The committee voted to suspend the rules to take up this item.
Dave DeGrandpre with Development Services presented on the annexation and initial zoning of Tract 9 COS No. 3176. He reviewed the subject property location, and stated that the parcel is located within the city limits on the south and west sides, and that the annexation policy guidelines are largely met. This means that annexation will be strongly considered.
Mr. DeGrandpre reviewed Our Missoula Land Use map and the current zoning, which includes C-RR1 rural residential, one dwelling unit per acre. The proposed annexation includes a request for RT5.4 Residential zoning, which allows for single and two unit dwellings. The real differences between the existing neighborhood zoning and what the applicant is requesting is that the new zoning would include smaller front and interior side setbacks and would allow up to three attached townhomes instead of two.
Mr. DeGrandpre reviewed the subdivision proposal, which includes development of 152 residential lots in a grid road pattern. He showed the phased development plan, which basically includes 24-25 lots per year for the next 7 years, depending on market and other factors. One peculiarity that stands out is the southwest corner of the project. Chuck Wagon Drive, along the 44 Ranch Subdivision to the south, stops 1000 feet short of this project. The developer is proposing to build a portion of the roadway and have the 44 Ranch Developers contribute as well in order to bring Chuck Wagon Drive up to city standards. Mr. DeGrandpre reviewed the Certificate of Survey for the property and the associated right-of-ways.
Conditions of Approval include:
· half street improvements for Chuck Wagon Drive,
· other streets built to city standards,
· contributions for Chuck Wagon Dr/Mullan Road/ George Elmer Drive/ Mullan road intersections,
· connect to city water and sewer,
· cash in lieu of parkland,
· petition into the Missoula Urban Transportation District,
· avigation easement and airport influence area statement.
Mr. DeGrandpre stated that the airport is not supportive of this project because they hope to one day build a new runaway to the southwest. Recommended for mitigation is an avigation easement provided to the airport authority, which provides some legal protection to future residents of the development, alerting them that they're under a potential future airport runway.
Title 20, Section 20.85.040(1)(2), was reviewed in conjunction with the proposed annexation. This annexation complies with the growth policy.
DeGrandpre clarified the avigation easement condition. He stated that there are other properties in Missoula that have avigation easements, including RF-B subdivision at Broadway and Mary Jane Boulevard and a phase in 44 Ranch subdivision. He reviewed the growth policy map adopted in 2015 in relation to the subject property. The airport authority does own land as a sort of buffer around its proposed growth. Certain building codes might be employed near airports in other cities but Mr. DeGrandpre can't be certain. In his opinion, this is an area where the city has planned for development and reminded the committee that it's hard to deny development based on what could potentially happen in future. Mary McCrea with Development Services further explained that an avigation easement exists so that when people purchase lots, they know restrictions for height, antennas, noise, flight path, and that there is some potential for airplane crashes in this area.
This area is part of the Mullan Area Master Plan.
The committee expressed their concern over the cash in lieu of parkland dedication. Mr. DeGrandpre responded that during the intake process, the applicant puts down ideas on paper, City staff look at those ideas and many different departments weigh in on the proposal. Neil Miner of Parks and Recreation (not present) had indicated that the 44 Ranch park is within 1/4 mile of this project and would serve as a regional park for this development. The percentage of park land is dependent on lot size, and would in this case be 1.43 acres. The requirement can be one of three things: land, cash instead of land, or it can be a combination of cash and land. The Parks and Recreation department requested cash instead of land perhaps because they felt the 44 Ranch park met this requirement. Mary McCrea clarified that it was indeed Parks' preference that it be cash because the 44 Ranch park is in need of improvements.
The committee asked why the 44 Ranch park serves as regional park, and how much cash would be received for the 1.43 acres. Mary McCrea responded that the 44 Ranch park is a neighborhood park rather than a regional park. A neighborhood park serves residents within a half mile, which in this case Remington Flats would fall within. The appraisal of the acres has to be done within 6 months of filing the final plat.
The committee asked for clarification of the half street improvements. Mr. DeGrandpre shared the proposed road section of Chuck Wagon Drive along the property. Half of the right of way (ROW) is taken from the subject property and half is taken from adjoining property - in this case it's airport property and the airport hasn't chosen to dedicate that. So the developer has agreed to develop half street improvements. They're proposing to develop two 10 foot driving lanes, a sidewalk and gutter. To the west is airport land so in order to make that a collector street, the airport would have to say that they would build that part of the road. Other options for that part of the roadway would be for the city to negotiate and purchase the 40 foot of ROW from the airport authority and develop the road themselves. Eminent domain may be an option under the law as well.
There was a question about density. Mr. DeGrandpre stated that 152 lots on 20 acres is a density of 7.6 dwelling units per acre.
In response to continued concern over the cash in lieu of parkland, Mary McCrea reviewed the process for this project. She stated that the rezone and subdivision for this parcel is upcoming at the Land Use and Planning (LUP) meeting on 9/30/20. Typically with annexations and resolutions of intent, staff include conditions of approval, but those will change based on decisions as it moves forward. This is a first step to consider all the other information. She further stated that Parks will be at the LUP meeting on 9/30, as well as at the public hearing, in order to address concerns.
A citizen had difficulty commenting via the Zoom webinar platform and was encouraged to use alternative routes to voice her comment.