Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine Street
Members Present: Bob Jaffe (Chair) Ed Childers, Dick Haines, Lyn Hellegaard, John Hendrickson, Marilyn Marler, Renee Mitchell, Dave Strohmaier (10:20 – 10:45), Pam Walzer, Jon Wilkins, and Jason Wiener (10:20)
Members Absent: Marilyn Marler, Stacy Rye, and Pam Walzer
Others Present: Jackie Corday, Maureen Edwards, Ron Eli, Doug Harby, Joan Lefler, Ruth Link, Nicki Lodge, Russ Lodge, Mary McCrea, Sheila McKinnon, Alan McCormick, Roger Millar, Ryan Morton, Janet Rhoades, Janet Sproull, Emily West, Tim Worley, and Nina Cramer
Approval of Minutes
The meeting minutes for May 7, 2008 were approved as presented.
Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda
Consent Agenda Items
Consider a request to create the Curtis & Majors Addition, Lot 5, a proposed minor subdivision of a 0.80-acre parcel into 2 residential lots, located on the west side of Curtis Street, north of Emma Dickinson Learning Center. (memo) - Regular Agenda (Janet Rhoades)(Referred to committee: 05/12/08)REMOVE FROM AGENDA
MOTION: The Committee recommends Conditional approval of the variance request, to permit installation of a 7’-wide concrete curb-side sidewalk for Curtis Street. MOTION: The Committee recommends approval of the variance request to require boulevard sidewalks/curb and gutter installation on Lovegrove Court. MOTION: The Committee recommends denial of the utility easement variance request.
MOTION: The Committee recommends approval of the Curtis & Majors Addition, Lot 5 Subdivision be approved for a two-year approval period, based on the finding of fact in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as amended. Janet Rhoades, OPG outlined project information on this item requiring action by the Committee. This was a two lot subdivision on .8 acre parcel. Access to Lot 5B would have been off of Curtis Street and access to Lot 5A would have been off Lovegrove Court. The developers have requested four variances:
Request to vary from the 6’-wide concrete sidewalks and 10’ boulevard requirements for Curtis Street. Staff recommends conditional approval of the variance requested, to permit installation of a 7’-wide concrete curb-side sidewalk for Curtis Street.
Request to vary from the 20’ minimum easement width requirement for utilities for water line easement. Staff recommends denial of utility easement variance request.
Request to vary from the 5’ concrete sidewalk and 7’ landscaped boulevard requirements for Lovegrove Court. Staff recommends denial of the boulevard sidewalk variance request, to require boulevard sidewalks to be installed on Lovegrove Court.
Request to vary from the curb and gutter requirement for Lovegrove Court. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to require curb and gutter installation on Lovegrove Court.
Ms. Rhoades stated that staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to conditions.
Doug Harby, City Engineering illustrated the support of the variance from boulevard side walks on Curtis Street, detailing the landscaping, topography and utility lines in the area, and expressing support for five foot wide curbside sidewalks. There were areas of the neighborhood where 5’ sidewalks had already been installed.
Committee members had several concerns about the project:
Who was responsible for the construction of sidewalks. Doug Harby stated that the developer would be responsible.
The committee had been in support of sidewalks and felt that 5’-wide sidewalks were not a good walking sidewalk and wanted to know why the 5’-wide sidewalk recommendation was being put forth on Curtis Street. Mr. Harby explained that the recommendation came from some easement and topography issues in the area. Ms. Rhoades stated that the staff recommended 7’-wide sidewalks as stated in a letter from Steve King, City Engineer. Mr. Harby continued by explaining that City Engineering supported the boulevard sidewalk and curb/gutter variances and on Lovegrove Court. Emily West, Eli and Associates commented that the variance request would be cost prohibitive to this client and landscaping would have to be removed.
Russ Lodge: A 20’ easement hinders building as this was a small lot size to begin with, 15’ serves us better the homesite would be east to west not north to south, providing more space for building and parking. The family would like 5’ curbside sidewalk on Curtis Street. We have spoken in length to the owners of the duplexes on Lovegrove Court, Joan granted the easement for this road, she owns about ¾ of Lovegrove Court, but paying for installation of boulevard sidewalk would be cost prohibitive.
Bob Jaffe asked about what lot widths was the applicant working with. Mr. Lodge stated 97’ along the front and 93’ along the back, and 7.5’ per zoning in the side yards. Ms. Rhoades provided that the current driveway would be removed.
Jon Wilkins made a motion to conditionally approve variance #1 with 5’-wide concrete curb-side sidewalks for Curtis Street. Ed Childers asked if other sidewalks in the area were 5’-wide or 7’-wide. Mr. Harby stated that there were a few sidewalks in the area that were 5’-wide. Specifications for collector streets was 7’-wide. Mary McCrea clarified that the subdivision regulations require a 7’-wide sidewalk along collector streets if a boulevard variance is granted and the recommendation from City Public Works was for a 7’-wide sidewalk.
Mr. Childers disagreed with 5’-wide sidewalks and moved to amend to 7’-wide sidewalks. Mr. Wilkins asked if this was a collector street. Mr. Harby stated that he believed it was a neighborhood collector.
Mr. Hendrickson called the question. Vote on the amendment to require 7’-wide sidewalks was four Committee members in favor and three members opposed. (Hellegaard, Hendrickson, Wilkins)
Vote on Variance #1 conditional approval of the variance request to permit installation of a 7’-wide concrete curb-side sidewalk for Curtis Street was five members in favor and two members against. (Hellegaard, Wilkins)
Ed Childers moved to deny the variance request for curbing and boulevard sidewalk on Lovegrove Court. Some Committee members expressed concerns over the costs of requiring these improvements. Mr. Harby explained that City financing for such improvements was only available on public streets, Lovegrove Court is a private road.
The vote on the motion to deny the variance request for curbing and boulevard sidewalk on Lovegrove Court failed with one vote in favor and six votes opposed. (Jaffe, Hendrickson, Hellegaard, Haines, Mitchell, Wilkins)
John Hendrickson moved to approve variance requests from the requirement of curbing and boulevard sidewalks along Lovegrove Court. The vote on the motion to approve the variance requests from curbing and boulevard sidewalks passed with six votes for and one vote against. (Childers)
Several members expressed concerns and asked for clarification on the request for the utility easement variance. Ms. Rhoades explained the location of the three different utility and road easements on the parcel. The water line easement along the south edge of the property was currently at 10’, regulations require it to be 20’. Applicant was proposing a variance for a 15’ easement. Mr. Harby explained that the existing water line was very close to the edge of the current easement, the concern was the ability to bring in equipment for any maintenance or repair of the water line. City Engineering supports the 20’ easement. Ms. West explained that due to the nature of the current easements and requiring the 20’ easement would impact the type of dwelling they were proposing to build. With consideration of the other easements on the property this would have limited the buildable area to 40 or 50 feet. Committee members inquired about the possibility of moving the existing water line or conditioning a building envelope on the property. Ms. West explained that the applicant would not be interested in taking on the expense of moving the water line. After discussion with City Engineering about how an easement or set backs would impact the concerns of Public Works Mr. Wilkins moved to deny the request to vary from the 20’ minimum easement width requirement for utilities for water line easement. The vote by the Committee was unanimous to deny.
The conditions being amended by these motions were that condition #5 and #9 were struck by the previous motion.
John Hendrickson moved to approve the subdivision as amended and deleting conditions #5 and #9.
The vote on the motion to approve the subdivision and deleting conditions #5 and #9 was unanimous.
Consider a request to extend the preliminary plat approval period for the Southern Hills Subdivision and make minor plat adjustments. (memo) – Regular Agenda (Jennie Dixon)(Referred to committee: 05/12/08) REMOVE FROM AGENDA
MOTION: The Committee recommends that the preliminary plat approval period for the Southern Hills Subdivision be extended to May 22, 2009. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the minor plat adjustment for Southern Hills be approved as proposed, subject to the condition that the plat be revised to provide adequate utility easements, subject to review and approval by City Public Works prior to final plat approval. Jennie Dixon, OPG, presented an overview of the proposal to extend preliminary plat approval for one year to May 22, 2009, and to remove the utility lot located between Lots 41 and 42 as it was no longer needed and to expand Lot 47 50’ to the east, encompassing approximately 3,000 square feet of common area on the uphill side (south) of Southern Way. The proposal was reviewed by City Park and Recreation and no impact to dedicated parkland was found. Staff recommends approval of the plat extension and plat adjustment.
Ms. Mitchell asked about the utility lot that had been needed for a sewer lift station why was it not being used? Ms. Dixon explained that it was no longer needed since a different type of system was being used.
Dale McCormick, PCI provided further clarification about both the plat extension request and plat adjustment, the requests were due to the changes in the redesign of the sewer system and infrastructure costs.
John Hendrickson moved to approve the plat adjustment and extension request. The vote was unanimous on the motion to approve the plat extension and the motion to adjust the plat.
Regular Agenda Items
John Hendrickson asked about parkland requirements for minor subdivisions, he understood that the new regulations were already being implemented. Bob Jaffe clarified that staff had been directed to bring a draft to the Committee. The draft was to be taken up on May 28, 2008. It was Mr. Jaffe’s understanding that a draft was currently being presented to agency’s for preliminary review.
Consider the Carter's Orchard Homes plat amendment request. (memo) – Regular Agenda (Jennie Dixon)(Referred to committee: 05/12/08) REMOVE FROM AGENDA
Jennie Dixon, OPG, explained that the recent rezoning approval required a revision of the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat amendment as proposed.
A motion was made by Ed Childers to approve the plat amendment for Carter’s Orchard Homes as proposed.
No quorum was present at the time of the vote, members present voted in favor of the plat amendment.
Reconsider the annexation, zoning and subdivision of the revised Flynn Ranch proposal. (Letter from Developer's Representative) (updated memo 04/07/08) (Returned from Council floor: 02/25/08) REMOVE FROM AGENDA
MOTION: The Committee recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to annex and extend the corporate limits of the City of Missoula, Montana and apply comparable zoning on a portion of the proposed Flynn Ranch Addition. The property is located west of Hellgate Elementary School, east of 44 Ranch Subdivision and north of Mullan Road
(The resolution will be presented Monday prior to the Council meeting) MOTION: The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the request to zone the property legally described as Tract 10, COS #3176, to “B” (Residential), based on the findings of fact on the public record. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the request to vary from Section 3-4(2)(C) requiring storm water runoff to be retained on site or released from the site in a manner which will not substantially increase the peak runoff normally present before subdivision be conditionally approved to allow storm water run-off to be disposed of off-site if appropriate easements are secured, the drainage structures are constructed, and Public Works approves the drainage plan, based on the findings of fact. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the City Council approve the request to vary from Section 3-2(3)(C) requiring a 120-foot wide right-of-way for George Elmer Drive, a major arterial, be approved, based on the findings of fact. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the request to vary from Section 3-6 requiring a 20-foot wide easement for the irrigation ditch be approved, based on the findings of fact. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the request to vary from Section 3-2(15)(A)(1) requiring 5’ wide boulevard sidewalk on both sides of all public streets in subdivisions within the Urban Growth Area be approved, to allow the south side of Cattle Drive east of Bell Tower Road, the south side of Road “B”, the east side of Bell Tower Road adjacent to the property to be transferred to the McKinnons pursuant to the signed MOU dated April 21, 2008, and the north side of Pious Road to be constructed without boulevard sidewalk, as shown on Exhibit 1.1 dated May 2008 and based on the findings of fact. MOTION: The Committee recommends that the request to vary from Section 3-3(2)(2) requiring a maximum block length of 480 feet be approved for the blocks that include Lot 1 and Lots 2-15 based on the findings of fact. MOTION: The Committee recommends the Flynn Ranch Subdivision be approved according to the timing in the proposed phasing plan as amended, as shown on Exhibit 2.1 dated May 2008, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, on the public record and as provided in Addendum 1.1 to the staff report dated May 14, 2008, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as amended. Tim Worley, OPG explained Addendum 1.1 to the staff report and exhibits from the applicant which addressed concerns previously expressed by City Council, changes of note were:
Buffer area ownership as a result of a signed Memo of Understanding
Lots along Cattle Drive would be moved from Phase 3 to Phase 1.
Motion #5 reflects MOU property transfer, and identifies the location of property.
The staff supports the variance for 2 block lengths that exceed regulations.
In the conditions of approval exhibit numbers were updated.
There were 4 conditions that there was disagreement on with reference to the ongoing maintenance of the roundabout landscaping at the George Elmer Drive/Cattle Drive intersection. The dispute identified was whether or not the roundabout should be the responsibility of the subdivision’s homeowners association.
Alan McCormick: The developer believed this was a public improvement, understands that a part of the cost of installation and cost of landscaping would be their responsibility, however, this was a benefit to the public and should be maintained by the City. They believed it was a liability issue. Mr. Hendrickson asked what would happen if there were no homeowners association or the homeowners association no longer functioned. Mr. Worley explained that a homeowners association was required for this subdivision as it included a ½ acre space which the maintenance of, would be the responsibility of such an association. Mr. McCormick stated that their concern was because a roundabout was in the center of the road; maintenance of a boulevard was next to or an extension of a homeowners yard. The Common area of this project was within the Condo area which would be governed by a Condo association and the Condo association would pay for maintenance. This was a requirement of state law. Jackie Corday, City Parks and Recreation explained that traffic circles are higher maintenance for Parks and Rec.; in neighborhoods with traffic circles the neighbors did the maintenance.
Jon Wilkins moved to remove maintenance responsibilities for the roundabout from the homeowners association. Tim Worley explained to the Committee that the 44 Ranch subdivision to the west would be doing some maintenance. Jason Wiener expressed his desire to hear from a representative of the 44 Ranch subdivision, as he understood that the final plat had been filed. He was concerned about any implications there might be if this motion passed.
The vote on the motion to remove maintenance responsibilities for the roundabout from the homeowners association was unanimous. Mr. Worley stated that the motion amended conditions #7, #23, #25, and 38.
Several committee members expressed concern about maintenance of roundabout and wanted to the roundabout to be no maintenance. Mr. Worley offered that the City Council did have some jurisdiction over the roundabout. It was suggested that the committee make a motion expressing their desire to have a roundabout with little or no maintenance. Jon Wilkins made a motion expressing the councils desire to have a low maintenance roundabout at George Elmer Drive and Cattle Drive. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Mr. Worley explained the property transfer Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU was to transfer 90’ of property through boundary line relocation to the McKinnon family. The 90’ would not count toward the parkland dedication requirements, but the ½ acre common area in Lot 1 would. The developer would provide cash-in-lieu to fulfill the remaining parkland dedication requirement. OPG Staff agrees with this arrangement. Jackie Corday expressed concern that this agreement was a step backwards for parks. Less open space and less cash-in-lieu. Mr. Worley explained that the ½ acre of common area did count toward to the parkland required by subdivision regulation. Mr. McCormick stated that the developer had no disagreement with the recommendation from the OPG staff and would pay the cash-in-lieu as calculated. The parkland dedication was exactly what was required by state law.
John Hendrickson moved to approve staff condition #28 as amended, allowing for the property to be transferred to the McKinnons pursuant to the signed MOU dated April 21, 2008, plus cash-in-lieu to meet remaining parkland dedication requirements.
The vote on motion to approve staff condition #28 as amended passed with seven committee members voting in favor and two members opposed. (Jaffe, Wiener)
John Hendrickson made a motion to annex Flynn Ranch property excluding the buffer area included in the MOU with the McKinnon Family. Several committee members questioned if the buffer area could be excluded from annexation. Mr. Nugent explained that if the property transfer was not complete before the Council meeting were action were to be taken, the parcel would still include the buffer area. Mary McCrea explained that OPG staff believed that the annexation area included the buffer area. OPG staff would work with the developer’s representative to get the specific property description for the subdivision before the City Council would take action. The vote on annexation of the Flynn Ranch property passed.
John Hendrickson made a motion to approve addendum 1.1 of the staff report with amendments. The vote on the motion passed with six votes in favor and one opposed. (Wiener)
Items to be Removed from the Agenda
Held in Committee or Ongoing in Committee
Annexation. (see separate list at City Clerk’s Office for pending annexations) (Ongoing in Committee)
Correct the conflict in the height calculation regulations, between written language (a building envelope shall be established by showing the maximum vertical height allowed by zoning from finished grade) and the drawing on page 151 of the Zoning Ordinance.--Regular Agenda (Ed Childers) (Referred to committee: 3/27/06)
Update the Rattlesnake Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment (memo).—Regular Agenda (Dave Strohmaier) (Referred to committee: 04/02/07)
Discussion of OPG's proposed task list (Urban Initiatives work plan).—Regular Agenda (Mike Barton) (Referred to committee: 06/12/06)
Ongoing discussion of City planning issues with members of the Planning Board.--Regular Agenda (Heidi Kendall) (Referred to committee: 3/20/06)
Adopt permanent zoning for certain unzoned parcels in the upper west Rattlesnake Valley. (memo) (Returned from Council floor: 8/06/07)
Resolution to amend council resolution of intention No. 7212 to add zoning to property located on the northwest corner of South 3rd Street West and Tower which is currently zoned C-RR1 (Residential) (memo).—Regular Agenda (Carla Krause) (Referred to committee: 12/03/07)
Procedure for adopting development agreements for non-subdivided annexations (memo).—Regular Agenda (Bob Jaffe) (Referred to committee: 03/24/08)
Update and discussion regarding the ongoing Zoning and Subdivision Regulations project (Concepts & Directions Report 3/21/08—3mb file size) (memo).—Regular Agenda (Laval Means) (Referred to committee: 03/03/08)
Update on the Urban Fringe Development Area (UFDA) Project (memo).—Regular Agenda (Roger Millar) (Referred to committee: 04/07/08)
Discuss council's interest in pursuing a negotiated settlement over disputed trail conditions for Clark Fork Terrace No. 2 Subdivision (memo).—Regular Agenda (Mayor Engen/Jim Nugent) (Referred to committee: 02/25/08)
Eighteen month Townhouse Development Standards activity report (memo).—Regular Agenda (Jen Gress) (Referred to committee: 04/28/08)
An ordinance to rezone property located between Rodgers and Palmer streets adjacent to Scott Street, north of the MRL railroad. The property is currently zoned D (Industrial) and is proposed to be zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). The property is legally described as Lot 3, Scott Street Lots, located in Section 16, T13N, R19W, P.M.M. (memo) (PAZ) (Returned from Council floor: 4/28/08)
Discussion of alleged conflicts of interest on the Historic Preservation Commission. – Regular Agenda (Dick Haines) (Referred to committee: 4/28/08)
Linda Vista Estates annexation, zoning, and subdivision (Returned from Council floor 4/28/08):
A resolution to annex and apply zoning to a 93.64 acre parcel located on Lower Miller Creek Road. The portion north of Lower Miller Creek Road is currently zoned Miller Creek View Addition PUD in the county and is proposed to be annexed into the city as OR, Open and Resource Lands. The portion south of Lower Miller Creek Road is currently zoned C-A3 Residential (1 dwelling unit/5 acres) and is proposed to be annexed into the city as SRR, Semi-rural Residential. (Annexation Staff Report)
An ordinance to rezone property legally described as a portion of COS #3455 and COS #5917, located at the intersection of Upper and Lower Miller Creek Road on the backside of the "Little Hill" from OR and SRR to the Linda Vista Estates Special Zoning District. (memo) (PAZ)
The Council will also consider a request from Gilbert Larson, PCI, to create 209 single dwelling lots and 3 multiple dwelling lots containing 84 rental units in twelve-plex buildings, a total of 293 dwelling units to be developed in three phases over 9 years. The property is legally described as a portion of COS #3455 and COS #5917 in section 13, T12N, R20W, P.M.M. (memo) (PAZ)
Canyon River Condos rezoning request (returned from Council floor: 5/5/08):
An ordinance to rezone property located in the SW1/4 of Section 18, 13N, R18W, P.M.M., described as a portion of Tract 2, COS #4465 and a portion of Canyon River Subdivision, Phase 2, Golf Course Lot 1, from RLD-1 (Residential) to P-1 (Parks and Open Space). (memo) (PAZ Minutes 04/23/08)
An ordinance to rezone property located in the SW1/4 of Section 18, 13N, R18W, P.M.M., described as a portion of Tract 2, COS #4465 and a portion of Canyon River Subdivision, Phase 2, Golf Course Lot 1, from RLD-1 (Residential) and P-1 (Parks and Open Space) to RLD-4 (Residential). (memo) (PAZ Minutes 04/23/08)
Land use law discussion (memo).—Regular Agenda (Jason Wiener) (Referred to committee: 5/5/08)