Opinion ID: 889830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Proceedings on the Sonata Park Proposal

Text: ¶ 16 In 2006, Muth-Hillberry proposed to develop Sonata Park as a 41-lot subdivision. The Missoula Office of Planning and Grants (OPG), however, determined that such development was not consistent with the densities recommended in the Rattlesnake Valley plan. In this regard, OPG observed that the recommended densities are a mechanism that can help ensure that goals and objectives for the plan area are met. Development at densities higher than what is recommended in the applicable plan can have a significant negative impact on the natural resources, neighborhood character, and transportation capacity of the plan area as well as the health, safety and welfare of the ... residents. OPG also noted that the subdivision was located outside the areas identified in the plan for greater concentration of development and was not compatible with 50 percent or more of the land uses in the immediate vicinity. Surrounding land uses include residential lots (ranging from one to five acres in size) to the east and south, vacant land (also proposed as a subdivision) to the north, and large public open space (Waterworks Hill) to the west. OPG thus denied a zoning compliance permit. ¶ 17 The following year, Muth-Hillberry submitted a proposal for a 38-lot subdivision. In its application, Muth-Hillberry asserted that under a 1989 agreement between the City and Sunlight Development Company (Muth-Hillberry's predecessor in interest), it was entitled to develop Sonata Park at a higher density than recommended in the Rattlesnake Valley plan. In fact, Muth-Hillberry claimed that Sonata Park, as proposed for 38 lots, is using only 70% ... of the single-family density rights allocated to this property under the 1989 Agreement. Since the interim zoning had expired in 1992 and the site was now unzoned, Muth-Hillberry requested that Sonata Park be zoned at two dwelling units per acre, versus the recommended densities of one unit per two acres and one unit per five to ten acres. ¶ 18 OPG again determined that this request does not substantially comply with the land use recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan/Growth Policy regarding residential density. Nevertheless, OPG staff recommended approval. At the December 4, 2007 meeting of the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board, the OPG case planner explained that she had balanced many factors in making her recommendation, but one that she had considered especially important was the fact that a density of four units per acre is, according to the city engineer, the minimum needed to recoup the cost of providing sewer service to a given area. She acknowledged, though, that not every area within the city's wastewater treatment facilities area is appropriate at four per acre or greater. ¶ 19 Proponents and opponents of Sonata Park attended the Planning Board meeting. Representatives of Muth-Hillberry spoke in favor of the project, while Neighbors and other members of the public spoke against it. Their objections included the alleged failure of the proposed subdivision and zoning to comply with the Rattlesnake Valley plan, the alleged instability of the land and soils, and the high density of the development relative to neighboring developments. One of the Neighbors clarified that they were not opposed to any and all development, but only to development that did not substantially comply with the growth policy. He argued that the law required such compliance and that this project is not even close. Another resident said that she had read the growth policy before buying her land on the west side of the valley and everything in it led me to believe that future development would be mindful of the unique rural character of the neighborhood. She noted that development in the area thus far had been consistent with the Rattlesnake Valley plan. Nevertheless, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of Muth-Hillberry's application. During the debate, one of the board members indicated that he did not put a lot of weight on the growth policy argument. In his view, the process of creating a growth policy wastes people's time. It makes them think they are being involved [but] when it comes right down to it they're really not. Two other board members expressed the view that Rattlesnake Valley needed to do its part in providing new homes for Missoula. Another opined that the original framers of the Rattlesnake Valley plan had this land envisioned to be developed more densely. ¶ 20 The City Council's Plat, Annexation, and Zoning (PAZ) Committee considered Sonata Park at its December 5 meeting. Members of the public, including Neighbors, appeared and expressed their concerns relating to bicycle and pedestrian safety, fire risks, soil stability, doubling the size of the neighborhood if the subdivision were approved, and lack of substantial compliance with the growth policy. Neighbors reiterated these points at a meeting of the City Council on December 10. ¶ 21 The issue was then sent back to the PAZ Committee, which held another meeting on December 12. Neighbors again appeared and voiced their concerns and objections. The committee reconvened on December 14, at which time a motion was made to zone the property at the requested two dwelling units per acre. One of the committee members who opposed this motion observed that in the recent use of neighborhood plans, the call for lower densities was being ignored. He stated that when the applicable growth policy is disregarded, it sends a message to the public that the City does not value their input. In contrast, another committee member argued that Sonata Park fit the development pattern of the area. Still another committee member argued that every part of the city should share in its growth. Ultimately, a majority voted in favor of the motion. ¶ 22 Finally, on December 17, the City Council voted on the zoning and subdivision. Again, members of the public, including Neighbors, commented extensively. Among other things, they stated that it had been discouraging to hear city employees and officials and advisors downplay the value of our Rattlesnake Comprehensive Plan as the Sonata Park Subdivision proposal has been discussed. Similarly, one of the council members voiced opposition to the project because it doesn't honor the 1995 Rattlesnake Valley Plan. She stated that she would be open to a compromise of 17 to 20 dwelling units, but a density of more than three times the recommended density is too much. Similarly, another council member expressed concern that they were turning a blind eye to the extensive work that had gone into the Rattlesnake Valley plan. In addition, he countered the notion that Rattlesnake Valley residents saw themselves as exclusive or exempt from the pressures of growth. He argued that the hills north of Missoula were ecologically unique and that it was important to preserve the ecological integrity of the area. Conversely, other council members argued that a property owner should have considerable say in how his property is developed. They also noted that the Rattlesnake area had been zoned at two dwelling units per acre prior to annexation by the City in 1989. As before, the need for more housing due to the City's ongoing growth was cited as further reason to approve the subdivision. The City Council then voted (10 to 2) to grant the zoning request and to approve the subdivision with 37 lots. The next day, the City sent a letter to Muth-Hillberry apprising the developer that Sonata Park had been approved, subject to 34 listed conditions.