Full Text
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 10, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ---PAGE BREAK--- ( ) Zoning and Subdivision²Sonata Park x Public hearing on an ordinance to zone a 34.08 acre parcel of land from unzoned to RLD- 2 (Residential) and to consider a proposed 38 lot residential subdivision called Sonata Park. The property is located in the Rattlesnake Valley and is west of Duncan Drive and adjacent to Teddy Turn. It is legally described as Tract H-1 and H-2, COS #4206, Tract M-2, COS #4214, and Tract M-1A, COS #4632, located in the E 1/2 Section 10, T13N, R19W, P.M.M. (Staff Report) Mayor Engen opened the public hearing. Jennie Dixon said, Office of Planning and Grants. This request comes from Muth Hillberry, LLC to, as Mayor Engen said, to rezone and subdivide the 34 acres into 38 lots. The request is subject to a deadline, from which an extension was granted, to December 17, so the public hearing tonight, the timing would allow for a referral back to committee and then final action next week. subdivision of this property located in the upper Duncan Drive area of the Rattlesnake Valley, with connection to existing Teddy Turn and extension to the north to property that is proposed for another subdivision called Duncan Meadows. Several cul-de-sacs extending off of Teddy Turn, with a longer cul-de-sac, Beethoven Lane here extending east, that would ultimately be connected to the roads in Duncan Meadows if approved. So this shows the general location on the west side of the Rattlesnake Valley. This shows the location of the property relative to the zoning of the North Hills. I have several zoning maps and maps of the comprehensive plan designations to orient you to the history of the zoning of this parcel as well as land use recommendations as they exist currently. So the site over here, as this large area in the upper west Duncan Drive area is unzoned, and then surrounded by Open Space here. This is the Duncan Meadow subdivision so the star represents where the proposed Sonata Park subdivision is. 150-foot wide strip of city open space, then connecting down to more city land. Spur lock has some 20-acre tracts, a portion of which, half of a quarter section is zoned CRR-2, 2 dwelling units per acre in the county, and then the remainder being zoned CA-1, which is an open and resource 1 dwelling unit per 40 acre zoning district, that is the open space. This is an open and resource, allows one per forty. Then further west is unzoned land as you get up to the Grant Creek drainage. Then of course, the next map I guess will show ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 36 the creek. The unzoned land that was not able to be zoned in 1995 with RLD-2 along the creek²east of the creek. This shows the history of the zoning of the parcel that prior to 1989, the county zoning of this property and actually three-quarters of this entire section, and the west Rattlesnake Valley was zoned CRR-2 in this area. Upon annexation in 1989, the property was zoned with an interim zoning that essentially mirrored this CRR-2 zoning district. That interim zoning was extended for a period of two and a half years, at which point it expired and the land became unzoned. The plan dwellings units per acre. It was in 1995 when the plan and zoning effort in the Rattlesnake Valley attempted to zone these lands along with many other lands in the Rattlesnake Valley and this area in particular was unable to be zoned due to protest. So the land today remains unzoned. You probably recently saw a presentation relative to the comprehensive plan histories, how property has evolved in the land use planning documents for Missoula as adopted by the City Council and this land use plan, adopted in 1975, is a guiding document that was replaced in the Rattlesnake Valley by the 1995 Rattlesnake Plan Update. In between there, there was a 1988 Rattlesnake Plan but the land use designations did not change. So this plan, DQG,¶OOVKRZ\RXD]RRP-in area of the area in 1995, for 2 the lighter yellow color. Encouraged clustering of subdivisions to maintain as much open space as possible and protect resources, and density was limited because of lack of access to sewer. In 1995, the plan was amended and attempted to be zoned, as I mentioned, to a residential density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 to 10 acres on the western 300 feet of the site, as well as over on this eastern portion, where you have some ridge and some steeper slopes and riparian areas. The more developable portions of the properties west of Duncan Drive were designated with this, too, a 1 dwelling unit per 2 acre designation. You can see where it follows along Teddy Turn and close to that road, and then up this valley into the Cooney Property, where the lands were somewhat flatter and not near sensitive resource areas that were warranting protection. The City Council approved a resolution expanding the wastewater treatment facilities area in July 2006 to include these areas west of Duncan Drive. I wanted to pull out a reference in the 1998 Urban Comprehensive Plan that references residential development on the urban fringe, which I believe many people would consider this area to be. That states, been a natural part of the urban land use pattern. It should be reexamined in the light in of recent pressures of new development and the resulting increases in the cost of providing essential urban I had to back up there. These densities, however, are general, and are intended to represent a range of the general development pattern which can be anticipated in this area. Actual site characteristics should be considered when evaluating a proposed development. I have some photos interspersed with some of the slides for this evening, so this shows you the Duncan Drive Road that connects to Teddy Turn as your looking north as you can see and has been referenced in the public hearings and discussion that Duncan Drive is a two-lane road, with shoulders but obviously no curb and gutter nor pedestrian walkways. The subdivider is proposing a subdivision that may eventually connect to the Duncan Meadows subdivision to the north of this property. I believe the Duncan Meadows subdivision is approximately 65 acres. You can see the intended loop connection roads here that ultimately will affect the length of be considering with this subdivision and was intended not only for better traffic circulation but to enhance the safety in what the applicant has identified as a WRI area by providing a looped road. This is a photo of the area wKHUH,¶YH²some of the potential roads on the landscape as well as in the background, the smaller thinner white line is the northern boundary of the subdivision to where you can view the Duncan Meadows subdivision. The staff recommendation as well as the Planning Board recommendation was to include a 100-foot buffer on the western edge of the property, the buffer to be a no-build, no-improvement or no-alterations zone as well as delete the four lots that are in the southeastern corner of the property. The recommendation to delete those lots is based primarily on the identification of riparian resources in that area, as well as wildlife habitat and corridor. recommended an approval of the requested RLD-2 zoning with the PUD overlay that would limit it to 34 lots as shown here with those four lots deleted. This is a photo that would show you ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 37 conceptually what 100-foot buffer off the open space might look like. The white line there obviously being the property line between the FLW\¶VRpen space and this property, the 100-foot connect WKURXJKWRWKHFLW\¶VRpen to the east, you would see, as this photo shows, the city parkland in Papoose Ranch subdivision that was identified as a primary east-west draw where riparian vegetation is present. There is a zoning district in the city that identifies that east-west draw as containing riparian resources as well as potentially a southern spur draw that comes off of that main draw and we believe also includes riparian vegetation, as this map indicates. This was provided by WGM, that shows the proposed plat with those four lots, with that prior map, those were the riparian area overlaying on top of that to show you where the riparian zoning estimated riparian vegetation to exist, back in the mid-µ This mapping of riparian vegetation in the mid-µ time on field analysis of every site in the city; that was obviously too laborious to accomplish. So these green riparian vegetation areas were based on knowledge of the side, vegetation and air photos and was indicative of potential vegetation and further analysis would be needed. This is showing that the city, when adopting the riparian zone, believed both of these draws to contain believe that this area here also approximately also contains Hawthorne and I believe Chokecherry and other habitat types that are identified in the subdivision regulations to be riparian area. The applicant has indicated that, \HVWKLVDUHDLVULSDULDQEXWIHHOVWKDWWKLVDUHDLVQRWULSDULDQ,¶OOOHW the applicant speak to that further. But as a result of identifying at least the east-west draw as riparian, the applicant presented a riparian management plan last week which was forwarded the council as well interested parties for whom I had e-mail addresses. This shows, you can see fairly the space and then the southern draw there that the topography of that draw is evident here and then as you get more over off the slide, where Lots 35-38 would be developed is the vegetation that is shown here. The plat here shows the general direction from which the photograph was taken to show that area where Lots 35-38 are proposed and the vegetation²this area should not be developed with lots. The zoning district and the PUD overlay allow for lot sizes as well as well as lot widths to vary. One of the riparian area is that you have 34 acres to work with to develop, as staff is recommending, 1 lots. The Planning Board entertained a motion of recouping these four lots elsewhere on the plat. Ultimately I think the vote was 5-3 to not recommend recouping those four lots but it certainly is possible to do so. We feel this area is definitely approximately fall relative to those lots and the plat. This slide is taken from upper Lincoln Hills Drive, Brookside and the Rattlesnake Creek, somewhat in the foreground with the east-west draw identified here, and the southern draw where the four lots recommended for deletion are shown. You can kind of orient yourself with this tree lined Teddy Turn with the Cleeves Home at that location. That shows you in general where the subdivision lays on site. This is from the bottom of Lincoln Hills Drive to give you a sense of what is visible across the valley. This site is not visible eastside of the valley and really it was at Lincoln Hills where the site became visible. As a rezoning request, this is subject to a potential protest; a statutory protest requiring a supermajority vote by the City Council to approve the rezoning. At this point in time, my best assessment from the letters received even up through 5:00 this evening, is that there is not a statutory protest, only two properties within the 150 feet have written in opposition to this rezoning request, and those are shown in the darker yellow. Spurlock has written relative to the proposal but I interpreted the letter as relatively neutral, and then these three properties here have written letters in opposition, however, they do not fall within the protest area. Four properties would be required within the 150 feet to trigger that supermajority vote of City Council. This plat shows the development colored in that will show you the open space in the green, the developed lots as proposed in the yellow with no-build zones shown in red here. This no-build zone is to accommodate a 50-foot wide setback from the high pressure gas line, YPL gas line that runs east-west through the property. This red ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 38 shown as red on the lot, as important to show it here. There are some gravel piles that are also no-build, but those are manufactured, not a natural part of the site, and will be removed with development. The recommended 100-IRRWEXIIHUIURPWKHFLW\¶VRpen space does infringe upon some of the lots and the road at this location. So shifting the road and potentially the lots to the east to accommodate that no-build zone was part of the staff recommendation. There are several options for you to consider. One would be to require the lots to be entirely removed from that 100-foot buffer and require it to be open space. This is much the same discussion I think as you had on the Teton, required to be common area, or to allow the lots to remain there with the road shifted over out of that 100-foot buffer and simply place a no-build zone that is recommended in the definition within the recommended conditions of approval. That would prohibit structures, parking and driving lanes, fencing, except for wildlife friendly fencing, any kind of mining or disturbance of the site. Let me just run the variance requests. There are two. I mentioned one of them already, which is Beethoven Lane is 50-feet longer than the allowed 1,000 feet for a cul-de-sac in a rural subdivision. We are recommending, as is Planning Board, approval of this variance request. The fire department did indicate that cul-de-sacs present a problem with response time but did not intend for their comments necessarily to influence recommending denial of this variance, but rather wants to encourage the developer to seek out and connect the roads for a loop through Duncan Meadows if possible. If not, I believe the 50 feet was something that the fire department could live with but wants to continue to be vigilant in not allowing excessively long cul-de-sacs. The vote on that from the Planning Board was 8-0 to support that variance as well as the variance for boulevard sidewalks on the opposite sides of the off-site roaGVDQGWKDW¶V%UDKP¶V:D\KHUH and this portion of Teddy Turn. The requirement is to place boulevard sidewalks on both sides of those roads and those locations. Applicants requested a variance, staff is recommending approval. I believe City Public Works and another department supported that variance and OPG transportation and Health Department did not support that variance. Parks and Recreation did support it. So we had some conflicting opinion about whether or not to support the variance. Each department obviously kind of coming from their point of view. The staff recommendation was based on an analysis that the property south of this subdivision that is entirely bounded by these roads is a 31-acre tract that may or may not subdivide. If it does, the subdivision would require boulevard sidewalk on that side, the south side of those roads, and if it does not there are only three homes between the end of this road and Duncan Drive on the south side of the road, and installation 1,700 feet of sidewalk for those three homes was not warranted in this case, Board supported that variance. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request to in also a draft ordinance that will show you a slight modification that was made in the last section to clarify that density reduction based on hillsides is not applicable in this PUD as LW¶V already happened through the platting of this subdivision. They voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the a bit and fill in any gaps make is the resulting density from the comp plan designation that I showed you in the 1995 Plan would result in a density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 the zoning, the applicant is proposing 1.12 dwelling units per acre, so more than what staff is recommending. All of the roads were proposed in the application to be private roads. The city engineer recommended that they be public roads and the applicant, as I understand it, is amenable to making all these roads public roads, with the exception of the short courts, which are from that short court generally through the city parkland, an easement was obtained I believe from the property owner here, to get the sewer out to the east and then through the creek crossing right-of-way and across Rattlesnake Creek, with a lift station to connect to already existing sewer on that side of the creek. The plat does contain RSID waivers for the public roads and if adopted ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 39 with the recommendation to make the internal roads public, that RSID waiver would apply as well for future improvements to those roads. However, all roads have been proposed meeting the city subdivision requirements, and staff has recommended a condition for no-access strips on corner lots that have frontage on Teddy Turn, so that all of the lots would be required to access onto the roads of the lower classification. With the crossing of the draw here, a condition of approval is to install traffic calming features at the north and south ends of that draw to allow for wildlife crossing and slowing of traffic in those areas. The drainage plan yields a detention pond in this portion of the property, which as shown, conflicts with some of the riparian vegetation on the site as well as a recommended 20-foot public pedestrian access easement that would allow connection from this FLW\¶Vopen space Creek Crossing, clear over to the east side of the creek. Using either a bridge there or another location. So we recommended that the detention pond area be redesigned so that it does not remove native existing trees or shrubs, particularly riparian vegetation, nor conflict with the ped easement that staff has recommended to connect those two parks. The Health Department recommended a plan for mitigation of post-development road dust emissions resulting from the hillside sanding of these roads, since these are on slopes over has seen it in the recent past. I did provide you with language for a revised or additional weed condition that you adopted on Teton earlier this evening, and Board focused on the geology of the site. None of the reviewing agencies that I contacted identified that as an issue, nor any of the planning documents that I have, other than the location of a fault running through the Rattlesnake Valley that was addressed it much more detail by Mr. Van Der Poel and Bill Wykle and others who are certainly more knowledgeable than I about the geology of this area. evening even, we have adopted²the governing bodies have adopted conditions requiring a GEO tech study that would provide an analysis of the geology of the site as well as requiring follow-through and compliance with all of the recommendations contained in a GEO tech study. That is a possibility, time. Since the referral memo was sent out mid-afternoon on Friday, we did receive quite a bit of new information which I believe has been forwarded to you and even through today, a number of letters of public We have met all notification requirements for this rezoning and subdivision and Planning Board conducted a public hearing, Ms. Corday from Parks and Rec is here to follow up on the riparian management issues that Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Dixon. Ms. Corday. Jackie Corday just wanted to point out for you just like I did for Planning Board that the city zoning map correctly identifies the woody draws as riparian. Most of you probably think of riparian in a classic sense of cottonwoods and willows along a river, but our regs also include woody draws. The draws are where those lots are, is a small ephemeral drainage that has woody species such as Hawthorne, woods based on the riparian regs, need to be deleted. Mayor Engen said, thank you. ,¶OOKHUHIURPWKHGHYHORSHURU Nick Kauffman behalf of Mr. Muth and Mr. Hillberry. With me tonight is Don Snavely, Mr. Mayor. He and I will be ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 40 consulting engineer on the project relative to soils and slope stability is here also. (Makes technological adjustments) Mayor Engen said, length; he made some arrangements to spend a little extra time this evening discussing the ,¶YHKDGVome expression from council members who hope their capacity to hear you this evening will meet do me a favor and be as succinct as possible with your remarks, these folks would certainly appreciate that. Mr. Strohmaier has asked that this item be returned to committee. We do not have a statutory requirement to consider this item this evening as we did with the subdivision we heard earlier this evening, which means that unless eight members of the council this evening choose to continue to consider this item, this item will return to PAZ, which meets Wednesday at 10:00, Ms. Kendall, is that correct? Would you be able to take this item up on Wednesday of this week? Alderwoman Kendall said, yes. We knew this item was going to be sent back so we have two hours to talk about it on Wednesday morning. Mayor Engen said, so the committee and you all will have time on Wednesday as well of this week at 10:00 in this room to consider issues and be heard. as well. If the committee, I assume the committee will move the item back to the council floor next Monday night, the item will be under consideration under our committee reports on Monday evening and there will be opportunity for comment there as well. I recognize that the hour is a \RX¶UHZHOFRPHWRGR couple of other additional pieces of business to take care of after we finish this public hearing, so a little Harmon, did you have--? We would close the public hearing but the opportunity for public long as we have some time and technology is still working its way to the screen in front of us²are you getting close? Nick Kauffman said, screen. the way it is supposed to, which sometimes it never does²is the question of the land form has been brought up by Mr. Van Der Poel. Numerous subdivisions that our company has worked on in the 32 some-\HDUVWKDW,¶YH EHHQZLWKWKHPFDQEHVHHQLQWKLVVOLGH7KH\¶UHVLPLODUtypes land form and soils and slope issues, not the least of which is Prospect over in Grant Creek, Grant Land 13 or Grant Creek Hills which is right up here. Lincoln Hills which is right across the valley in the Rattlesnake, Greenbriar, Tipperary Way, all occur on similar soils. We deal with these as a matter of course in our business and have used the consulting firm of GMT Consultants over the years. I also want to be very respectful of Mr. Van Der Poel any problems with a condition similar to what the Office of Planning and Grants has the larger area of the city of Missoula, remembering of course that we have the same type of here. Recognize at Lincoln Hills and the Mount Jumbo saddle this way. This is the Harriet Spurlock Property, this mountains to the foothills and then note how the subdivision disappears over the horizon as you ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 41 gaze at it from Missoula the top of the ridge. This is the 150 feet of at it from Lincoln Hills, across the Rattlesnake Valley, into this little basin. :H¶OOJRXSWRZDUGWKH wilderness area and look down Rattlesnake Creek and the Rattlesnake Valley and the project sort closer look at the subdivision itself and²I hate it when this part happens. This area where the little hand is, is the 150-feet wide strip of city-owned land. This is the top of the ridge, the area between the city-owned land and the top of the ridge and over the top of the ridge is Spurlock. 7KLVDUHDLVWKHDUHD,WDONHGDERXWHDUOLHULW¶V]RQHG2 dwelling units per acre. This is the lower know as the PEAS Farm. This is the area in question, staff has talked about. I think the photo pretty good idea of what the site looks like. This shows the city-owned Sunlight parcels; and gold on this property was originally part of the Sunlight properties. The primary issue tonight is a discussion of density and what the development rights for this piece of property are as they relate to the growth policy. On one hand, the developeUVIHHOWKDWWKH\¶UH successors in right to Sunlight Development in the agreements that took place in 1989 through circa 1992 where the city acquired open space and bought down density, and Sunlight Development paid for sewer into the Rattlesnake and provided the city with great compensation, open space corridors along Rattlesnake Creek and the open hillsides that you see in this photo. So on one hand we have an expectation created by an agreement between the city and county in Sunlight Development and their successors in interest, and on the other hand, we have a roomful of people from the Rattlesnake who have watched with great interest and put their heart and souls into the growth policy development and neighborhood plans in the Rattlesnake, who come away tonight with this difference of opinion. Hopefully it can be addressed through the subdivision process. This is a plat of Sonata Park. This is the way it was proposed for subdivision. These are the four lots that seem to be the primary concern for staff. We did a riparian analysis in office with our environmental specialist, Ms. Laura Lofink-Jones. Laura did not find riparian species on this site and so we did not do a Ms. Corday is in variance with Ms. Herrera Environmental Consultants to look at this property, and they were out last week between snow storms and took peek at it, and they feel that there is riparian vegetation on the site in the main draw, and they also feel that part of this lower draw also has riparian vegetation. I think the Herrera to do a riparian vegetation plan and take into consideration the concerns raised by the prepare a weed management plan for this site that not just sustains the areas that have riparian management and good riparian management. What will we concede is that given the discussion is that Fish, Wildlife and Parks has not identified this as important wildlife habitat, and their original the contents into the record at this point, said that we¶YH addressed their concerns with this design. However, after listening to public testimony and staff testimony and parks testimony at removing the four lots from this location. an awful lot of thought and planning. Remember on the one and then on the other hand. This is a 52-lot proposal that we originally -lot proposal that we considered for this piece of property, and 41 lots, and then ultimately the 38 lots. This shows the connectivity to the north. I think the staff had a better neighbors ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 42 over the review period for the subdivision have consistently talked about the safety of pedestrians existing city public right-of-way here that follows up north along the creek in this area, comes away, and then when we platted Papoose, we created a right-of-way for a walkway here. So this is existing public right-of-way successful, this is the approximate route of a city sewer main which would connect up over here, :H¶OO construct this portion of that proposed trail here, so that pedestrians and joggers and bicyclists, and connect up or connect up here, or coming down, the same thing. Take this route instead of a path on Duncan Drive. It was done with great consideration to the options because we believe that the neighbors have correctly identified this. So right to protest SIDs for improvements to Duncan Drive including a walkway. If the city of Missoula tonight paving that trail I just showed you. We talked about providing matching funds of 13% for CTEP EXWWKHUH¶VVRPXFKFRPpetition in the community for CTEP would make it onto the list. We could propose $200 per lot, paid at final plat, to be put into a fund to be used for that trail. That precedent was set with Cornerstone where money was contributed to the city for an ultimate walkway on Rattlesnake Drive on the other side of the creek, but we misrepresentation of traffic in other areas, so what I tried to do is look at other areas in the Missoula Valley that are similar to this that are a valley with a dead-end road like Grant Creek and Pattee Canyon and Rattlesnake Creek, so the lowest volume is about 1,750 vehicle trips on Duncan Drive just north of Lolo Street. The next highest volume is 4,250 cars on Grant Creek, just north of I-90. Pattee Canyon Drive at Higgins as 4,850 cars. Rattlesnake Drive north of Lolo, which is comparable to that one, has about 7,800. And then Rattlesnake Drive at I-90 has 9,580. So all areas of our community have traffic, but I think we should try to address the safety concerns that have been raised in the review of this subdivision. At PAZ Mr. Strohmaier, trying to address some of the fire safety concerns, asked us if there was a way, should Sonata move forward or VKRXOG0U&RRQH\¶VPRYHIRUZDUGLVWKHUHDZD\WKLVLVFLW\open space land here, is there a way to bring a road through city open space land and make another connection to Duncan so that you had a loop system with two ways out. Mr. Strohmaier, the answer to that is, \HV:H¶UH concerned about the cut and fills associated with the switchbacks that would be needed for that. But that is a workable 8% alignment with 3% in the switchbacks and radiuses that meet the AASHTO guidelines. This is a slide that staff showed you earlier. What we¶G ask, which is something the Planning Board did not give us, but we would ask your consideration for, this shows the redesign of the subdivision. This shows the four lots in question being removed. This shows the relocation of the sewer line here. This shows the removal of the storm drainage retention pond that could go in another location to allow this pathway. The three lots have been recovered these are very difficult to see offsite. This one is a little more visible offsite. This would allow us to remove those lots, purported to be wildlife issues and riparian issues, but in return for that YDOXHZH¶GOLNHWRJHWWKUHH of those lots back in that configuration. building sites on this lot and this lot and we put the building restrictions similar to what you saw on Maloney Ranch on these two lots. If you compare²I tried to do a comparison of what the subdivision looks like before we take the four lots out, and what it looks like after we take the lots ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 43 So one lot is deleted from the project and that would leave us with 37 lots. I talked a little about riparian and I think that Herrera will be able to do a great job for us. Susan Wall and Lynn Ballack geological Wykle to address the issues raised by Mr. Van Der Poel prior to final plat. We started looking at to the soils we have in the South Hills or Grant Creek or on the other side of the Rattlesnake at Greenbriar or Lincoln Hills. I regard to fire. We identified tKDWZH¶UHLQWKHXUEDQZLOGODQGLQWHUIDFH7KHCity Fire Department did not identify that. We included the performance standards and the subdivision regulations for the XUEDQZLOGODQGLQWHUIDFHDQGWKDW¶s part of our project. If the City Fire Department has additional conditions relative to fire safety or to mitigate what may be a risk to residents in this subdivision. and I think the assistant fire like to do then is to go back to the staff report and take just a moment and look at the conditions. is shown in Attachment D shall apply to Sonata Park Subdivision. The first clause in that PUD is 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre; 1 dwelling unit per .89 acres, or 1.12 acres per dwelling unit, which would allow us the 37 lots, one lot deleted and three lots relocated. Then with regard to Condition No. 20, if that condition were amended to VD\³/ots 35-37 shall be relocated and Lot 38 shall be deleted,´WKHQZHZRXOGKDYHDVWDII recommendation that would be tolerable from our point of view. Thank you for your time and consideration. like to turn it over to Mr. Don Snavely. Mayor Engen said, Mr. Snavely. Don Snavely said, I will attempt to be brief, realizing the hour. I wanted to address one big issue, perhaps two I want to talk a little bit about it. context with everything that happened before, and it ignores substantial commitments and benefits the city got out of the 1989 agreements. The comp plan itself talks about what existed at the time of these 1989 agreements. There was a 1975 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which provided for 2.66 dwelling units per acre. There was then the Missoula County Zoning which allowed 2.02 dwelling units per acre. This agreement makes reference to these things. Then WKHUH¶VWKH 89 agreements come along and talk buy that density down, and apologize, that number was bought down to 1,432, not to 1,000. So you would end up with DFUHWKURXJKWKH It got 346 acres. 37% of the Sunlight lands for Open Space at a reduced price; 75% of appraised value. It bought down the density to 1,432 units; other thing I forgot was the 1992 interim zoning which provided for 2 per acre which is the same as the county zoning to the west, so the entire history up to the comp plan is 2 units per acre agreements. Did not net density on this property of 1 dwelling units per 3 acres as you heard from Jennie, or .33 dwelling units per acre. Totally out of whack with what had gone on from day one through the 1989 agreements. The effect of that comp plan is to allocate 11 dwelling units for these 34 acres. agreement, so if you took the comp plan, this agreement of 1989 would be totally meaningless for my clients. It would give them nothing. I summarize that at the bottom of the page on the right. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 44 What is the effect of the comp plan is interpreted by the opponents. The city gets 346 acres open space at a reduced price. The city gets a $335,000 cash contribution to the Rattlesnake is developer gets nothing. The developer loses the $335,000²they DFUHV consistent with a more reasonable allocation of density. So under the comp plan, we went backwards. We got absolutely nothing as a developer²ZKHQ,VD\³ZH´ all the Sunlight people that bought from Sunlight. The point of the comp plan is that it was totally out of context of what happened and totally ignores everything the city got. It ignores all the open space. It ignores the the 1989 agreements only create sewer hookup rights, sewer for you numerous provisions that talk about density units and development rights, how they can be density units? No. But it came as close as you could to it. It says we still have zoning some compelling zoning reason for not recognizing the density in that agreement. The density in the agreement should control. This should be some compelling reason to override what was negotiated in 1989. You look at the comp plan itself, and Jennie has talked²I think at the Planning Board, not here, but we will some more. They, in fact, considered the comp plan. Mr. Nugent just gave you a memo on the Safeway case. The Supreme Court has said you should consider the comp plan but you cannot consider some of the JRDOVDQGLJQRUHRWKHUV7KDW¶VWKH6DIHZD\FDVH You ignored some of the goals and The Supreme Court also said with regard to a growth policy, it used to be substantial compliance but the 2003 amendment seems to reduce that. Mr. Nugent put that in his memo. If you go through the comp plan, you will see WKHUH¶VDORWRIJRDOVRIWKHFRPSSODQLQopen space talk about that more later. The fact of the matter is we have met many of the goals of the comp plan. going to say this without an intent to insult anybody, but having lived in the Rattlesnake, I know it happens. The last goal: Recognize the Rattlesnake as a part of the Missoula community, supporting the same quality of life enjoyed by all Missoula residents. You just heard a development here for 5 or 6 units per acre. If you really want to have the same quality of life, why do the people in the Rattlesnake think that they can get 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres? The same quality of life is²I'm sure the people down in Maloney Ranch would like 1 per 3 acres as well. One of the Planning %RDUGPHPEHUVSXWLWYHU\ZHOO³:e are a growing community, we must all share the load.´ the people in the South Hills. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Snavely. Anything else from the developer this evening? Mr. Harmon. Dave Harmon Drive Neighborhood Association. been asked to deliver a short presentation for our neighborhood outlining why we feel you should deny this zoning and subdivision request. Before I start on the presentation, I just want for Mr. LQVXOWHGDQGLW¶GEHRND\,¶GOLNHto sit down while I do this because pushing the button and speaking and flipping pages is² Mayor Engen VDLGWKDW¶VMXVWILQH0U+DUPRQ Dave Harmon about the treatment. On a good day, I know your job is difficult. This subdivision before you is very ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 45 complicated, and I think your decision this evening or next week is going to be more difficult than because on the one hand you have this seemingly typical subdivision similar in many ways to maybe the hundreds that I know Mr. Reidy has heard over the years. or progress, whatever you want to call it. Because of this, it would be easy to be lulled into complacency. But on the other hand, there are these larger than life issues. This cage full of 800-lb gorillas jumping up and down, shaking the cage, demanding your attention. But before I both the rezoning and the subdivision. I just want you to know that we define our neighborhood as the area north of Mountain View and west of Rattlesnake Creek, the common bind that we have is that we all are previous owners of Sunlight lands. We built our homes, moved here, moved on to this unzoned land with confidence that the comprehensive plan would conserve the semi-rural Duncan Meadows that you saw, another 32-unit subdivision just to the north of Sonata Park. By the way, our neighborhood group is probably going to support that subdivision because it complies with the comprehensive plan at about 1 unit per 2 DFUHV:H¶YHEHHQZRUNLQJZLWKWKHGHYHORSHU speaking in favor of that subdivision. a proposal about 1 unit per 2 DFUHVWR]RQHWKHHQWLUHODQGXSWKHUH:H¶UHDOVRZRUNLQJRQDQ We clearly stated during seven mediation sessions that were held this summer, arranged by Mayor Engen trying to work out some issues for the Sonata Park Subdivision, we mentioned a how you add it up, 38 units is a long way from 10 units. We genuinely care about our generations still to come. We oppose Sonata Park and its zoning²Nick has spoken some about homes up there, if you put traffic. 7KHUH¶VQRELNHODQHVQRFXUEV no sidewalks. We feel adding more traffic on this is just going to increase bicyclists and pedestrians. Another issue is this beautiful bridge that was built at the end of Duncan Drive. I community, connects us to the Rattlesnake wilderness and recreation area. The bad part is, it puts a lot more bicyclists and pedestrians on Duncan Drive. You should come up some summer day²LW¶VUHDOO\JUHDW,KDWHWR say anything negative about it but if we do high density trouble. Susan Ridgeway is going to get up and speak more about bicycle and pedestrian safety in a minute. Also, the character of our neighborhood will be forever changed for the worse by this nonconforming development. Zoning this property RLD-2 would set a precedent for a suburban come in, yeah, they got is our last stand. If this subdivision goes through with an RLD-2 zoning we really feel could be displaced. The elk herd, you saw that first picture that was up at the end of Duncan Drive, they graze all the way down behind John Heffernan¶VDQG%ULDQDQG.D\e a hole currently in my pasture, actually it was a lot of people know. found to be incomplete, incorrect and confusing and it severely hindered our ability to comment. Fortunately, Brian Deery did a lot of work, figured out a lot of things that were confusing to us, and ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula City Council Minutes ± December 10, 2007- Page 46 issues. I think all of the things I just said you have kind of heard that before on other subdivisions. projects such as this one shall substantially comply with the comprehensive plan. This project the staff report. While you cannot deny a subdivision solely based on noncompliance, our attorney Sarah McMillan is going to get up growth plan. About the in, and Robin Peters is going to speak to you about the economics of this subdivision.