Full Text
Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 14, 2007, Page 1 Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee Minutes December 14, 2007 9:00 am ± 11:00 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, Stacy Rye, Marilyn Marler, Don Nicholson, and Dave Strohmaier Members Absent: Others Present: Denise Alexander, Collin Bangs, Caroline Byrd, Robin Carey, Catharine Carey, Jackie Corday, Brian Derry, Jason Diehl, Jennie Dixon, Dave Harmon, Harold Hoem, Jan Hoem, Marsha Hoem, Richard Hutto, Nick Kaufman, Mary McCrea, Roger Millar, Scott Mictchell, Kent Means, Frank Muth, Jim Nugent, Ben Slater, Andy Sponseller, Bill Weikel, and Nina Cramer I. Approval of Minutes December 12, 2007 minutes not available II. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda III. Staff Announcements - 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 from December 12, 2007 Motion 1: The Committee recommends that City Council approve the request to zone the property RLD-2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, as amended and shown in the attachment, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37. Motion 2: The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the request to vary from Subdivision Regulations Section 3-2(15)(A)(2) requiring a 5-foot wide boulevard sidewalk and a 7- foot wide landscaped boulevard on the opposite side of the off-site portions of Teddy Turn and Brahms Way., to permit Teddy Turn and Brahms Way to be constructed with boulevard sidewalk on one side of the road as proposed. Motion 3: The Committee recommends amending the covenants to require bear proof garbage cans. gallon polyurethane carts from Allied Waste to contain all garbage; no other types of garbage containers are allowed. The carts must be stored inside fully enclosed sheds or garages until the day of garbage pickup. The carts may be placed outside for pickup only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on the day of Allied Waste pickup. When there are 25 residences in this subdivision, the effectiveness of this garbage plan to deter wildlife will be evaluated by Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the homeowners association. If FW&P recommends a different collection method, including but not limited to bear-resistant roll-off dumpsters located at the base of the subdivision with appropriate facilities, the Association shall be responsible for implementing such recommendations. The Association shall maintain the common area needed for the dumpsters and set up whatever process is necessary to centralize the billing for the garbage service, infrastructure, and related construction costs. Motion 4: The Committee recommends that City Council approve the following new condition: The covenants shall be amended to require City Fire Department inspection and approval of compliance with the City WUI standards contained in Exhibit 6 of the City Subdivision Regulations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This provision of the covenants may not be ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 14, 2007, Page 2 changed or deleted without governing body approval, subject to review and approval by OPG prior to final plat approval. (vote 6-4) Motion 5: The Committee recommends amending Condition #31 to include WRI / WUI standards as ones that may not be amended or deleted from the covenants without governing body approval. Motion 6: The Committee recommends amending Condition #19 to include the following: $RQHKXQGUHGIRRW boundary adjacent to the City Open Space. The plat shall be revised to shift lots on the western side of the property to the east so that no lots are within the one-KXQGUHGIRRWZLGH³1R%XLOG =RQH´(vote 10- an appropriate map exhibit as an attachment, as follows. This section of the covenants may not be changed or deleted without governing body approval ³7KHµNo-%XLOG=RQH¶shall include the prohibition of all buildings, structures, fences (except for wildlife friendly fencing), roads, motorized vehicle access (except for routine maintenance activities), parking, storage, or any other development. It shall also prohibit any mining, cutting, burning, or removal of live or dead vegetation (except if needed for wildfire prevention, noxious weed control or conservation management), filling with substances such as gravel, soil, slash or other debris, or the planting of non-native Motion 7: The Committee recommends that City Council approve the following new condition: The covenants shall be amended to include a Weed Management Plan (Plan) for all undeveloped and planned open space areas of the subdivision, to be reviewed and approved by the County Weed District prior to final plat approval. The Plan shall include provisions making the developer responsible for its implementation until enough development has occurred to support the Association to assume weed management duties from the developer. The Plan and the covenant provisions related to weed management shall be reviewed and approved by the County Weed District, City Parks and Recreation and OPG prior to final plat approval. Motion 8: The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the request to vary from Subdivision Regulations Section 3-2(13)(A)(1) requiring cul-de-sac roads to be 1000 feet in length or less, to allow Beethoven Lane to be approximately 1,050 feet as shown on the plat Motion 9: The Committee does not recommend that City Council approve the following new conditions: Subdivision Condition ± ¼ acre lots The subdivision shall be redesigned comparable to the proposed plat, as amended, with lot sizes not to exceed ¼ acre. Zoning Condition ± ¼ acre lots The Sonata Park PUD shall be amended to establish the maximum lot size within this PUD at ¼ acre. Motion 10: The Committee recommends amending Condition #20 to state the following: 20. Lots 35 ± 38 shall be deleted from their current location as shown on the proposed plat and three lots may be recouped as shown on the plat dated December 14, 2007, attached. Motion 11: The committee forwards to the floor without recommendation Sonata Park Subdivision subject to conditions as amended by PAZ Committee on December 14, 2007. Chair Kendall asked Mr. Nugent to respond to zoning issue questions that have come up via email correspondence. Mr. Nugent stated the legal opinion was in regard to unzoned land, used in the application of The Zoning Compliance permit. Montana State Subdivision Act does not require a super majority vote in order to approve a subdivision. A subdivision does not require zoning. Jennie Dixon commented that the worksheet she referenced for unzoned land for Subdivison review. OPG staff and the City Attorney had discussed this issue: 1. The City Attorney felt this worksheet did not apply to subdivisions only to building permits. 2. This was a new position presented to the staff, and the position the City. 3. The committee had a zoning request before them with a protest. 4. If zoning failed the subdivision could still move forward. Chair Kendall asked if the PUD was part of the zoning. Ms Dixon responded yes, and went on to explain any changes to the PUD would require a super majority, but the subdivision, does not require a super majority, only a simple majority. She outlined the current situation, they had an applicant request, a protest, and a motion to zone at 37 units. The committee had several options before them: ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 14, 2007, Page 3 1. To proceed with zoning motion. 2. To revisit the zoning motion. 3. The applicant could withdrawn zoning request and simply ask for the subdivision. Councilman Childers asked that in light of the new information on the worksheet, had the City Attorney weighed in on this question in the past. Ms. Dixon explained that only in brief discussions, not to this degree or to this conclusion in the past. Councilman Wilkins inquired if the subdivision were left, could the number of lots change. Ms Dixon stated that under Subdivision Regulations only for minor engineering problems were allowed under final platting not the number of lots. Councilman Jaffe questioned whether the building sites in this development complied with 2 out of the 4 criteria on worksheet. Ms. Dixon stated two out of four criteria could be met. Chair Kendall clarified to approve 37 lots was done on Wednesday and that was the motion for zoning. Ms. Dixon outlined the work to be done: x One motion for side walk variance x The main motion, where the committee could entertain amendments to conditions Chair Kendall suggested starting with the variance for sidewalks, because the variance for a cul-de-sac was withdrawn, and then a vote for zoning would be taken. Ms. Dixon reminded the Committee that the December 12, 2007 meeting the motion to zone was approved to recommend to the full Council approved an RLD with a PUD overlay for 37 lots. Councilman Strohmaier stated that the committed did not vote on zoning but voted to eliminate the four lots in the riparian area. Chair Kendall asked if the developer would like to comment. Nick Kaufman replied that Councilman Hendrickson had something on the table for discussion but agreed to continue in Friday. Councilwoman Rye stated she reviewed the MCAT broadcast and it showed that motion to zone was voted on. Ms. Dixon reminded the committee that the item left on the table was in regard to the 100 foot buffer along the west side of the property and shift lots. Chair Kendall asked for clarification of the protest vote and not having a super majority vote. Ms. Dixon explained that the context of the protest is with a vote of the City Council not a vote of the committee. Several members were not in agreement that the committee had in fact voted on a zoning motion. Chair Kendall asked to revisit the motion on zoning. Councilwoman Marler made the motion to zone the property RLD-2 (Residential) with a PUD Overlay, as amended and shown in the attachment, limiting the number of lots in the Sonata Park Subdivision and PUD to 37. Councilman Strohmaier stated he opposed the motion sighting several reasons x How does the community view planning, x In recent use of neighborhood plans, the call for lower densities was being ignored. x In the application for zoning, there was no mention of substantial compliance, just density rights of 2 dwelling units per acres: The use of sewer loading units as a density right was incorrect. x The need to use the applicable Comp Plan, sent a message to the public that the City does not value their input. Councilman Childers expressed concerns x The Rattlesnake Plan was conflictual from the beginning. x The Rattlesnake Plan does not agree with the prior uses or how the property owner wanted to use the land. x The Rattlesnake Plan from was a deliberate plan to down size zoning and the City could not change zoning without a protest. Chair Kendal stated that public comment would be allowed after the committee discussion and that she was opposed to the motion. Councilman Strohmaier relayed that he did not consider the work of the that this subdivision did fit the historical use of the land and the development pattern of this area. Councilwoman Rye stated that this property was zoned in the County at 2 per acre. She agreed with statements that every part of the city should share in growth. She used a recent subdivision in the Orchard Homes area as an example of another area not wanting to allow new building. She supported the motion. Mr. Nugent clarified for the record, that the recent Orchard Homes subdivision issue that the City had not annexed the property and therefore did not have any jurisdiction over the zoning of that subdivision. The vote that occurred was to annex and the Council did not annex therefore did not vote on the subdivision. Jerry Ballas called for question, motion passes Chair Kendall called opposed (Chair Kendall and Councilman Strohmaier) Ms. Dixon suggested to the committee to vote on the variance for sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 14, 2007, Page 4 Councilwoman Marler made a motion to approve the request to vary from the sidewalk widths. Councilman Childers asked for the reasoning for the variance. Ms. Dixon reviewed the highlights detailed in the staff report. Councilwoman Marler stated she believed that this variance was in part because of the low density in this project. Chair Kendall called for the vote to approve the variance request for sidewalks. Vote by the committee Motion passed unanimously Councilman Strohmaier proposed working on several amendments and moved to include a condition for bear proof garbage containers. Several committee members spoke in favor of the concept but some covenants. Jackie Corday with Parks and Rec spoke in favor and suggested using language from a previously approved County Subdivision called Hawthorne Springs. Mr. Nugent responded to the questions raised by committee members about amending covenants, he explained that the only enforcement mechanism the City had was when the City was a party to the covenant. Councilman Nicholson expressed the need for an ordinance to require all parts of the Rattlesnake neighborhood to have bear proof garbage containers. Councilman Haines questioned if this covenant was redundant with a State Law requiring that attracts to wildlife were prohibited. Councilwomen Marler responded that the covenant as purposed was not redundant and would help to keep residents in compliance with State law. Ms. Dixon reviewed the current covenant calling for containment of garbage and suggested the additional language the committee discussed would enhance the covenant and be included in the covenant section with could on be amended or deleted without governing body approval. Councilman Ballas expressed that an amendment to a covenant was appropriate given covenants were a part of the submittal package that was reviewed by the committee. Councilman Wilkins calls for the question, motion passed. Chair Kendall call for a vote on the motion to amend the covenants to include Bear Proof Garbage Cans. The motion carried with a vote of 10 aye to 1 nay. (Councilman Haines) Councilman Strohmaier made a motion to add a new condition requiring inspections by the City Fire Department in compliance with City WUI standards. Councilman Strohmaier was in support of the Fire to influence and have input into areas being developed in Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) areas of the City. Jennie Dixon added that within the covenants there was a condition regarding the WUI. Jason Diehl of the City Fire Department supported the additional opportunity for the Fire Department to inspect and approve property after development for defensible space. Councilman Ballas asked how this process would work, given that covenants are enforced by the Homeowners Association and are usually established after the fact. Denise Alexander pointed out that she had spoken to Tom Steenberg, The City Fire Chief and Don Verrue from the Building Division and explained that new homes do require a Certificate of Occupancy. The OPG office will flag building permits with an advisory that the Building Department not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until a Fire Department inspection has occurred. She further explained that the WUI standards also included roofing materials and that Fire Chief Steenberg was in support and would be working with the Building Division to ensure that new homes were being built with the proper materials. Mr. Diehl commented that the Fire Department was in support and felt this was a good first step. State Law dictated what the Fire Department could inspect and this would compliment the on going education programs that were held. Several committee members spoke and wondered how effective would this be if the home was finished but the landscaping is not. Mr. Diehl concurred it was a good point about landscaping verses the time of construction, however the Fire Department did require some fuels mitigation for tall grass, if timbered has required thinning of trees. Councilman Ballas asked Councilman Strohmaier to consider development standards but not a condition prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. Council Strohmaier deferred to staff for comment on the implications of this amendment. Ms. Dixon outlined that when staff wrote a condition they looked at what point was a condition of approval triggered; ninety percent of the time it would be with final plat approval. That was not an option here because the homes would not be constructed by that time. Another trigger point was the building permit approval. Staff came up with a trigger of the Certificate of Occupancy but if it was not acceptable, staff would defer to the City Fire Department to see if there was a trigger point which would allow them to do an inspection. Mr. Diehl wondered if there would be an option to have the time line (e.g. one year after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued) to trigger an inspection. Councilman Strohmaier did not accept the friendly amendment. Councilman Ballas withdrew his friendly amendment. Mr. Kaufman commented that he had seen the proposal and the applicant did not see any problems with it. ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ± December 14, 2007, Page 5 Chair Kendall called for the vote to add an addition condition amending the covenants to require inspection and approval by the City Fire Department for compliance with City WUI standards. The motion Ms. Dixon suggested amending Condition #31, to include the WUI condition to the section of the covenants which could not be amended or deleted with out governing body approval. Councilman Strohmaier made the motion to amend Condition #31 to include WRI/WUI standards as ones that may not be amended or deleted from the covenants without governing body approval. Chair Kendall called for the vote to amend Condition #31. Motion passed unanimously. Councilwoman Marler remarked the she had several motions she would like to make. Councilwoman WRLQFOXGHDRQHKXQGUHGIRRWZLGH³1R%XLOG=RQH´ Councilman Hendrickson stated he understood the buffer issue was to require building envelopes, not to move the actual lots. Ms. Dixon explained that the original intent of the staff¶V recommendation was to shift lots. Mr. Kaufman presented an example of the design with the lots pulled out of the 100 foot buffer strip. Councilwoman Marler stated this example is what she was looking for and she believed it was a more delineated buffer zone. Jackie Corday spoke in favor and commented on the value in connection with the City owned open space adjacent. Councilman Ballas asked if the example plat shown by the Mr. Kaufman was a plat showing 37 Lots. Mr. Kaufman replied, yes but it also include the removal of small buffer areas, incorporated three lots moved from the riparian area and the addition of a trail to the City owned open space. Councilman Ballas called the question, unanimous The motion carried unanimously Councilwoman Marler continued with an additional condition, she believed it was Condition No. 26 adding for the management of weeds. The motion carried unanimously Ms. Dixon requested a condition to shorten Beethoven Lane so that it did not exceed 1000 feet to be consistent with Councilman Childers was in favor of the original variance request and asked staff about any advantage to having the original variance. Ms. Dixon explained the advantage was there was an expectation of future development to the north and possible further extension. Councilman Childers asked the applicant if they would consider renewing the request for the original variance. Mr. Kaufman, relayed what they were trying to do was meet the concerns expressed by Council members. They would be willing to do what the Committee wanted. Councilman Childers asked for clarification on how to proceed. Ms. Dixon replied that the Committee would need to make a motion to allow the variance. Councilman Childers moved to approve the variance request to allow Beethoven Lane to be approximately 1,050 feet long. Jason Diehl explained that the Fire Departments¶ original opposition over the length of the cul-de-sac; The concern was in relation to general cul-de-sac development. The Fire Department would prefer connectivity of a traditional grid type pattern, which improves response times. The Fire Department expressed no problems with this variance. Chair Kendall called for the vote to approve the variance request. The motion FDUULHGZLWK DQGYRWH³QD\´ Councilman Strohmaier) Councilwoman Marler made a motion that the Committee recommend that City Council approve the following new conditions: Subdivision Condition ± ¼ acre lots The subdivision shall be redesigned comparable to the proposed plat, as amended, with lot sizes not to exceed ¼ acre. Zoning Condition ± ¼ acre lots The Sonata Park PUD shall be amended to establish the maximum lot size within this PUD at ¼ acre. Several committee members expressed concerns about this concept: x Most lots already this size. x Self defeating for fire concerns ± houses would be closer together. x Homes might be built higher up. x Different than the type of development already seen in this area. x Not enough information without seeing it on paper. ---PAGE BREAK--- Councilwoman Marler stated that she understood the comments, however, she felt, space between the houses was not open space. Councilman Strohmaier stated his constituents supported clustering closer to infrastructure, allowance for defensible space in the case of fire, and supported the concept of the motion and redesign of lots. Ms. Dixon clarified this would be a condition of the subdivision and gave examples of the distance between homes given this kind of zoning. Mr. Kaufman explained there were several factors involved in designing a subdivision, but opposed this idea. Ms. Dixon stated that from the the comp plan, this motion was in order and staff could support reduction of the lot size and further clustering to accommodate the goals and objectives of the comp plan. The discussion continued with questions and comments: x Specifics on set backs. x The ability to cluster given the topography of the landscape. x Building height, and width. x View sheds. x Lot coverage on small lots. x Too late in process to make such a change. x Could building envelopes be used Councilman Strohmaier felt that the Committee needs to deal with these issues. Mr. Kaufman responded that this proposal would make things go up higher, view shed impacts, would change the character of the site design, this is a cluster design, the most significant impact would be mass grading of this site and the whole character of neighborhood. It¶VDELJGHDO Roger Millar provided some guidance and suggested that the applicant could propose site development standards more detailed than in the RLD-2.. The Committee could look at lot size, set backs, scale of buildings, percentage of lot coverage, as possible conditions to preserve the concepts being discussed. Discussion continued with requests for information on the kinds of restrictions and requested staff provide that information before the council meeting on Monday night. Mr. Millar explained that the zoning had some specific regulations but with a PUD restrictions could be added. He noted that the applicant did not want homes to be seen but wanted to preserve the neighborhood character. Mr. Kaufman indicated that set backs are required in RLD-2 and the applicant would agree to fifty percent lot coverage, the only issue left was height. Ms. Dixon explained that it would be a new motion to amend the PUD zoning, to set maximum building coverage, and define specifics. Mr. Millar suggested that he and Mr. Kaufman could take some of the concepts that had been discussed and put something together for the Council for the Monday night meeting and have public comment then. Councilwoman Mahler expressed that she would like to see a vote for her motion. Councilman Nicholson called for the question. Harold Hoem, Dick Hutto, and Caroline Byrd all commented that this change would impact the character of the neighborhood, have impacts on wildlife and a reduction in number of lots. Chair Kendall call for the vote on the new conditions Subdivison Condition with lots sizes and zoning condition to amend the PUD at ¼ acre maximum lot size. The motion failed with 2 votes in favor, 8 votes opposed Ms. Dixon explained the committee has a condition to modify. Condition #20 to delete Lots 35-38 and allow three lots to be recouped. Councilwoman Marler moved amending Condition #20 to delete Lots 35-39 and three lots to be recouped. Chair Kendall called for a vote on the motion to amend. The motion carried with 9