McNett Flats Annexation & Subdivision

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

UPDATE: On March 8, 2021, Missoula City Council voted 11-0 to annex Tract 8A of Certificate of Survey No. 6109, apply B2-2 Community Business zoning, and grant preliminary approval to the Mcnett Flats Subdivision subject to 26 conditions of approval. This case is now closed for comment.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

An application is under review for the annexation and subdivision of approximately 20 acres. If approved, the property will be annexed into city limits and subdivided into 7 lots. The property is bisected by George Elmer Drive and is north of the 44 Ranch and Flynn Ranch Subdivisions. The current Missoula

UPDATE: On March 8, 2021, Missoula City Council voted 11-0 to annex Tract 8A of Certificate of Survey No. 6109, apply B2-2 Community Business zoning, and grant preliminary approval to the Mcnett Flats Subdivision subject to 26 conditions of approval. This case is now closed for comment.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

An application is under review for the annexation and subdivision of approximately 20 acres. If approved, the property will be annexed into city limits and subdivided into 7 lots. The property is bisected by George Elmer Drive and is north of the 44 Ranch and Flynn Ranch Subdivisions. The current Missoula County zoning is CRR1 Residential. The proposed zoning upon annexation is B2-2 Community Business which allows a combination of residential and commercial uses.

This project is within the Mullan BUILD Grant project area for infrastructure improvements, and is within the focus area of the Mullan Area Master Plan.

The annexation request and the subdivision request are separate processes but are considered at the same time.


PROJECT APPLICATION LINKS:

The application, prelim­inary plat, and other materials can be viewed here.


PROJECT TIMELINE:

The Planning Board public hearing is scheduled for February 2, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.

The Land Use and Planning Committee informational meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2021 (time TBD)

The City Council public hearing is scheduled for February 22, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., with City Council final consideration scheduled for March 1, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.

All meetings will be held virtually via Zoom, with more information to be posted here: https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/1149/AgendasWebcastsMinutes


PROJECT COMMENT DEADLINE:

Public comment will be taken by City Council until the public hearings are closed. Provide your comment by January 21st to be included in the staff report provided to the Planning Board. Your comments may be considered by the Planning Board and City Council in their decision to approve or deny this request.


PROJECT PLANNER:

The project planners are Dave DeGrandpre (degrandpred@ci.missoula.mt.us; 406-529-0709), and Emily Gluckin (gluckine@ci.missoula.mt.us; 406-552-3091).

Consultation has concluded

Submit public comment or ask a question. If submitting public comment, your comment will be sent to the case planners and made available for City Council to view. If submitting a question, a case planner will get back to you with answers as soon as possible. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Can you post the entire 11th hour proposal city council received in connection and was the subject of the Missoula Land Use and Planning Committee? Be advised the video made of the meeting tends to freeze up.

    John Hancock asked about 3 years ago

    The proposal has been uploaded to the escribe record for this project. Please follow the link to review the record: https://pub-missoula.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=fe435ec7-4f29-40cb-89ca-afc9ab49d1a6&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=39&Tab=attachments

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    At the March 3, 2021 Missoula Land Use and Planning meeting a slide was presented that shows the Tipperary Trail. Originally, the plan called for the trail to be built by the developer from George Elmer to its eastern boundary. In the slide show yesterday there is some indication that now the trail is being build further west. Is that part of the Tipperary Trail and as such eligible for a tax credit?

    John Hancock asked about 3 years ago

    Hi John, City Staff has contacted you regarding this question. Please let us know if you need additional information. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    The McNett Flats does not fit into a world of climate change. It's time Missoula government embrace this fact. CRR1 should be the maximal concentration of housing. When considering "flexible" zoning, then "flexible" timing as to when approval takes place should be in place, thereby giving the developer time to come up with a concise plan that Missoulians can look at the know exactly how the development will look and play out when finished. The developers want flexibilty. If they need flexibility, then the community at large should be able to visualize exactly what the developers have in mind. With climate change, our government must consider transportation, i.e. easy access to electric buses and electrical connectors for EV's in each garage. Solar power on each building or grids in open spaces supplying a certain percentage of clean power to the development. That's the least we can ask of those overcharging the public for housing in a poorly-paid community. Yes, realtor and developer profits will be reduced, but the community and development will be a much nicer place to live. And that should be Missoula's goal. Open space should not be bargained for in a project with money. It's so easy for developers to build an extra building, sell it, and then pay our government cashier to not have open space. What is required is required. No bargaining there. Especially when the city is willing to offer grants to big developers. A minimum of open space on each new development should be decided by our representatives before any plans made. All in all open space reaps rewards for all involved. Buffer zones quiet neighborhoods of traffic sounds, noise, and winds. They provide protection to wildlife, and nature, access to children to learn about life and nature. They also suck up excess water and filter it before leaving the area and into the water table or creeks and rivers. Open space, in this area and in all new development, should abound with considerations given to parks for children, dog walking, bike transportation trails, and wildlife corridors for mammals, birds and riparian habitat. Protection and safe passage and food sources should be required in any new development for the wildlife the developers and city choose to displace. If three story apartments are constructed, all parking for each unit should be off street, out of view, and surrounded by green space. If three story apartments are included, site line for existing houses in existing areas should be considered and dealt with amicably. Traffic minimized, again, by the city supplying mass transportation. Any expense for major infrastructure necessary because of the new development should be put into SID's with the new area paying for them. Roundabouts seems to cost a great deal. What is the comparison with simply installing lights at main thoroughfares? If an area pays it own way, the city then can concentrate on older area infrastructure. If what I've read is correct, ten years has passed since the development planning started. That is a lifetime in this day and age. So back to the drawing board and place your concentration on conservation in the McNett Flat project. Missoula government has not done a very good job in planning and development for future growth in our valley. It's all been lip service. We are in serious trouble climate wise. Every decision we make as a community should be carefully assessed. Rubber stamping whatever one wants just doesn't fly any longer in the scheme of Missoula life. Be mindful and careful of what you allow as citizen representatives.

    Rattlerjd asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment has been sent to the case planner.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    In a Missoula Current article 02/18 it said only 6 protest petitions have been verified. How do adjacent landowners know if their petition has been verified? It would be nice if this process was transparent. I have no idea if my petition was "verified" or not and my lot is right next to this proposed development

    sperryb asked about 3 years ago

    A protest petition is considered verified when it is received from a property within 150’ feet of the parcel with the proposed zoning change, and when each owner of the property provides a signature on the petition. Staff has been contacting landowners if corrections are required to make their petitions valid. Please contact Emily at gluckine@ci.missoula.mt.us if you have questions about your petition.

    Thank you

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Can you furnish the complete statement made by a spokesperson for Missoula Airport since comments you forward to the Missoula City Council are not readily available to the public? The airport is an important contributor to this subdivision discussion.

    John Hancock asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you John. Dave DeGrandpre sent you a copy of the document. Others who would like to view the statement from the Missoula Airport may request the document from Dave and DeGrandpreD@ci.missoula.mt.us. 

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Has Emily received all of the petitions from the folks who live within 150' of Mcnett? None of us want this land changed from residential to B2-2.

    Susan Flanagin asked about 3 years ago

    Hi Susan,

    Yes, the petitions have been received by the case planner and City Council. 

    Thank you,

    Cassie Tripard, Associate Planner

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    We understand the need for more housing and we know this land will be developed. This area has already two large residential developments approved. There is a considerable difference between them and McNett Flats. The developer's plan to build three-story apartments would negatively affect this area. The added traffic alone would increase commute times, air quality, and noise. We understand that McNett Flats is a huge financial undertaking for the developer and he would like to make as much money as possible. All too often, profits trump quality of life. We know that our neighborhood is small and our voices and concerns may be heard but not truly considered. Let's work together and do it right. Jolyn Ortega and Mark Wiggins

    JO asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment has been sent to the case planner and will be uploaded for review by City Council.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Why are our officials so eager to allow the variances Mcnett is requesting at tonight's planning board meeting?? One variance really infringes on the residents who already live on Old Ranch Road. Because Flynn Ranch attracts some older folks who are not tech savvy, most have not heard about tonight's meeting, nor do they know how to participate in Zoom meetings. In our rush to provide more housing, the city is not listening to the residents who already live nearby. We want the Mcnett land to remain residential!

    Susan Flanagin asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment has been sent to the case planner and will be uploaded for review by City Council.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    Being a resident of 44 Ranch Estates I have quite a few concerns about this proposed subdivision. My first concern is that this proposal goes against what Dover, Kohl and Partners suggested for the Mullan Area Plan. There were a couple of meetings I attended where Jason King from Dover Kohl was specifically asked if there would be multi story commercial buildings built next to existing homes. His exact words were they would plan for "like to like" meaning if there is existing housing they would plan for the same next to them and get bigger as it moves out. This proposal is for seven commercial lots and it is no secret there are plans for multi story apartment buildings that will be right next to existing single story homes. The other big concern with this is parking. George Elmer will run right through the middle of this subdivision and be a thru street to Broadway and England Blvd someday. I don't believe the funding has been secured for this so for now this will be adding approx 3800 vehicle trips per day to George Elmer and a two lane Mullan Road. This does not account for the traffic that Remington Flats and Herons Landing will produce. If you look at past traffic studies for Mullan Rd it is near capacity about 1.5 miles to the East of George Elmer. Once George Elmer is a thru street the N Reserve traffic will detour thru England onto George Elmer and be directed right through the middle of the apartment buildings. This is an accident waiting to happen. I believe large commercial developments would be better suited closer to Broadway as it is a four lane road that can handle twice the amount of traffic as Mullan Rd.  Thank you for your time, Brent Sperry

    sperryb asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment has been sent to the case planner and will be uploaded for review by City Council.

  • Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

    My wife and I bought our house in April of 2019 here in 44 Ranch. We love the neighborhood and our house backs up the the open space and rolling hills to the north. We are not opposed to anyone developing the land into a single housing community as ours is. We are overly opposed to having apartment buildings built that will not only lower our property value, but also block out beautiful view. We chose to buy our house here to enjoy the view while sitting in our back yard. Having a 3 to 4 story apartment building behind us would of course annihilate this option. I understand there will be a 60’ open space barrier between McNett Flats and 44 Ranch, but. I truly don’t want people having the opportunity of looking into my backyard or bedroom windows. On another note building affordable apartment housing will create a chance of crime in the area. We have a low crime rate out here and as all my neighbors do. We feel safe. David Boone 44 Ranch Residence.

    Boone asked about 3 years ago

    Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment has been sent to the case planner and will be uploaded for review by City Council.