Full Text
Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee Minutes December 5, 2007 9:35 am ± 12:00 noon Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine Street Members Present: Heidi Kendall (Chair), Jon Wilkins (Vice Chair), Jerry Ballas, Ed Childers, Dick Haines, John Hendrickson, Bob Jaffe, Marilyn Marler, Don Nicholson, Stacy Rye, Dave Strohmaier Members Absent: Others Present: Denise Alexander, Mark Bancale, Jennie Dixon, Dave Edgell, Doug Hacker, Dave Harmon, Harold Hoem, Jan Hoem, Laura Howe, Nick Kaufman, Carla Krause, Mary McCrea, Roger Millar, Renee Mitchell, Jim Nugent, Janet Rhoades, Tiffany Saleh, Ben Slater, Kristin Smith, Kevin Slovarp, Don Snavely, Mike Terzo, Dave Traver, Pam Walzer, Tim Worley, and Nina Cramer I. Approval of Minutes November 28, 2007 were approved II. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda - None III. Staff Announcements - None IV. Consent Agenda Items - None V Regular Agenda Items - ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ±December 5, 2007 Page 4 B. 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) Ms. Jennie Dixon, OPG, stated this is a pre public hearing informational item, and no action is needed. A Public Hearing is scheduled for this proposed subdivision and zoning request at the city council meeting ---PAGE BREAK--- Plat, Annexation and Zoning Committee ±December 5, 2007 Page 5 on Dec 10, 2007. Ms. Dixon provided some orientation to the proposal and did not go into detail as she believes this may be sent back to committee after the public hearing on the 10th. The Deadline for action is Dec 17th. If no action is taken by the 17th, the City will need to request an extension from the subdivider. This could be complicated with the new council and the need for another Public Hearing. Ms. Dixon encouraged committee members to get out any questions to her via phone, email or in public forum settings so that action on December 17th. is possible. The packet last week contained the Staff Report with Attachments A-D and submittal packet from developer. This Friday, the e-packet will include Planning Board action memo, any new information, corrected findings, and an ordinance for the zoning part of this request. Planning Board minutes may not be available by Friday. Ms. Dixon explained that staff will work to try to get a portion of those minutes to the City Council this Friday. Due to the Planning Board meeting the minutes are quite hefty. Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on this proposal on December 4, 2007. This proposal is for 38 lots on 34 acres, and the site is accessed via Duncan Drive to a relocated Teddy Turn, a private access road with cul-de-sacs coming off Teddy Turn, and an eventual connection planned to loop into a subdivision called Duncan Meadows to be presented in March 2008. Staff has recommended approval of the rezone request with a PUD overlay condition, to limit the development to what is being proposed as defined by conditions, resulting in a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The other motions that the council will be looking are two variance requests and the motion for the subdivision. One variance for the length of Beethoven Lane, a 1000 foot cul de sac, is to exceed the maximum length of cul de sac by 50 feet. A second variance is for not installing boulevard sidewalks on the opposite sides of offsite roads, Brahms Way and Teddy Turn. Staff recommends approval of both these variances. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision with 31 conditions of approval. These are to remove 4 lots, and to place a 100 foot set back adjacent to the City open space and shift the development to the east in some minor adjustment to result in a 34 lot subdivision. Planning Board recommended unanimously to approve, the zoning, the two variances and the subdivision as recommended by staff. Nick Kaufman, WGM Group, expressed that they would like to hear any questions or concerns the committee might have so they could address them at the public hearings, as well as comments or concerns from citizens. Councilwoman Rye questioned why the staff recommendation asked for 4 lots to be removed. Ms. Dixon explained that the four lots in question have been identified as a riparian area in addition to a valuable wildlife corridor/habitat. This subdivision has the ability to have reduced lot sizes in subdivision review to preserve this resource area. There are also drainage ways to be considered: an East-West draw and a Southern spur draw. There is vegetation and wildlife habitat worth preserving in this area. Zoning RLD 2 with a PUD overlay establishes the density at one dwelling unit per acre. This seems the best fit for this project, given hillside regulations. Councilwoman Rye asked the developer if there was some consideration to make lots smaller and cluster them in a smaller location. Nick Kaufman replied yes this was considered, however, the issues raised from public comment were to preserve the rural character, and to maximize the value of each lot. These larger lot sizes are desirable and would allow for the highest value given the reduced number of lots. Councilman Jaffe requested a weed free condition, through the development phase, and clarification on public access, and possibly an RSID waiver on future improvements on Duncan Drive. Ms Dixon reported that the RSID waiver is on plat. The Applicant has proposed all these roads to be private, and a recommendation from the Public Works Department was to make all roads public. A condition of approval requires a 20 foot wide public pedestrian easement from the city park in Papoose Ranch to city open space through the common area in locations that will not conflict with drainage areas and riparian areas. Councilman Nicholson asked about roads in this area. Ms Dixon responded that Duncan Drive is public. Councilman Strohmaier listed several question for Mr. Kaufman, including road configuration, concern about cul-de-sac length, and a concern about wildfire and safety. He wondered if there had been any consideration to have an additional route to the north through the City Open Space. Nick Kaufman explained there had been discussion for an access road that could go out to the west and down to Coal Mine Road, but that is a broader community discussion about linking those two valleys together. Ms. Dixon shared that there was some discussion of this in the 1995 planning process which is addressed to some degree in the plan, but ultimately this was not a recommendation. Councilman Strohmaier was concerned about substantial compliance with the comp plan. It deviated greatly from the 1995 Rattlesnake comp plan amendment. Council Strohmaier specifically asked Ms. Dixon to speak to the applicable land use plan and the staff recommendation for zoning. Ms. Dixon responded that the staff report at 30 pages provides a full explanation. However, in a nut shell, the 1995 land use plan recommends one dwelling unit per 5 to 10 acres on the western 300 feet and on the eastern area where there is a ridge, riparian areas and slopes that present obstacles to development, and one dwelling unit per 2 acres in the central area that is flatter. Visual impact was also a significant ---PAGE BREAK--- element in 1995 land use plan. The resulting recommended density by the plan is 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres. This project is 1.12 dwelling units per acre, with recommendation by staff for one dwelling unit per acre. State law changed several years ago in the way staff can weigh land use plans in subdivision evaluations. Staff evaluates the impacts created by the subdivision. By recent action of the city council this land was annexed into the Waste Water Facilities Service area, which indicates that this area is intended for growth. When you read the staff report, there is no discussion of the sewer development agreement. The Applicants feel strongly it plays a role in this review; however, staff does not consider it. The Comp Plan recommendation was made before the area was annexed into the waste water treatment facilities area. In conversations with City Engineering Department, once a property is in this area and is expected to be serviced, four dwellings per acre is what becomes cost effective. Councilman Hendrickson asked if someone could explain why the city would prefer to have public streets instead of private, when there would be costs associated with public roads. Councilman Hendrickson continued with a question for Mr. Kaufman about the four lots removed by the Planning Board as recommended by staff. Mr. Kaufman responded that the Planning Board removed the lots, based on the presence of a riparian area. The subdivider disagrees with this determination and hopes to have some additional information before the council hearing. We have three ways to address the concerns raised by staff for these 4 lots: 1. Building envelopes on lots, Parks and Rec says that will not work, 2. Allow us to redistribute these lots back in to the subdivision 3. Use a technique called ³%DUJaLQ6DOH´to allow for the platting and the sale of these lots in sensitive areas to be sold, at a low ³%DUJDLQ´FRVW, back to the City Nick Kaufman clarified they had been trying to reduce the number of lots as much as possible. This technique would allow them to reduce the cost of these bargain lots to as little as $5,000 or $10,000 each, given a funding source, and allowing this space to become part of city parkland and help to meet goals and objectives outlined for this area. Councilwoman Rye asked for clarification of the staff recommendation to allow the 4 sites to be incorporated somewhere else. Ms. Dixon explained that staff recommended to delete those four lots, Planning Board considered incorporating these lots somewhere else, but then did ultimately go with staff recommendation. Councilwoman Rye expressed concerned about setting of a precedent in a subdivision by buying out land with public money. Councilman Wilkins inquired about when the planning board minutes would be available. Ms. Dixon explained that normally the minutes are due 8 days after meeting. Staff is trying to get them done quicker and hopes that a portion will be done for the Friday packet. Councilman Childers stated that there are development rights not being used in this project and asked what happens to them, -do they go away? Chair Kendall stated that they are not development rights as per Mr. Nugent. Chair Kendall went on to say that this will be addressed at the council hearing. Chair Kendall asked for Public Comment Public Comments: Dave Harmon, Outlined some of the concerns from the North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association. x Bicycle and pedestrian safety on Duncan Drive x Doubling neighborhood size, and ultimately tripling with Duncan Meadows Subdivison x Concerns about fire and the amount of fuels in grasslands x Soils, potential for faulting in this area; x Un-zoned area, what guiding document do you use if there is no zoning. This rezoning does not meet the comprehensive plan. Understanding the state law about denial, but rezoning does fall under a state law that says it must substantially comply with the comprehensive plan. Harold Hoem, Egress issue is very big, getting residents out and firefighters and equipment in, the single road is a problem. C R l ti t d il l ti f i t ti N 7212 t dd i t t