the fuel problem); and x Safety Mr. Steenberg added that the City Fire Department works with other agencies in times of disaster. The Fire Department currently provides education materials for Fire Wise - Landscaping. The City currently does not regulate such landscaping, but the Fire Department would encourage some regulation in the zoning rewrite if the Council wanted to include it. The Fire Department assessment of fuels was that a fire would burn to edge of lawns but there was an adequate water supply in this area. Councilman Strohmaier asked the Fire Department about pipeline safety. Jason Diehl explained that this was not something the Fire Department reviewed. The Fire Department reviews: x Street widths; x Water resources; and x Response times. Jennie Dixon reported that the variance for the cul-de-sac was requested so that as Beethoven Lane could be extended to attach to possible future subdivision to the north. Mr. Kaufman added that the length of the cul-de-sac variance request was only for a future neighborhood connection. The request for the variance was then withdrawn. He noted that information provided on the risk of explosion pipeline were so low it was not even on the actuary tables. The developers will adhere to the letter from Yellowstone Pipeline and the 18 points contained in it. Councilman Jaffe asked where the relocation of the retention pond would go, for clarification on traffic counts, the number of homes north of Lolo on Duncan Drive, he wanted to know the numbers of verses people accessing wild land areas and where the Comp Plan fit in. Ms. Dixon answered x There are approximately 40 homes north of Mountain View with an average seven to ten daily trips depending on the type of residents. Public Works could provide more information on traffic analysis. x The drainage plan showed the possibility to move the retention pond somewhere in the common area, pending the outcome of the four lots in question within the riparian area. x The Comp Plan compliance review process used by staff has been reviewed with the City Attorney and was determined it had been used appropriately. The State of Montana says there must be substantial compliance and current court cases indicate City Council can use the Comp Plan as part of its considerations. Council may not base denial or conditions solely on the plan, but could consider it a guidance. It was up to the Council to determine how they wanted to use the Comp Plan in its consideration of this subdivision. Chair Kendall asked if the zoning were to fail, would the subdivision still be eligible for consideration. In Chair Kendall asked why. Ms. Dixon explained because of a worksheet done on un-zoned land. Last December the applicant proposed an idea of a subdivision without zoning and 41 lots. A developer must answer yes to two out of four questions; at the time the developer could only answer yes to one of those questions which meant it would not meet zoning compliance. Nick Kaufman reported on storm drainage and that the roads and roofs would concentrate the water to one spot; it would go into a retention basin and then flow out at a fixed rate. It could enhance the riparian area; they worked with Parks and Rec to enhance the riparian areas with a possibility of a series of step basins. Committee members continued discussion and questioning. 1. Councilman Hendrickson wondered if there was a legal protest in place now. Ms. Dixon said there was. 2. Council Wilkins asked if there was an easement at the end of the cul-de-sac if a subdivision was built in the future. Mr. Kaufman said there was a 60 foot right of way. Councilman Wilkins wondered if the roads were public or private. Ms. Dixon stated that the roads were recommended to be public. Councilman Wilkins requested more information on the slopes and the potential of a slide area. Mr. Kaufman acknowledged proposed taking question that they would investigate. ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 12, 2007, Page 3 They would also participate in a Geo Tech study and incorporate the experts that have testified or provide written testimony. Ms. Dixon reminded the committee that a condition was offered on Monday night to require a Geo Tech Study as a condition for approval. This is a condition that has been imposed on other subdivisions. To prepare a study of the site and any alterations to the site shall conform to the recommendations in that Geo Tech Study, subject to review and approval by Public Works and OPG. Chair Kendall asked if this was a new condition, recommended by staff. Ms. Dixon said it was consideration. Chair Kendall expressed support of adding this condition. Tony Van der Poel, a geologist who lives in area, had knowledge of the site being discussed and provided written comments. He summarized his concerns of the geology of the area. x Erosion has occurred since the land slide settled into place so it was important to impose conditions that would require study of slope conditions x A big concern was if the underlying materials became moist or otherwise destabilized additional mass land movement could occur. x Pipeline problems could occur. x It was appropriate to have a Geo Tech Study, and it was very important to address the bigger picture of the land slide mass. x Many geologists would view this site differently than other areas of the City since as there was dramatic evidence of mass movement. This was a special case that needed to be addressed further. 3. Councilman Wilkins felt that there must have been something done when the pipeline was put in. He asked how this compared to Mansion Heights and if there was any potential danger. Mr. Van der Poel was not aware of investigations that might have gone on for that area. Geologists did not see the same kind of evidence if mass movement at Mansion Heights that was seen in the Rattlesnake. He spoke about a Montana Bureau of Mines study and map prepared of land slides along the Clark Fork River which borders along the north side of the valley. He was not sure why it followed the fault. This report represented: x A special condition that existed along the north side of the basin x A demonstration of failure of a massive scale in eight land slides between Rattlesnake Creek and Butler Creek. x No information was known about the interior of the land slide area. Councilman Ballas supported adding a condition for a Geo Tech Study and made a motion to add a condition for a Geo Tech Study for Sonata Park Subdivison. Councilman Haines requested a friendly amendment that once the study was done it would come back before the Council. Councilman Ballas asked for clarification on what Councilman Haines was asking. Mr. Nugent noted that final plat approval did not come back Council; the council would have to structure a condition in a way that involved the City Engineer to check off that conditions were met. Once preliminary plat approval was received, the Council could not add additional conditions. Councilman Haines was concerned of the potential of subdivisions sliding and the potential of city liability. Councilman Ballas could not accept friendly amendment. Councilman Hendrickson requested more information about the movement of the slide and its age. Mr. Van der Poel reported that it was relatively in place, in excess of 10,000 years. There were suggestions of some more recent movement, and any disturbance to the area could change. Committee members Hendrickson, Childers, Nicholson and Wilkins all expressed support for the motion. Public comment on the motion was taken. 1. Harold Hoem referred to the subdivision regulations page 18 and its discussion of hazards and study of such hazards. The developer should respond to the points in the study. 2. Sara McMilian requested on the Committee review the City Subdivision Regulations, 3-1 subpart 2, and the timing of this study. Ms. Dixon clarified that the condition met the requirement outlined in the subdivision regulations. 3. Stu Lenie lives about a ½ mile north, and his natural gas line went through the slide area. They have seen movement with the gas line, NorthWestern Energy modified the gas line because it was under stress. A voice vote was taken on the motion to add the condition of approval for a Geo Tech Study. The motion passed with one member opposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 12, 2007, Page 4 1. Councilman Nicholson asked for discussion about the Comp Plan, the Growth Plan, and various other plans that were all guides. These were not absolutes and he wanted to know how they applied. Mr. Nugent said this was correct; these documents were all guideline lines. Just as the Planning Board recommendations were just recommendations; these documents were just guides to the Council, not regulations or law. 2. Councilman Childers asked what was the land to the Comp Plan in 1995 that went away from the two per acre recommendation. Ms Dixon responded that the neighbors were opposed. Councilman Childers noted past problems with trying to zone this area of the Rattlesnake Valley and asked OPG staff it they could provide any information on the discussions during the interim zoning that was in effect in this area. Ms. Dixon explained that after several years and much discussion about zoning the entire Rattlesnake Valley and work on the Comp Plan, all recommendations for various densities have come up against citizen protests, resulting in this part of the valley being left unzoned. 3. Councilman Strohmaier asked about the justification for the land use recommendations in the Comp Plan. Ms. Dixon explained the big picture of the Rattlesnake Valley in the plan: x There was to be less density up the valley and up the slopes. x The importance of view sheds. x Trying to keep a buffer from the City Open Space area. x Protection of the riparian and other resource land areas. Councilman Strohmaier asked Mr. Kaufman if the property owner would consider a zoning requirement of one per two acre designation which the neighbors have been proposing. Mr. Kaufman responded that there were a lot of intricacies in the County Zoning and City zoning, some of which subtracted density. In reviewing just the Comp Plan a developer would not be able to develop that property. They took into consideration and have addressed the neighbors concerns and would support a fire department site specific plan. The developer looked at all the possibilities including sewer and water. The applicant did not support reducing the density to one dwelling unit per two acres. 4. Chair Kendall expressed concerns with the Finding of Fact in number 40 and that it did not seem to follow what was presented by Mr. Kaufman. Ms. Dixon explained that Mr. Kaufman was referencing the processes in zoning that reduced density, in this situation it was based on hillsides. In unzoned areas staff uses the Comp Plan as a base and then look at things like hillsides. Mr. Nugent reminded the committee that the issue of zoning analysis was only for a zoning compliance permit, not approval of a subdivision. He explained the worksheet and what was considered. 5. Councilman Wilkins raised the question of costs to the City with less dense development. Kevin Slovarp, City Engineer, believed that if the property were not developed to a certain density, city taxpayers others would have to pay service subsidies. 6. Several committee members expressed concerns about the grassland and the impact to the natural habitat. They felt that clustering the homes would make the most sense from a resource perspective. Councilman Strohmaier asked for comment from Mary Manning with the Forest Service about the grasslands and any insight into dense verses less-dense development and the impact to habitat types in the area. Mary Manning, Regional Ecologist with the US Forest Service, stated there were several impacts. She recommended development clustered closer to the road, to maintain more in tact grasslands because some of the raptors need grasslands to hunt for prey. Ms. Dixon added that staff looked at developable areas on this property and then went through a subtraction process for riparian and resource areas from the developable area. 7. Councilman Hendrickson asked about adding or subtracting lots proposed to be removed from the riparian area and if they were advocating the lots back into the development. Mr. Kaufman explained they wanted to redistribute three lots back in. Council Hendrickson made a motion to let developer add three lots back into the subdivision, resulting in a total of 37 Lots. Committee members discussed the motion. 1. Chair Kendall stated that this was a very difficult issue, the most difficult one in her tenure. Councilman Strohmaier and she were not in favor of the motion sighting proximity to prime open space, and that the Rattlesnake Plan supports less density. Councilman Wilkins agreed with the concern about open space. 2. Councilwoman Marler was not sure if she would support the motion. She felt frustrated with committee process and felt the Committee was not getting to some of the issues and possible suggestions. Chair Kendall agreed and offered to schedule an additional committee meeting. 3. Councilmen Childers and Jaffe felt this was a good compromise given where the project started. Councilman Nicholson called for the question. The vote passed unanimously. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chair Kendall called for public comment on the motion to add three lots back into the subdivision. 1. Sarah McMillan noted that the Growth Policy says that neighborhoods do their own plans. In this process, citizens did make decisions. Staff did say this subdivision did not comply with the growth policy. Ms. McMillan believed that those criteria in the Grown Policy were what the Committee should consider in making its decision. 2. Mr. Kaufman provided his analysis of recently reviewed decisions on open space and view sheds from the City, and those of the past, as far back as 1989. These lands discussed were not included as part of Open and Resource lands. In looking at this property, something was left and something was given but now 20 years later, people were saying no. 3. Other public comment included: x In support of using the Growth Plan as the guiding document. x How the citizen process planned their neighborhood. x In favor of more clustering of homes. x Against adding back in the three lots; it was not a compromise to the neighborhood. x Being sensitive to the natural resources in this area. x These lands should have been included for lower densities and open space but were not part a brokered deal on those lands. x Residents did support development but just not this development as presented. Ms. Dixon asked the Committee to direct this motion to the zoning and amend the max lots to 37 lots. A hand vote showed six in favor, three opposed. The Motion to add three lots back to the proposal passed. Councilwoman Marler requested a condition on the riparian resource issues to ensure that the riparian management plan preserved the riparian areas. Ms. Dixon said that this would be handled in the amendment of conditions, some modifications, adding a weed condition, and amending Condition No. 20. It would read Lot 35 and 38 shall be deleted and may be regrouped on the proposed plat dated December 12, 2007. Councilwoman Marler also had a concern about an open space land buffer; how that would be managed or owned. Ms. Dixon suggested Condition No.19 be rewritten to add no build zones and the lots to be shifted on the plat. A no build zone literally meant no build, no fences, landscaping, etc. Jackie Corday from Parks and Rec recommended making it very clear in rewriting the condition. Councilwoman Mahler made a motion to remove the lots out of the buffer. Councilman Childers wondered if public comment was required on every motion to amend. Mr. Nugent clarified that the primary criteria for public comment was that time must provided to comment. Chair Kendall asked for interest in another committee meeting this week. Several committee members expressed the need for an additional committee meeting and it was decided that the Committee would meet on December 14, 2007, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.