[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