Document Missoula_doc_f31f600da9

Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 3 of 33 V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Jennifer Clary: We will go to staff announcements. Mary’s not here, we do… we were handed out a sheet that I’ll just kind of read in. The Community and Technical Assistance Program of the Montana Department of Commerce has published a 2009 MCA Handbook of the Title 76 Land Resources and Use, suggested it be distributed to Planners and Planning Boards throughout the state. We are distributing a copy to each Planning Board member this evening. CTAP has also published a 2009 Planning Board Handbook which is an updated version of what you may have received upon joining the Board. If you’re interested, you may access this handbook at the website provided. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update: Sand and Gravel Extraction and WUI Amendments proposed. Due to changes in state law, the Missoula County Rural Initiatives Office has been directed to develop minor amendments to the County's 2005 Growth Policy dealing with sand and gravel extraction and the Wildland Urban Interface. The amendments are proposed to be adopted as an appendix to the Growth Policy after review by the Planning Board, City Council and the County Commissioners through the public hearing process. The proposed amendments can be obtained at the Rural Initiatives office or on-line at www.co.missoula.mt.us/rural. Jennifer Clary: And then, we’ll go to our public hearing at hand, which is the Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update. This is for Sand and Gravel Extraction and the WUI Amendments that are proposed. Laval? No. Laval Means: This is a proposal that is made by Rural Initiatives and I’m here with Urban Initiatives to also ask that you consider the request and the recommendations for City Council. So when you’re making your motions, to separate those out and make them for Commissioners and…assuming you might get there. But, anyway, it’s Pat O’Herren leading off. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: Do we need a separate motion for City and Rural Initiatives both? Pat O’Herren: Correct. Don MacArthur: Two separate motions? Pat O’Herren: Please. Don MacArthur: Okay. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Pat. Pat O’Herren: Madam Chairman, thank you. I am Pat O’Herren of Missoula County’s Rural Initiatives office. The Missoula County Commissioners asked staff to draft two minor amendments to the existing Growth Policy in the County, those two amendments deal with sand and gravel operations and with the Wildland Urban Interface. I’m not going to read the staff report to you, but I would like to highlight a couple of items and ask that the entire report be entered into the record. The 2009 Legislature passed HB486, which amended the Growth Policy section of the Montana Code Annotated to require counties with growth policies to address sand and gravel resources. The 2007 Legislature passed SB51, which required counties that have Growth Policies to address what’s known as the Wildland Urban Interface. The extent to which the growth policy addresses those issues is at the discretion of the County Commissioners; and in this particular case, the County Commissioners have adopted…as I mentioned, directed Rural Initiatives to do minor amendments that bring us into compliance with state law but do not go farther than that. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 4 of 33 In terms of the sand and gravel resources, I think we’re all aware of the importance of sand and gravel. The Montana Contractor’s Association is very clear and accurate, I think, in the sense that gravel is the foundation of virtually all development, particularly transportation and buildings. And what’s equally important is not only the resource, but the location of that resource, and the ability to extract it and use it in a manner that does not require great transportation. Of course, that means that there are going to be other landowners who don’t necessarily own that sand and gravel resource who may be impacted by the extraction of it and that gives us the difficulties that we often have in land use planning with competing land uses. We did some early research late in 2009 with the Montana Contractors Association, the Natural…the Montana Natural Resources and Conservation Service, the Montana Department of Transportation, DEQ, the Bureau of Mines, and USGS on what information they had relative to the location of sand and gravel. And I think it’s fair to say that there is not a great deal of data available and what information we did find was often inconsistent between sources of that data. We made a trip to Helena to visit with the Bureau of Mines. They had been authorized by the legislature to do sand and gravel mapping statewide and we asked that they consider Missoula as a…Missoula County as a pilot project for that effort. They declined, citing the fact that the Legislature did not provide funding for that mapping and they were still trying to figure out how they might be able to do some sort of pilot project, but Missoula County was not one that was being considered at the time. As a result of the inability to find a great deal of information about sand and gravel, the County staff utilized the most consistent and repeatable data sources that we could find. And that resulted in the map that you see that was created by Casey Wilson after talking to all of those sources that is included in the staff report. Basically, that’s a USGS map that indicates where sand and gravel resources may be found, that is not exclusive or inclusive, that means there could be gravel resources outside that area, it doesn’t mean that everything that is in the shaded area contains sand and gravel that could be accessed. We also noted the existence of gravel pits from DEQ, permitted gravel pits, but, again, they do not permit every extraction effort in terms of sand and gravel and so this is a very limited database. For instance, they do not permit sand and gravel extraction under 10,000 cubic yards, so smaller pits are not even mapped by that entity. We have recommend…given the information that we have been able to find, the staff has recommended a motion that you will find on page three relative to sand and gravel; and, as has been mentioned earlier, we would ask your indulgence in recommending both to the City and County in separate motions. That the language indicated below and Map A that’s provide in the Staff Report be adopted as what is known…would be known as Appendix E of the Missoula County Growth Policy. I would note that there is a typo that was pointed out by one of the commenting agencies on Page 3, number 3, the fifth line that starts with the word “traffic”, the next phrase says “…water quality and water quality…” it should say “…water quality and air quality…” Relative to the Wildland Urban Interface portion of the Growth Policy Amendment proposal, this is a…perhaps even more of a difficult area to deal with than the sand and gravel. But, again, the County Commissioners have determined that because there is a much more focused ongoing effort through our emergency operations department to address the Wildland Urban Interface, that a minor might…excuse me, a minor amendment will be satisfactory at this point. As you recall from the discussions on the Seeley Lake Plan, it’s terribly important to look at the Wildland Urban Interface on a very, very fine scale rather than a much larger scale when it comes time to do development. So this gives us a very broad- brushed approach through the Growth Policy that it will be critical for rural communities to much more thorough investigation of the Wildland Urban Interface, as that process that’s going to continue in 2010 will give them the opportunity to do and I’ll talk about that in a moment. There are a couple of existing documents that address Wildland Urban Interface—the County’s Emergency Operations Plan, which is being updated; the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, that is being updated, and our Community Wildfire And Protection Plan. Those are much more specific than this growth policy amendment could ever be and, as I mentioned, two of those are being updated. We also have a couple of other regional plans out there: the Seeley-Swan Plan, which addresses both the Swan River drainage and the Clearwater River drainage, and identifies action plans within those communities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 5 of 33 Those documents should be updated in the near future, also. And, finally, the DNRC has adopted Wildland Urban Interface Guidelines—not rules, but guidelines—that they have published late last year. And those guidelines are being looked at by Missoula County and I would think the City of Missoula, also, will be taking a look at those in the near future. Those regs, or those guidelines, excuse me, will also be looked at through our pre-disaster planning effort and our emergency services effort. On page 5 of the staff report you also have a recommended motion and that is that the language below, provided in the staff report, and as referenced in the maps attached be adopted as what would be Appendix F of the Missoula County Growth Policy Update. I would like to let you know of the some of the comments that we have received on the proposal. The Montana Contractor’s Association sent the Staff Report and Recommendations out to their members and they received no concerns expressed and no issues raised by those members. The…Cary Hagreberg did mention that he would like to be involved in any zoning process that the County undertakes relative to sand and gravel. Knife River local operator offered that they see no problems and appreciated, and the phrase that they used, “the short and sweet approach” to the Growth Policy Amendment. I had not heard that phrase used relative to sand and gravel before, so we had an interesting discussion on that. The Department of Environmental Quality—Chris Cronin, who is the open pit mining supervisor, noted that he believes that the approach is: “A reasonable mapping of the resource.” And encouraged the County to adopt the recommended motions. Environmental Health is the entitiy that caught the typo, Item 3 of Page 3, and had no other comments to offer other than they apprecieated being involved in the process. The Montana…or, excuse me, the Missoula Association of Realtors and the Missoula Building Industry Association noted that they saw no problems with the recommened motions. They would also like additional information as the process proceeds into zoning in the future. They did note that it would be helpful to have additional information, such as where gravel is prohibited from inclusion in existing zoning areas and we will provide that information at the appropriate time, of course. They also noted…both organizations noted that they would like to be involved in any future zoning and planning efforts relative both the Wildland Urban Interface and Sand and Gravel. We specifically made a mailing to residents of North Lolo area where the gravel pit was proposed, if you recall, adjacent to Highway 93 and we have not received comments back from those residents other than from Ken Allen, who owned the property that the gravel pit was originally proposed upon. Ken noted that he sees no issue at this point, but he would also like to be involved if there’s implementation that follows in the future. We did receive one letter and that was from Neal Svendsen, from NRCS, and he expressed concern about the loss of prime farmland and encouraged some limitations on gravel development where prime farmland soils are still in agricultural production. NRCS has mapped the Missoula Valley, and he noted that there are areas that probably have sand and gravel resources under them that have a considerable amount of prime farmland…prime farmland soils above that sand and gravel and he would like the County and the City to give consideration to the importance of those soils. That’s the staff report. At this point, I would like to ask Laval if she has anything else she would like to add from the City’s perspective. Laval Means: Thank you. Laval Means with Urban Initiatives, and as I mentioned earlier, we are asking for the purposes of creating consistency between the Growth Policy for the adoption of the…with the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council that you consider the same amendments for the City Council as well. We sent out the proposal made by the Rural Initiatives and their memo out to additional City Agencies to ask for comment; and in a memo that our Staff Report that I sent to you electronically last Friday, I attached a few comments that we did receive. One was covered already, another was from the Parks Department, who had no comment; and then the third was a question or concern that was raised from the Fire Department’s perspective, which was basically about how do we reconcile…we have the WUI general reference map that’s proposed as a part of this amendment and then we have language in our Subdivision Regulations that say that the Fire Department should be determining whether a project is within WUI. And my response to him, and you saw that in our…in that attachment is that it’s perfectly appropriate to have that general reference information; and we have it for ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 6 of 33 other types of resources and information in the countywide Growth Policy and that when we get to the subdivision regulations, it’s important to able to look at it as a reference, but then have the ability to do the case-by-case determinations when a project is proposed. So we feel there might be a little more work we could do on the subdivision reg side of things, which I happen to be working on right now, and be able to clarify and strengthen that note that it needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the time of subdivision. And that was the end of the comments that we had, so we can concur with the approach and with the work that Rural Initiatives have done and ask that you consider those recommendations for City Council. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: So, one quick question. Do we…the same motions would apply, do we just…or is there something different that you’d like us to say? Laval Means: I think Pat or I…okay, when you’re making the recommendations, and you can see from the memo from Rural Initiatives and even from the summary that I have as a memo here from Urban Initiatives, there’s two recommendations—one for the sand and gravel Appendix, and one for the…an appendix for Wildland Urban Interface…and if you could make each of those separately as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and then, again, separately to the City Council… Jennifer Clary: Okay. That’s what I… Laval Means: …just be really nice and clear… Jennifer Clary: …if we were supposed to word something different or say the same motion and then just address it to each Board. Laval Means: Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thanks. Do we any, yep, we’re going…do we have any Public Comment. Paul Rossignol: Paul Rossignol…[static, inaudible, microphone not on] Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thank you. Bob Burland: Karaoke? Are we on? Jennifer Clary: Yes. Bob Burland: I’m Bob Burland, I’m employed by Knife River. I am here just to let you guys know and make sure that you guys understand and from the comments that I’m hearing from you all, how important sand and gravel really is to the infrastructure of your town. You look at all your photos around here. You’ve got the Higgins Bridge, sand, and gravel concrete, and if you allow it to slip away to where it has to be imported from great distances the expenses, as Pat pointed out and was brought forward by the Montana Contractors’ Association, it becomes prohibitively expensive. Case in point, we have operations in Oregon, in the Portland area, where everything is either brought in on rail or it’s barged in on the Columbia River from 50, 60 miles away. Incredible expense! And from the comments I’m hearing tonight that you guys are recognizing that it is a valuable resource, it doesn’t come without problems around it, especially as we are spread out in the…with the population in this town, you know, it’s everybody’s got a spot or house right next to where there might be any gravel. But I really appreciate that you guys are looking seriously at the fact that it is a valuable resource and it’s much needed. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Bob Burland: If I wasn’t so old, I’d be able to see that off button. ‘ Jennifer Clary: Since I don’t see any more public here, we’ll close the public portion of this hearing and start discussing as a Planning Board. I do have one question, though, and it related to Paul’s comment ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 7 of 33 when there is private property, how do we propose to handle that or is that actually within this or will that be coming later? Pat O’Herren: Pat O’Herren. The map that we have shows potential gravel resources and it covers all ownerships; it doesn’t matter whether it’s private, federal, state. I think in Mr. Rosignol’s case, what we have here is an area that he has identified as having a gravel resource, but it doesn’t show up on the USGS maps as such. We’ve recognized that in the text on the map and certainly know that there are very viable areas that are not indicated in gray, here, that may have the potential, and actually, in some cases, do have sand and gravel. An example of that, the pits that are smaller than 10,000 cubic yards simply do not show up on here but they exist. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thank you. Jerry. Jerry O'Connell: You’re using the term rural…excuse me, Urban Initiatives, and I hadn’t heard that before, is that a new group, or did I just miss this in the past? Pat O’Herren: Laval. Jerry O’Connell: Laval. Jennifer Clary: Laval? Jerry O’Connell: Yeah. Urban Initiatives versus Rural Initiatives. I’ve obviously heard of Rural… Laval Means: It’s not a versus… Jerry O'Connell: Is it new? Or is it…? Laval Means: No, that’s the division of the Office of Planning and Grants that I’ve been working in for the last maybe four years. Jerry O'Connell: Oh, that’s why I missed it. Laval Means: Sorry. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: This is a question for Pat and just to pick on Paul for a minute. It…this doesn’t prohibit Paul from developing his gravel pit, does it? I mean, it’s not…I see the map and I’m looking at it, and I kind of know where Paul’s is and I’m just kind of wondering how does that work? I mean, if there is a small gravel operation and at one point in time he wants to turn it into a commercial operation. I’m not see or reading anything in here that prohibits him from doing that as long as he’s got the permits and whatnot. Am I correct in that assumption? Pat O’Herren: That is correct. Tim Ibey: Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Tim, did you have anything else? Tim Ibey: Pardon. Jennifer Clary: Do you have anything else? I didn’t know if you wanted to go on. Tim Ibey: No. I’m good. Jennifer Clary: Heidi. Heidi Kendall: As I was reading the second point in the recommended motion for the gravel, I underlined the last sentence that starts consequently landowners and residents should be aware that there’s going ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 8 of 33 to be conflict…I’m paraphrasing…and I wrote in the margin, why not say landowners and residents in unzoned areas should anticipate conflict since these resources can be found in other locations, too. And in a way it’s…the way I read this it’s meant to be kind of vague and I think that’s probably fine, but it seems to me to beg the question…I mean, it says kind of passively, if you’re not zoned, expect conflict. And I wondered if it couldn’t be flipped around, and this might be provocative, but…and say, you know, if you’re not zoned, you’re going to have problems. So it’s clear. And I’m not really wordsmithing, I’m kind of asking the question for purposes of discussion, because I think that’s really important, if land isn’t zoned, it’s vulnerable. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: Heidi, I also underlined that same sentence and I wrote in the margin, shouldn’t the Growth Policy speak to goals to resolve conflict, you know, rather than say that conflicts are going to happen? I mean, that’s the purpose of planning is to try to give an orderly process to the way things are developed. So, to…this seems like a punting to me, I guess, and I’d like to hear from Pat about how could we rephrase this in a way that says something positive about how the Growth Policy is going to resolve conflict, rather than simply state that it’s going to happen. Pat O’Herren: Pat O’Herren. I think the intent of this sentence is to lead owners…landowners to the conclusion that they are vulnerable to conflict and…unless, and that’s the term used here, unless zoning or other tools are utilized to help avoid those conflicts. If the Planning Board wishes to make a statement that indicates to landowners that unless their land is zoned in a manner that precludes sand and gravel extraction, then conflicts may arise, or something similar. The key here is that some zoning districts will allow, and actually encourage sand and gravel extraction, so simply zoning it won’t stop…necessary be end-all of the conflict. Don MacArthur: And I think that that makes sense to me that we add some statement similar to what Pat said, but I also feel like still the purpose of the Growth Policy is to suggest rationale for where sand and gravel interests might take highest precedence versus where residential interests or other resource interests, like, potentially the ones that…prime farmland interests that Mr. Svendsen suggests or riparian interests, you know, how do we evaluate which ones are taking precedence? And, to me, that’s what Growth Policy ought to suggest is that in these areas where sand and gravel is present, you know, we’re going to take a real, hard look at allowing sand and gravel operations in these other kinds of areas absolutely off the table. You know, potentially, if there’s prime farmland that’s irrigated. If it were me, I’d say that’s off the table. So, I mean, I think that there could be some things that we would suggest in this paragraph that would start to give us a matrix of, you know, hierarchy of where sand and gravel takes precedence versus other interests. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Skufca: Can you clarify when a pit is permitted, a gravel pit is permitted, is there a time limit on when it has to start and stop or it’s indefinite? Pat O’Herren: I apologize, you’re asking the absolute wrong person. Those entities that do the permitting could better answer your question. My limited understanding of the process is that in your permit you have an operational timeframe that, you know, you anticipate beginning and you anticipate that you have a 50-year supply or a 60-year supply. I’m afraid, Tim, that that’s the extent of my knowledge on that. Tim Skufca: The only reason I bring it up is that if the neighboring, the partial owners, are under the impression that well, at this date, operations are going to end and then if we keep it to that it aids in planning beyond that date. Pat O’Herren: It would and I can give you an example, and this kind of goes to the zoning issue that Heidi brought up—one of the suggestions that we have recommended be considered in zoning for the future for sand and gravel is conditional use permits. And in talking to Cary with the Montana Contractor’s Association, he noted that they just finished a process in Cascade County where the area was zoned to allow sand and gravel extraction if a conditional use permit, which means a special application and a special hearing, is completed and affirms the ability to move forward. And that particular operator had asked for the gravel pit for a certain period of time but he or she (I don’t ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 9 of 33 remember the applicant) specifically indicated that the asphalt plant that was going with it would be in operation for a maximum of 60 days. And my conversation with Cary led me to believe that that was a significant issue for the adjacent landowners and when they heard that it was 60 days and not 60 years or whatever, that certainly helps. So, that’s something that a conditional use permit certainly can address and that’s something that would be addressed as Missoula County moves forward beyond this much broader approach and looks at zoning in specific locations for gravel and where it should be mined and where it should not be mined. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: Pat, I think in our conversation with the Commissioners there was a…I mean we’re going to review the County Growth Policy here shortly, aren’t we, and go into more depth on this? Pat O’Herren: The Growth Policy, as you know, is due for evaluation, I guess is a word that I can use, here, in the next year. The extent to which the City and County decide to go into that evaluation or assessment has yet to be determined. Rural Initiatives is charged with looking at the Growth Policy in the County. Urban Initiatives is charged at looking at it within the City limits or urban area, and I have not gotten together with Roger to discuss how we might do that. What’s of great concern to both of us at this point is the funding for that project. It will be significant if we decide that the Growth Policy needs major overhaul. Having said that, the County Commissioners are anticipating that we will do that assessment, that evaluation, and that’s why these minor amendments are acceptable at this point, because we know that we have to come back and look at them in the next year or two. Tim Ibey: Thank you. Jon Haber: I also highlighted this sentence, probably for different reasons, and now I’m just ending up with just a question that’s within the Growth Policy how unusual is it to have a statement of intent like this that…or a statement of warning that says you should zone based on this policy. It just kind of jumped out at me as sort of an unusual thing to be trying to say if that’s what we’re doing here. Pat O’Herren: To be honest—well, I’m always honest—to be precise, I think that we’re trying to bend over a little bit here, bend over backwards to make sure that residents understand that there can and will be conflict when it comes time for sand and gravel. I don’t think any of us—the landowners, the adjacent landowners, the neighbors, the County Commissioners, were happy with how things worked out in Lolo when the, you know, the gravel pit was first proposed there. And DEQ was unable, from a staffing perspective, to do their analysis, and we were facing the threat of lawsuit over whether or not the permit could be granted or had to be granted. So I think we’re trying to take an extra step here to warn folks, and you typically don’t see that in a Growth Policy, it is something that’s kind of new. Jon Haber: So I don’t know, I guess, another question would be, could that be somewhere else or would this be the most effective way to get that message across? Pat O’Herren: This is one opportunity that we would not like to miss to do it. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: All right, I was going to suggest a rewording of that sentence that said something like in general, sand and gravel extraction is not allowed in zones particularly precluding such resource extraction, in other areas, you know, the governing body will evaluate extraction, or sand and gravel extraction based on…I don’t know if based on is right. But, you know, taking into consideration, carefully considering water quality impacts, impacts to agricultural resources, and impacts to residential development nearby. So the purpose of this would be to say, number one, the only sure way that you’re…that sand and gravel extraction is not permitted is if it’s zoned to say that; and number two, to say that other than that, there is a…some hierarchy of decision-making which is based on, you know, these are probably a lot of these sand and gravel extraction are near our river systems and we want to take real good care of the water quality of those river systems. You know, many of the areas that are highlighted in the map are also prime farmland, and I think we ought to take real good care of our prime farmlands. And third off, is that there are…many of these areas are also highly developed residentially and we ought to be careful of those impacts. So it just ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 10 of 33 suggests three criteria that will be evaluated at the time, you know, as governing bodies take action on these sorts of things they’d at least look at those three criteria in addition to all the other public health, safety, and general welfare criteria that are mentioned in paragraph one. Tim Ibey: So is that a motion? Don MacArthur: I was throwing it out there. It wasn’t crafted well enough to really be a motion, but it’s just the bones of a motion to see if people were interested in adding to it or thought it had anything…any legs. Tim Ibey: Well, I would second it, if it was a motion. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: Sure. Just a general observation, of course, looking at both sets of maps, that is, Appendix F, Map B and also the same in Gravel Map. I think Don hit on it in regard to sand and gravel. I mean, many of the places where…at least in the Missoula Valley where sand and gravel resources have high potential of existing or where residences are and also there is significant overlap with good agricultural soils. And I guess, from my perspective, it would be helpful to add some information to the Growth Policy, and whether we choose to do this now or at some future date, is to identify, again, as Don mentioned, you know, what are the…what’s the order of operations, as it were, associated with how we develop these sand and gravel resources. You know, where are there places that are most appropriate for it, even…and where are there places that may not be most appropriate for it, even if there is sand and gravel there. So, I would like to see some kind of…I don’t know if prioritization scheme is the right way of putting it, but some order of operations about how we go about evaluating where we actually develop these resources. And then, with regard to the Wildland Urban Interface map, you know, from mapping work that I’ve done in the past, the entire valley, the entire county, essentially, is fire-prone. And I think it would be helpful to further flesh out some space in the Growth Policy that talks about the suite of characteristics that make a place prone for fire and what makes it the Wildland Urban Interface; and I didn’t see it in the documentation we have here, but is Wildland Urban Interface actually defined in the Growth Policy? And if it is, do you know what the definition is? I know that was a question in the middle of a speech, so I’m sorry. Pat O’Herren: It is defined in the documents. If you adopt this recommendation, it is defined in those documents. I don’t know if there’s a definition of it in the existing Growth Policy, the 2005 update, I know it is discussed and it is mentioned as a significant issue. John DiBari: So if it isn’t defined, I suggest that we define what the Wildland Urban Interface is, because there are numbers of definitions floating around and depending on how you define it, is how you wind up mapping it. And here, it looks like we put on a one and a half mile buffer around structures—is that essentially how this map was created? Pat O’Herren: The existing maps that you have in front of you were created by our DES office in concert with the regional fire districts. So their definition is a national definition for WUI that was used and includes the one and half mile buffer from residential development. They did not define what residential development was, but they did create the buffer. I would caution that a definition used in the Growth Policy should be a definition that is consistent with those used by the DES Coordinator, the Swan Fire District, the Seeley Fire District, Missoula Rural Fire, all of those areas. I would like to see a different definition. John DiBari: Sure. I think…certainly, everyone ought to be on the same page as to what it is, but I think it would be helpful to actually define the term so that we know what it is that we’re mapping or doing or whatever, regarding the Wildland Urban Interface. So I know…I don’t have any specific proposals but I certainly think that there are…this is an opportunity that presents itself to get more specific about how we want to address specifically the sand and gravel resources and how we want to communicate to the public who potentially live in the Wildland Urban Interface about what the characteristics are, how its defined, and how one should go about living within that area. And it doesn’t have to be very specific but ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 11 of 33 it could…it could…we could make general statements in the Growth Policy that get at some of those things. Those are my comments. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. Don. Don MacArthur: So I’m ready to make a motion. On paragraph two, I would move that we strike the final sentence beginning with “consequently” and replace it with a sentence…several sentences that say: “Zoning may specifically preclude sand and gravel extraction in areas not so zoned. The governing body shall carefully consider the impacts of the proposed resource extraction on one, water quality issues; two, impacts to agriculture and agricultural land; three, impacts to existing residential development; and four, general health, safety, and welfare criteria found in the Growth Policy.” Jennifer Clary: Is there a second? Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. Jon. Don MacArthur: And I’d like to hear, also, from Pat and maybe James on it. Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: You didn’t mention one thing I thought would be included and maybe it will become a friendly amendment and that is also to take into account those same factors when zoning those areas. Don MacArthur: Say that again, so… Jon Haber: So when they get around to zoning the areas that aren’t zoned, they should take into account the same factors that you just mentioned. When considering whether gravel pits would be appropriate under the zoning. Don MacArthur: Okay. That’s friendly. Jennifer Clary: Tim is that friendly? Tim Ibey: Yes. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Any other comments on that motion? Don MacArthur: Could we hear from Pat? Do you have any thoughts on that? Pat O’Herren: I don’t have any problem with it at all. Jennifer Clary: Kelley. Kelley Durbin: Did I hear you say air quality in that sentence? I didn’t hear air but I may have missed it. Don MacArthur: No, I didn’t say air quality specifically, but, I guess I thought that fit into residential, I mean the conflicts with residential tend to be air quality conflicts. Jennifer Clary: Heidi. Heidi Kendall: I’m trying to puzzle this out. It sounds good to me. One thing that I wondered about as you were speaking was you specifically identified existing residential development and I’m just trying to figure out if that’s not inclusive enough of, say, future residential development. I mean, but I…that might be too difficult. Don MacArthur: Well, I just thought…I had the same thought and I guess the…there are areas where I hope that the general health, safety and welfare sort of covers that. If there’s an area where the City or County has already designated infrastructure with the intent of future residential development, then a ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 12 of 33 sand and gravel pit next door is probably not appropriate. But, on the other hand, residents who live nearby might say well, that’s going to be developed as residential in the future and try to stop something that actually is kind of appropriate right now, so, i…on the…I think that it’s covered in the sort of vagueness of health, safety, and welfare that the City and County can use. Jennifer Clary: Anyone else? Let’s try a voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. Any other comment or do we have a…Don. Don MacArthur: On paragraph 3, it says that Missoula County intends to revise the County Zoning Resolution to provide standards for dot-dot-dot. And I wondered if the…so, those standards…do those apply, also, to unzoned lands? Pat O’Herren: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. Don MacArthur: Well there are some standards within…standards within the zoning resolution, I believe, that may apply even in areas that are not zoned. Is that true? Not true? Pat O’Herren: Not that I’m aware of. Don MacArthur: So, okay, so this would only apply to zoned land. Pat O’Herren: Correct. Don MacArthur: Okay. So I would move on that paragraph 3 that we’ve…do we need a motion on the air/water switch-out? Pat O’Herren: Staff would consider it a typo in that case. Don MacArthur: Okay. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: Well, what I was going to say is that there is a specific section in the zoning ordinance about unzoned…lands that are unzoned, correct, so this could be information that is included in that section of the ordinance. Pat O’Herren: I’m going to step into James’ territory here a bit and ask him to comment. There was a recent suit in Flathead County, I believe, where an individual or another entity claimed that because they weren’t zoned, that actually constituted a zoning district, because everything had been zoned around them. And I believe the Courts did not agree with that argument, is that correct, James? Am I close? James McCubbin: I’m not recalling the specifics of that case. But in terms of more on-point to the question, zoning…or, you know, standards adopted through zoning won’t apply to an area that’s unzoned. Even if the argument that you’re paraphrasing applied, standards for the zoned area still wouldn’t apply to that unzoned area. So does that answer the question? Don MacArthur: I think I was remembering what John was talking about that there are…that even in unzoned lands, there’s a…there’s a…I don’t know what it’s called, some kind of a compliance during the building permit application or things like that that is going through some standards that apply, as I think John characterized them as unzoned, you know, unzoned land standards or land use standards that still apply. James McCubbin: What we do have is, like particularly in a building permit application, they get…they go through a…it’s been various things, zoning compliance or land use compliance review and what that does is basically building permits gets in touch with the Office of Planning and Grants and they research the property to determine first of all whether it’s zoned, and if it’s zoned, what are the zoning regulations and make sure it’s in accordance with any zoning that does apply. But then beyond that, and this is outside of zoning, they check to see if there are any, for example, plat restrictions or floodplain ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 13 of 33 restrictions or things like that, other regulatory type of restrictions. So not necessarily just zoning restrictions, but land use regulations that could apply and could restrict whatever the activity is that’s proposed. So that’s, and unfortunately, I didn’t bring my zoning resolution, but I think that’s what the reference is. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: So, I just, since we had Title 20 sitting in front of us, on page 20.70-1, it has a section called “Unzoned Areas” and there’s a whole list of things that one may or may not be able to do, including setbacks associated with land that’s unzoned. So, I guess, probably the thing the do would be to see if there’s a corresponding chapter in the County Zoning Ordinance and see if there are appropriate language that Don suggested that might fit in there to get at what he’s talking about. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: This is sort of off the topic, I guess, but I did want to ask about the maps that are associated, or the map that’s associated with this. I mean, it appears that the entire urbanized area of Missoula is within this map, you know, it basically…the shaded area covers virtually all flat and developable land. Is that accurate? Pat O’Herren: Correct. Don MacArthur: So I guess I’m wondering if this really characterize…if this is really…I mean, I know you characterize it as kind of a coarse-grained, but this is really coarse. I mean, couldn’t we…couldn’t we take the urban area of Missoula and say, you know, within the urban area we’re not…we’re not going to have gravel pits anymore. You know, in the middle of Seeley Lake or I don’t know, I’m just asking the question. It seems like we…this really isn’t an inventory of possible locations; it’s so broad-brushed as to just almost not be helpful, almost unhelpful because it suggests that there are areas that we know clearly can’t be developed for gravel pits that are within the gray area. James McCubbin: Let me take a shot here. What we’re trying to do is bring the Growth Policy into compliance with the statute; and we’re in the interesting position of trying to comply it with a statute that we didn’t write and that you could argue may or may not make a lot of sense. But anyway, what the statute requires us to do, it says the Growth Policy must include…I’m reading parts of the section that apply…the Growth Policy must include maps and text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the jurisdictional area, including sand and gravel resources. So, even if those sand and gravel resources are under somebody’s house, it’s still a sand and gravel resource. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to go and, you know, zone that location as really encouraging development of that resource, but in terms of just this kind of the limited purpose of what we’re doing here is to identify where those resources exist (to the extent we can) and I think as Pat explained, it’s very difficult to even identify them, it’s all we’ve got right now, because it’s limited data. It is a broad- brush, that’s the best we can do. But all that’s doing is identifying where the resource is or where it’s likely to be, it might be. And it doesn’t address the issue of where we should zone to encourage or discourage development of the resource. So, I think what you’re talking about is a very necessary step, but it’s not…it doesn’t fit real well into what we’re doing right now. Where that will come is when we do…you know, engage in the zoning to implement not just, you know, concerns about sand and gravel but balancing that with all of the rest of the things that we have to take into consideration when we zone, including, you know, what’s already urbanized and developed or what’s, you know, prime agricultural land, or what has other natural resources and that kind of thing. So this is…the idea is to identify a resource. We aren’t talking at all about balancing this resource versus others; it’s just to try to make sure we have an inventory of all the resources before you then engage in that balancing act. Don MacArthur: Okay. Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: Just one possible way out of that. I doubt that the legislature was using term resources as t7erms of art there but what I remember long ago from my resource economics was as far as sub- surface resources go it’s not a resource unless it’s got some economic viability to it, which might disqualify areas that under subdivisions. So if we really wanted dodge that one, that might be a to do it. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 14 of 33 Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: So I totally understand that this is one, perhaps, one step in an incremental process that we’ll going through as we look at the Growth Policy in the future. And so I think that it’s probably just fine to leave much of this the way it is. But I think I…personally, I’d like to go on the record as encouraging the Commissioners and the City Council to take up a more targeted approach, perhaps, to dealing with the sand and gravel in the Growth Policy as they think about Growth Policy Amendments and also the same with the Wildland Urban Interface, although when we get to that section I probably will offer a motion about defining what the WUI is and making sure that that’s in the Growth Policy. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: Does more-targeted mean? John DiBari: Well like I said before, I think that there’s probably…that the Growth Policy is an appropriate place to start thinking about how we prioritize use of specific resources like you brought up and potential conflicts with other resources and just, you know, existing uses. Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: If I could swing back to the WUI map, I have the same reaction to it and some of the same thoughts that John has, but I also had a question about the definition of WUI. I understand that working with the upper limits of the WUI as it grades into the forested, undeveloped areas, but I thought there was probably a lower limit to it, particularly the urban area of Missoula wouldn’t be included. And if you read the narrative associated with this, here, it talks about rural areas and forested areas and it seems like a meaningful map of WUI should reflect that information as well. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: The reason I brought up the definition of WUI is because I’ve seen a number of different definitions and for instance, there was a…may even been a nationwide to map the Wildland Urban Interface by a group of folks out of the University of Wisconsin. And how one goes about defining what the different vegetation types are, what the distances are from the edge of those vegetation types into non-vegetated areas depends on what the WUI is. So, in their mapping effort, it turns out that all of the City of Missoula is in the Wildland Urban Interface and so how one goes about making or defining this term would, perhaps, get at some of the things that Jon was talking about. I mean, certainly the center of the City of Missoula is protected by an urban fire department and it’s a very different scenario than the middle of Seeley Lake as we talked about when we going through that plan. So, I think it’s pretty important that we consider a reasonable definition for what the WUI actually is. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: You know, we can toss things back and forth between these two for quite some time, but I think we ought to take one and finish it… Jennifer Clary: That’s exactly what I was going to say, I just didn’t know if you had something to say on the WUI or what they were talking about. So, Don, was that what you were going to say? Don MacArthur: I was going to make a motion… Jennifer Clary: Okay. Don MacArthur: …for the first one. Jennifer Clary: Okay, great. Don MacArthur: I’ll move that the language below and Map A, Missoula County potential gravel resources as provided in the Staff Report be adopted as Appendix E of the Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update and that the language below as amended. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 15 of 33 Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. Any comment? Let’s have a voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Motion carries. Don MacArthur: I’d further move that the language below and Map A, Missoula County Potential Gravel Resources as provided in the Staff Report be adopted…is it the same exact language…adopted as Appendix E of the Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update and we’re addressing now City Council, as amended, language below as amended. Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. Any discussion? Voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. WUI? Pat. Pat O’Herren: The Community Wildfire Protection Plan does have a definition of the WUI, I don’t know if this will help your discussions, but here it is. The Office of Emergency Services and the participants in the Community Wildfire Plan adopted the…what they termed the “national default” and defined WUI as, “The County WUI as being a 1.5 mile zone around areas of population density, see Map B, which is the map you have in your packet.” Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: Well, you know, I think it’s fine to draw a mile and a half circle around developments and…and places that people congregate to live. But to have one guy with a house way out where ever and for him to be included, I don’t even…I don’t do circles and calculations real well, but that’s a huge amount of land for one residence that’s out there that when he built it should have known that he was in the wild…he should’ve known where he was. And it seems like we’re trying to take responsibility for people that are making…not maybe the best decisions at the time, maybe not thinking about things, maybe they’re new to Montana, maybe they’ve never been to a place where they have a wildland urban interface, but you know, it’s a huge undertaking to take on the responsibility of all these homes that have maybe a mile and half of driveway with no other egress other than the driveway that they’re going in on. So, I have a little bit of…I guess I’m…I’m not real interested in making the County or ourselves liable by including…I don’t know any other way of saying it, I mean, it’s…some of the homes that I’ve been to, personally, are built out in a ridiculous area. And if that’s where they want to live, fine, but you got to take the responsibility of living there. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: The other issue with that definition is that it’s ever-expanding. So, whenever you put a house somewhere, then you draw another point…one and half mile buffer around it and that becomes the WUI. So, that may be some national definition and I know you didn’t write it, but it’s not very helpful and I think we should probably take a more-targeted (if I can use that word, Don) crack at defining what the Wildland Urban Interface is and…and even though we didn’t get to this discussion when we were talking about the Seeley Lake Plan, I think there’s…perhaps reasonable consideration should be given to saying how far that Wildland Urban Interface can expand, maybe by a percent over a given period of time. So, I think that this is the kind of stuff that could go into the Growth Policy. Again, I understand that this is an incremental process and we’re just taking a first crack at it, but it’s probably worth considering how we look at land use in this area and how far we want the Wildland Urban Interface to expand. If we even want it to expand. So. Jennifer Clary: Jon. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 16 of 33 Jon Haber: Yeah. I think what might be going on here is we’re taking…lots of people are taking a concept that was designed for one thing and trying to use it for something else. I think it was designed for how to deal with protecting structures from fire that are there; it wasn’t intended to be used as a planning tool for where structures should be. And if we’re not careful, misusing it might not be a good idea. So, I think we just need to put more thought into how we’re using this WUI concept in relation to Growth Policy and Planning and Zoning. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: I think we have already misused the WUI concept, and I think the state already has mandated that we continue misusing it. So, I guess, given that, the question that I would have is if the Senate Bill 51…what is the charge within that for us to answer? I printed out some copy of it, but I didn’t really… Pat O’Herren: It’s essentially the same that James gave you on sand and gravel, is that we must address it. Don MacArthur: And doesn’t it say some things about subdivision regulations, also, and…and more specific… Pat O’Herren: It certainly does. We are addressing only the Growth Policy end of it. Our Subdivision Regulations as we proceed in the revision of those, we are looking at the state-mandated changes that we have to address. WUI is one of those, so there will be an ongoing other efforts as a result of that Senate Bill. We’re addressing only the Growth Policy issue tonight. Excuse me, only… Don MacArthur: Some of the…I mean some of the questions that have been raised about, you know, precluding subdivision may not be a Growth…exactly Growth Policy, they certainly ought to be suggested in Growth Policy, but, you know, the actual rubber might hit the road, so to speak, in the subdivision where it says, you know, you shouldn’t be able to subdivide in this kind of Wildland Urban Interface. I’m…I’m confused by it, too, I had the same sort of thing thinking about the WUI as you guys did. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: I guess I’ll use the Seeley Lake Plan as a devil’s advocate, here, if we go up here and we put one house on every 640 acres, or whatever it is, then the WUI is going to include those and they don’t…do they have to subdivide those? They don’t have to subdivide those. Any mining claims that are out there—somebody builds a house on them and they’re in WUI. I mean, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, to me, but maybe I don’t know and my wife is quite explicit on the fact that I don’t everything, but, you know, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, to me, that we would include every structure and put a mile and a half circle around it and call it part of WUI. I’m looking for a different definition, I guess, and I’m not real happy with the one that here. And I don’t know if we’re…if we have to take that definition, then I don’t know why we’re here doing this. Jennifer Clary: Pat. Pat O’Herren: I think there’s two items to consider. One, is that the Wildland Urban Interface for the purposes of this document is to bring the Growth Policy into compliance with state law. What that means in this case, is that we’re suggesting that the Office of Emergency Services documents be incorporated into our Growth Policy as recommended here. What that does is identify structures that are at-risk, provides opportunities for…currently, for stimulus monies to help residents reduce the risk of wildfire, and provide for long-term planning goals for the fire districts and the County to provide emergencies services. That’s one side of the Wildland Urban Interface. The other side of that is the development issue. And when you make your home, depending on where it is and how it’s done fire wise, you can adversely impact other things, such as wildlife and water quality and that sort of thing. And the Growth Policy Amendment the Commissioners are looking for at this point is to address the former to make sure that we’re addressing public health, safety, and welfare. Identifying areas that are at-risk; identifying what can be done about it; identifying sources to help mitigate the wildfire issue. There is, indeed, a much broader discussion, as you got into in Seeley Lake, is well, does that mean you can never build outside the designated Wildland Urban Interface? That’s a different discussion. I hope that helps. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 17 of 33 Jennifer Clary: Jerry. Jerry O'Connell: Isn’t there also a federal component on this, that the WUI land by…I thought federal regulation meant that the fire reduction efforts had to occur in there for undergrowth removal, etcetera. Pat O’Herren: I don’t know that it’s mandatory, but it certainly provides incentive. I can tell you that the Wildland Urban Interface as identified on your current proposed map be in the Swan Valley has been utilized for stimulus dollars to go in and help landowners reduce the risk, whether it’s moving firewood away from the house or reducing vegetation, that sort of thing. I don’t know that it’s required to be done, but it gives the opportunity to do it. There are certainly federal standards that the community wildfire plan addresses and notes that they hope to, quote, encourage local fire districts and their community partners to analyze their neighborhoods in the future and modify the definition with a rationale as to how the expanding development area or a specific risk factor, such as a home in an existing lightening area, should be addressed. This is basically about public health and safety and not about the development issue at this point. I understand, believe me, after the discussions in Seeley Lake, I understand they are related, but that’s not what we’re trying to…we’re not trying to link them tonight, staff is not trying to link them tonight. James McCubbin: Might I… Jennifer Clary: James. James McCubbin: Thank you. It might help to just read the statute on this one, as well, because it is limited, again; but it’s a little bit different than what you just did. The recommendation made on sand and gravel. So, what the statute, as revised, the current statute requires is a Growth Policy must include an evaluation of the potential for fire and wildland fire in the jurisdictional area, including whether or not there’s a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface and adopt regulations requiring defensible space around structures, adequate ingress and egress to and from structures and developments to facilitate fire suppression activities and adequate water supply for fire protection. So the draft motion, the propose motion you have in front of you basically says that, yes, we think there is a potential for fire and wildland fire in the jurisdictional area; and yes, we think there is a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface and in fact we have some maps that have done that previous; and yes, we think it is important to adopt regulations addressing defensible space, ingress, egress, fire suppression and water supply. That’s in a nutshell what this says. Okay? And, in addition, it goes beyond that to say the plan for addressing those things and for pursuing, you know, further delineating or defining the Wildland Urban Interface, which I think is essentially the same thing, is to work through the DES process that’s already underway. So that’s what my reading of your proposed motion is and it doesn’t go into a lot of the other things you’re contemplating, which, again, are necessary discussions; but the idea is this is just answering those limited statutory questions, policy questions at kind of a macro level. Is this something that we need to address as we move forward with zoning and Subdivision Regulations in the future. Jerry O'Connell: One of the points was the…if somebody builds outside what is considered or defined as the WUI at the time, are they on their own for fire protection? Is that…is that in conflict with just the government’s role of providing fire departments or whatever you want to classify as? Is there a conflict of concepts there? James McCubbin: Well it…getting back to the question, you know, is there a need to identify these hazards, is there a need to adopt regulations for, you know, for defensible space and ingress and egress and water supply and so forth. I suppose as a matter of policy you could define an area where you think it’s important to adopt regulations and adopt, you know, define an area outside that where you basically tell people, we’re not going to regulate this area. You can do what you want there, but we’re also not going to provide fire protection. I’m not aware of any jurisdictions that have taken that approach. I guess I have to evaluate it further from a liability perspective for the fire districts in particular. But, it would just be a different policy approach than what we’ve got in front of you here. Jerry O'Connell: Okay. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 18 of 33 Jennifer Clary: Jerry, did you? Jerry Petasek: Just really quick, if we were to vote on this motion, on the WUI Growth Policy, the line that the WUI is on these maps would then be voted on and it would then be static until we reviewed it again. So, in a sense, the definition that you said for the WUI, it is an amorphous, it kind of changes and it’s actual structures that define the WUI, the WUI doesn’t define where structures go, it’s the other way around, and that kind of makes a lot of folks nervous. And I’m wondering if when we vote on these maps, does this line then become static. This is the WUI line until we vote on it again in the future at some point. Pat O’Herren: Again, it’s a very broad-brushed line. It’s not something you and I could go out and say, this site is in the WUI, this site is not. That’s what the more-specific regional plans are intended to do as well as any development review. And that’s where I think Laval’s comments back to the assistant fire chief were most appropriate. Just because you’re in this very large area does not mean that you’re not going to get specific attention when the area develops. Specific attention being whether or not you’re actually in the WUI. Jerry Petasek: Absolutely. So this just basically taking that definition and what’s on the ground now and kind of very generally drawing a line and very broad-based… Pat O’Herren: Very broad, correct. Jerry Petasek: But, once we vote, tomorrow the line’s not going to have a chance of changing unless it comes back to…kind of comes… Pat O’Herren: The line will not change until DES revises the documents that we discussed earlier, which they’re in the process of doing in 2010. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: This kind of goes off to what Jerry was just talking about, but I was going to suggest for discussion changing paragraph one to say the County has determined that there are areas with high potential for fire hazard…now I’m trying to make this up as I go. You know, these hazards may jeopardize life and property. Missoula County will create a County definition of the WUI and map this area. I guess I’m kind of following what the…what James read out where it says whether or not there is a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface, yeah, there’s a need to delineate it, I don’t think we’ve done it yet. So this is a suggestion that we…you know, that the County create a definition that is regionally appropriate, fits the landscape and fits the way development patterns have…exist here, and that we then map it. Jennifer Clary: When you just said that, did you actually take out Wildland Urban Interface or did you leave that in, I couldn’t remember. Don MacArthur: I took it out… Jennifer Clary: Okay. Don MacArthur: …because, you know, I don’t think that, you know, we need to…I guess this was a…saying that we need to redefine the WUI. A County definition of the WUI. And my understanding was that we broad powers to how we met this goal. I don’t know if we do, but the County governing body or City governing body does. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: One thing I’d like to add to that. I mean, if part of this process is to identify hazards, certainly the hazard of wildfire doesn’t exist only within the shaded area, right? I mean, as we’ve learned in the past, fires start in other places and move into the shaded area. So, certainly one shouldn’t be lulled into a sense of complacency to think that just because the gray area isn’t shaded that they wouldn’t be or couldn’t be potentially involved in a wildland fire incident. I don’t know, I guess my point is that ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 19 of 33 perhaps a broader approach maybe the way Don was structuring it gets at this, but, that there is a hazard of wildfire no matter where you live in this County and just limiting it to the Wildland Urban Interface is, perhaps, not a good idea. You know, from a policy perspective. We should be thinking that, like I said, any area is subject to wildland fire and maybe that’s another part of this, where we get rid of this idea of just the WUI being as a…but…I think it says a high potential for fire hazard exists within the WUI—well, of course, it exists everywhere, so, perhaps striking that is a good idea and I’m not sure where else to go with that. But maybe we do something else specifically within the Wildland Urban Interface, however it becomes defined. Jennifer Clary: Carol. Carol Evans: I have a couple things. If…I just wanted to clear something up in my mind…if you’re going to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface and not use that as a tool for planning, but still have emergency services, still have other infrastructure, why even make the point of delineating the Wildland Urban Interface? I’m just not clear on why you would even go to those if you can’t use it as a tool or it won’t be used, I should say, it won't be used as a tool for future planning. And the second…sorry, and the second thing is a just a minor typo on page 4, the second to the last paragraph, I don’t think it’s wildlife risks that we’re talking about, it should be wildfire in those two places in that paragraph. Jennifer Clary: Pat. Pat O’Herren: Thank you. Going back a bit to the earlier discussion: it is important to identify the Wildland Urban Interface simply because of those individuals who are within today. It identifies an area of high risk. And that is something that our local fire districts have done through the documents and mapping that you see. So that’s a good one. That adopting those maps or those documents as part of the Growth Policy does not preclude future planning efforts that utilize the Wildland Urban Interface as one of the criteria for determining where growth should and should not occur. It does not preclude it. Does that answer your question? Carol Evans: Sort of, yes. So that it would actually be a bonafide piece of the whole planning process and it’s something that Commissioners would be looking at, for example, going through subdivision review and any other planning processes. Pat O’Herren: Correct. Carol Evans: Okay. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Ibey: So we end up with a map like this. Is there a possibility that in the future we could identify a real WUI that…I mean, right now, what this tells me is, well, as long as you’re inside the WUI, you can develop. And maybe this is…I’m just taking it too offhandedly, but I’m trying to think like a normal person does and they figure well, you know, it’s already covered. And so some of these places are out there, I mean, they’re…they’re closest fire department has to be seven or eight miles by dirt road. And so is this something where we’re going to…my fear is we’re going to have to live with this once we adopt this map, you know, it’s…it’s…they’re going to be in compliance with this portion of the Growth Policy. They’re going to be protected and I think we’re stretching ourselves, and so I question as to whether we can afford to stretch ourselves. Pat O’Herren: The only comment, I guess, I would offer at this point is this map exists. If you live in Missoula County, this map exists. It exists in your local fire district, it exists in the Office Of Emergency Services. Not putting it in the Growth Policy does not take it away. Tim Ibey: Okay. Jennifer Clary: Jon. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 20 of 33 Jon Haber: So its seems to me the thing we should is explain here how it should be used or not used. And I’m not sure this really does that. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: It kind of seems like what we might need is a couple of introductory statements before this…before it goes in. I mean, I understand that we are really addressing very clearly Senate Bill 51 and it seems like we need some caveats to say this is only specifically addressing Senate Bill 51, it doesn’t address anything beyond that, and, you know, I don’t know how to frame this exactly. Or we ought to have some different statements that say, you know, we’re very concerned as a community about Wildland Urban Interface issues and, you know, this…here’s the things that we think about them as a community in a broad sense and they need to be…we need to address where these interface issues are critical for our community, we haven’t done so yet, and we are going…we’re going to do that in a future process. I think we could incorporate what Pat just said to say there is an existing Wildland Urban Interface map that can be used for the purposes of community wildlife protection plan and whatever the other immediate needs are, but that is…you know, that Wildland Urban Interface is acknowledged that does not meet the overall development Growth Policy goals of the community, you know. It’s only for the purposes or sort of emergency in existing residential…you know, dealing with existing residential patterns, not future growth goals. Jennifer Clary: Is that a motion? Tim. Tim Ibey: Well, it seems to me as though the other places that the map exists are kind of mandated to take care of places, I mean, they don’t pick and choose as to whether they are going to give fire protection or whatnot. They’re pretty much stuck with what’s there. And our job, I think, as planners is to make sure that their job doesn’t get too big. I mean, at some point in time…given two or three spot fires, you know, in the WUI and we’re all out of men. We’re all…or we’re all out of people and, you know…I just hate to see this thing grow and they’re dedicated people that go out and fight forest fires and take care of homes and you can only spread them so thin. And I see it in the papers almost every day where there’s another rural fire department that’s not making it. You know, they don’t have the funding. And it’s something that we’ve got to look at. This, to me, I mean this is something that you can stretch a piece of plastic as thin as you can get it but at some point in time it doesn’t hold anything. And I think that’s what we’re doing to some of the established fire departments and whatnot and this is…that’s a big concern for me. I mean, to just…I’m not sure that a national definition of WUI…I mean, we don’t have a fire department on every corner like they do down in California, you know, we’ve got every…every other town. And so it’s a concern to throw this out here and then try to develop with it. I think we’re already stretched. And so I don’t know the answers to it, but I just…it worries me. Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: It’s for what Don MacArthur, but, also have the same feelings that Tim does and I think that even if we put a new introduction on it, the language in both B and C where it refers to the WUI as what we’re going to use points us back at that map. And I think that’s the connection that we need to break and recognize that when we’re doing B and C, there are things we need to look at other than that WUI map that affect where places should be built and how places should be built. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: I guess I would like to make some specific recommendations in number one, I would strike…and this is obviously for purposes of discussion…the within the Wildland Urban Interface clause or phrase or whatever you…part of the language that is, just so we’re not limiting ourselves and I would go back to my thought from earlier in the discussion that it would…this would be an appropriate place to define a…if we’re going to use the “the” that Jon just talked about that we go through it and exercise of defining for Missoula County what the WUI is. Jennifer Clary: Is that a motion? John DiBari: Sure. I’ll make the recommend…why don’t we take it as two parts, how’s that? Jennifer Clary: Okay. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 21 of 33 John DiBari: So I’ll move that in paragraph 1, we strike the words “within the Wildland Urban Interface” and then the parenthesis WUI. Jennifer Clary: Is there a second? Anyone? Don MacArthur: I’ll second that. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Don. Any comments? Don MacArthur: So let me just read out what I understand this to say now: the County has determined that a high potential for fire hazard exist… John DiBari: …that may jeopardize… Don MacArthur: …that may jeopardize life and property in Missoula County. Missoula County and is that it? We’re not addressing the last part or are we…are we voting on the whole paragraph 1 there? John DiBari: All right. Maybe I’ll…let’s go through it. Well, maybe this is why we need to go back to the second, break this into two parts. So I think if we’re going to go ahead and use the term “the WUI” we need to define it, otherwise I think we ought to do something like Jon suggested and figure out how to divorce the WUI from the map. Does that make sense? Don MacArthur: So it could say something like Missoula County has mapped the current definition of the WUI through several planning documents and that map is attached as exety-exe. John DiBari: Sure. It’s kind of clunky, but, it’s better, probably. James McCubbin: If I may interject? Jennifer Clary: Yes. James McCubbin: James McCubbin from the County Attorney’s Office. In terms of the statutory requirements, the way I read this…the proposed, the numbered paragraph 1, what it does is that addresses two elements in the statute. The first is an evaluation of the potential fire and wildland fire in the jurisdictional area. Okay. So, the language that you’ve got there, that’s proposed is the county has determined that a high potential for fire hazard exists and then it goes on to the WUI part, okay? So, but, we need you to say or recommend something to the Commissioners as to whether or not there is a potential for fire and wildland fire, something like an evaluation statement. Okay, so that’s the first thing that this paragraph does. The second is whether or not there is a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface and from what I’ve been hearing, that’s more the language you’re concerned about in terms of the reference to the Wildland Urban Interface. So it might make your lives easier if we split that out. John DiBari: Sure. So, if I understand it, the jurisdiction is the entire County, correct? So… James McCubbin: Well… John DiBari: So…so… James McCubbin: Excluding the City, for the County Growth Policy, but then excluding the County for the City Policy. John DiBari: Sure, but we’ll pick that up in the next section, right? So, sentence one, I think, describes…the first sentence, when I…where I suggest striking the Wildland Urban Interface, that’s a true statement, right? Because it does cover the entire County and we’re not limiting it only to the Wildland Urban Interface. So I think that meets your… James McCubbin: Yeah. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 22 of 33 John DiBari: …even with striking the WUI part of it. And then, for the second part that you just talked about do we want to…I’m guess…do we need to define the WUI here in order to meet that, if we… James McCubbin: How about this, a two part question: do you feel that there’s a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface and, B, do you think that we have adequately done that? So if your response is yes, there’s a need to delineate it, but the definition and the mapping that we’ve got on existing documents needs more work, then you can just say that. Don MacArthur: So I would suggest, I’m making this up, again, as we go along, Missoula County has mapped a current definition of a Wildland Urban Interface that’s through several planning documents, that map is attached. There is a need…there’s further need to refine the County definition of Wildland Urban Interface for the purposes…for Growth Policy purposes. Somebody could do a lot better than that if they were sitting down writing it, but the point is, yes, we answer the question, it’s been delineated, there is a delineation, as Pat pointed out, and maybe delineation, maybe that statement needs to also include, you know, this document is appropriate for Emergency Operations Plans, Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan, the CWPP, but the…may not be appropriate to govern all Growth Policy decisions and further delineation of County definition for Wildland Urban Interface should be developed and mapped. Jennifer Clary: Jerry. Jerry O'Connell: The…I get a little torn between the terms definition and delineation because applies a definition and the other defines a location and one…I think we need to pin down the location as well as the definition. It’s got to be a fixed location, otherwise it just keeps moving around like, kind of like nailing jello to the wall. When a new house goes up, you got a new boundary and develop any reasonable policy, I think it’s critical we, at least for fixed periods of time, have that boundary locked in. So a subdivision later on, six months from now or a house plunked two miles outside the line doesn’t move that line and thus affect whatever kind of plan we’re trying to put together. So I would encourage that we stick with…well, we make sure that whatever our definition is that we also encourage that we have a fixed boundary defined clearly that remains in place for some specific period of time so that our policies about what to do about it don’t have to change every time somebody builds a house and we’ll have to add people to the fire department. James McCubbin: Can I…can I interject again. Jennifer Clary: Yes, and then, Kelley. James McCubbin: The WUI and the potential expansion of the WUI doesn’t define where it’s okay or not okay to further build. It’s not the same as zoning, like density or lot size zoning. What the WUI is…what that delineation is, will define where any WUI regulations will apply. So while I understand you don’t want people to just expand in an unlimited fashion further into the forest—I think that’s what you’re getting at—having a WUI that could potentially expand as people build out doesn’t necessarily do that. If it’s implemented in connection with density-type zoning, then it won't have that affect. The only effect it would have to have become a variable zone for WUI would be to ensure that as people do go further into the forest they are still subject to these types of ingress, egress, water supply, those types of regulations. I’m not sure I’m making this clear. But you may actually want, from a policy perspective, to ensure that the WUI can expand, so that as people are in the forest you make sure that they are subject to those kinds of regulations. But you want to do it in a way that doesn’t give them some kind of unfettered right to expand and the way you do that is address zoning density. So it’s two different types of regulations that we’re talking about. Jerry O'Connell: Yeah. I just want to avoid a situation that the WUI automatically is extended by the building of a house outside of the previous WUI where it is, the way I understand it, it’s defined that, okay, it’s a half-mile on either side of three-quarters, or whatever it is, along the access road to a structure and around that structure. And if the WUI was here today and then someone built something out here and there’s a road going out to it, all of a sudden, there’s a new WUI out there. I don’t want that to happen. I want to make sure that our policy and definitions are set up to prevent that from just automatically happening by somebody building out there. I’m not trying to stop somebody from building, I’m trying to stop the WUI from automatically just getting bigger and then throwing that burden of providing fire protection services back on the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 23 of 33 James McCubbin: Okay. Well, again, it’s a little bit different if you don’t have that kind of variable or expanding WUI, then it means that if somebody builds far enough out, then they’re not subject to any water supply, any ingress, egress, any kind of fire or defensible space regulations. If they manage to get themselves so far into the wildland that they are no longer in the Wildland Urban Interface… Jerry O'Connell: Exactly. James McCubbin: I’m not sure you want to exempt those kinds of people from any kind of wildfire restrictions because it means they’re going to be in more danger, not less. But more on point, in terms of the concern about putting a liability on the fire districts, I do understand that. Basically, if somebody builds a house within a rural fire district, whether it’s in WUI or not in WUI or urban or not urban, that fire district’s got an obligation to do something to at least protect the people and take reasonable steps to protect the structure, regardless of this WUI stuff. So what’s really going to matter there is the boundary of the fire district, not the WUI. Jerry O'Connell: Which begs the question, now, why we’re even messing around with the WUI. Jennifer Clary: Kelley. Kelley Durbin: I hope I didn’t lose this in the process of that. If I’m reading this correctly, all they’re asking us to do is adopt a policy that addresses the WUI because the state did, and now we need to be in compliance. It also says to the extent in which we, the governing body, think is enough. And when James was talking he said, really, all we have to do is identify that yes, there is a need but then we can also say in our statement that it’s not clearly defined to our liking. I mean, you guys can word that, I’m sure, fabulously. But I think we’re putting the cart before the horse here. The point is, yes, it needs to be better defined, but that’s all we need to say, that’s what we need to be addressing today in our amendment language. In our amendment language we’re supposed to address that there is a WUI but ours isn’t defined enough to our liking. Am I…am I…is that crazy? Jennifer Clary: No. Jon. Jon Haber: Which I agree with, but I think you’d have to conform the rest of the language to that philosophy, which would include the caveats that Don suggested and would include not referring to the WUI map as if it were correct and what we wanted. Jennifer Clary: John. John DiBari: Then the only other thing that, you know, when James was speaking the time before the last time he spoke is that the vast majority of the County isn’t zoned, so the Growth Policy is the only thing we have to hang our hat on, really, so…unless we’re going to zone the entire County and provide implementation for what can and can’t be done within the WUI, then the Growth Policy is all we have. Correct? James McCubbin: Right, and the question you’ve got here is is there a need to adopt regulations to address. It makes no sense. John DiBari: So just following a train of thought, here. Independent of zoning, if we mapped the WUI, or any area in the County and said any development that takes place within this boundary has to adhere to X, Y, and Z, we’d be just fine in going ahead and doing that independent of any zoning ordinance or… James McCubbin: You can include that language, but it’s meaningless unless it’s backed up by some kind of regulation. A Growth Policy is not enforceable [inaudible – spoken over] John DiBari: Right and I guess I’m saying is take all the unzoned portions of the County, if they fall within an area that’s delineated as Wildland Urban Interface and we come up with regulations that dictate when and how development can take place in that area, we can do that, even if they’re unzoned. Correct? James McCubbin: Yes, but the regulations that we would adopt are going to take one of two forms: subdivision regulations or zoning regulations. And that’s basically all we’ve got. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 24 of 33 John DiBari: Right, okay, so, essentially we have to zone everything if we want to do something substantive in the Wildland Urban Interface. Jennifer Clary: Don. Don MacArthur: Well maybe what we need to just do is to state what the WUI is not. You know? It seems like the WUI has a purpose and it is already defined in these couple of things: EOP and the CWPP and etcetera. And maybe we just need to simply state that Missoula County does not believe that the WUI is an appropriate means…you know, the definition of the WUI has no place in Growth Policy decisions. You know? Or something to that effect. That it shouldn’t guide future land use decisions, it shouldn’t guide zoning decisions and those things ought to be handled on a, you know, the overall standard of the Growth Policy, not on whether or not it’s in or out of the WUI. I mean, we just sort of…the WUI seems like it’s pretty meaningless. And that’s what we’re all struggling with, I think, is that when we looked at it at the Seeley Lake Plan we kept getting this feeling like, well, you know, we’re going to discourage development that goes outside of the WUI. And I think we still have the hangover from that. And, really, what we should have been probably looking at is ignoring all that and just looking at the land use decisions; you know, where is it mapped and what does it say. And if it’s mapped for development, then in or out of the WUI, it doesn’t matter. And then, you know, then we’re just making decisions about where are we putting land use mapping and where are we putting zoning and putting those in appropriate places rather than, you know, getting all twisted with this definition that we’re going to just fight forever. So maybe all we’re doing is saying, you know, we find the WUI to be an appropriate way to map these things and should not govern, you know, future land use decisions. I guess I’m suggesting an alternate. You know, rather than spending a bunch of time trying to redefine this thing, probably never going to work that well and still not be that useful. You know, we just say the Wildland Urban Interface doesn’t…isn’t trying to do that and the County doesn’t believe it should. John DiBari: So does that meet with what James said? So, I think the first thing you said, is we have to define…decide whether or not there’s a hazard, right? So, we’ve done that. And then the second thing you said is determine whether we need to identify a Wildland Urban Interface and according to Don, I guess we could say that… Don MacArthur: It’s been done. John DiBari: …there is one. And then, part three, I guess is what we do with it. And Don’s suggesting that… Don MacArthur: We use it for the purposes that are outlined here. And that we specifically say we don’t believe that this WUI definition should be, you know, extended to future land use decisions that aren’t, you know, a direct outgrowth of the things that are defined here. John DiBari: So then, I guess that…do we want to have…also make a statement that…that it is…there is obviously, you know, a need to address wildland fire issues and that that will be taken up in some other process or through some other planning document or what do we…or do we want to make a statement that…because right now, if do that, then the Growth Policy is essentially silent on wildland fire, right? Don MacArthur: Yes, so we could add a sentence that’s saying, you know, this WUI should not be used to address wildland fire or, you know, fire issues in low density residential areas and, you know, that…you know, further study should go into that issue outside of definition of WUI. Jennifer Clary: Laval. Don MacArthur: Please, help, some language. Somebody over there. Laval Means: I’m going to just try to take a stab at it, too. The Sub A, B and C do talk about next steps and they do talk about the way that the mapping…the map can be used today, as James says, for public health and safety reasons. But he was distinguishing between that and development and I hear you going that way, too. So, just simply…not that…this map or this information is not intended to guide future land use decisions, period. We then can still retain the references to the subdivision regs, more ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 25 of 33 work to done; no references to zoning, more work that we can look at there. But just putting out a clarification that it is not intended to guide future land use decisions. James McCubbin: I guess I’m confused. So…while saying that, do you still feel that it’s appropriate these types of regulations in Subdivision Regulations and/or zoning. Because, if so, aren’t Subdivision Regulations and zoning intended to guide future land use decisions? Don MacArthur: So to me, Paragraph C, I don’t think it should say that we’re…anything about the WUI, I think it could say that Missoula County is in the process of reviewing its subdivision…or zoning regulations to determine if or how zoning could be used to protect life and property in high fire hazard areas. You know, we’re just get rid of the mention of the WUI and we start talking about high fire hazard areas instead of the WUI. James McCubbin: That would be the same in Paragraph B, then, I assume. John DiBari: And maybe we just use wildland fire-prone areas, or something like that, not high fire hazard, because you have to define that, or, you know, what separates high from medium. So maybe we should just say like “wildland fire-prone areas.” Does that sound reasonable? Don MacArthur: Sure. Jon Haber: Do we have to say anything? Can we just say we’re looking at these things everywhere? Unidentified Speaker: But that would no longer get us in the WUI. Jon Haber: In the context of fire. James McCubbin: So, what I think I’m hearing is that the Board, or at least…not counting heads. It’s sounding like some of you don’t think there is a need to delineate the Wildland Urban Interface. You’re not feeling that that’s a useful tool. If that’s the case, that’s fine. It’s a policy call that you don’t feel that delineating the Wildland Urban Interface is useful but you still do think that it’s appropriate to adopt regulations requiring defensible space and etcetera, etcetera in high fire hazard areas. Jerry O'Connell: I second that. Don MacArthur: But a… Kelley Durbin: That’s what I said. Don MacArthur: But… James McCubbin: I think we could…I think staff could…I mean, if that is your intent, I think staff could write that up in a report to the Commissioners at this point, based on the discussion. If not, I don’t know if you need to refine the language. Don MacArthur: Do you need, though, the definition of the WUI to…for the CWPP and the EOP and all of those other things? Pat O’Herren: They will…the definition will continue to be in there as defined by those agencies that write those documents. Don MacArthur: You know, so, the…this Wildland Urban Interface has already been defined. I mean, I guess that we’re splitting hairs here but it seems like that…it already has been defined, we don’t think there’s further need to work on it, because we don’t think it should be used for Growth Policy and land use decisions. Because it…I think we’re going to…every time we get into this discussion we get…we get…it either needs to be a completely new definition of Wildland Urban Interface than the sort of generally-known definition or it’s problematic. So I think we should just get rid of the use of the word WUI and start thinking about, you know, fire-prone areas and what the standards are for that. Jennifer Clary: Jerry. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 26 of 33 Jerry Petasek: It just…I just need to talk out loud for a second. Okay, so the WUI is right now defined as a certain amount of space around a structure, and it moves—if you build a structure there, a WUI will exist. And the idea of the WUI is to acknowledge the fact that between that structure and the surrounding wilderness there is…there are special precautions that should be taking place…take place to both protect the structure from fire and to protect the forest from man. And so I do…I feel like we do want a WUI so that we can place certain restrictions and protections for both structures and the forest within those areas. But then it gets mixed with the…this other line that I think we want that we haven’t defined yet, which is the space that is static that says we don’t want folks primarily to develop in this space, and when they do we don’t want it at high levels of density or however it is or whatever it is we’re all thinking. So there are two separate things, I’m not definite…I’m trying to catch up with everyone on whether or not I want to get rid of the WUI. Because I do want to define the WUI, I do want to define an area around structures that exists every time a structure exists to protect both the forest and the structure. You know, how those regulations pan out, or how tough or weak or not, I don’t want to touch now. But then I also do want this line that is static that, you know, exists to…which is more of land use issue to me. But if zoning and subdivision are land use issues and a WUI can help define those, I want to still have that ability to do that. I’m just throwing that out there, because I’m trying to…at some point during the conversation, the WUI actually changed definitions on me and started to make a different sense. I wish I could propose something. So let me think a little bit longer. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Anyone want to craft a motion? Tim Ibey: Do we still have a motion on the floor? Kelley Durbin: Yes. Jennifer Clary: Actually, do we, because I… Don MacArthur: John has a motion. Jennifer Clary: John has a motion, yeah, Don seconded it. Kelley Durbin: Yeah, there’s a motion. Jennifer Clary: And essentially, then James said they can create it, based on our conversation. So do we need to have a motion? John DiBari: I’ll withdraw my motion. Don MacArthur: Okay. Jennifer Clary: Motion withdrawn. Don MacArthur: So the statement that James had put forward was that…that…I guess I would take a little bit of…trying to what James said with what Jerry and I said, I think that the WUI…there is a definition of a WUI that has been mapped, that has use for the County in some of the ways that are called for in Senate Bill 51. It’s allowed us to adopt regulations in those areas that require defensible space around structures and governs some Emergency Operations Plans and disaster mitigation plans, you know, we support all that. But we feel neither the definition of the WUI nor the mapping of its extents should inform future land use decisions. Kind of verbose, but… Tim Ibey: Well I’ll second. Don MacArthur: Sure, that was a motion, I guess. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. James. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 27 of 33 James McCubbin: Just a moment, I think you had also mentioned the possibility of changing the reference to WUI in Subparagraphs B and C. Don MacArthur: Yeah, yeah. That will be…this was sort of a introductory paragraph, I guess. James McCubbin: Okay. But I mean, if you don’t do all of them, you’ll end up with a contradiction. Don MacArthur: Yep. We’ll come back and get those if…piece-by-piece. Jennifer Clary: Any discussion on that motion? Kelley. Kelley Durbin: I would need you to say it different or more clearly so that I could have a discussion for a vote. Don MacArthur: You need me to state it more clearly? Kelley Durbin: Yeah. I mean, am I alone there? Jennifer Clary: It was verbose, as Don said. Kelley Durbin: I’m sorry. Don MacArthur: What did I say again? Kelley Durbin: Yeah. Don MacArthur: So, there were two or three points. One was, okay, so I’ll try to recraft Paragraph 1. The County has determined that there…that a high potential for fire hazard exists that may jeopardize life and property in Missoula County. You know, period. Missoula County has mapped and evaluated the WUI through several planning documents. You know, that mapping is included, period. The…neither the definition of the WUI nor the mapping of its extent shall inform future land use decisions beyond the paragraphs to follow. Kelley Durbin: That was better. Jennifer Clary: Any further discussion on that motion, which is the same motion. John DiBari: I think that’s fine. I would like to come back and say something about where it is appropriate to address this or that we need still come back and address this from a Growth Policy perspective, because otherwise, like I said, the Growth Policy is silent on it. Jennifer Clary: Jon, do you have anything? Okay, voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Motion carries. Don MacArthur: Okay, so the following are the emergency operation, pre-disaster plan, etcetera, etcetera. I guess I don’t see, I’m hoping everyone’s reading forward and seeing whether there’s any conflicts with Paragraph A. Paragraph B, then, seems to me to be…B and C are totally different thing that are starting to talk about, you know, the future use of the…this definition. And so I think that they need to be…maybe there’s a reformatting that they don’t become…they’re not B and C anymore, they’re like new paragraphs that say, you know, maybe this is Number 2—paragraph B goes to Number 2 and it says Missoula County will begin a 2010 revision of its subdivision regulations to address fire…you know, to address fire hazards in the County. Included in this will be, among other items, defensible space around structures, access for emergency services and fire planning, potential for delivery of adequate water for fire protection…further regulation will be based on additional consideration of fire hazard and other health and safety and welfare concerns. You know, just taking it outside of the WUI definition. Help. Jennifer Clary: So basically, B became 2, Number 2… Don MacArthur: B became Number 2 to… ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 28 of 33 Jennifer Clary: So, why don’t we have that as a motion? Don MacArthur: Okay. Jennifer Clary: Is there a second? John DiBari: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by John. Any discussion? Don MacArthur: So are we voting on… Jennifer Clary: …just B changing… Don MacArthur: …just that it becomes to Number 2, not the…because I made the whole other thing as a… Jennifer Clary: And rewording it. Don MacArthur: And rewording it or not rewording it at this point? Jennifer Clary: No, I thought you were reading B… Don MacArthur: Yeah. Jennifer Clary: …into Number 2… Don MacArthur: Yeah. Jennifer Clary: …and rewording it, and that’s the motion. Don MacArthur: Okay. And that’s motion, okay. Jennifer Clary: Yes. Don MacArthur: Thank you. Jennifer Clary: Any further discussion? John. John DiBari: So would it be appropriate, and again, I’m not sure if we need to write into the Growth Policy what we think the Growth Policy ought to do in the future, but is it appropriate to put in a sentence here that the County will define…will come up with a definition of Wildland Urban Interface or do we just want to leave it be that in all areas…that for…as a matter of Growth Policy for all areas that are fire- prone, that, you know, just make a more broad blanket statement. Don MacArthur: My goal was to take WUI out of the Subdivision Regulations and substitute into the subdivision…you know, the future subdivision regulation would be looking at fire-prone areas… John DiBari: …some fire hazard, yeah… Don MacArthur: …areas and responding appropriately rather than using the WUI as a definition. John DiBari: Fine. I’m fine with that. Jennifer Clary: Further discussion? Don MacArthur: I guess I would like to add that I would feel good if staff could smooth that out and make it work better. I think our intent is pretty clear on the record, but I’m not sure the motion is that great. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 29 of 33 Pat O’Herren: We’ll try. Jennifer Clary: Voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Motion carries. Don MacArthur: So I’d move that Paragraph C be changed to Number 3 and restated as Missoula County is in the process of reviewing its zoning regulations if and how zoning could be used to protect fire…or to protect life and property in fire-prone areas. You know? And the next sentence could state that that review includes but is not limited to issues such as defensible space around structures, access for emergency services and fire planning, and the potential for delivery of adequate water for fire protection. You know, then I think it needs to have a statement similar to the one that was at the end of that previous paragraph, which I’ve now forgotten. Which said something about… Jennifer Clary: …further… Don MacArthur: You know, further review of…what was it? Jennifer Clary: Something about further requirements…it’s on the record. Anything else, Don. Don MacArthur: You know, the other statement just needs to say that it…that the…where… Jennifer Clary: Actually further regulations, I think it was… Don MacArthur: …where the…you know, further study of fire-prone areas will inform zoning regulation…should inform zoning regulation. I mean, just to sort of stipulate that it’s not…it’s not the WUI. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Don MacArthur: Again, it needs smoothing out. Jennifer Clary: Kelley. Kelley Durbin: All I was going to say is I think you can leave it at that and then to address John’s request, I would think after we get past this one, we can then devise a Number 4 which says we feel like the WUI has not been properly defined and needs to be done. Just as a Number 4, as a recommendation to the Commissioners or to the City. Not that we’re there yet, but I’m saying I don’t think it’s been dropped and I think we can continue with Number 3 and then go on to address the issue that there is not a definition that we feel is sufficient. Jennifer Clary: Any comments or a second? Do we have a second on an item number 3, yet? Kelley Durbin: Sorry. Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Tim seconded that. Any comments on that? Okay, voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. John DiBari: Can I follow up on what Kelley said? Jennifer Clary: Yes. John DiBari: Kelley, I appreciate that. I’m fine if we never make reference to WUI at all so long as we cover the entire County, including the City, in places that are prone to wildland fire, so we don’t have to define WUI at all if we take into account what standards and regulations need to exist in places that are at risk for wildland fire. So we don’t need another…we don’t need a 4 to define something if we’re just going to look at the entire County as being that place, that’s at hazard for wildland fire. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 30 of 33 Jennifer Clary: Jon. Jon Haber: I’m sort of intrigued by the discussion earlier about the fire district boundaries and wondering whether the Growth Policy should provide guidance for where to draw fire district boundaries. And if so, is that something that we could deal with now? Jennifer Clary: James. James McCubbin: Fire district boundaries are governed by specific statutes; and basically, there’s a petition process, there’s a petition and hearing process if somebody wants to get annexed into a fire district. So I don’t think we can really affect that through the Growth Policy. Jennifer Clary: Okay, so this Item No. 2 that we have the existing maps. Is there any amendment to that or…I mean, obviously the staff will change the numbering. Tim Ibey: Well obviously, we’ve got to have a map but then we’re right back into the…using the WUI map. Jennifer Clary: But we did, you know, talk about that in Item No. 1 that we said that there is a WUI map is attached, we didn’t disregard that. John. John DiBari: So, perhaps maybe an amendment to what would become No. 5 is a statement of…that wildland fire hazard exists throughout the County in addition to those areas delineated by the map. Jennifer Clary: Anyone? Don MacArthur: I got an attempt. You know, just cobbling together wildland fire hazard exists throughout the County, throughout Missoula County. Further study of fire-prone areas in both City and County should inform future land use action. And I guess instead of making that 4, I would suggest that might be 2, and you know the former 2 and 3 would go down. So that’s sort of an introductory thing… Jennifer Clary: Sure. Don MacArthur: …to a…you know, maybe that’s 2 and then the old 2 and 3 would go to A and B underneath that? Jennifer Clary: Sure, that makes sense. John DiBari: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by John. Any other comment on that? Pat O’Herren: Madame Chair? Jennifer Clary: Yes, Pat. Pat O’Herren: We absolutely missed that. Jennifer Clary: You missed that? Pat O’Herren: Yeah. Jennifer Clary: Basically, what he’s saying is No. 2 at the bottom of this page would then become…well, it would stay 2, but it would move up and be under No. 1 and then Don will read his comment. Don MacArthur: Does that do it for you, Laval and Pat, or do you need more? Jennifer Clary: You need to read it. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board February 2, 2010 Page 31 of 33 Don MacArthur: Okay, so let me… James McCubbin: Would that be like a sub-B under Paragraph 1, then? Don MacArthur: Let me see if I can restate the whole thing. I mean, not…I’m not going to be able to come back to all the motions, but Paragraph 1 would be the…Paragraph 1 is the same as, you know, as we amended it. Jennifer Clary: Then A… Don MacArthur: Then we had A below it, and then I was suggesting that there be a new Paragraph No. 2 that reads: wildland fire hazard exists throughout the County. Further study of fire-prone areas in both City and County should inform future land use action. Then, under that Paragraph 2, A would be Missoula County will begin 2010 revision, dot, dot, dot. And B would be Missoula County is in the process of reviewing zoning regulation, dot, dot, dot. You know, we’re way too far into this and I think we ought to give staff broad latitude to pull it back together again. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Pat O’Herren: Laval has it. Jennifer Clary: Okay, so that motion has been seconded and we’ll vote on that motion and vote to renumber, I guess, as part of that, too. So, any further comment? Voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. Don MacArthur: Any other comments before I make a main motion here? Okay, I’d make the motion that the language as amended below as provided in the Staff Report and referenced on Maps B, C and D be adopted as Appendix F of the Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update. This is motion to the County Commission. Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. Any further comment? Voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. Don MacArthur: I move to Missoula City Council that the language as amended below, provided in the Staff Report and referenced on Maps B, C, and D be adopted as Appendix F of the Missoula County Growth Policy 2005 Update. Tim Ibey: Second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Tim. Any further discussion? Voice vote. All in favor, say “aye.” [Board members say “aye.”] All opposed? [Board members were silent]. Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. I think that completes this. Thank you. Pat O’Herren: Thank you very much. I appreciate your diligence; it pays off in the long term. Jennifer Clary: Okay so we’ll move on…well, actually, when does this…when does this go before...? Pat O’Herren: We have not yet set a date for the Commissioners or the City Council. Jennifer Clary: Or the City…okay, thank you. VII. COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS