The City Council will hold this public hearing open until they take up the item for final consideration on December 12, 2022.
Mayor Jordan Hess Our third and final public hearing for tonight is the Riverfront Trails Major PUD Subdivision, Targeted Growth Policy Amendment, Annexation, Utility Services Boundary Amendment, and, and Rezoning. And we have Cassie Tripard here for our staff report and then we'll open our public hearing. Ms. Tripard.
Cassie Tripard Let me just get my slides shared…..
Marty Rehbein And while she's doing that City Council, this is Marty Rehbein, Legislative Services Director and City Clerk, and tonight attached to your agenda, you do have a public comment that somebody had submitted. So, when you click on this item and you go from the documents tab that pops up over to public comment, you'll see that comment there and the record, and Ms. Tripard, I think we’re ready for you.
Cassie Tripard Thank you Marty. I'll also be uploading some more public comment I received today….tomorrow. So, as they said, I’m Cassie Tripard, Planning Supervisor with CPDI. Today, we'll be covering the Riverfront Trails Planned Unit Development Subdivision. There are several requests considered with this project, several of the requests are tied together, meaning some approvals cannot be granted without other approvals. This project includes a targeted Growth Policy amendment, annexation, rezoning, utility services area boundary amendment, and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. In order for the rezoning to be approved, the Growth Policy amendment and annexation must be approved and in order for the subdivision to be approved, the rezoning, annexation and utility service area boundary amendment must be approved. So, the property is located on Lower Miller Creek Road and bisected by Old Bitterroot Run. The Bitterroot River abuts the property to the north and the property is approximately 1.4 miles from the intersection of Brook Street and Lower Miller Creek Road. Zooming in now, you can see Jeannette Rankin Elementary School to the southwest of the property, Lower Miller Creek Road runs along the eastern side and crosses through the property in the southeast corner, single dwelling residential is located to the south and east, and northeast are detached houses on large parcels with agricultural uses. The northern portion of the property along the river is in the flood plain, Zone AE is shown in blue, which is the 1% annual chance flood, flood plain. The rest of the parcel marked Zone X is an area of minimal flood risk. Before we get into all of the separate requests, I want to show you the final proposed development plan for the subdivision. All of the floodplain area is proposed to be protected through designation as open space. The area is approximately 43.44 acres and would have public trails throughout. A portion of the open space including the entire river frontage is proposed to be dedicated to the city. The remaining portion would be common area maintained by the homeowners association. The subdivision proposes 173 residential lots that would allow townhouses, detached houses, and duplexes. One large lot on Lower Miller Creek Road is proposed to be used for a future religious assembly. Another large lot on Lower Miller Creek Road is proposed to be used as a senior living facility, which is considered group living. Lastly, a triangular lot in the southeast corner is proposed to hold a multi-dwelling building with a maximum of five dwelling units. In total, the subdivision proposes 178 regular dwelling units and 110 senior living facility units. Now, we will get into the targeted Growth Policy amendment. The property currently has three land use designations per the Our Missoula 2035 City Growth Policy. The area within the flood plain is designated as open and resource. The open and resource land use designation is intended to protect important resource land, in this case, the Bitterroot River, and to protect areas of natural hazard, the floodplain, while also recognizing that those lands may be within private ownership. The central portion of the parcel is designated residential medium, which allows densities between 3 and 11 dwelling units per acre and the remaining areas north of Old Bitterroot Road and east of the school are designated residential low, which allows densities between one and two dwelling units per acre. The property is also within the 1997 Miller Creek Area Plan. Area plans are adopted as amendments to the Growth Policy. In the Miller Creek Area Plan, the floodplain area is designated as parks and open space. The remaining portions of the property are recommended to have densities of one, two and four dwelling units per acre. The area plan lists several goals met by this project. The plan calls for a river corridor, preservation of floodplain and clustering of residential uses outside of environmentally sensitive areas. Though the density is established through this plan 25 years ago are fairly low, the plan does recognize issues with housing affordability and calls for a mix of housing types. The proposed subdivision preserves floodplain, creates a river corridor with public access, clusters residential housing outside of the floodplain, and provides a mix of residential housing types, all in alignment with the Miller Creek Area Plan. The applicant is requesting a targeted Growth Policy amendment to change the areas designated as residential low to residential medium. The area is currently designated as open and resource and residential medium would not change. The housing section of the Growth Policy calls for a sufficient and diverse supply of housing to meet the needs of a variety of household types. The community design section of the Growth Policy calls for compact development patterns. Overall, the targeted Growth Policy amendment would allow for a rezoning and subdivision that meets the goals of the Miller Creek Area Plan and Growth Policy by clustering housing outside of an environmentally sensitive area and providing a mix of housing types. Three reasons are listed in the Growth Policy for determining whether an amendment is appropriate or not. The first reason is that the plan lacks significant guidance or relevant policy statements to meet emerging public needs. The increased demand for housing in Missoula is certainly a public need that the residential low land use designation does not address. Additionally, as Missoula’s population grows, there is an emerging public need to protect our river frontages, to provide public access to rivers, and to secure adequate parkland. The second reason for Growth Policy amendment is that the goals and objectives or land use recommendations do not support or accommodate development proposals. The current residential low land use designation does not accommodate a development proposal that meets several of the goals in the Growth Policy. Lastly, the Growth Policy states that changing conditions or new information resulting in the need to establish more relevant policies and implementation tools is a reason for amendment. The change in condition is increased demand for housing in Missoula to serve a growing population, and City Council must base their recommendation for Growth Policy amendment on three review criteria. The first is whether there is a need for public change or whether there is a public need for change. There is a public need for more housing, a diverse mix of housing types, and protection of the floodplain. Additionally, the amendment supports a development plan which offers public benefit by creating public river access. The second criterion is whether the change proposed is the best means for meeting that need. The Growth Policy amendment is the only way to allow for more dense development, to provide more housing. Additionally, it facilitates rezoning and development that preserves floodplain and creates public river access, and the site is located approximately one and a half miles from services, which can support medium density development. The last review criteria is whether there is a public benefit that will result from the change and as I mentioned before, the amendment allows for development that creates more housing, a diverse mix of housing types to serve varying household types, environmental protection, and public river access. So, staff recommend that City Council adopt a resolution to amend the 2035 Our Missoula City Growth Policy land use designation from residential low to residential medium on portions of the subject property based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the staff report. The project includes a request for annexation of a portion of the property. So, even though the property is only one parcel, it is currently half in city limits and half in the county. The red shading on the map shows the current city limit boundaries. The applicant is requesting annexation of the portion south of old Bitterroot Road. Note that this area borders city limits on three sides. Annexation approval from City Council is necessary to approve the rezoning and subdivision. The subject property is located within annexation area A on the city annexation policy map. Areas marked as annexation area A, largely meet the guidelines of the annexation policy and should be prioritized for annexation. The annexation policy states the city should prioritize the annexation of properties that contribute to logical growth patterns in the city. Specifically, this annexation of properties that would fill in gaps left by previous annexations, annexation of the remaining portion of the subject property would fill in a gap left by previous annexations. The annexation policy states the city should prioritize the annexation of areas that meet current city standards including water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure, and we will cover infrastructure in the subdivision portion of this presentation. Sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure designed to adequately serve the subdivision are proposed. Staff recommend conditions of approval that require the applicant to install infrastructure meeting current city standards. Zoning upon annexation must meet one of three criteria listed in Title 20 zoning code as well as state law. In this case, staff are recommending zoning that meets the first criterion. This criterion states the city zoning district must be comparable to the county zoning that applied to the property immediately before annexation. Currently, the area proposed to be annexed to zoned residential medium in the county. The current County zoning applied to the property allows densities between 5 and 11 dwelling units per acre. The current County zoning allows detached houses, townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. Additionally, the current county zoning allows daycares, agriculture, community residential facilities, and some commercial uses. The applicant is requesting zoning upon annexation of RT 5.4 residential to unit townhouse. The RT 5.4 zoning district allows eight dwelling units per acre, RT 5.4 allows detached houses, duplexes, townhouses, some civic uses, and crop agriculture, and the RT 5.4 zoning district is a bit more restrictive than the current county zoning because it does not allow commercial uses. Overall, the city RT 5.4 zoning district is comparable to the county residential medium zoning district that applies to the property in terms of density and permitted uses. So staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution to annex a portion of the subject property and zone upon annexation to RT 5.4 residential subject to the conditions of approval based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the staff report. There are 20 recommended conditions of approval, which primarily ensure the annexation policy is met by requiring improvements to infrastructure. So, next we will cover the rezoning targeted Growth Policy amendment and annexation approval are necessary to meet the review criteria for rezoning. The portion of the property within city limits is currently zoned are R215 residential, which allows one dwelling unit for every 215,000 square feet of parcel area, and I’ll note that the current residential city zoning applies to the flood plain allowing development of the floodplain. The portion of the property to be annexed will be zoned RT 5.4 residential upon annexation. One moment… the proposed rezoning has three components. The area within the flood plain currently zoned R215 residential is proposed to be rezoned to OP2 open end resource. The zoning district complies with the Growth Policy land use designation of open and resource. The portion currently in the city outside of the flood plain is proposed to be rezoned from sorry, the portion currently in the city outside of the flood plain is proposed to be rezoned from R215 residential to RT 5.4 residential with the Riverfront Trails neighborhood character overlay, and lastly the portion to be annexed is proposed to be rezoned from RT 5.4 to RT 5.4 residential with that neighborhood character overlay. The RT 5.4 residential zoning district is a current relatable zoning district in the residential medium Growth Policy land use designation. So, the neighborhood character overlays are intended to be overlaying on the base setting. The overlay has the ability to modify standards of the base setting. The Riverfront Trails Neighborhood character overlay proposes to modify height, setbacks, residential building types, and permitted uses of the RT 5.4 residential zoning district. Normally, the RT 5.4 zoning district has a maximum height of 30 or 35 feet depending on roof pitch. The overlay proposes to allow a 45 foot maximum height limit on three of the lots along lower Miller Creek Road and the remaining lots would have a maximum height of 35 feet regardless of roof pitch. The overlay proposes to modify setbacks based on setback groups. Some setback requirements are decreased while others are increased, and those that are decreased would still allow for adequate provision of light and air. Normally, the RT 5.4 zoning district only allows detached house, lot line house, duplex, and two unit townhouse residential building types. The overlay proposes to modify this by allowing multi-dwelling buildings on two lots and three unit townhouses on eight of the lots. All other lots would only allow residential building types regularly permitted in RT 5.4. And lastly, I showed you the religious assembly lot and senior living lot at the beginning of the presentation. Senior living is considered group living and zoning. Both religious assembly and group living are conditional uses in the RT 5.4 zoning district, and the overlay proposes to make these uses permitted as of right on select lots, meaning they would not have to go through the conditional use process. These tables are pulled directly from the neighborhood character overlay document. The red circles show where uses in building types vary from what is normally allowed in the RT 5.4 district. All uses and building types regularly permitted an RT 5.4 will continue to be permitted on all lots. This also means uses that are normally conditional in RT 5.4 would still be conditional and unless specifically modified by the overlay. For Lots 1 and 176, group living would change from conditional to permitted. Lots 1 and 176 would also allow for multi-dwelling buildings and three or more unit townhouses. For Lot 2, religious assembly would change from conditional to permitted and six lots, Lots 70 through 72 and 85 through 87 would allow for three unit townhouses. So Lot 2 is the lot that would allow for the religious assembly by right. Lots 1 and 176 allow for group living, multi-dwelling and three or more unit townhouses, and the additional six townhouse lots are located internal to the site. Again, all of these lots would also allow any use for building type regularly permitted in RT 5.4. Lots 1, 2, and 176 would allow a maximum height of 45 feet and all others would allow a maximum height of 35 feet. In order to be designated as a neighborhood character overlay, the overlay must meet the selection criteria in Title 20 zoning code. The first requires the area to possess urban design architectural or other physical development characteristics that create an identifiable setting character and association. The overlay allows for reduced setbacks, alley loaded lots to the anterior of the site, and smaller residential lots intended to create a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood character. The subdivision proposes road types that include pedestrian and bike facilities. The overlay also allows for a greater mix of residential housing types, which is intended to mimic neighborhoods that evolve organically over time. The reduced setbacks and attach townhouse cluster, townhouses cluster development and allow for preservation of the large open space. The overlay does not include character-based architectural standards. And second, the overlay must be at least five acres and it is 46.6 acres. City Council must make their decision for approval or denial of the rezoning based on the review criteria in Title 20. The zoning must be made in accordance with the Growth Policy. The OP2 zoning District aligns with the open and resource land use designation. If the Growth Policy amendment is approved then the RT 5.4 zoning will be made in accordance with the residential medium land use district. The zoning must be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers. The property can be served by city fire and police. Additionally, development is clustered outside of the floodplain to protect residents from flooding. The zoning must be designated to promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare. The proposed zoning clusters needed housing outside of the flood plain and the site can be accessed by emergency services. It is located along Lower Miller Creek Road which is an urban collector road and is only a mile and a half away from transit and commercial services. The zoning must be designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements, and I'll cover all of this in detail later in the presentation, but yes adequate provision of all these services is available to the site. The zoning must consider reasonable provision of adequate light and air. No interior side setbacks are less than six feet unless the units are attached protecting provision of light and air. Additionally, the rezoning allows for protection of the floodplain through OP2 zoning, which provides light, air, and open space to the neighborhood as a whole. The zoning must consider the effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems and again, I'll be covering this with the subdivision portion of the presentation. The subdivision will provide new streets, improvements to Lower Miller Creek Road, and non-motorized Facilities adequate to handle the medium density zoning. The zoning must consider the promotion of compatible urban promotion of compatible urban growth. Parcels to the west and the county are already zoned for medium density residential areas, to the east and south are already developed with housing and the majority of the zoning only allows duplex and single dwelling residential which aligns with the character of existing development nearby. Higher intensity building types and uses are located along Lower Miller Creek Road and urban collector. The zoning must consider the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for your particular uses. The base zoning permits residential building types that complement existing residential development and as I said, higher intensity uses are only allowed in the overlay on select sites along Lower Miller Creek Road which is a main road suited for more intense development. The zoning must conserve the value of buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the jurisdictional area. The parcel is already zoned for residential use aligning with the surrounding residential uses. The rezoning laws for a large public park and river access to help conserve the value of buildings as additional residential development is added to the area. The OP2 zoning corrects an inconsistency in the zoning because currently the floodplain is zoned residential, which does not comply with the Growth Policy recommendations. The proposed zoning for all reasons previously mentioned is in the best interest of the city as a whole. It protects the floodplain and river while providing needed housing. So, staff recommends City Council adopt the ordinance to rezone the subject property. There are no recommended conditions of approval. State law does not allow the OP2 and RT 5.4 zoning districts to be conditioned. City Council can condition the neighborhood character overlay only. A utility services area boundary amendment is proposed as well. Currently, the utility service area boundary is very close to where development is proposed on the site, but doesn't quite include all lots zoned RT 5.4 with the neighborhood character overlay. The new proposed boundary would be slightly modified to align with the area proposed to be developed in the flood plain boundary. The boundary would not extend into the floodplain area to be zoned OP2. Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution amending the utility services area boundary to align with the area proposed to be zoned RT 5.4 with that neighborhood character overlay. And next, we will discuss the PUD subdivision preliminary plat. Note that approval of the rezoning annexation and utility service area amendment is necessary to approve the subdivision. To subdivide the land as proposed, the property must be within city limits and zoned to accommodate the subdivision. Additionally, the utility service area boundary amendment is needed to provide sewer and water to all developable lots. So, this subdivision is proposed as a Planned Unit Development or PUD. A PUD is a subdivision that is creatively designed to provide identified public benefits or to address the unique development challenges proposed by a particular person. The PUD regulations are expressly intended to accommodate developments that may be difficult, if not impossible to carry out under otherwise applicable subdivision regulations. So, basically the subdivision can vary from the subdivision standards without a variance because it provides public benefit and has constraints that make it difficult to meet all parts of the code. The subdivision proposes to dedicate 24.49 acres of parkland to the city. This parkland would be publicly accessible, preserve the flood plain, and includes the entire Bitterroot River frontage along the property. The 19.97 acres of open space in the floodplain are proposed to be protected as common area, maintained by the homeowners association. The subdivision proposes public trails through all of the open space for recreation and access. There are five criteria that must be met to designate a subdivision as a PUD. The subdivision must preserve the natural characteristics of the land including vegetation in the river, and the protected 43.44 acres of open space within the floodplain does exactly that. The subdivision must provide for economical development of streets and other public improvements; we'll cover variations to road standards in a bit, but all roads will include all of the required motorized and non-motorized facilities required by the subdivision regulations. City sewer and water are available to the site as well and the subdivision must protect important wildlife habitat, open space, riparian areas, and agricultural land. We'll also cover agricultural use of this land shortly. However, the subdivision does protect wildlife habitat by the river, open space, and riparian areas. The subdivision must provide for dedication and development of common open space for recreational purposes or provide developed facilities for recreational purposes and the subdivision proposes a large open space with trails meeting these criteria. Subdivisions must consider the Growth Policy and zoning impacts to agriculture and agricultural water user facilities, provision of services, the natural environment and wildlife habitat, and public health and safety. We covered the Growth Policy and zoning earlier in the presentation. If the Growth Policy amendment and rezoning are approved, the subdivision will comply with this review criteria. The parcel is currently vacant but was most recently used for crop agriculture. The area is approximately outside of the flood plain have soil types designated as farmland of local importance. While the subdivision would develop agriculturally significant soils, it is already zone for residential development in both the city and the portion of the county is zoned residentially in the county. The majority of the area with agriculturally significant soils is zoned for medium density residential development; there are agricultural uses nearby. The applicant proposes to make property owners aware of potential nuisances caused by these uses. In the covenants, there is an existing lateral pipe irrigation through the site. The water rights are proposed to be transferred to the city and removal of the irrigation pipe will not impact water availability for other properties. Waste disposal and city water and sewer are available to the site. A feasible plan for providing sufficient water quantity is included in the application packet, which includes transferring water rights to the city and installing a well to serve the development. More than adequate park facilities are included with the subdivision. The school district did not provide comment on the project at the time of sufficiency review. Jeannette Rankin Elementary School was contacted and has been made aware of the project. The school district did not indicate that capacity would be an issue. The application packet shows that impacts to schools will not be adverse. The applicant estimates the subdivision would result in the addition of 75 school-aged children to Missoula County Public Schools. City fire and city police will serve the subdivision. Installation of additional fire hydrants to serve the development are required as a recommended condition of approval. And as I mentioned, flexibility in road standards is allowed through the PUD process. The floodplain will be protected as open space and the river abuts the property to the north. This means there will not be a need to connect roads or expand roads to the north of the subdivision in the future. An easement is provided at the end of Old Bitterroot Road to facilitate a future connection to Christian Drive meeting the city's connectivity goals. Lower Miller Creek Road is proposed to be improved through a city project. This project was planned prior to the subdivision; however, the subdivision regulations require existing roads accessing the subdivision to meet city standards. Additional right-of-way is needed to accommodate installation of boulevards, sidewalks, bike lanes, and a parking lane on one side of Lower Miller Creek Road. Staff recommended condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate additional right-of-way. Additionally staff recommended condition of approval stating the applicant is required to install improvements, not planned to be installed by the city. Staff recommend the condition of approval require the applicant to provide a security to cover full road improvements in case the city project were to fall through. A roundabout is planned for the intersection of Old Bitterroot Road and Lower Miller Creek Road. Old Bitterroot Road is classified as an urban collector. The only variation to the road standards requested by the applicant is for narrower right-of-way width. Narrower right of way width is also requested for urban local streets in the subdivision. Despite the narrower right-of-way width, all required facilities are proposed at the widths normally required by the subdivision regulations. So, the narrower right-of-way width does not impact provision of adequate motorized and non-motorized facilities. The applicant is proposing winding roads for Meyers Way, Anders Way for traffic calming. The roads would provide all required facilities but would have alternating parking bays and boulevards. Additionally a narrower street width is proposed; however, the drive lanes are still wide enough to accommodate fire truck access. Cassidy Court is a small loop road serving a limited number of lots. The applicant proposes to only provide parking on one side instead of both; all required facilities are still proposed. The street width is proposed to be narrower but still wide enough to accommodate fire truck access. The applicant is proposing 13 short courts accessing sets of four lots, an example is shown here. The short courts allow for more compact development and staff recommend a condition of approval requiring a pedestrian path along the short courts to be installed with textured, stamped, or scored concrete. And on this drawing, you can see the location of short courts in the hatched areas just for reference. A pedestrian path is proposed from Old Bitterroot Road to Jeannette Rankin Elementary School. Additionally, an access drive called School Way is proposed to connect Draco Lane to the school. The subdivision protects the natural environment, wildlife, and wildlife habitat through a large open space along the river. Additionally, development is all outside of the flood plain and served by city fire and police to protect public health and safety. There are 49 recommended conditions of approval for the subdivision. I've tried to summarize them in this slide. They include requiring the subdivider to provide plans for an installation of all roads, alleys, non-motorized facilities, sewer and water, storm water facilities, and fire hydrants. Due to high ground water, staff recommend a condition prohibiting basements unless the applicant can show they can be built safely. Proof of easement where Old Bitter Road crosses a neighboring property is required or else the road must be entirely located within the subdivision. MCA 76-2-305 and Title 20 section 20.85.040H allow protest petitions for zoning amendments. Currently, seven property owners within 150 feet of the subject property have submitted signed petitions protesting the rezoning. This is equal to 30.4% of property owners within 150 feet. Staff are in the process of reviewing petitions to make sure they are valid and will give all petitioners an opportunity to make corrections before the December 12, 2022, if necessary and the 12th is one final consideration on this project will be. A protest petition is considered valid when 25 % of the parcel owners within 150 feet have signed the petition. Approval of the rezoning requires a two-thirds majority vote of those City Council members present and voting. Staff recommends City Council to a staff recommends City Council approved the Riverfront Trails PUD Subdivision Preliminary Plat subject to the recommended conditions of approval based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the staff report. And that concludes staff's presentation, so thank you for sticking with me. The applicant is present I believe would like to present as well.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thank you Ms. Tripard for the thorough staff report. On behalf of the applicant, is it Mr. Woith, are, are you presenting or is it someone from your team?
Cassie Tripard I believe Allison is…..
Allison Mouch Yes, sorry. Good evening Council members. Can everybody see my screen?
Mayor Jordan Hess Yeah, can you make your slides full screen for us?
Allison Mouch I can. How’s that?
Mayor Jordan Hess They haven’t changed for me yet, but there's sometimes a little bit of a lag.
Allison Mouch Okay, one more time. Still nothing?
Mayor Jordan Hess No. Can everyone see them okay? Yeah, I think we’re okay.
Allison Mouch Okay.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks
Allison Mouch Sorry about that. It keeps giving me an error, but just let me know if I need to zoom in on anything and we'll, we'll work with it as we can. Thanks again for the opportunity to walk you through a couple of highlights on Riverfront Trails this evening. My name is Allison Mouch. I am a planner and a partner with Orion Planning + Design working with Woith Engineering on this development proposal and I'm just going to take a few moments. Cassie has provided a very thorough overview of this very complex project and so to allow enough time for public comment and any questions that the Council may have, I'd just like to highlight some of the key points that that we feel are incredibly important as part of this development to really hammer home why this is important and why we feel like the Council should consider approval of this proposal. So, as Cassie mentioned, and has, has reiterated throughout her presentation, the development proposal is very unique in that nearly half of the property that's under consideration is actually being reserved to protect natural resources and habitat, and offer considerable value to the Missoula community, not just the residents of Riverfront Trails but also the residents of Missoula as a whole and the surrounding neighborhoods, in terms of river access. As we all know, the riparian corridor through the Bitterroot and along the Clark Fork is an important asset to the Missoula community and this stretch in particular doesn't have a huge amount of public access associated with it. And so, as part of this development, we felt it was particularly important to enhance that access and also respect the, the natural environment, the floodplain, the riparian area that's so important to wildlife by, by setting back the development and really reserving the parts of the property that are most appropriate for open space, to do just that and protect the environment that we know Missoula feels incredibly strongly towards. Another key asset of the proposal is that the development really is meaningfully integrating housing choice through a variety of different housing typologies, and I'll step you through exactly what those are here in just a moment, but the, the layout, the design of Riverfront Trails was very intentional. Look, looking at creating a neighborhood that really mixed different housing types to address the various needs of the community. I'm preaching to the choir when I say that we all on this call understand the housing affordability issues that Missoula is facing and part of the affordability issue is addressed through providing additional housing choice through a variety of housing types, which Riverfront Trails really does successfully and in a meaningful way in, in really infusing different development types throughout the layout and design of this particular development. As a part of that, providing housing for seniors, which is a great need that we've identified in the Missoula community and was really the core component or the, the foundational piece of how this development came to light. The Legends of Missoula was a very intentional part of how Riverfront Trails evolved over the last few years, not only in its layout, but in its relationship to the surrounding neighborhoods as well as to the Jeannette Rankin Elementary School. And understanding the value of multi-generational housing and interaction between seniors and the rest of the community and particularly between seniors and students. Some , some of the, the programming that the Legends is considering as part of this development is really integral to how we see the neighborhood evolving and the value and benefit that it's really going to provide for the Missoula community and for the senior community as a whole. Cassie pointed out in her presentation, and we'll show some illustrative drawings here in just a moment, the connectivity within the neighborhood and beyond the neighborhood boundaries was really key and instrumental in how Riverfront Trails was laid out. Enhancing the multimodal connectivity, enhancing connectivity not only for residents of Riverfront Trails but also for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods to that open space and to the river was something that we really tried to elevate as part of the design and, and creating a safe and accessible streets for pedestrians and cyclists to connect two and three Riverfront Trails was a core focus of the layout of this neighborhood. And then finally, as Cassie mentioned through her presentation and is one of the reasons that we are requesting the neighborhood character overlay and the, the zoning that we have is altering some of the baseline bulk and dimensional standards, as well as the height and the setbacks on particular lots to allow for more traditional neighborhood development, to allow for some character elements, some roof lines and roof pitches for the group living and the religious assembly lot, but really creating a little bit more flexibility that will enhance the character and not just result in more of a cookie cutter environment, but allow for that mix of typologies and, and building and development that really adds to the core character that we're trying to accomplish through Riverfront Trails. So, you've seen the overall development layout. One thing I would point out or an illustrative that's in the application materials that illustrates a little bit better the mix of housing types that you're going to see in this development is what you'll see on the screen right now. So, again just to reiterate that the housing types that are laid out in Riverfront Trails were assembled and mixed in a way that really reflects more of a traditional neighborhood design. We have the more traditional detached residential alley loaded lots mixed with what you might see in certain neighborhoods with the front loaded single family detached lots. We have duplex and triplet slots and then one of the unique characteristics of Riverfront Trails is what we're calling the quad court, and this development type is really just a reorientation of duplex style housing in a manner that allows more limited access, so you don't have as many driveway access points along the roadway, but you are also orienting the buildings and the houses towards the road in a way that better reflects a traditional neighborhood. It's respectful of the single-family detached development type, it really lends itself to a mixed housing scheme and it does so in a way that doesn't automatically make the viewer see the housing as multi-family or additional intensity, but it's really meaningful and purposeful and we feel is a real asset to the development as a whole. As I mentioned, connectivity was really important throughout Riverfront Trails and certain roadways have been developed in a woonerf style street, cross-section that really better integrates pedestrians and cyclists, creates some meandering thoroughfares that incorporate parking and landscaping and slow traffic, and make the streetscape and crossings much safer and more comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists and also afford some additional environmental benefits in terms of, of storm water runoff and maintenance. And again, these are just illustrative that provide you some context and some idea of the development scale and development patterns that we're trying to incorporate through again that mix of housing types within the development. There you see you're really a nice example of how the woonerf style streets would look and feel, as they move through Riverfront Trails. So, we feel that overall, as a package the development as proposed is going to really enhance the Missoula community. There are some great assets that we feel are important in accomplishing the city's goals not only in terms of affordability and accessibility, but also accessibility and environmental protection to or accessibility to open space and environmental protection along the riparian corridor. And not to belabor the point, but any questions you may have of myself or my partners at Woith, we are happy to answer, and we'll leave it, we'll leave it there.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay, thank you for that presentation, we appreciate it. So at this point, I'm going to open the public hearing and we'll, we'll take comments on the, the various proposed actions and then we'll come back, and I'll just review the process a little bit because there's a lot going on here. So, we're going to take we'll take public comment and then we'll have questions from Council and I'm sure a lot of that will be informed by the public comment. We don't vote tonight and as a land use item, we are required to really maintain a, an appearance of fairness and neutrality. So, so don't be surprised that we won't be expressing opinions tonight one way or the other, but we'll have the item, we'll, we'll have questions and, and some discussion and then Mr. Nugent this will be in committee on Wednesday. So, so we'll have this at on Wednesday afternoon in the Land Use and Planning Committee as well and there will be opportunity to, for Council members to get additional questions that we're not able to get answered tonight. Is that fair?
Alderperson Mike Nugent Yep and follow up on new, new items or new public comments….
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay…
Alderperson Mike Nugent involved as such
Mayor Jordan Hess and then we'll be back, we'll be back December 12, 2022 for the final consideration. So, that's just an overview of the process. Ms. West.
Alderperson West So, if I have a suggested amendment, would it be appropriate to bring it tonight so that we, we can discuss about it or when would you like that?
Mayor Jordan Hess Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent So we don't, we won't have a motion tonight, so really there won't be amendments, but what we would like to do is get amendments in front of staff for Wednesday so they can research them and/or get any additional information from the developers or we can discuss it at the public meeting on Wednesday
[multiple people speaking]
Alderperson West and we'll talk about it Wednesday.
Mayor Jordan Hess and I think you could, you could just state it into the record so that everyone's aware of it tonight, as well, but….So for now, let's, let's open the public hearing and anyone who wants to speak on the item is welcome to come on up and, and just come on up and, and, and thank you for, thank you for waiting through the rest of our agenda and yeah….
Julie Anton Quite a night….. I'm sure you guys are all tired. For the record, my name is Julie Anton. I’m a resident of Maloney Ranch and I just want to applaud the developer and Woith engineering and Orion. You guys have done an amazing job, this is ridiculously complicated, and I think you know needed a lot of creativity and I think there are a lot of really wonderful things about this neighborhood, but I also think that there are some things that are very concerning to the people who live in the area, and so, I’m hoping that you guys can have an open mind. I feel like a lot of residents would be here but they feel like their voice is never heard and so they felt like it's a waste of time and I'm one of those people that I'm going to knock my head against the brick wall and I'm going to keep trying, so here I am. So, people want predictability. When people buy homes, they look at the zoning, and they base a portion of their purchase decision on this code. People bought their homes in the Lower Miller Creek area because it's away from city amenities and has consistently had a more rural feel to it. When the parcel was subdivided on 04/04/2017, it was zoned C-RR, CR R-1, sorry, which allowed one dwelling unit per acre. Since then, the zoning on the subject parcel has changed multiple times, each time increasing the allowable density. Now the developer has approached the city wanting even more density and in 2019, there was the Missoula area land use elements and pertaining to this parcel I quote, ‘land use is predominantly residential.’ Secondary uses may include small-scale commercial in limited locations. Buildings are predominantly single-family dwellings with some two family dwellings.’ So the density of the proposal, at least from what I got from the map, is that there's going to be 51 single-family residents, 32 duplexes, two triplexes, and 13 quads. So, that is not majority single family; that is majority multi-family. So, I ask you guys, when’s enough, enough? I just, you know we, we feel like yes we need housing, bring it on, bring it in there, but let's kind of look at the density and see that this might be too much for based on the area. One thing that I think is a really big deal is via the NC overlay, it's not in conformance with the surrounding area with great concern concerning surrounding sorry the proposed height change from 30/35 feet to 45 feet. The school stands at approximately 30 feet tall. The development is requesting three buildings to be 45 feet tall, all within a close proximity to the school, and to place that, especially on the southernmost triangular portion of the lot where a five plex is proposed in front of two single-story, single-family residences, to me seems uncanny. And I do think going back to some of the legal documents that you have to make your decisions on, I do think that this impacts light, and it impacts air. Buildings of that height are definitely going to cast shadows, probably the school playground is no longer going to see sunlight. So, I don't know how the sun all works there, but it's a possibility, so that's one big thing. Cost to the roundabout. So, it's our understanding as residents that a roundabout is being proposed at Old Bitterroot Road and Lower Miller Creek Road, and that part of that cost or actually the majority of that cost is going to be passed on to the residents via an SID. I don't feel this is fair and the residents in the area don't feel this is fair. The roundabout solely benefits the developer; it is not a current need in the development or in the Miller Creek area right now. We can all get along just fine without it. So, I would like to see that the developer take responsibility for that roundabout, as prior developers have in the past such as Lloyd Twite. Okay, now traffic. Beyond the roundabout is where the traffic congestion currently is a big issue and if any of you live in the area, you will know this. So, I read through the traffic study that was conducted by Abelin Traffic Services in April 2021 and the Brook Street and Miller Creek Road intersection received an F for both a.m. and p.m. traffic. Brigg Street and Miller Creek Road westbound received an F for both a.m. and p.m., while eastbound received a C for a.m. and D for p.m. It’s recommended that's below a C is a problem and this is without added development, this is without added cars, this is without added river access, and without an added religious assembly. We are currently at an F at an intersection, and we're told by the traffic people, I don't know if there's a lot of people involved there, that they're starting to talk about it. That's not acceptable, if it's already at an F, why don't we have some kind of proposal already on the table, and who's going to pay for it when that does need to happen? So, I think these things need to be addressed and discussed and put pen to paper before approving the development. All right, and then not to mention, we also need to think about Linda Vista phases have not been completely built out and they're, what's left to be built all does funnel to Lower Miller Creek Road and there's 400 single family, approximately 116 town homes, and five more apartment complexes, all that are going to funnel on the same little Street and I just think that there's going to need to be traffic improvements and street improvements, and it just doesn't seem fair to place all of this on the residents because I'll tell you what we feel pretty taxed to the hilt at the moment. So, that brings me to a conclusion…oh actually one more thing…. Sorry. We did, we've heard that the school has not responded, so, some residents reached out to the superintendent and asked if he was aware of this proposal and what the thoughts were and I'm going to share the response. Right now, a student who lives in the Rankin area is able to go to Jeanette Rankin, so I guess maybe it's not at full capacity like everybody has been thinking. The build out for that development will take time. The homes in the Jeannette Rankin typically don't meet the price point for young families. Right now, we're following two different story lines. Will there be less kids over time in that school because homes are more expensive or will the new development and the potential for other developments bring in more students and we may have to look at another school? Who's gonna pay for another school? I think these are things we all need to think about, and I encourage you to think long and hard about the impact of such a mass development and the increase in density that's being requested. So, I'm not asking to dump the whole thing. I appreciate the creativity that went into the proposal; what I'm hoping for is some sort of compromise. I think that approving the majority of what has been proposed is probably a smart decision, we need housing, we need, you know, we need a senior living facility. However, the NC overlay seems to take it too far. I, I'm hoping that the allowable building type on that southern portion, that southern triangular lot I keep calling it in front of two single story residential homes, I would like that to be reconsidered. I don't think that's a fair thing to build in front of those residents and I would also like to see that the height variance for lack of a better term on the NC overlay is not granted. So, I don't know if that means you have to deny the whole overlay, but I would really, really appreciate it if you guys would consider not allowing 45 feet height. I don't even know where a 45-foot height building is within 10 miles of this location, so it just doesn't fit with the character. So, thank you for your time. Sorry that was long, it's very complicated and I just wanted to kind of get the voice of the people out there and I appreciate you. Thank you.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks for your comments and thanks for your time tonight anyone else? Mr. Odegaard.
Doug Odegaard Thank you again for your time tonight, I really appreciate it. Doug Odegaard; I’m a resident at 6304 Lower Miller Creek Road. I've been there for 15, actually 17 years, I purchased the property. I was actually standing, well I don't know whether the City Council chambers were here or over there, but I was part of the Teton Addition discussions. I spoke with Dave Strohmaier and others about that and at that time, it was very, very important to me to have mixed use as part of it. And the reason is, and this comes back to then my maybe another hat I wear as a transit or transportation nerd, I feel very strongly that we need to reduce the number of car trips in and out of Miller Creek Road and thank you very much Julie for queuing me up with some of the traffic study as, as was told. And when I looked, look at this subdivision, I actually think there's really good things in it and at first I was very, I was like okay there's, there's good things, there's good, there's some mixed use in it which I think is, was highly touted at the planning board meeting but my question is, is the net positive traffic that will come into our neighborhood? The reason I ask that is because a healthcare or excuse me a home care, sorry senior living facility, which I support. I support a group living situations, my, my sister is actually part of a group home here in Missoula, I think it's a very strong characteristic in a neighborhood but there are staff members there are people who will need to come and go from that facility, thus bringing traffic, but also I'm very involved on the transit side of people that work, possibly work at those facilities that don't have vehicles and, and one could say Doug you're on the you're on the board of Mountain Line, when are you bring in transit service? And I am working very hard on that, I cannot quote that to you this evening, but my point is, is that I want to come with a very specific ask. After looking over the plat, after really driving that road all the time, I believe that lot 176, which is the triangular lot, which is south of Lower Miller Creek Road that currently is, it's being asked to rezone that as, as RT 5.4, I believe. I would request that that parcel of land be deemed commercial, and here's my reasons behind that. Number one, 15 years ago, it was, we did receive a commercial designation for Teton Addition by the fire station, which is just up the street. Unfortunately, zoning changes made it so that it was residential and commercial, and the developer of the other, of Teton Addition changed it and built homes, and that's fine, that achieves our affordable housing initiatives, getting more housing, that's fine, but the problem is, is that the mixed use that is proposed by this subdivision does not serve our neighborhood. It may serve the community and, and with the senior living and with the religious assembly, but it does not serve our community and or excuse me our neighborhood. And therefore what I'm asking is and this goes back to my ask 15 years ago, is that there be a commercial lot and I don't care if they build some, some housing above, even though I agree with Julie, 45 feet is kind of high. I love commercial on the bottom and mixed and housing on top; that's fine. My point is, is that I would really like to see a commercial, whether it be a small market or something that prevents, that makes it so that we do not have to leave the neighborhood in order to get small things. Now, in addition, we have a school, a senior living facility, and a religious assembly that are going to bring people in and if they need goods as well, they're going to have to leave the neighborhood, so that actually blends. In addition, as I look at this Lower Miller Creek Road, land or excuse me, the traffic plan, I was told that there are no bus stops that are planned for this area, which, which hit me in the heart because I'm that's what I want to see out here. I would like to request from the city, when they're doing this plan that a bus stop be looked at for that portion and the reason is, is that I also believe that the senior, senior Living facility is also going to need a place for people to get on and off the bus, also for the school to get be able to get on and off the bus. I believe and I'm, I'm speaking as a as an individual who's interested in this. I want to make sure that for the record I'm not speaking on behalf of Mountain Line right now, saying that I'm bringing bus service out there, I am, I'm a board member who is working toward that in our strategic plans, but I want to achieve what I consider a village concept for our neighborhood. The ability to actually be able to stay within our homes or our area as much as possible and then, and then take a vehicle or something into town, as needed. Right now, we're a mile and a half away that's, that's too far and if we were living in Texas, I would say that's okay maybe, but we live in Montana and as you know the roads today are icy. Multimodal doesn't fit in the winter, we can't just ride our bike down there. Some people could, but in our in our unless you're equipped that's not for the purpose. So, again just to draw to a close, I'm simply asking that lot 176 be excluded from the rezone and looked at by the developer and by the city staff to instead of being five townhouses there to be able to see that as a as a strictly a commercial location that will be able to serve the neighborhood, good mixed use serves the neighborhood. So, thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thank you, appreciate your comments tonight. Anyone else tonight? Come on up.
Charlie Fox I think they've done a good job of saying what they most of my stuff anyhow, but my name is Charlie Fox. I also live out on in the Maloney Ranch area. I guess my thing is what they've all said but I'm not a pro an opponent of, of new subdivisions new building I mean it's coming, and I think an orderly way of doing it is a good thing. I have talked to Chad Pancake, and I've talked to Kevin Slovarp for two years now on what's going to happen with the road out here. It's, that can just keeps getting kicked down the road. Does anybody here have any idea if funding is in place to fix Lower Miller Creek? There's not a sidewalk from Linda Vista all the way to that school and it was built, it was opened in November of 2018. That's not acceptable to me, it shouldn't be acceptable to any of those parents with kids walking down there or tried to ride a bike. I think if you really take a look at this thing, and you go out there and look at the traffic if any of you drive out there. There needs to be a double roundabout put at Lower and Upper Miller Creek so that you can funnel both lanes, lower coming on the inside, upper on the outside to get that traffic out of there. So, there's just you know some things like that, that should be looked at. The money should be in place, the funding should be in place for that infrastructure before you start building a whole bunch more stuff out there, because Dwight's going to build like they said three or four hundred more houses up there and it's all coming there. There's another apartment complex going in with 40-50, that's I don't know 100 cars a day out of that one complex. So, anyway I think if you would look at some of that stuff now, let's get it funded and then proceed onward. The other thing is I think you should look at contacting the school superintendent on Jeanette Rankin School. My understanding is they don't have enough land to add on to a school that was planned to be added on to. So, if you don't do that and get some land added to that thing, it's another 20 million bucks for another school, which does not seem to be smart. So, anyhow that's what I've got to say. Thank you.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thank you for your comments tonight, appreciate it. I, I had an online comment, and the hand is down; I'll put out a call if anyone online wants to make comments, please raise your hand. Anyone else in the room as well, feel free to come on up if you have if you have additional comments. Oh and I will go to an online comment now, Mary A, you should be able to unmute yourself and if you just give us your, your name for the record please.
Mary Albrand Yes, my name is Mary Albrand and I live down, I don't know that you can see me, but it doesn't matter. I live down off of Lower Miller Creek Road off of Trails Ends, so I don't really have to deal with the, the traffic down in that area. I do agree, however, that, that the need for more housing down at this end of town, particularly affordable housing is a huge need. We haven't heard anything from the developer about what the cost of these properties are going to be. Are they truly going to be affordable for the average young homeowner that's maybe starting in a starter home? Can you hear me?
Mayor Jordan Hess Yes, we can hear you.
Mary Albrand Okay, good. Oh my camera is disabled, okay. So, I, what I did is, over the course of the last couple weeks, I have attended, I attended the city planning meeting and I went through, and I looked at what was going on in that area down there. I, I went by the subdivision area and, and I have been down there, so I know what it looks like. My concerns come from a point of view of public safety and traffic. I have talked to, over the last week or so I have talked to several people in the city government about my concerns for traffic, fire, police and their ability to respond to anything that, that does occur in that particular area. I'm not going to mention the individual names of people, but I talked with a gentleman in the city transportation engineering department about their new traffic study and what it's going to take into effect. I think Julie mentioned at the very beginning about the study that was done at Brooks and Miller Creek Road, and that that intersection in and of itself is not sufficient. I also talked with the fire department and actually had a really long discussion with a fellow at the fire department about the accessibility for fire trucks in that area. He said that there is one fire truck that can handle a 40-foot high property, but its availability to come into the area and to actually get into the area is at question. I talked to a gentleman who is with Missoula search and rescue, if there's a problem with a wildfire down in that area, which we know that's always a concern for us and in particular, flooding. Most of you that drive that road have seen that field where the cows are that comes up from, from the river is frequently flooded. So, I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that that this is not going to be a flood area, but it definitely is, and Missoula search and rescue also felt that that was a problem area. I talked with a fire prevention in the city, as far as how they felt about this particular property. They said that they have to review any subdivision plans to see if there's a problem with making sure that they can reach smaller buildings that have on-street parking. I think, in particular, the quadplexes where there is, they call them alleys and there's parking in the alleys and then to try and get a fire truck in there. The plan, the planners say that it works. If you look at the actual plat itself, there's no way that you can get a fire truck in there. I spoke with a police officer or a gentleman, an official with the police department, and I asked them if they would be able to handle a mass shooting at the school. We all know that that's a consideration these days, we have school shooters. I did some research and there have been 76 school shootings, would they be able to handle that? He said that there are procedures in place for the school to lock down, but depending upon what the traffic in that area is like and pandemonium, would they actually be able to access the school? He said that was a question, but that they would have to look into it after this new traffic study is going to be completed. So, that would be my, my first question when is this supposed traffic study going to be complete?
Mayor Jordan Hess And we, we don’t do a back and forth during the public comment, but if you have other questions you're welcome to get them on the record and we'll get answers to those.
Mary Albrand Okay, well that would be the first one. Is when is the traffic study going to be done and at what point in time does the, do the developments that are coming online and there are going to be many that come down the road, how do those factor into the traffic study and whether this particular community is going to be able to be safely accessed by fire and police and rescue units? So, that's my question and thank you for listening to my diatribe.
Mayor Jordan Hess Absolutely. Thank you for your time tonight and for the comment, we appreciate it. All right, anyone else in the room or online? I see there's a few people joining by phone and if you want to comment, you could press *5 and that will let us know that you want to provide comment, if that’s the case? Okay, so, we’ll hold the public hearing open until next week. Again, this will be in committee at 1:25 p.m. this week, right here and also online. At this point, I would open it up for Council questions or any, any discussion points that we want to have on the record between now and Wednesday. Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Thanks so much and I guess I would look to LUP Chair, Mr. Nugent or yourself Mayor, how, how far onto the questions that you would like me to go knowing we have this in committee and understanding it's 9:05 at night, so.
Mayor Jordan Hess I’m here and I’m awake, and I'm happy to go…..
Alderperson Anderson Okay, well, I just, you know, I, I want to ask the questions but understand……
Alderperson Mike Nugent Yeah, yeah, I'd prefer we get them all out, so that if there’s something we've got to talk about on Wednesday, we can do it.
Alderperson Anderson Perfect, great. Thank you for that and for the comments from folks. I guess just quickly to address the online comment, if a comment is allowed from a standpoint of the commercial buildings will be required to have sprinkler systems, there's a whole process that we send out for interagency comments and plans to approve this. And so, that process has gone, is ongoing and there is a fire station very close to this. So, I, I feel as though I definitely it's the traffic concerns are of concern, but the adequate police and fire response given the location, especially a fire station five is, I feel very comfortable, and I live in the neighborhood. I guess the questions I would like to have Cassie ready to discuss on Wednesday is in regards to the developer, can we and in under what portion of all this, can we have the developer you know take on more if not all of the costs of the roundabout? I know that as a part of this there is going, the developer is required to do the boulevard, sidewalks down all of Lower Miller Creek and on both sides when it kind of hits the I call it the turn there, but where then right there where the triplex or the five plex is supposed to be then they're responsible for both sides, so that improvement that we've been waiting for is happening as a part of this my understanding and Cassie can correct me if I'm wrong, is that is a part of what's required from the developer? The only thing that would be contemplated within an SID would be the improvements to the roundabout, but the sidewalk portions on the south or the eastern portion of Lower Miller Creek and then on both sides is fully the developer's responsibility, is that correct Cassie?
Cassie Tripard May I have Aaron Wilson or Troy Monroe help me out? Yeah, the developer would be responsible for sidewalks and boulevards, both sides where it turns and sort of goes kitty corner and then on one side where it's coming directly down. Troy or Aaron, would you help me with the actual city project improvements and how that relates to SID?
Aaron Wilson Yeah, if I can recite this as accurately as possible and, and if I get it wrong, we'll correct it on, on Wednesday, but my understanding is that the, the city project on Lower Miller Creek Road, the adjacent, this development would be required to do all the boulevard, sidewalk, all the pieces adjacent to their property, and then also contribute a proportional share to the, the remainder of the project including the, the roundabout, new roundabout and other facilities that would be applicable to all the, the SID participants. I guess the, the one caveat there is that the adjacent properties wouldn't be participating in the SID portion for the, the sidewalk, the boulevard and sidewalk proportions, that are already constructing, so we're not charging them twice for the same infrastructure. Does that answer the question?
Alderperson Anderson Yeah, so the followup. I mean prior to when we started the discussion about improvements to Lower Miller Creek, this development was not on the table and so all of those improvements, sidewalks, and various components that interrelated were going to be assessed to the property owners, now adjacent property owners in an SID that has yet to be determined in terms of the size of the boundaries of that. Now that there is a development going in, the developer themselves is responsible for part of that which is the sidewalks, boulevards, and sidewalks and a portion of the roundabout. What remaining parts of the Lower Miller, what portions are left to do of the larger project?
Aaron Wilson There would be the, the curb, gutter, sidewalk, boulevard that are not adjacent to the property. Those would be part of the, the remaining SID, the remaining proportional share of the roundabout will be included in that project and any other affiliated, you know street work that's, that's necessary to complete that project.
Alderperson Anderson So, sidewalks from basically the golf course to the 90 degree angle, so there's a portion there that isn't covered that would be, need to be taken into account, but then this connects the rest of the way? Okay great. So, I would like to talk about those separately and talk just on Wednesday about only the roundabout given that it is the entrance to this subdivision, and I think has a greater impact for the developer or an asset to the developer. And I agree, yes, oh sorry, I'm getting signals from the land use chair or…..
Mayor Jordan Hess Mr. Nugent?
Alderperson Mike Nugent Can I add something to talk about along these lines?
Alderperson Anderson Yes…
Alderperson Mike Nugent For, for comparison's sake, could you either let us know now or look into it and let us know on Wednesday, if there are similar examples of the developer being asked to pay for all of that upgrade versus sharing with the neighbors? One that comes to mind is eventually there will be a stoplight at the end of Wyoming tied to the Sawmill district and I'm just curious if that's entirely a developer responsibility or if that's shared between the developer and the City?
Alderperson Anderson Yeah, that's a great add-on because I do know that, sorry I'm not….Yeah, because the develop the roundabout at Christian Drive was totally paid for by the developer, which is how kind of some of this discussion got spread on. Also, I would be curious from, if I, should I just get all the questions I want on the record or wait for discussion because one of them is having to do with hyped?
Mayor Jordan Hess I think, I think it would be beneficial if you got all of your questions on the record and then we can get thorough answers on Wednesday, but that way ….
Alderperson Anderson Okay, so don’t wait for a response now from people who are online? Just pepper out my questions and don't wait for the backboard? Okay, got it, that was the okay….So, I want to talk about the height, especially around the multi or the senior living facility and the residential or the future religious assembly. I would also like to talk about, a question in regards to can we have an easement, or I don't know what the proper mechanism for a future bus stop in that area knowing that, yet transit is not there yet but would like to be eventually and can we basically carve out a space and some land for that to go in as a part of this? Oh sorry, I'm stealing it ….and the other thing and Troy I know is on now and, and if you can join us on Wednesday? One of the things that we haven't got to yet is in regards to the flooding that happens. So there, at times, can be very significant and I've heard from the constituent who lives right northwest right there at the kitty corner of the what we call the 90 degree in the neighborhood, and their concern is that with the you know development that will happen that it could potentially cause more flooding that already naturally occurs on their property and so would like to address that. Also, there is, within the portion of the drawings or the scope of work, the, it looks like a water retention, stormwater or a pond or it's, it's unclear on the drawings what it is but it does appear to be holding of some water and so the question, I have is, if it does flood it at points in time floods all the way to that area, is how do we mitigate for that? Is that what the that collection basin is intended for, what is the safety measures that are going to be going around that? So if you could talk a little bit about, you know how we're mitigating for the fact that this already is an area that does flood and, and can at times come quite far in. The other thing that the developers representative talked about, which I want to have a little more discussion on is river access and protection of riparian areas because I understand that that this is a natural habitat and corridor and we should preserve that but at points in time, we're accessing the river can be immediately detrimental to those riparian areas and so, is there going to be intentional places for folks to access the river or is it just going to be all natural and therefore people can kind of use it as they want? Which I think we have seen downtown is causing you know problems to our river corridors with not having intentional places if we mean to have an opportunity for folks to access the river and that definitely I think brings in a whole other level of concerns from the neighbors with traffic, where are these people parking, if that is the case or is it left to hopefully be just natural and not necessarily an intentional river access? So, I that those are at points in time conflicting goals to be had and at that, I'll stop right there. I think those are my big ones and I guess, well a final question is in regards to the request about commercial. I absolutely hear that, that I think was a lot of the points of disappointment from the neighbors with there was a B2-2 zoned parcel that had hoped to be commercial. So within commercial, I mean are we able to just sort of put parameters around kind of the type of commercial we want to see or is it once you designate a commercial, can be a multitude of things and the actual intention of what it is we hope to see cannot necessarily be sort of design for our zone for or required? So yeah and I mean having not fully read through the traffic study, I did not see the F. I know, I was trying to figure out what the timing was, that it was done and how that COVID and ingrowth has affected it, but definitely want to have some discussion about the fact that we are allowing for all of this additional growth where that intersection of Brooks and Miller Creek is definitely a problem. Now, I’m done. Thanks.
Mayor Jordan Hess Ms. West.
Alderperson West So, I have one very, very specific question which is how a two unit townhouse is different from a duplex? And, and I can get that answer Wednesday, and I think a few things Stacie already covered and the big thing, let me pull up my Word document, is that I with like to define what that group living commercial residential facility is a little further than it currently is in the staff report. I think we can narrow it to senior housing while also referencing the, the community residential facilities that are allowed by right on the state level, but that would provide I think predictability to the neighbors. And I also think we should define what senior housing is. I think it sounds like a lot of things, but it actually has a definition under the Fair Housing Act, which allows basically an I guess an exemption from fair housing rules for older persons, which believe it or not, older persons is 55 years of age or older, which doesn't seem that old to me, but so and the definition is that at least 80% of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older. And I think that would provide a lot of clarity around what is meant by senior housing if it just provided some sideboards. So, I, I have some draft language that probably isn't perfect that I'm willing to email that that tries to get to that and hopefully we could discuss it further, so we're you know within our state laws sideboard that hopefully can just because, because group living under Title 20 seems to be very much more permissible than state law is, and I think it's useful to add some sideboards. That’s all.
Mayor Jordan Hess Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent I would just say, in the interest of our time on Wednesday, if any of these questions are easily answerable tonight, staff should feel free to raise their hand and do that.
Mayor Jordan Hess Yeah, yeah and also while we’re on that topic and while our committee schedule is still fungible. Do you want to add any time to that meeting or are you?
Alderperson Mike Nugent Well I won’t end it if we’re still going.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Let’s put it that way, it’s the last one….it looks like Cassie raised her hand too.
Mayor Jordan Hess Ms. Tripard
Cassie Tripard I’ll just, I’ll knock out the easiest shortest one real quick which is the difference between two unit townhouse and duplex. A two unit townhouse means that the land underneath it or the units are on separate lots and can be owned separately, whereas a duplex would be located two units on one lot and therefore they'd both be owned by the same person. Does that make sense?
Mayor Jordan Hess Ms. West.
Alderperson West So I guess my followup question to that is, if a two unit townhouse is owned by separate individuals, is that considered single family housing?
Cassie Tripard We don't define single family housing in Title 20, but yes it would be single dwelling.
Alderperson West Okay, thank you.
Cassie Tripard Just attached….
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, just under the proposed zoning changes, I was curious what sort of commercial uses would be allowed in these areas?
Cassie Tripard First it looks like Mary has a hand up?
Mayor Jordan Hess Yeah, Ms. McCrea are you on the previous topic or?
Mary McCrea I’m, I was on just one of the questions that could be easily answered, but it's not the one that was just asked so maybe Cassie could go ahead and ask, answer that one and then I can talk about one of the prior questions.
Cassie Tripard So, this is a residential zoning district in alignment with the residential land use designation, so it would not allow any commercial uses. Religious assembly is actually considered a civic use and then group living is considered a residential use. So, no commercial uses per the zoning would be permitted.
Mayor Jordan Hess On the line, on those lines if, if a commercial use were to be considered would that require a different targeted Growth Policy amendment to allow a relatable commercial zone? Or does that make sense?
Cassie Tripard Yes, it would. Commercial uses don't or zoning does not comply with the Growth Policy amendment or Growth Policy. So, we'd either need a different land use designation because the rezoning needs to comply with the Growth Policy.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks. Ms. McCrea do you want to answer the other question that came to mind for you?
Mary McCrea Sure. There was a question about whether the Old Sawmill District when that subdivision went through the mill site subdivision whether they were required to pay for the traffic light on Orange Street and the connecting street is escaping me right now….
Mayor Jordan Hess Craig Lane…..
Mary McCrea Craig Lane exactly, and yes that was an original condition of the subdivision and then in 2015, I believe a facing plan amendment was approved and the option was given that they would do a traffic study and they would be required to install the traffic light. I think the city because there's been development around there and the connection to Russell has been established, that you know Wyoming to Russell that there would, the city would apply some impact fees possibly but that's still under discussion as part of the development agreement. I think essentially the traffic light is still being required to be paid for by the developer of that subdivision.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks. Ms. Jones.
Alderperson Jones Sure, I just had a quick add-on to the issue raised by Ms. Anderson regarding having a discussion around height and I'm not quite sure, first of all, what the mechanism is if that's going to be zoning or if it's the neighborhood character overlay and we can talk about that on Wednesday but I'm wondering if as part of that height discussion we could discuss whether the height could be graduated, or stair stepped as one potential tool? I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Jordan Hess So, in the time I've been was on the Council and in this role, I have not had a PUD subdivision. I think that that's probably a new tool for all of us and the, the fact that the that that zoning can be conditioned to some extent is probably new to all of us as well. Can you just give us a brief rundown of sort of what the, what the scope of that level of conditioning is and, and what where the Council decision space lies?
Cassie Tripard Yeah, so the PUD subdivision is really separate from the neighborhood character overlay. The neighborhood character overlay modifies the zoning, you can't condition the base setting, but you can condition that neighborhood character overlay document that sort of lays out how it's different from the base zoning, so those slight variations in conditional versus permitted uses that different height allowance some setbacks are different. The PUD subdivision is really more the standard subdivision, but it varies from certain things like right-of-way with road types, block length, especially where you're adjacent to the river and can't feasibly connect to any blocks going north in the future. So, that's sort of the separation of those two. Does that get out your question?
Mayor Jordan Hess Yep, that's really helpful, thanks. Anyone else tonight Mr. Nugent?
Alderperson Mike Nugent Sorry, I thought I saw more hands I was trying to hope that other people would ask the questions and I could just check them off the list. One thing I'd like to know, and I don't necessarily want to put the developer on spot this evening, but I'd like to discuss it Wednesday, if not tonight. Is if altering the building heights changed what they can they're intending to do with, with these parcels? I know that there's, there's obviously been some discussion with some, some senior living developer, so I just want to get a feel for that. Ms. Anderson mentioned the, the storm water holding pond for lack of a better word all within the flood plain and I want to make sure that we talk about that because that's come up in public comment a couple times and I guess the, the one going back revisiting quickly the commercial conversation. If the developer was open to that consideration as well or if that's something we wanted to do, how complicated of a process is it to add that? Is there no, is there no designation of the Growth Policy that would be justifiable there or would it be a matter of amending the Growth Policy and then following it up a zoning?
Mayor Jordan Hess Jim Nugent, your hand is up, are you, were you wanting to speak on that or on the previous issue?
Jim Nugent I have some comments on some of the previous issues. I don't know, I'd need to give some thought to the most recent one there, but one of the things I wanted to emphasize is that special Improvement districts are determined, the assessments are determined by benefit and the benefit does not have to be equal for all properties that are assessed. We've been to the Montana Supreme Court a couple of times and defended, successfully defended benefit and the, the most recent one was the flood control coming out of Pattee Canyon where City staffs determine that the people on Farview should pay 22% for the special improvement district because they saw a benefit from there because of the roads and the houses and the driveways that they were causing some of the runoff into the valley floor. The valley floor people then had to pay the 77% or 78% that was left over because they were on the floor and they needed the more control because it was flooding their properties, and the Montana Supreme Court said that the city staff division of benefit with 22% or 23% up on the hillside and 77% down on the valley floor was acceptable and that the cornerstone to a special improvement district is benefit. You have to really focus on benefit and do some analysis but it doesn't have to be absolutely equal so city staff might have to give some thought as to how they might want to allocate based on their analysis what the benefit would be for that particular special improvement district. I also wanted to note that Southgate Mall had to pay for a couple of traffic lights on Brooks and South Avenue just because of the impacts they were having, and they paid the entire traffic control light for those. I think there was one on Brooks and one on South that they had to pay for. So, it has happened in the past where when it was clear that the impact was all being pretty much caused by a certain development that Southgate Mall had to pay for those traffic control lights. So, basically it's on a case-by-case basis, you have to do the analysis on a case-by-case balance basis. I would also just note that while you might get a commitment for an easement for a bus stop, the city doesn't decide the bus routes and the city doesn't decide the bus stops and so you have to kind of leave that up to the Mountain Line staff. And for example, on SW Higgins between Higgins and Hyde Park, there are bus pull outs that have been there for decades that have never ever been used by a Mountain Line bus because the Mountain Line route doesn't go down SW Higgins at that location. So, I’d just caution you that you might want to get a commitment for an easement, but requiring the installation probably needs to go to the decision makers at Mountain Line as to what they want their route to be and where they want their route to go and shouldn't be requiring stuff when the city doesn't know if that's going to be on a bus route.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks. Well, just tell them Doug said….just kidding. Ms. McCrea.
Mary McCrea I just wanted to answer the question about changing the targeted Growth Policy amendment to a land use designation that would allow commercial and then changing the rezone to allow commercial. It's, it's kind of too late for that, we'd have to re-notice so that people could be providing comment on that proposal instead of the one that's in front of you, and state law requires us to notify you know clearly what the rezones to and what parcels with legal description that it's applying to. So, I think that would be a fairly big change to make at this late of date and it would be a rewrite of that portion of the staff report plus we have a statutory deadline for the subdivision where you have to make a decision by the 19th, and anyway it's sort of a domino effect of the things that would impact at this point.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thanks. Jim do you have anything else to add? Oh, you're muted…. you're still on mute Jim…
Jim Nugent No, I'm just saying that I'm getting two different messages. The message tells me my hand is down and then another message is telling me that my hand is raised, then they're simultaneously but right now, I didn't have another comment.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay, thanks. Ms. Becerra.
Alderperson Becerra Yeah thank you. I have a few questions, but I can email them, but one that I. I was looking at the conditions of approval and it talks about; I forget what is required doing phase one which prompted me to I guess ask how many phases there are? And I, I couldn't find the phasing plan for the subdivision so that would be one question and then the other is can the neighborhood overlay be amended and at some point? And what is the mechanism for that and then I also want to know about HOA and covenants at some point?
Mayor Jordan Hess We definitely don't want to talk about HOA covenants tonight.
Cassie Tripard I can take two of those quickly while I pull up the phasing plan. In the future, if they wanted to say after this was approved amend the NC overlay, it would be a rezoning process through City Council. At this point, before it's approved, any changes would need to be made as conditions too and then this large document's very slow to load. I want to make sure I'm going over this right. I know there's a phase 1A, phase 1B, the development team can connect correct me if I'm wrong? Are there? See that would be four phases 1A, 1B, and 2 and 3? Is there another one in 2A and 2B?
Matt Hammerstein No Cassie. This is Matt Hammerstein with Woith Engineering. That's correct, phase one is the only phase that has an A and B.
Cassie Tripard So, four total?
Mayor Jordan Hess Yeah, follow up, and that was, that was Matt Hammerstein for the record. Ms. Becerra followup?
Alderperson Becerra So, do, do we know what improvements are required? I mean, I'm sure we do but again we know what improvements are required with each one of the phases just to know what's coming and when?
Cassie Tripard Yeah, I won't go through them all but in the staff report every single condition of approval lists which phase it has to happen prior to.
Alderperson Becerra Okay, thanks.
Mayor Jordan Hess Jim Nugent, we’ll go back to you then Ms. Sherrill. You’re, you’re on mute again sir….
Jim Nugent Yeah and my message on my computer tells me I have a lowered hand, so I don't know what's going on but I I'm trying to lower my hand.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay and if you, if you just wave at me out on screen, I'll, I'll catch it. Ms. Sherrill.
Jim Nugent Okay.
Alderperson Sherrill Thanks. So, I, I'm just curious about one of the points that Stacie had brought up around river access and whether there will, I, we don't have to discuss it tonight but I just want to highlight the fact that I'd like to know a little more about what the, if there's going to be river access and how they're going to manage that with a neighborhood that has kids and a lot of people in it on hot days in the summer?
Mayor Jordan Hess Any other questions to get out onto the, to get into the record tonight? Okay, Mr. Nugent, do you want to talk about process at all on Wednesday or, or have we covered that adequately? Ms. Anderson first.
Alderperson Anderson I’m sorry, I, I don't know if the development team is going to be with us on Wednesday. So, the fact that Mr. Hammerstein was here, if he could quickly just say what are the phases, what is being built out and be proposed in phase 1A, 1B, 2 and 3, just because I know we have public here and public online and he is here, if that’s a quick answer?
Matt Hammerstein Yeah, that's a quick answer. I’m pulling it up right now and we will be available on Wednesday, as well.
Alderperson Anderson Not all, everyone has had the opportunity to read the 77-page staff report. So, I'm trying to dial it down for folks.
Matt Hammerstein Okay, so if you can just let me know if you can see my screen there? So, you can see in the green is Phase 1A so that's the first phase and then phase 1B is the cyan color, south of old Bitterroot Road and west of phase 1A and then phase two is the purple to the north of old Bitterroot Road and then phase three is kind of this western extension of old Bitterroot Road.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay, thank you. Okay, Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson So thank you so much, I appreciate that, and so it does look like from this schematic that the improvements to, if you could, if the shading is correct that Lower Miller Creek is actually shaded green so the improvements that such as the sidewalk and boulevard will be as a part of phase 1A as well as it does look like the park in open space also is in Phase 1A, is that correct Mr. Hammersmith, Hammerstein sorry?
Matt Hammerstein Yeah, that so that is correct. The park and open space are in Phase 1A and access to that with vehicle lanes and a sidewalk. The Lower Miller Creek Road improvements, I might need a little, I might need to put together a little breakdown on that for Wednesday. It's a little bit complicated with the city project being coordinated in there just because it's, it can be tough to put a boulevard in without having the curb and the rest of that city project done. So, that'll probably be handled through bonding with phase 1A, and we can provide a breakdown of that on Wednesday.
Alderperson Anderson I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay, thanks. Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent I have no more questions, but as far as Wednesday goes, asking about just process, I, I would ask the staff to be ready to kind of tackle the questions that got outlined and have the appropriate people there and then give the developer any chance to provide additional answers to those questions and the other questions presented to them and then we'd go back to Council questions. And then just for Council, if there is something that, that you want the staff to speak to or the developers to speak to, please get that to myself or, or even straight to Cassie and we can get that where that needs to go, but if we have that early we can actually get information and talk about it because we are on a statutory deadline, so we have to make a decision within the next week and a half.
Mayor Jordan Hess Thank you and confirm the statutory deadline is the 19th?
Cassie Tripard Correct.
Mayor Jordan Hess Okay, great. Well, we've had a good public hearing which will be continued through the week and good discussion and staff presentation, so thank you everyone for your time and attention on that.