[0:00] It's

[0:13] probably the best road to see the hills downstairs or at the top of the hills.

[0:27] He used to have a guy. His name was Chismo.

[0:36] He kept on saying

[0:40] I never shared that. He told me he told me.

[0:54] Yeah, yeah,

[1:05] I got bull blown.

[1:10] I was wondering why this guy was feeling

[1:15] right? He said to protect your old fellow. I got it.

[1:21] You could shake him. I didn't even know

[1:27] I was on the

[1:33] garage.

[1:41] I think he

[1:43] never talked to the sheriff. I don't think I know I talked to. I'll get him it, but.

[1:49] Hey everybody, thanks for being here tonight. If you'd please join me in the pledge

[1:53] of allegiance. Thank you. The pleasure to the flag of the United States of America

[2:00] and to the republic of which he stands, one nation, one God, indivisible with liberty

[2:08] and justice for all.

[2:12] Thank you very much. Yeah, we're gonna do a roll call of our commission. Commissioner

[2:18] Reard here, Schrader Young here Pardini here. We are missing, uh, Commissioner Hawley.

[2:24] He is unwell. McDonald unwell, and Jen likely still working. Commissioner Ruglas.

[2:31] All right, that brings us to agenda item 3, which is approval of the proposed agenda.

[2:37] Can I please have a motion from the commission? I would move to approve the proposed

[2:42] agenda for the, uh, public hearing. Thank you very much. Uh, can I have a second?

[2:47] I'll second that. Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Reard and a second

[2:51] from Commissioner Schrader-Young. Any further commission discussion? No. Any public

[2:56] comment on that? Anything else could you move your mic a little closer? It's not

[3:01] a mic. It's a recording device. No, can you talk louder? Can you talk louder? We

[3:07] have 3, but nobody was. All righty then, seeing none, we will take a vote, please,

[3:12] Commissioner Reard. 4 Schrader Young 4 Pardini 4 and there are 4 that motion carries.

[3:19] Thank you. Uh, agenda item 4 is public comment on significant matters to the public,

[3:24] not on the agenda. So if anybody has a public comment on anything that's not on our

[3:28] agenda tonight, please come up to the podium. I need your name and that's all I need.

[3:35] Yeah, we're on the agenda.

[3:42] In the line, Chief Manager. No, ma'am. All righty, Chief Man seen them, then we'll

[3:47] move on to agenda item 5, which is to open this public hearing. This is a hearing

[3:52] of the City of Polson Commission. It's a public hearing. Agenda item 6 is the Southern

[3:57] Slope Subdivision, and tonight we have Community Development Director Robert Eddington

[4:03] and City Attorney Dave Mickey.

[4:08] Good evening, uh, commission, members of the public, fellow staff, uh, thank you

[4:13] for being here tonight.

[4:18] I'll begin here quickly with the staff, uh, just a real brief overview of the staff

[4:23] report. For the southern slope major subdivision. OTB Development, represented

[4:31] by Tracy Yost and Park Shera is proposing Southern Slope Subdivision, a major subdivision

[4:38] creating 90 lots in 3 phases within the low density residential zoning district of

[4:44] the city of Polson. Joel Nelson. Geo planned is acting as the applicant's agent.

[4:52] The proposal includes extension of municipal water and sewer, public streets, pedestrian

[4:58] routes, range facilities, and public park to be dedicated to the city and maintained

[5:04] by the landowners association. The 56+ acre property is west of Skyline Drive

[5:12] off of Skyview Lane, and the applicant, um, there's a legal description as well.

[5:19] In the application, you'll see a proposed phasing plan with phase one to be completed

[5:26] in late 2027 to 2028, for two years or so with 41 watts. Phase two is

[5:33] approximately 5 years from preliminary plat with 34 watts and concludes with the

[5:39] final 15 watts approximately 7 years um from now in 2033.

[5:47] There's a, a background of the property history. Um, the property was annexed via

[5:55] Ordinance 617 in February of 2006. There was a previous subdivision, uh, with

[6:03] 49 lots that obtained preliminary plot approval in 2007. And it was proposed with

[6:10] neighboring Skyview subdivision in 2005. Um, that subdivision obtained final plot

[6:18] approval in 2009. This subdivision received several extensions but formally expired

[6:24] in 2017. You'll see an application timeline, a discussion of expedited review.

[6:33] Under changes in state law, um, which the city commission. Adopted in

[6:39] 2025, Southern Slope um allows for expedited review. If the

[6:47] subdivision is subject to a growth policy, municipal zoning, and proposes extension

[6:54] of public water and sewer.

[6:58] Eligibility also requires compliance with adopted zoning subdivision and infrastructure

[7:03] requirements and is exempt from an environmental assessment in the primary subdivision

[7:10] review criteria outlined in Montana code. Pursuant to a Montana Code

[7:17] annotated 7636255 and C, the commission must approve the application unless public

[7:24] comment or other information demonstrates non-compliant. Compliance with adopted

[7:30] zoning, subdivision design standards, and other applicable subdivision requirements.

[7:36] There's a discussion of the growth policy. Um, and phased development, when a proposed

[7:42] subdivision is proposed in phases, the governing body shall review the overall pulmonary

[7:47] plat and phasing plan identifying the lots required improvements, and proposed final

[7:52] plat scheduled for each phase. Each phase must be functional, um, with access to

[7:59] pedestrian facilities, fire protection, water, sewer, etc. Later phases may use improvements

[8:05] completed in earlier phases, but no phase may depend on future construction to function.

[8:10] And there's also discussion of the final lat and construction approvals. Under staff

[8:16] analysis you'll see a discussion of zoning, um, the property is mentioned earlier

[8:23] located in the low density residential zoning district, um, there are certain standards

[8:29] there, um, this proposed division complies with those standards. You'll also see,

[8:36] um. There's an engineer certification in there, uh, a memorandum which

[8:43] addresses hillside development, lot coverage. Runoff, slope stability, and erosion.

[8:52] There's a discussion of blocks and street connections. The development code requires.

[8:58] Consideration of safe circulation and topography and limits block length to 1600

[9:04] ft unless compliance is impractical. The staff reviewed the four proposed lengths

[9:11] which exceed, you'll see those lengths in the report here which exceeds 1600 ft and

[9:16] finds compliance of practical due to the topography um and layout uh within the subdivision.

[9:25] There's a discussion of roads, traffic, and pedestrian access. All lots or parcels

[9:32] within a development shall have safe access to dedicated street or road that complies

[9:37] with the City of Polsen standards for design and construction. Um, there was one

[9:43] amendment to the preliminary plat, so you may see this in a few of the materials.

[9:48] Um, there was one road that needed to be designed to meet the maximum standard of

[9:54] 8% slope. Uh, when a subdivision is anticipated to generate 300 or more average daily

[10:01] trips, then the subdivider shall provide or submit with a preliminary PLAT, a traffic

[10:08] impact study. You'll also see that as well. Um, the application materials include

[10:14] that study estimating 849 daily trips at full development and recommends site, distance

[10:22] and warning sign measures.

[10:26] Included in the proposal is also extension of municipal water and sewer. Along

[10:34] um with a stormwater drainage plan. The proposal includes grinder pumps with

[10:42] a force main along sky view, etc. You'll see the full discussion. There's also a

[10:47] discussion regarding drainage, flood plain, fire protection, um, park dedication.

[10:54] The applicant proposes a park in the southwest corner, uh, approximately 3.9 acres

[11:01] in the lower corner of the subdivision, um, during phase one. The park would be open

[11:07] to the public and maintained by the landowners association. Included with the application

[11:14] includes um some covenants and uh land a homeowners association.

[11:21] Phasing plan and operation. Also included our proposed findings of fact and regulations,

[11:30] as well as recommended conditions of approval. As with these conditions, these are

[11:34] all associated with um regulations that we currently have. So this is just um stating

[11:42] regulations that we already have um in the books. And uh the item was properly

[11:49] noticed. That included two notices in the Lake County Leader for new. Um, public

[11:56] noticing laws and the item was noticed for a minimum of 15 business days as well

[12:04] as, um, landowners within 150 ft were notified via certified mailing. Um, you'll

[12:12] see the certified receipts that were returned. I believe one came in today which

[12:16] is not included in here and there's two that were, uh, um, that came back unable

[12:22] to send, um. So, and, In the application, uh, online, you'll

[12:30] see it's 425 pages PDF so there's a lot of material there, but real brief, there's,

[12:37] um, a preliminary plat and supplemental plat with topographic intervals. There's

[12:43] a phasing plan. There's a discussion of zoning, a park plan. The adjacent um

[12:50] mailing addresses and the property owners that were certified entity comments, um,

[12:57] a title report covenants, preliminary bylaws, construction plans for the roads, drainage

[13:05] and stormwater design report design report for also water main extension sewer main.

[13:11] There was also a geotechnical investigation report. Traffic impact study flood plain

[13:17] and concluding there was also um there's no irrigation rights associated with this

[13:24] so there was additional information there so that concludes the staff presentation.

[13:29] Excellent thank you Mr. Eddington. Do you have the developer here um. Lenience here

[13:36] so yes.

[13:39] I guess that would be me. I don't see many from our team here. But I'm Joel Nelson.

[13:45] I'm from Geoplan, that's my company, the project planner. I'm based out of Folsom

[13:50] area. The owners are Parkhara and Tracy Yost of OTB Development. We got our

[13:58] surveyor here, Jack Duffy. Um, there are 2 engineers on the project that

[14:06] prepared the material. Um, there's, they're from, uh, Evanson Engineering and Consulting.

[14:13] We also have a like a development manager John Looper of Enda Development Services.

[14:20] And then there's additional team members that are indicated in the application. So

[14:27] we are excited to bring this forward to the city of Polsom. Um The subdivision, the

[14:33] Southern Slope subdivision as it is today has been basically a year and a half in

[14:38] the making. But like the staff report says, there was a preliminary approval back

[14:43] in 2007, so really the project is about 2020 years or so in the making. So what

[14:51] we have before you today is proposed 3-phase subdivision that includes 90 single-family

[14:58] residential lots to be plotted over the next approximately 7 years. This is like

[15:04] Rob said, it's somewhat of a new type of subdivision known as an expedited review

[15:10] subdivision. And those types of subdivisions are somewhat unique in that they

[15:17] They allow some benefits of the legislation that's been done over the past 10 years

[15:22] that were intended to ease some of the typical burdens of subdivision review. If

[15:27] a development complies with local policies, regulations, and standards which the

[15:32] subdivision does comply with those. We're not claiming that this is an affordable

[15:38] housing project. Um, but by complying with the new expedited review requirements,

[15:44] the costs and time associated with preparing an environmental assessment are reduced

[15:49] and the focus. Of the review is to meet the city's standards and plans. Uh,

[15:57] typical subdivisions you're looking at mitigation of impact. You're looking at a

[16:01] very impact-based review, but with these expedited review subdivision, that's not

[16:07] the case. The idea is that if it complies with the city's requirements, it should

[16:11] be approved and not subjected to a more subjective review process.

[16:17] So With the Expedited review process and the the phasing with the new

[16:25] phasing allowances used to be you'd have to get a subdivision approval that was good

[16:30] for up to 3 years and you could extend it multiple times.

[16:35] Now these things can go out 20 years, making a project like this more feasible, and

[16:40] this subdivision is expected to take about 7 years to complete.

[16:46] So Subdivision like this provides an opportunity for use to use a review and

[16:54] development tools specifically authorized by the law and of course the city of Polson.

[17:00] There are several practical benefits to both the applicant and the city and the community.

[17:06] Um, it's a more efficient review process. It reduces unnecessary time and expense.

[17:13] But we still make sure it complies with the applicable zoning standards, subdivision

[17:18] requirements, infrastructure standards, and other public health and safety requirements.

[17:24] Um, being a phase development, it's a practical way to construct a larger subdivision

[17:29] like this in a, in a logical sequence. So rather than developing all the infrastructure

[17:35] upfront. This can be done it can proceed in stages as the as the project develops.

[17:43] We'll come back with. The later phases after 5 years. This all It all

[17:50] reduces upfront costs and allows infrastructure investment to better correspond with

[17:55] the the actual pace of development.

[18:00] Um Like I say, it's not an affordable housing project, but reducing those costs does

[18:06] make. For a legitimate benefit being lower, lower cost and making it more pra practical

[18:12] for the property to to be developed and offered for reasonable pricing. But we also,

[18:18] like I say, we ensure the city's requirements are met. It complies with all the long-term,

[18:24] long-range planning items like the growth policy, the zoning that implements the

[18:28] growth policy, etc. Um, it's kind of noteworthy if you're shopping around for a

[18:35] residential lot like this in the city limits. There are about 16 on the multiple

[18:41] listing services. There's more in the in the surrounding area that require. You know,

[18:49] on-site wells, sewer, etc. But there's not much that's considered relatively attainable

[18:56] for housing. These should be relatively attainable lots. And if the city wants to

[19:02] grow and ensure there's there are places for future housing projects like this that

[19:07] are done rightly to succeed through the city's procedures. Uh, we've all gone through

[19:13] the team, we've gone through the staff report recommended conditions. There's a couple

[19:18] of discussion items like street maintenance and the potential provision of a of a

[19:23] bus stop. Uh, there's a condition that states street maintenance alternatives require

[19:28] a decision, and that's not entirely clear, but the proposal is to dedicate the streets

[19:33] to the city. And then the city would take over maintenance or establish a maintenance

[19:39] district which is outlined in city codes, but we do have draft covenants and bylaws

[19:45] that address steep street maintenance, and then that the city rejects that proposal.

[19:51] Regarding a potential potential bus stop, I did talk to the. or the Polson Schools

[19:57] District transportation director Mike Anderson about a year ago and he said there's

[20:02] no, they don't offer bus services within 3 miles of the city. But I think we could

[20:08] probably talk to them again and if necessary get something in writing from them that

[20:12] outlines that's school district policy. Um, again, we should probably discuss more

[20:19] about street maintenance, but other than that, I think the staff report covers it,

[20:24] the conditions of approval cover it. Um, don't see any additional team members here,

[20:30] but we appreciate everyone's time and interest. Look forward to your feedback.

[20:38] And we of course look forward to moving ahead to the next steps. So if there's any

[20:42] questions for me or the team, please don't hesitate. Just thank you, Mr. Nelson.

[20:48] Pull me up. So when would we ask those questions if we have questions for you? We're

[20:54] gonna do our public hearing, then our, um, full meeting tonight, and then you have

[20:58] opportunity for public comment. Sure, thanks. Thank you. Commission, any questions

[21:03] for Mr. Eddington or Mr. Nelson?

[21:07] Yes. Mr. Greer.

[21:16] The proposal is that it connects with Skyline Skyline Drive, which is our Skyline

[21:24] Lane, maybe Skyline Lane, which is already in the adjacent subdivision, correct?

[21:30] Yes. And is there a plan to basically cut off having to go

[21:37] the entire way through that subdivision in order to access the new subdivision through

[21:45] Skyline Lane because as it right now you have to drive all the way through basically

[21:51] to get there. Yeah, it's my understanding that this would allow through traffic from

[21:57] a continuation how it was originally intended um when they constructed it right now

[22:04] it's a dirt road and you can go through there but you know this would uh it's my

[22:10] understanding during phase one that would be constructed to city standards.

[22:16] Just the new part, uh, the new part, yes, OK, and there's no, no plan to cut

[22:23] off the entire loop of Skyline Lane that's in the adjacent. Subdivision to make

[22:32] access to Mission View Drive and Skyline Drive. Yeah, it would be dedicated to the

[22:38] public and so my understanding there would be full public access, um, going through

[22:43] from start to finish both directions.

[22:48] And Skyline Drive is a city street. We have jurisdiction over any signs, traffic

[22:54] control that would need to be added to accommodate new traffic, correct. So we don't

[23:01] have to get approval from the state of Montana or from Lake County to do that. That

[23:07] is correct. Uh, the city street extends to a parcel of the canal. Just lie back.

[23:18] I was And and looking at Mr. Mason's Letter

[23:26] on water and sewer. I I thought that there was a whole lot of room for denying capacity

[23:33] at a later point, is that

[23:37] I know with our sewer lines, with our sewer system, with other areas, we've run into

[23:44] uh service line inadequacies that require upsizing in order to accommodate new development.

[23:50] Is that a possibility with this sewer line? Um, it will need to go through. We're

[23:55] currently in the process of updating our sewer. Professional, the PER, that sewer

[24:02] report with capacity, etc. So, we're willing to serve the subdivision, but they'll

[24:07] need to demonstrate that there's adequate, adequate capacity, including any pinch

[24:11] points or restrictions that may need to be updated. That will all be identified or

[24:17] clarified during the engineering portion, The review and so that may mean that we

[24:23] that as a condition of approving final plants there may be a requirement that sewer

[24:28] mains be increased in order to accommodate the additional flow. Yes, if that's determined

[24:34] during the engineering review. OK, and it's going to be a while before that information

[24:38] is known and available. Um, uh, I know we're working on the sewer PER

[24:46] and that the goal is by the end of this year on that portion of it, um, and that's

[24:53] with HDR engineering in regards to the, uh, the engineering review timeline. I don't

[25:00] immediately have that in front of me, how long that's gonna take those, but, um,

[25:04] I would assume we would have an answer by. Uh, by their proposed timeline here of,

[25:10] um, late 2027, early 2028, so, and Would this

[25:18] sewer be transmitted through, we, we, we currently have an inadequate line main down

[25:24] by 93 along the lake, correct? Uh. That is my understanding based on

[25:31] the 20 2019 report. Um, it, it's adequate, but it would need to

[25:39] be upsized for a significant additional flow. OK. And would this sewer be routed

[25:47] through that line, uh, a small portion of it. OK. So there probably is going to need

[25:53] to be upsizing in order to accommodate this that I would need to verify with engineering.

[25:58] OK, so and water we currently have some um Water

[26:05] uncertainties based on the fact that one of our wells is pumping sand and also based

[26:12] upon the fact that we have um a challenge to some of our dormant water rights

[26:20] through a reservoir, Pilroyan Reservoir, correct? Um, it's my understanding that

[26:25] we have sufficient, uh, water supply. Now, there is one of the wells, um, that you

[26:31] are correct that is pumping sand that's Currently not producing, but um we have placed

[26:37] another well online, well 8, which is a significant um producing well. There's also

[26:45] some other changes in technology. I noticed there was an outage a number of years

[26:50] ago and that some of those challenges have been due to aging infrastructure and our

[26:56] ability to detect those. Um, we have been. Upgrading our ability to monitor our current

[27:03] water mains, and I actually had that discussion with the public works director. Um,

[27:07] you can pull up on the phone now and see how the, the water mains are functioning,

[27:12] etc. and so we're better able to address those before, um, those outages come. So,

[27:19] so it's not a function so much of, um, the supply, but rather the infrastructure

[27:25] that's aging and may need maintenance. OK, and, and. Just like the sewer, it's probably

[27:30] subject to determination at a later point as to whether there's going to be capacity

[27:36] with current infrastructure to supply without further upgrades. Yes, that would be,

[27:42] uh, subject to HDR Engineering, our city engineers review, and developers responsible

[27:49] for upgrades. Correct? That is correct. OK.

[27:58] So, so this is Carolyn, um, I have those same general, I have those questions about

[28:03] water and sewer, but then I have those same general questions about stormwater because

[28:09] that.

[28:12] That developments on the far side of the moraine from where our stormwater on this

[28:17] side of the moraine is going, and it's, it looks to me. Like it's going right into

[28:23] the hell roaring ditch. Which then is going right into Pablo Reservoir.

[28:30] So, um, and there's something in the plants, I, and I don't mean to be disregard

[28:37] disrespectful when I say something in the plants. In the plants they're, um. Is

[28:44] a, a plan to have a catch basin, a retaining pond, whatever you wanna call it, but

[28:52] that is still gonna leak. I mean, that's what stormwater does is leak and um it is

[28:58] a glacial moraine. It has pretty good perk. So where is that stormwater gonna go?

[29:04] Um. I, what I can tell you is that there is a design report from the engineer. There's

[29:10] conveyance, um, structure as well as, um, some retention ponds as to what degree

[29:17] of those retention ponds, whether that's designed to infiltrate, um, as some are,

[29:25] or it's designed to evapotranspirate, um, sitting there, um, I did not thoroughly

[29:31] read those because that's subject to engineering review, um, so. That would ultimately

[29:36] be a question for HDR engineering, um, but also the, um, both the, the water

[29:43] wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste which is typically a, a moot point there

[29:52] because municipalities are provided. Um, there's service providers, um, all those

[29:59] are subject to DEQ review. So, so, and part of my concern on that, oh, I lost my

[30:06] train of thought when I say conveyance, like conveyance, conveyance meaning. Getting

[30:13] water from where it's collected on the water in the ditch to um there's some piping

[30:21] structure underground from the various parts of the subdivision, some piping that

[30:26] go to um their retention ponds. Mhm.

[30:33] And those have to comply with the state DEQ regulations. Yeah, yeah, uh, there's

[30:39] standards in our city of Polson stands for design and construction as well as the,

[30:45] uh, Montana Department of Environmental Quality. So typically, a review like this

[30:50] would go first to our city engineers, review our specific standards, and then they

[30:54] would go on to. DEQ, the city engineers would provide a comment letter, what needs

[31:00] to be addressed or their approval, and then it goes on with DEQ and, and that review

[31:05] is gonna take place in steps as more detailed construction plans are provided, correct?

[31:11] Correct. OK. I, I have just one more clarification, and I think this might be for

[31:17] um Chief Simpson and for Laura, but the people who are here, many of them have a

[31:23] piece of paper in their hands. I'm guessing that some of them wanna make public comment,

[31:28] but that you would like that to happen during the meeting, is that correct, Laura?

[31:32] I have one minute left. In this public hearing, so that'll have to be continued.

[31:36] I just wanted to make sure that they knew they were gonna get a chance to talk or

[31:39] not.

[31:41] All right, so that's thanks for pointing that out, Carolyn. Um, 6 o'clock, so we're

[31:46] gonna close this public hearing. Don't take a vote for. Mhm. OK, just give me a minute.

[31:52] Would you want me to make a motion just clarification that. They're resuming the

[31:57] public comment during the regular mission meeting, which you have a right to public

[32:01] comment there. We're not, nobody not letting you not speak. It's just the other meetings

[32:06] will start at 6, so they're just trying to keep it in time. Thank you, Mr. Mickey.

[32:10] All right, I, I moved that we closed public hearing. 2nd, 2nd motion from uh Pardini.

[32:17] 2nd from reared commissioners all in favor. Say hi. Hi. All right. Public hearing

[32:22] is closed, but we're moving on to our city commission. Give me a minute. Give me

[32:27] a minute. 1 minute. Get a breather. I

City Commission Public Hearing

Agenda

Transcript