John DiBari shared that this item was returned to Land Use and Planning Committee by City Council. Topics of discussion related to this item includes the proposed Development Agreement and the conceptual Master Plan. Nick Kaufman provided a handout to add to the item record.
Jenny Baker spoke on this item along with a PowerPoint presentation attached to the item record. She shared data related to nearby density of the following areas: Pleasant View Homes Phase 3, Hellgate Meadows Phase 3, Hellgate Gardens, 4100 Mullan, 4000 Mullan, and the the proposed project area. Ms. Baker shared a zoning comparison between what is allowed with the current zoning, requested zoning, and what would be seen on the ground with the proposed project.
Staff recommends that council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the Development Agreement between HEH,LLC, Resources Research LDT, Flynn Family Limited Partnership and City of Missoula regarding the Hellgate Meadows West development proposal and related Growth Policy Amendment and Rezone request, currently pending City Council decision. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to City Council action on the requested Growth Policy Amendment and Rezone of the subject Property to B2-1 Community Business.
Nick Kaufman spoke on what is currently on the ground surrounding the subject area and what the proposed plan is for the property. He highlighted that long-existing infrastructure plan for Mary Jane Boulevard is to extend to Mullan Road which will result in Mary Jane performing as a collector street and Flynn Lane returning to use as a local road. The build out over the next two and a half years is expected at a rate of 75 housing units per year. He covered the suggested plan to manage construction traffic to help manage disruption.
John DiBari stated that the Development Agreement, which will be voluntarily entered into by the developer and the city of Missoula, is intended to help address community concerns and to help guide development in a way that meets community goals. The growth policy amendment and zoning request will not happen until after the Development Agreement is signed.
Stacie Anderson asked for clarification between the Master Plan that part of this project and the Master Plan currently out for RFP. Mary McCrea informed that the Master Plan that is a collaborative effort between City of Missoula and Missoula County covers a larger area. An Request for Proposal (RFP) is currently out for this larger area in order to hire a qualified consultant. The Development Site Master Plan for the subject area is attached to the item record and is Exhibit B of the Development Agreement.
The committee discussed Development Agreement language. Jordan Hess asked for the difference threshold between substantial compliance and general compliance. Mary McCrea stated that the terms were synonomous. Nick Kaufman added that the Master Plan is still conceptual and as such, prefers the use of “general compliance” in order to allow a degree of flexibility.
Gwen Jones asked for the applicant to speak on compliance related to park space. Bryan von Lossberg asked for confirmation that in reference to park, the interpretation that “generally” would be understood that the park space could be made larger, not smaller. Nick Kaufman provided intent for the park area agreed with the understanding of “generally” as it relates to the park area, is that the park could be made larger, not smaller.
John DiBari spoke on the value of getting the language in Development Agreement right in order to provide surety to the community. The committee continued to discuss document language that would put sideboards on the allowed development of the subject property other than what would be allowed with the proposed zoning pending council decision.
Mr. DiBari stated that "conceptual" can be found in the document which would allow the flexibility desired by the applicant. He recommended removing that term in areas that seem duplicative, and to replace “general” with “substantial”. This recommended language would provide the surety sought by the public. Mr. DiBari requested to direct staff to make the recommended edits to the Development Agreement. The agreement would be reviewed by and voluntarily entered into by both the city and the developers. The agreement is contingent on zoning action by council; if the rezoning request fails, the agreement would be made void.
Jordan Hess added he would be interested in public comment to see if all concerns have been addressed in the development agreement.
Rosemary Thurston shared concerns on traffic flow issues in this area.
Kevin Davis stated his opposition to the rezoning request as infrastructure is not in place to manage increased density.
Russ Peterson spoke on the need for connectivity as development occurs.
Jeremy Keene provided context for the development agreement which is to provide flexibility as well as surety. The intent should be apparent in the agreement and the project would need to comply with master plan. If the property were sold, the agreement would continue to be enforceable.
The committee requested information on the following:
- Infrastructure responsibility
- Project phasing
- Traffic study
- Land divisions
- Blocks creation
- Business placement
- Cul-de-sac
- Circulation pattern
- Connectivity
- Types of roads
- Types of structures
- Buffers and Transitions
- Multi-family developments
This discussion will continue at Land Use and Planning committee on a date to be determined.