Full Text
Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 1 of 14 MISSOULA CONSOLIDATED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 7:00 PM Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 West Pine Street MEMBERS PRESENT Don MacArthur, Vice Chair Heidi Kendall Jerry O’Connell Jerry Petasek ALTERNATES PRESENT Don Latham, Co Tim Skufca, Ci MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Blackler Jennifer Clary Mark Fitzgerald Tim Ibey STAFF PRESENT Jackie Corday, Parks Laval Means, OPG Janet Rhoades, OPG Tim Worley, OPG Sharon E. Reed OTHERS PRESENT Don Arambula Ellen Buchanan Bob Brugh Brent Campbell Bob Carter George Crandall Jason N. Graf Nick Kaufman Don Loftsgaarden OTHERS PRESENT Linda McCarthy Steve Monlux Peggie Morrison Kristin Smith Fred Stewart Please Note: Written comment and meeting handouts received at this meeting are available for review at the Office of Planning and Grants. Planning Board, City Council and County Commissioners have received copies of the comments for consideration. Photocopies may be obtained from OPG. An administrative fee is required for photocopies. I. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Don MacArthur: I’d like to call this meeting to order. Can we have a roll call, please. II. ROLL CALL Roll call indicated there were 4 members and 2 alternates present. Sharon Reed: Mr. Chair, you have 4 regular members and 2 alternates present. Can the alternates fill in for the missing regular members? Don MacArthur: Yeah. Sharon Reed: Thank you. You have six present tonight, you have a quorum. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Don MacArthur: Thank you. The next item is approval of minutes action thereon. Any addition or corrections? Motion for approval. Don Latham: Move the minutes be approved as presented. Heidi Kendall: Second. Don MacArthur: Seconded by Heidi. All in favor say “aye” [all members say “aye”] Any opposed? [members were silent]. The minutes stand approved. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 2 of 14 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Don MacArthur: Next item is public comment. Anyone who would like to comment on an item that is not on our agenda. It doesn’t look there’s anyone who might do that in the audience. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Don MacArthur: So in an effort to control the length of our meetings, which sometimes are quite long, we’ve initiated a new policy which is that we’d like both the staff and the developer’s representative to limit their presentations to about 20 minutes or so, or less. And we’d also like to have public comment limited to about three minutes or less. I see there are a lot of folks in the audience who are doing public comment, so I may not go through the rest of the little prepared thing we were going to read out, but we’ll move forward right away into our two public hearings tonight, the first of which is Clark Fork Terrace No. 1. Can we have a staff report, please. A. Subdivision and Rezoning Request – Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 – A request from Neighborhoods by Design, represented by WGM Group, Inc., for 38 lots on 27.16 acres located on the east side of Deer Creek Road, south of Interstate 90. The request includes a rezoning from C-RR1 (Residential) zoning in the county to RLD-2 (Residential) zoning in the city. Tim Worley: Members of the Board, for the record, I’m Tim Worley with OPG; and I’m here to present Clark Fork Terrace No. 1. A proposal by Neighborhoods by Design, represented by WGM for 38 residential lots on 27.16 acres. This project is located on the east side of Deer Creek Road, south of the Canyon River development in the East Missoula area. This slide here shows the relationship of the proposed subdivision, Clark Fork Terrace No. 1, to Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 immediately to the east. This was a subdivision approved in October of 2007. Here’s another slide showing the side-by-side perspectives of the two subdivisions. This property is currently in the County and zoned C-RR1. The City Council passed a resolution of intent that would zone the property RLD-1 upon annexation but a rezoning to RLD-2 is requested. Staff found that this proposal complies with the comp plan land use regulation of residential with a density of two dwelling units per acre recommended. This property is adjacent to an annexed parcel; water, sewer and other services are to be extended to this site, a relatively short distance from the Canyon River Development. The project’s also adjacent to a collector, that is Deer Creek Road, and so staff is in support of the rezoning to RLD-2. The subdivision roadways, which include Drouillard Drive, Charbonneau Drive, and Ordway Lane are proposed to be built to City standards on site. And you’ll see in Conditions No. 5 and No. 16 a requirement for review of road and sidewalk plans for these on-site roads. But in Condition No. 1 there is a requirement for a cul-de-sac in the event that the loop road is not completed. Both Clark Fork 1 and Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 are based on a loop road design that is supposed to go through both projects, but if Clark Fork No. 1 comes in first, of course a cul-de-sac would be needed right here and in the event that the loop road is constructed, there’s a recommendation Condition No. 5 that this cul- de-sac at the end of Ordway Lane be eliminated. Deer Creek Road is required to be reconstructed as it currently does not meet City standards for its surface, so you’ll see in Condition No. 7 a requirement for 26 feet of pavement with curb and gutter adjacent to the subdivision. Also, currently, Deer Creek Road right-of-way is 55 feet wide, so staff is recommending a 5-foot right-of-way expansion adjacent to the subdivision. Eventually, a small portion of the western side of Deer Creek Road will be reconstructed when development occurs on that side with the goal being that it will be 32-feet wide back of curb to back of curb. Six short courts are proposed with this subdivision. The same conditions, No. 2 and No. 3, include a requirement for a review of the short courts plus installation of the improvements and also a requirement for all the short courts to fall within public right-of-way and that’s also true of the roadways, too, there’s a ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 3 of 14 recommendation that all roads be confirmed as public right-of-way. Much of the subdivision traffic from this project will be directed to the Highway 200-Speedway intersection, closer in to East Missoula. As you leave the subdivision and head to the northwest through Canyon River, you eventually come to the intersection with Highway 200. Canyon River Development was required to redesign this intersection and Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 as well as this subdivision, which is Clark Fork No. 1, are required to waive the right to protest future improvements to the intersection. And, again, this intersection is sort of a difficult one, it comes in at an oblique angle and it is eventually MDT’s goal to make that more perpendicular. A significant amount of this subdivision is in common area and 5-foot walkways are proposed along common area strips in order to facilitate east to west movement to the main common area on the east side of the subdivision. These walkways are within 10-foot pedestrian easements, which requires a variance, since the standard is 20 feet. We felt this was supportable because there wasn’t that much additional to be gained by widening those ped easements to 20 feet for such short distances. A park is proposed along the side of Deer Creek Road. City Parks and Recreation recommends against parkland to be dedicated to the City here, because of the maintenance responsibilities for such a small amount of dedicated parkland. Within this area is planned an 8-foot wide meandering pathway and you’ll see in Condition No. 18 a requirement for review and installation of this 8-foot wide meandering pathway. Condition No. 19 requires a provision for walkway maintenance to be placed in the covenants, so maintenance will be the responsibility of the Homeowners’ Association. In Condition No. 30, you’ll see a recommendation that this should be not dedicated to the City but become common area and that the meandering pathway access be addressed via a public, non-motorized access easement. So that means folks both within and outside of the subdivision may use this as if it were a public sidewalk. There are a series of existing trails in this area, including the Kim Williams Trail and also the Canyon River Loop Trail and there a number of potential trail linkages in this area and it was staff’s feeling that Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 could facilitate one or more of these linkages. This is a map of the general area as provided by City Parks and Rec which shows some of the trails in the area: with Kim Williams being down here and terminates in here; the Canyon River Loop Trail around the golf course, terminates there; the subdivision we’re dealing with tonight is right here; and the approved Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 subdivision is just to the east. Zooming in a little bit, again, here is the terminus of Kim Williams with the Canyon River Loop Trail going up and around the golf course and terminating right there…and Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 is right here. Moving to the east…again, here’s our subdivision tonight, this is the terminus of the Canyon River Loop Trail here, and it is the goal of City Parks and Rec, the Health Department, and other reviewing agencies to perhaps get an east-west connection through this and other subdivisions in the area. Again, the potential for an east-west connection related to Kim Williams or the Milwaukee Trail was recognized by City Parks and Rec, the Health Department as well as the Milltown Superfund Redevelopment Working Group. Support for an east-west ped walkway in the area is expressed in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, the Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan, and the Master Parks Plan. And, as far as regulations are concerned, we noted that in City Subdivision Regulations, Article 3-2(15)(E) that non-motorized transportation facilities shall be continuous and provide access to all lots within the subdivision and access to adjoining developments unless exempted by these regulations and shall provide circulation linkage or safe access to bus stops, schools, playgrounds, shopping, transportation, parks, common areas or open space, other lots, or non-motorized transport facilities and community facilities which are existing or reasonably anticipated. So you will see that in Condition No. 17 a recommendation for a 10-foot wide, paved pathway within a 20-foot wide dedicated pedestrian/greenway corridor (this would be actually dedicated common area). The corridor would be overlain with a public, non-motorized access easement. Now, we feel there is some justification, also, in Article 3-8, the Parkland Dedication Chapter in the Subdivision Regulations; in particular, Article 3- 8(4) allows the governing body to determine suitable location for parks, playgrounds and trails. Also 3- 8(7)(C) allows ped/bikeways to count toward parkland dedication. It was Parks and Rec’s recommendation that this be one of two areas that should count toward parkland dedication. This slide ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 4 of 14 shows those two areas. They include, again, the dedicated green space along the eastern side of Deer Creek Road that contains the 8-foot wide meandering pathway and of course, the 10-foot wide pathway as outlined in Condition No. 17 along the southern edge of the subdivision. You might remember with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 in Condition 12 there was a recommendation for a 20-foot wide conditional public non-motorized access easement that is aligned with what we’re recommending on Clark Fork Terrace No. 2. You might ask the question, why not a conditional easement for this project? Well, the reason is we ran into difficulties with implementing trail easements required with approval of Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 and I would direct you to, in particular, City Parks and Recreation’s comment letter on this subdivision and you may know that the Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 easements are currently being contested in a lawsuit. On to some basic public health and safety issues. There is a high pressure gas line that crosses this property; it’s shown within a 50-foot wide easement indicated in red on the slide. YPL has not agreed to this particular easement width so you’ll see in Condition No. 25 a recommendation for an appropriate easement for this pipeline that YPL can agree to…YPL and the developer. Condition No. 24 is a recommendation for a no…about the location of and the restrictions regarding the pipeline to be placed on the plat and in the subdivision covenants. Condition No. 23 is a recommendation that plans for road construction be reviewed by YPL. That’s because Drouillard Drive, in particular, makes a perpendicular crossing and there’s also some construction you would expect with Ordway Lane as well. YPL might also require an encroachment agreement and appropriate development provisions are going to be required for the plat and the covenants. There’s a 250-foot wide BPA power line easement that crosses the property. A portion of this is also offsite. So you’ll see in Condition No. 27 a requirement for a land use agreement, which is simply a review mechanism for any work done within the BPA right-of-way. Also, BPA requires a note on the plat, or at least makes a recommendation that a note be placed on the plat putting people on notice as to what can occur within their right-of-way. So we’re recommending the language you see on the slide, there, I’ll leave it up for just a few minutes. In conclusion, staff is in support of the rezoning to RLD-2 and the subdivision. Don MacArthur: Thanks Tim. Is there a developer’s representative who’d like to present? Nick Kaufman: Thank you Mr. MacArthur, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Nick Kaufman, I’m a land use planner with the engineering firm of WGM Group here tonight representing Neighborhoods by Design. The founder of Neighborhoods by Design, Mr. Bob Brugh is in the audience with us tonight. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the limit of 20 minutes for the developer’s presentation. I have over 200 informative and interesting slides I wanted to show the Board tonight, but I’ll limit it to six. So, Tim, he’s one step ahead of me. So if you had a chance to read the subdivision packet, this entire property was in the ownership of the Jacobs family and a portion of this property which we now know as Canyon River was sold; and then, subsequently, this parcel of land was also sold. This was split off and sold to two developers: John Freer and David Edgell, who have looked at differing plans for this particular piece of property and Neighborhoods by Design retained this particular piece with Clark Fork River frontage. This is the mainline of Montana Rail Link, this is the Deer Creek Firing Range, Clark Fork River, Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 sits here, and Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 is here. This is all inside the City of Missoula at this time and I think Tim presented it quite accurately in that we’re almost annexing adjacent to City limits at this time. Next slide, please. So, this gives you somewhat of a clear picture; although this illustration is a bit incorrect. The illustrator placed this shading into Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 and it’s not. The dividing line is…this is Clark Fork Terrace No. 2, and this is Clark Fork Terrace No. 1. I’m just trying to show you generally how the two subdivisions fit together. There’s a common area linkage between the two subdivisions, the common area is a designed feature because this is a utility corridor. Tim pointed out ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 5 of 14 the buried Yellowstone Pipe Line here and there there’s a 250-foot wide easement owned by BPA which they haven’t used yet. There are also some BPA power lines on the property, the same power lines that run through the north side of Lincoln Hills and the Rattlesnake and then above the curves by Smoke Elser’s place was also a BPA corridor that comes down through there. Next slide, please. I’ll use this as a bit of an illustrative slide and talk about some of the design features in the subdivision and primarily Tim gave you a really good illustration of the trails from the Parks and Recreation map and the Canyon River Loop trail ends about where my laser pointer is up here and it’s really important to allow the continuation of that trail. In this case, it would come down Deer Creek Loop road and that’s that meandering trail that Tim talked about that’s condition to be placed in a common area because of maintenance issues. That allows that trail to cross at that controlled crossing, at the Montana Rail Link mainline right here. And then allows opportunities for this trail, I think Tim showed one that could possibly go through the subdivision in this location. This is where Tim talked about the 25-foot wide easement; they prefer it to be non-conditional. But there’s also opportunities…the Jacobs still own a piece of property at this end and so there’s opportunities, perhaps, for trail connection somewhere in this vicinity as you might see on the air photo. Critical to the design then is if we’re going to carry pedestrians along an 8-foot wide path in this common area adjacent to Deer Creek Road and a meandering corridor that’s landscaped and appropriately buffered and separated from Deer Creek Road then this whole design of Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 is integral to that particular trail. And so what we’ve done here is we’ve designed greenways that connect from this trail into our common area here, here, and here. In addition, the access road, here, street ends against a greenway connection in the common area. Each of these small greenways, right, break up the built environment and allow a long view connections through the subdivision, right, because we still are in a rural area. In addition, then, each one of these green spaces will have a sidewalk, one at each side of that greenway. The homes that you see here will front the greenway, the short courts being an alley, if you will, to the rear of the homes. So the homes will face the sidewalk that connects between an extension of the Canyon River Loop Trail back into the greenways. This allows, then, the designer of the built environment, for example, this home…the homes are all designed so that you look at the gable end, if you will, and they’ll face the greenways, so we’re not putting the rear of the homes along Deer Creek Road, we don’t want the 39th Street look of the back of the homes with the 6-foot-high mismatched cedar fences, but also allow the architect to extend the front of the home around to this side, along Deer Creek Road, so that we have some resemblance of streetscape with regard to the built environment. We’re trying to preserve the opportunity. So this is a pretty important design feature with how we’ve laid out Clark Fork Terrace No. 1. If you have any questions about that, I’ll be happy to try to further explain that. Next slide, please. We have a couple of concerns with regard to Condition No. 6 and 8 in your staff report. Those are conditions that relate to waiver of future RSIDs for Deer Creek Road and for the streets within the subdivision. And one of those conditions also provides for the waiver of an RSID for the improvement of the intersection of Speedway and Deer Creek Road, which Tim spoke about. I really don’t expect, tonight, that the Planning Board will take any action to amend the language of 6 and 8, but we will be bringing it up with the City Engineer and the City Attorney so we can get just clarification on what the purpose of the Transportation Impact Fees are relative to waiver of rights to protest for SIDs for off-site subdivision improvements and have a clear understanding of that. Because we will be contributing in this case to the transportation impact fees…so that’s a point of interest for you folks, because we will be discussing it at the City Council meeting. Condition No. 17, I’ll spend just a few minutes on that one. We’d prefer…we would prefer that this Condition not be attached to this subdivision. Our legal counsel maintains that there’s no justification in the subdivision regulations or state law for this easement. However, if you use…if you follow the staff’s recommendation for this easement, we would prefer that you use the language that was appropriate at the time that Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 was approved and make it a conditional easement. The language of that conditional easement that you find in the approval letter for the preliminary plat for Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 reads: “The final plat shall include a 20-foot wide ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 6 of 14 conditional, public, non-motorized access easement along the southern border of the subdivision. This easement shall be activated in the event that no alternative acceptable trail easement is acquired south of the subdivision within two years of final plat approval. The easement may be terminated if an acceptable trail easement is acquired within two years of final plat approval. Language referring to the terms and scope with a conditional public non-motorized access easement shall be included on the face of the plat and in the covenants to be reviewed and approved by Parks and Recreation prior to final plat.” Now, that condition passed muster with Parks and Recreation, with the Office of Planning & Grants, with the Planning Board, and the governing body with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 when it went through subdivision review. The language that’s proposed…Tim, can I have the next slide…the language proposed by staff by Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 removes the conditional language. We feel and all of us felt at the time we did Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 that the easement was granted with the language adopted with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 unless there was another appropriate alternative. I’m, myself, not quite satisfied with the explanation provided in the slide presentation by the staff. And so one of the things I would like you to consider is if you’re going to require this easement that you make it a conditional easement using the language that was provided and approved with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2. Next slide? Thank you very much for your time. And we’ll be available for questions. Don MacArthur: Thank you for being brief. Any other proponents who would like to speak? Any opponents who would like to speak? Or others? Jackie Corday: Good evening, Jackie Corday for the Parks Department. I’m not either a opponent or proponent I’m here to address Condition No. 17 and any other questions you might have later on this evening. Nick or Tim, can you back to that slide for Condition No. 17, which was…or actually, no, No. 12. And I want to explain the difference between this one that was approved for Clark Fork No. 2 and what is being recommended tonight as Condition No. 17 and the reasons why. The letter that we wrote…the Parks Department wrote for this condition that actually recommended this condition was based on conversations with the property owner, Bob Brugh. And he represented to the Parks Department one, that he was very supportive of the Milwaukee Trail, he knew the importance of the Milwaukee Trail to this project and to the greater Missoula region and therefore, he was supportive of it. But he asked the Parks Department to consider giving him the option of being able to work with the property owner to the south, which he was in potential…had plans to eventually buy the rest of the Jacobs property and therefore he wanted the flexibility to design, potentially, that trail on that property on the south if he purchased it. And if that purchase did not occur, then it would be on Clark Fork No. 1 and No. 2. And the Parks Department was willing to work that with him and therefore that’s why that condition was written with that flexibility in mind, based on his request. Unfortunately, after the subdivision was approved, there was a lawsuit filed by the applicant and in particular, when he first filed the lawsuit, he was protesting the trail along the river and not the Milwaukee Trail. Later the lawsuit was amended to include this condition, the Milwaukee Trail, so the lawsuit also includes that. Therefore, when we got the request to review Clark Fork No. 1, it became important for us to take that into consideration: the fact that that was now under a lawsuit and this Condition was part of the lawsuit. Therefore, when we asked our counsel, city counsel, Jim Nugent, how should we take that into consideration, he said well, you should be looking at all possible legal theories that support this trail. There are…the legal theories that we used to support the trail in Clark Fork No. 2 included the fact that it is part of the most important non-motorized transportation plan—it’s in the Non-Motorized Plan, it’s in the Open Space Plan, it’s in the Master Parks and Recreation Plan and we believe that is plenty enough reason to justify this trail and the Condition. However, we also thought well, we should also throw in another reason why it’s important and that is under the Parks Regulations you can…the governing body has a right to approve trails and the location of trails and parks. And so that is why the Condition is written differently, that it is now actually part of a Park, part of the 11 percent and so I wanted you to understand that’s why it changed from Clark Fork No. 2 to Clark Fork No. 1. So I’ll be here for any other questions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 7 of 14 Don MacArthur: Thanks Jackie. Mr. Kaufman, would you like to address any of the points that Jackie brought up? Nick Kaufman: I think that if the Board has any discussion or questions regarding the Condition, Mr. MacArthur, we’d be happy to address them at that time. Don MacArthur: Okay. Any other opponents…I guess we didn’t ask for any other opponents but I saw that there was no one else from the public here. I’ll call the public portion of the hearing closed and we’ll move to Board questions and discussion. Jerry. Jerry O'Connell: I guess this would be for staff. Just a clarification, I went through it and I was…I got a little confused on the trails. What’s that alternative trail map that has the trail running down the middle, if I understood it. Is there one there that has the trail going down the middle of the subdivision, like down that big easement or was I reading something else. Tim Worley: Let’s see, Jerry, we might actually have a slide with that. The subdivision west of Deer Creek Road was originally Clark Fork Meadows and at one time there appeared to be and I think there’s still is some promise that a trail…a meandering trail could be put in there from west to east. But I think this original concept dates back to probably ’06, maybe? ’05 or ’06, it’s a map provided by City Parks and Rec before the current Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 layout was known. Actually, Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 has had a couple different iterations so that this connection here in the middle represents, maybe, an earlier concept of the subdivisions east of Deer Creek Road. Jerry O'Connell: Okay. I also…if the trail now is running down parallel to Deer Creek Road I saw some of what is in there and maybe had updates subsequent to that that talked about that not being acceptable because it’s being proposed in lieu of the sidewalk and didn’t want to do that. Is that still an issue or is that…. Tim Worley: No, I think everybody is generally in support of the 8-foot-wide meandering pathway. We just wouldn’t want to lose the opportunity to secure something along the southern edge that might provide for that ultimate connection to Kim Williams here. Jerry O'Connell: Okay. Don MacArthur: Tim, on the slide that’s up there right now is the green line just to the south of the one that we’ve been talking about, is that the one that Mr. Kaufman was talking about as a potential access through the Jacobs Property? Tim Worley: Yeah, I believe so, that’s that option. Maybe Nick has more information on that, but I think we’re talking about this one right here. But the way that Condition was originally worded with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 it just required securing a trail south of Clark Fork 2, it didn’t specify that it would be along this alignment precisely. Although that would be preferable, closer to the old Milwaukee orientation. Don MacArthur: So if the condition were modified as Mr. Kaufman suggested to being a conditional…conditional condition, I guess, what happens when the…who develops the trail? I mean, if it’s two years out and the final plat’s already been filed, then who’s responsible for the actual creation of the 10-foot asphalt trail within that easement? Tim Worley: I believe it’s the developer. With Clark Fork 2, I think the developer’s required to build that if the alternative isn’t secured within that two years. I have here in front of me the conditions from Clark Fork 2. The last sentence says: “If the easement is activated, plans for an 8-foot wide…and it was 8-foot at that time…8-foot-wide asphalt trail within the easement shall be reviewed and approved ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 8 of 14 by Engineering and Parks and Rec subject to an improvements guarantee.” So it would be the developer that would be required to install that if he didn’t secure an alternative within two years. Don MacArthur: So there would be an improvements guarantee that the developer posted to insure that that would be created? Tim Worley: Yeah. Don MacArthur: Heidi? Heidi Kendall: I’m just curious about the zoning, and I wanted to ask what is Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 zoned? Tim Worley: Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 is zoned RLD-1 Heidi Kendall: Okay, and this would be RLD-2? Tim Worley: Uh-huh. Heidi Kendall: I wonder if City Council is going to be surprised because they’ve approved already doing it at RLD-1 and this would be 2. Can you just explain what the…and I’m okay with it, I just want to understand what the differences are between RLD-1 and RLD-2. Tim Worley: Well, the fundamental difference is that if you have a two-per-acre density with RLD-2 and one-per-acre density with RLD-1. In the instance with Clark Fork 2, I believe it was 33 lots on about 47 acres, so you had one lot all by itself that was 19 and half acres and significant open space and so, therefore, you just had a density that worked at RLD-1. In this instance, I think the density is about 1.4 dwelling units per acre, so it’s higher than that RLD-1, so a rezoning was required for…for Clark Fork 1. Heidi Kendall: And the two-family dwellings are permitted in RLD-2, is that right? Tim Worley: I don’t believe so. Heidi Kendall: No? Okay, I was going to ask if there was a different minimum lot size if there was. I know RLD-4 does allow two-family dwellings but RLD-1 doesn’t and I just couldn’t which… Tim Worley: Yeah, RLD-2 has that 20,000 square foot minimum lot size or you can vary with that for the purposes of subdivision review. Heidi Kendall: Right. Right. Okay, thanks. And just another question for Mr. Kaufman and this is curiosity more than anything. I know the BPA can be kind of tough to deal with do…have you…and they’re not approving this so far, is there a strategy for dealing with them? Nick Kaufman: Yeah, our strategy is to contact them, run the proposal by them, it’s an open space use, it’s a vacant corridor at this time, I’m not aware of any future plans for the second BPA power line but, you know, in the realm of how energy’s provided in the future, I would think they’d want to keep their options open, but I think it will be a compatible discussion. And you to answer your question, in the packet, under tab No. 9 on the rezoning request, there’s a copy of RLD-2 zoning and Tim’s exactly correct, it allows one family dwellings. Don MacArthur: Mr. Kaufman, while you’re up there, I was… I think Tim’s presentation made it sound as though there was some doubt as to whether the roads were allowed through the BPL easement or something I read in one of the staff reports. Is there any question about the access that is…it looks like it’s necessary for Clark Fork No. 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 9 of 14 Nick Kaufman: None. If BPA selected a power line route from Coalstrip, Montana to wherever that line goes in California and no roads were allowed to cross under it that would create an interesting dilemma. So, no, Don, there’s no question that the roads won’t be allowed. Our most significant question with the roads is to make sure we’ve secured an appropriate and safe crossing of the Yellowstone Pipe Line. By the same token, the Yellowstone Pipe Line runs through this entire community and roads cross it in lots of locations. I think it’s a great concern, but I think we’ve got it covered, but you may have a suggestion for us on that, too. Don MacArthur: Okay. Also on the Speedway-Highway 200 intersection, I’m not sure if this is for Tim or Mr. Kaufman, but I’m concerned about how that…it seems like every subdivision we see out in this area, there’s a question about who’s responsible for the improvements on that intersection. And it seems like we…there were conditions placed on the golf course long ago to improve that and years later it’s still not improved and I’m wondering if you could give us an update on that. And how the Condition that is in the staff report might affect subsequent…might affect both this subdivision…it seems to suggest that somebody could do…write an RSID at a later date and share the cost that was originally allocated to a single developer. Tim Worley: I believe it was City Engineering that originally recommended that for Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 although, of course, Canyon River was…is required to reconstruct that intersection in some sense. And, Don, I honestly cannot get into the intricacies of why they recommended the RSID for improvements for that intersection as applicable to these two subdivisions; but they thought at least leaving the option open for reconstruction or some sort of improvements to the intersection, that that was important. Don MacArthur: Well, presumably, even if the developer of the golf course did do the improvements it still might need to be improved again. And so the RSID might make some sense. I guess I’m just trying to understand what…when those improvements are going to get made and what are the triggers for that and aren’t there improvements guarantees or something that should have already made that happen. It’s not fair to ask you, you probably don’t have that information available. Mr. Kaufman, do you have information on that? Nick Kaufman: For the record, Nick Kaufman. We had some consultation with Territorial-Landworks, Jason Rice, who’s now the representative for Wayne Paffhausen, who’s the developer of Canyon River and in talking with both the Department of Transportation with Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 and discussions with Jason regarding Clark Fork Terrace No. 1, that remains an obligation of Canyon River to improve the intersection of Speedway and Highway 200. Don, I can’t give you the specific details of how that may have been secured in terms of improvement guarantee, but it remains a condition on that subdivision. Mr. Paffhausen appeared at the public hearings for Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 and wanted to make sure everyone knew his concerns that other developments that have occurred in that area, and there are several we could talk about, that they pay their fair share. Meanwhile, while all that was going on, the City adopted Impact Fees, including transportation, parks, general services, and some other impact fees. We just want to make sure that in the scheme of revenues and impact fees and future improvements for off site that the responsibilities are properly allocated. We don’t want to do any less than we’re required, we want to pay our fair share, we just want to make sure we’re not paying for it twice or not paying for what we’re required to pay. So there’s some unanswered questions that we need to have some questions with the City Engineer. But Highway 200 and Speedway will be improved as an obligation of Canyon River. None of the agency comments, Don, you alluded to the fact that perhaps that intersection might need more improvements because of Clark Fork Terrace No. 1…neither the Highway Department or Public Works for the City commented to that effect. So it…the logical assumption there is the improvements proposed would be sufficient to handle the development but I can’t tell you exactly how that’s guaranteed except as a condition of Canyon River. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 10 of 14 Don MacArthur: Mr. Kaufman, while you are up there, can you pull up a plat on…maybe Tim can get a plat up for you…and describe the…you’re going to have to work, again, to convince me that short courts are a good idea. So… Nick Kaufman: I’d be happy to on this one, but… Don MacArthur: …and tell me about parking because I want to know how…describe the short court to me, how it parks and you know, how…walk through the design of the house relative to the short court. Nick Kaufman: What I want you to think about is…before I describe this, Mr. MacArthur, is that instead of short courts as a desirable option for homeowners in designing them into this project, the extension of the Canyon River Loop Trail, the common areas, and the greenways I talked about before necessitated the use of short courts as a design tool or design option. Short courts in and of itself did not drive the design, they are used to facilitate the design. I’ll go through it. So, first of all, let’s talk about this extension of the Canyon River Loop Trail. One of the functional viable components of trail design is to minimize the crossings that might conflict with non-motorized users on this trail. So this is a conflict point, and this is a conflict point, all right? But we’re required to have at least two accesses in and out so that’s a tradeoff. I can easily bring the short courts down as alleys and not have short courts, but what I would do, Mr. MacArthur, is I would add additionally one, two, three, four, five, points of conflict in terms of crossing this trail or this walkway or this extension of the Canyon River Loop with alleyways. I didn’t want to do that. It could be done, and it could be done at no expense to the design of the subdivision, by the way, because these lots are deep enough to accommodate the extension of those as alleyways. But a single important consideration is the…except for this one, Don, because this is a…Deer Creek Road drops below the interstate when they built these overpasses they lowered Deer Creek Road so there’s some cut as Deer Creek Road drops, I wanted to make sure we had appropriate sight distance if we were to extend this one. So number one is trying to maintain the integrity with as few conflicting points as possible along this trail system, all right? Number two is the way OPG and Public Works is addressing short courts these days is to require additional off-street parking. And if you looked at a copy of the plat, you’d see the proposed parking easements on the end of all the short courts. In addition, Public Works now requires in their conditions, although I don’t recall the exact number that requires the parking areas to be curbed. So short courts are 21 feet back of curb to back of curb; at the end of the short courts will be parking areas. Those parking areas will also be curbed—they are located here, and here, and here, off the end of all these—to provide additional parking. Now, Don, I want to go back to the design of the subdivision because this is also critical relative to providing adequate off-street parking is that the entrance roads, as well as this full length road here, all right, all provide for off-street parking. Now, to the eastside of this road, we have to notice that there are no homes in this stretch or this stretch, which allows two sides of this road for off-street parking for visitors or residents of this block and this entire block. Now, this section, please notice the frontage and the size of these two lots and the allowance for off-street parking along that frontage which benefits this cluster of homes. So I don’t how good of a job I’ve done, but one of the tools we had were alleyways, but I felt the alleyways created additional conflict points on an important loop trail system and so we selected short courts with the full knowledge that we would have to provide off-street parking. We reviewed the off- street parking plan with Doug Harby and Kevin Slovarp, who’s the City Engineer, and we concur with the conditions in the staff report. So I think we’ve got this one as good as we could get it and we think that short courts is a good design solution here. Don MacArthur: So on these lots where there is…you know, Lot 14, 15, for example, there’s kind of a four-way intersection where your access… Nick Kaufman: That would here. This one? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 11 of 14 Don MacArthur: I was looking at 14, 15 which are up… Nick Kaufman: Okay. Don MacArthur: I’m just trying to understand how the…how the overflow parking works relative to entry to that lot. It seems like you got a tight corner where you’re entering into that lot and if you have to provide an overflow parking at that tight corner there may be nothing other than a parking space at that corner. You see what I’m getting it. There’s a tight spot there. Nick Kaufman: Don, it requires a specific design of that, I don’t disagree. I haven’t done the final designs but those…the way the staff has conditioned those is the off-street parking areas have to be approved by city engineering. So we’ll be doing the final designs on those and have to require the requisite number of off-street spaces. I don’t disagree with you at all, that if you look at that in terms of traditional design you say wait a second, lots 14 and 15 have to go onto that end. Where I do disagree is I think that lots 16 and the next tier of lots to the east, those driveways don’t have to come out at that specific…let me just show you here, while I’ve got your attention. So it’s absolutely clear that this lot comes out here and this lot comes out here and what we’ve proposed is off-street parking. If we need to provide additional easements to make the access to this lot and this lot work, we’ll do that on the final plat. But this lot and this lot don’t have to access here at all. They can access here; similarly, these lots can access up in this. So it’s a two-way intersection, not a four-way intersection at that corner. But I disagree…I don’t disagree, I agree with you that it requires final design to make that work. But I feel we can accommodate that. Don MacArthur: You didn‘t convince me. You partway got me, there’s parts of it I agreed with: but I still think that short courts are…you know, they’re about…truth is, these people are going to be driving cars, there’s going to be a lot of cars and the short courts are a diminished experience, I believe. They’re not as…you did convince me on the overall parking amount in the subdivision. I think there’s enough with the roads, particularly with some of the roads that don’t front lots. I think that the way people use those roads and the convenience and the point of fact, not very many people are going to come to these lots through the common areas. You know, not the people who live there. The hope would be that the common areas serve as a front door for the visitor, that’s going to be a tough sell, that’s going to be a design question. Nick Kaufman: Well, let’s go back. At the time we designed Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 and 2, we were also designing this development in this location. And I took my slides out to show this development, but what we did is we matched roadways across the way and then we matched where the common area and green spaces would be so that these folks could go right through their common green areas, not have to walk along roadways and traffic and come into this common area. So these all matched what we were proposing on the other side of the road so that you’d have independent pedestrian access into this common area and these recreational facilities, which we need to be shared with the two subdivisions. So looking just at Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 and 2, I don’t find fault with your comments. When I add the potential development over here and the desirability for non-motorized linkages through green ways instead of along roadways, that’s where I think this design is a better design. In addition, you know, we could take the short courts out and save a lot of money. I mean, they cost money to build. But then what we do is we put garages on the fronts of all these homes and that’s not in the spirit of traditional neighborhood design or in the spirit of creating that front porch, which is a quasi-public area and a connection to that walkway which creates neighborhood. So of the three design options: front load, alley connection to Deer Creek Road and it remains to be seen whether the City Engineer would agree that alleys and those intersection points would be approved, then if you take the short courts out, then we have front load lots. And while I respect your opinion very much, I also respect the opinion of other developers who have designed specifically for short courts and you’ve seen those over in the Davis Street area and also in Windsor Park, where the design of the subdivision specifically incorporates short courts because the clients like those short courts. So we have your opinion and we have that opinion. I won't disagree with either one, but what ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 12 of 14 I’m telling you is in this case, we didn’t put the short courts in because it’s something the clients wants, we put them in because we thought it was the best design solution. Don MacArthur: Okay. Other questions, thoughts? Motions? Somebody want to start with motions? Heidi. Heidi Kendall: I’m ready to make a motion to get us moving. I will move that (do rezoning first) that the property legally described as Tract 2 of Certificate of Survey No. 5850, located in the N ½ of Section 20, T. 13N, R. 18W be rezoned from C-RR1 to RLD-2 based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. Jerry O'Connell: Second. Don MacArthur: Seconded by Jerry. Discussion on the motion. All in favor say ‘aye’. [Board members answered ‘aye’.] Okay, let’s have a roll call vote. The vote was as follows: Heidi Kendall Yes Don MacArthur Yes Jerry Petasek Yes Don Latham No Jerry O’Connell Yes Tim Skufca Yes Sharon Reed: You have 5 votes of “yes” and 1 of “no”. Don MacArthur: Motion carries. Heidi Kendall: I will move that the variance request to City Subdivision Regulations Article 3-2(15)(D) to permit 10-foot-wide non-motorized access easements be approved based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. Don Latham: Second. Don MacArthur: Second by Don. Discussion that motion? We’ll try another voice…no, I won’t, roll cal vote. The vote was as follows: Jerry Petasek Yes Don Latham Yes Jerry O’Connell Yes Tim Skufca Yes Heidi Kendall Yes Don MacArthur Yes Sharon Reed: It’s unanimous, 6 in favor. Heidi Kendall: I will move that Clark Fork Terrace No. 1 subdivision be approved based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Jerry O'Connell: Second. Don MacArthur: Seconded by Jerry. Heidi, discussion? Heidi Kendall: I just want to say that I do support the recommendation about the trail and I think Jackie explained very well what the issues are here and why the…and why Condition No. 17 was worded the way it was, I think that’s a good solution. I also appreciate and agree with the work that was done to…in terms of the support by the other interested parties and agencies on this trail. I do think we need to continue to sort of lean in on these opportunities and not let them slip away and they are a really important community…an aspect of the community that we do need to spend the effort and time on achieving. Don MacArthur: Don? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 13 of 14 Don Latham: I just have one caveat for this and that is if it is for the community and if it’s clearly does not belong to the homeowners, I think it ought to maintained by the community. In other words, it ought to be part of the City Parks system and it should not be maintained by individual covenants on every single…every single one of these subdivisions along these pathways. Because they are going to get attention in some places, un-attention in other places, and it just seems to me the City keeps ducking this and puts it back on the homeowner. Here we have in this whole thing there’s a huge common area and if I read common area right, it’s up to the subdivision people to take care of the area and yet you’ve got walkways into it in behalf of the public and everything else. So it could become a public park, maintained by the people in that area for the public to use and if it’s going to be a public park, then it needs to be maintained by the public. That’s all. Don MacArthur: Jackie, can you help us out with understanding that? Jackie Corday: Don, I just want to say that we agree with you in regards with large trails like the Milwaukee, that that should be consistently maintained by one entity such as the Parks Department because it’s going to be a public trail and that is the intent. Condition No. 17 doesn’t say that the common area that it runs through is going to be required to be taken care of by the Homeowners’ Association. It does along Deer Creek Road, and so let me explain the distinction there. The trail along Deer Creek Road is replacing a public sidewalk. Instead of doing the 6-foot public sidewalk instead they’re doing a meandering 8-foot wide asphalt trail. If they had built the regular sidewalk, that would be in a…it would be required to be taken care of by the adjacent landowners, that’s how sidewalks are taken care of in the City, is the adjacent landowner is supposed to get out there and shovel the snow, because there is no way the City could get out and shovel every single sidewalk in the City. And so because they are replacing that public sidewalk with this other public meandering trail, that is why we said in this particular place they have to also take care of it, they can’t pass it on to the City just because it’s 8-foot wide asphalt instead of the traditional 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk. But as far as the Milwaukee Trail, no, you’re right, that should be taken care of by the public and that’s our intent to the Parks Department. Does that help explain? Don Latham: It explains, but it does not satisfy. Jackie Corday: Okay. Don MacArthur: I had just a couple comments. In general, I’m in support of the subdivision; however, I really think there’s about 13 lots by my count, and I might be off by one or two one way or the other. But there’s 13 lots that don’t have a frontage on a road; and I think that what Mr. Kaufman said I agree with to an extent around the long lots that…you know, the lots in the mid block that have a potential for a pull-out parking widening of that short court in addition to a good access to a driveway. I think that those are…that partly convinced me but there are still about six or eight lots that have just this corner where the…the…the short court hits a corner and I don’t feel like that is a resolved design and I’m going to send the message, hopefully, that can get resolved before it comes in front of Council but my vote is going to be “no” in relation to that resolution. I’m not going to give you a chance to…we can talk afterwards if you want to. Nick Kaufman: I just don’t know where the 13 lots are [inaudible, off microphone] Don MacArthur: I’m counting the lots that don’t have access to a road, so the road…the lots that front onto a trail, I’m not considering as having access to the road. You can’t…you can’t get there from there…you can’t get there with a car from there. So that’s my editorial comment. So we’re ready…anybody else want to make a comment? Okay. Roll call vote, please. The vote was as follows: Don Latham Yes Jerry O’Connell Yes Tim Skufca Yes ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board December 2, 2008 Page 14 of 14 Heidi Kendall Yes Jerry Petasek Yes Don MacArthur No Sharon Reed: Five votes of “yes” and one vote of “no”. Don MacArthur: Okay, motion carries. This will be heard in front of City Council on December 22, 2008. Let’s take a five-minute break. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:38 pm Respectfully submitted, Sharon E. Reed, Recording Secretary Deni Forestek Administrative Secretary Office of Planning and Grants