River View Subdivision and Rezoning

Consultation has concluded

UPDATE: On March 14, 2022, Missoula City Council voted to adopt an ordinance to rezone the subject property to RT5.4 and to grant preliminary plat approval of the River View Subdivision. This case is now closed for comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

An application is under review for a subdivision and rezoning of the property located at 1923 River Road, legally described as the West half of Lot 9 in Cobban and Dinsmore’s Orchard Homes #2, located in Section 20, Township 13 North, Range 19 West, P.M.M. If approved, the property will be subdivided into 19 lots and rezoned from RT10 ResidentialContinue reading

UPDATE: On March 14, 2022, Missoula City Council voted to adopt an ordinance to rezone the subject property to RT5.4 and to grant preliminary plat approval of the River View Subdivision. This case is now closed for comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Both the existing and proposed zoning districts allow for detached houses, lot line houses, two-unit townhouses, and two-unit houses (i.e. duplex), residential building. The applicant makes this request in anticipation of nineteen (19) new detached houses.

City Council has the authority to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request.

The subject property is located in River Road Neighborhood Council and City Council Ward number 6.

PROJECT APPLICATION LINKS:

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

PROJECT TIMELINE:

City Council: February 28^th, 2022 at 6:00pm – First reading of the ordinance and referral to Land Use and Planning Committee

Planning Board: February 15^th, 2022 at 6:00pm – Public hearing

Land Use and Planning Committee: March 2^nd, 2022 (Time TBD) Pre-public hearing informational only meeting

City Council: March 14^th, 2022 at 6:00pm – City Council public hearing and Final Consideration

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

PROJECT COMMENT DEADLINE:

Public comment will be taken by City Council until the public hearings are closed. Comments can be submitted through Engage Missoula, via email to the planner noted below, by mailing in a letter to the City of Missoula office at 435 Ryman Street, Missoula, MT 59802, or during the public meetings. Provide your comment by Thursday, February 3^rd, 2022 to be included in the staff report provided to Planning Board and City Council. Your comments may be considered by City Council in their decision to approve or deny this request.

PROJECT PLANNER:

The project planner is Alex Eidam. She can be reached at (406) 552-6052 or eidama@ci.missoula.mt.us.

Questions

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 Very disappointed with the 10-2 vote on this ill-advised housing project. Thank you, Kristen Jordan, for your NO vote. Had I been notified in time to give my input, I would have been adamantly against it, but, even though my neighbors received notification, I did not. And, as usual, most of the councilpersons did not listen to the people who will be directly negatively affected by this development, and who presented you with well thought-out concerns, or you simply don't care. Again, very disappointed that you caved in favor of the developer and not the wishes of the people. on Facebook Share Very disappointed with the 10-2 vote on this ill-advised housing project. Thank you, Kristen Jordan, for your NO vote. Had I been notified in time to give my input, I would have been adamantly against it, but, even though my neighbors received notification, I did not. And, as usual, most of the councilpersons did not listen to the people who will be directly negatively affected by this development, and who presented you with well thought-out concerns, or you simply don't care. Again, very disappointed that you caved in favor of the developer and not the wishes of the people. on Twitter Share Very disappointed with the 10-2 vote on this ill-advised housing project. Thank you, Kristen Jordan, for your NO vote. Had I been notified in time to give my input, I would have been adamantly against it, but, even though my neighbors received notification, I did not. And, as usual, most of the councilpersons did not listen to the people who will be directly negatively affected by this development, and who presented you with well thought-out concerns, or you simply don't care. Again, very disappointed that you caved in favor of the developer and not the wishes of the people. on Linkedin Email Very disappointed with the 10-2 vote on this ill-advised housing project. Thank you, Kristen Jordan, for your NO vote. Had I been notified in time to give my input, I would have been adamantly against it, but, even though my neighbors received notification, I did not. And, as usual, most of the councilpersons did not listen to the people who will be directly negatively affected by this development, and who presented you with well thought-out concerns, or you simply don't care. Again, very disappointed that you caved in favor of the developer and not the wishes of the people. link

Very disappointed with the 10-2 vote on this ill-advised housing project. Thank you, Kristen Jordan, for your NO vote. Had I been notified in time to give my input, I would have been adamantly against it, but, even though my neighbors received notification, I did not. And, as usual, most of the councilpersons did not listen to the people who will be directly negatively affected by this development, and who presented you with well thought-out concerns, or you simply don't care. Again, very disappointed that you caved in favor of the developer and not the wishes of the people.

Jeanette101 asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. The hearing on this item has closed; however, your comment will still be added to the record for City Council to view.
Share We are residents of Carter Ct. and new proposed River View subdivision will go directly behind our backyard. We are concerned about the rezoning of project from 8 units to 19 units. This subdivision will impact area in regard to traffic, roads, congestion to our neighborhood. I’ve talked to Matt Ragsdale and Brian Hensel from Missoula Rd. Dept. They agreed Curtis and River Rd. need to be done. Brian told me to do whole project would need funding and will take years. He did see paving of River Rd. Is being considered but budget for it will take time. I asked about getting grants and infrastructure money available to help our roads. He kept saying no money in road budget and couldn’t give me a timeline to upgrade River Rd. We also want to emphasize nobody on Carter Ct. or neighbors on River Rd. are against this project. But would like fewer units, consider traffic impact has on roads, and we would like a traffic plan developed to budgeted and considered while project is being developed. River Rd. Is only access to streets on east side driving from Curtis to Russell. The traffic has increased in this with new subdivisions in area and new bridge On Russell. Perhaps you could answer more of questions on upgrading River Rd. sooner and your plans for traffic in our area. Thanks for listening to our concerns and we have contacted our area City Council members too. River Rd. neighborhood council hasn’t replied to our emails. Neighbors in area especially River Rd. All agree with us on traffic and road improvement need to be discussed before development is approved for rezoning. We still are not sure about all plans of developer for the final design for housing which is a big question to all of us. We like our area and hope developers and City Council will listen to the importance of rezoning for fewer units, increased traffic, and road upgrades that need to be done to provide a safe neighborhood for all of us. Katherine and Russell Mellen on Facebook Share We are residents of Carter Ct. and new proposed River View subdivision will go directly behind our backyard. We are concerned about the rezoning of project from 8 units to 19 units. This subdivision will impact area in regard to traffic, roads, congestion to our neighborhood. I’ve talked to Matt Ragsdale and Brian Hensel from Missoula Rd. Dept. They agreed Curtis and River Rd. need to be done. Brian told me to do whole project would need funding and will take years. He did see paving of River Rd. Is being considered but budget for it will take time. I asked about getting grants and infrastructure money available to help our roads. He kept saying no money in road budget and couldn’t give me a timeline to upgrade River Rd. We also want to emphasize nobody on Carter Ct. or neighbors on River Rd. are against this project. But would like fewer units, consider traffic impact has on roads, and we would like a traffic plan developed to budgeted and considered while project is being developed. River Rd. Is only access to streets on east side driving from Curtis to Russell. The traffic has increased in this with new subdivisions in area and new bridge On Russell. Perhaps you could answer more of questions on upgrading River Rd. sooner and your plans for traffic in our area. Thanks for listening to our concerns and we have contacted our area City Council members too. River Rd. neighborhood council hasn’t replied to our emails. Neighbors in area especially River Rd. All agree with us on traffic and road improvement need to be discussed before development is approved for rezoning. We still are not sure about all plans of developer for the final design for housing which is a big question to all of us. We like our area and hope developers and City Council will listen to the importance of rezoning for fewer units, increased traffic, and road upgrades that need to be done to provide a safe neighborhood for all of us. Katherine and Russell Mellen on Twitter Share We are residents of Carter Ct. and new proposed River View subdivision will go directly behind our backyard. We are concerned about the rezoning of project from 8 units to 19 units. This subdivision will impact area in regard to traffic, roads, congestion to our neighborhood. I’ve talked to Matt Ragsdale and Brian Hensel from Missoula Rd. Dept. They agreed Curtis and River Rd. need to be done. Brian told me to do whole project would need funding and will take years. He did see paving of River Rd. Is being considered but budget for it will take time. I asked about getting grants and infrastructure money available to help our roads. He kept saying no money in road budget and couldn’t give me a timeline to upgrade River Rd. We also want to emphasize nobody on Carter Ct. or neighbors on River Rd. are against this project. But would like fewer units, consider traffic impact has on roads, and we would like a traffic plan developed to budgeted and considered while project is being developed. River Rd. Is only access to streets on east side driving from Curtis to Russell. The traffic has increased in this with new subdivisions in area and new bridge On Russell. Perhaps you could answer more of questions on upgrading River Rd. sooner and your plans for traffic in our area. Thanks for listening to our concerns and we have contacted our area City Council members too. River Rd. neighborhood council hasn’t replied to our emails. Neighbors in area especially River Rd. All agree with us on traffic and road improvement need to be discussed before development is approved for rezoning. We still are not sure about all plans of developer for the final design for housing which is a big question to all of us. We like our area and hope developers and City Council will listen to the importance of rezoning for fewer units, increased traffic, and road upgrades that need to be done to provide a safe neighborhood for all of us. Katherine and Russell Mellen on Linkedin Email We are residents of Carter Ct. and new proposed River View subdivision will go directly behind our backyard. We are concerned about the rezoning of project from 8 units to 19 units. This subdivision will impact area in regard to traffic, roads, congestion to our neighborhood. I’ve talked to Matt Ragsdale and Brian Hensel from Missoula Rd. Dept. They agreed Curtis and River Rd. need to be done. Brian told me to do whole project would need funding and will take years. He did see paving of River Rd. Is being considered but budget for it will take time. I asked about getting grants and infrastructure money available to help our roads. He kept saying no money in road budget and couldn’t give me a timeline to upgrade River Rd. We also want to emphasize nobody on Carter Ct. or neighbors on River Rd. are against this project. But would like fewer units, consider traffic impact has on roads, and we would like a traffic plan developed to budgeted and considered while project is being developed. River Rd. Is only access to streets on east side driving from Curtis to Russell. The traffic has increased in this with new subdivisions in area and new bridge On Russell. Perhaps you could answer more of questions on upgrading River Rd. sooner and your plans for traffic in our area. Thanks for listening to our concerns and we have contacted our area City Council members too. River Rd. neighborhood council hasn’t replied to our emails. Neighbors in area especially River Rd. All agree with us on traffic and road improvement need to be discussed before development is approved for rezoning. We still are not sure about all plans of developer for the final design for housing which is a big question to all of us. We like our area and hope developers and City Council will listen to the importance of rezoning for fewer units, increased traffic, and road upgrades that need to be done to provide a safe neighborhood for all of us. Katherine and Russell Mellen link

We are residents of Carter Ct. and new proposed River View subdivision will go directly behind our backyard. We are concerned about the rezoning of project from 8 units to 19 units. This subdivision will impact area in regard to traffic, roads, congestion to our neighborhood. I’ve talked to Matt Ragsdale and Brian Hensel from Missoula Rd. Dept. They agreed Curtis and River Rd. need to be done. Brian told me to do whole project would need funding and will take years. He did see paving of River Rd. Is being considered but budget for it will take time. I asked about getting grants and infrastructure money available to help our roads. He kept saying no money in road budget and couldn’t give me a timeline to upgrade River Rd. We also want to emphasize nobody on Carter Ct. or neighbors on River Rd. are against this project. But would like fewer units, consider traffic impact has on roads, and we would like a traffic plan developed to budgeted and considered while project is being developed. River Rd. Is only access to streets on east side driving from Curtis to Russell. The traffic has increased in this with new subdivisions in area and new bridge On Russell. Perhaps you could answer more of questions on upgrading River Rd. sooner and your plans for traffic in our area. Thanks for listening to our concerns and we have contacted our area City Council members too. River Rd. neighborhood council hasn’t replied to our emails. Neighbors in area especially River Rd. All agree with us on traffic and road improvement need to be discussed before development is approved for rezoning. We still are not sure about all plans of developer for the final design for housing which is a big question to all of us. We like our area and hope developers and City Council will listen to the importance of rezoning for fewer units, increased traffic, and road upgrades that need to be done to provide a safe neighborhood for all of us. Katherine and Russell Mellen

Kathy and Pat asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment will be sent to City Council for review.
Share 19 homes is not near enough. Since all you're hearing from is whiny NIMBYs, I'll tell you want a poor person wants. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. Make it mixed use development, with first floor small businesses and floors 2-5 apartments. Then make sure the busses get there with 15 minute service. That means less car dependence, less cars needing parking, more room for humans. It's also great for us poor people who hate having the strangling financial weight of a car. After paying for the car itself, you have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas, and a place to park it. I don't know about you, but that's 5 thousand dollars a year that I'd really prefer to keep. You guys can do better than 19 homes. Make it 76 with decent public transit, a corner grocery store, and then we're talking. on Facebook Share 19 homes is not near enough. Since all you're hearing from is whiny NIMBYs, I'll tell you want a poor person wants. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. Make it mixed use development, with first floor small businesses and floors 2-5 apartments. Then make sure the busses get there with 15 minute service. That means less car dependence, less cars needing parking, more room for humans. It's also great for us poor people who hate having the strangling financial weight of a car. After paying for the car itself, you have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas, and a place to park it. I don't know about you, but that's 5 thousand dollars a year that I'd really prefer to keep. You guys can do better than 19 homes. Make it 76 with decent public transit, a corner grocery store, and then we're talking. on Twitter Share 19 homes is not near enough. Since all you're hearing from is whiny NIMBYs, I'll tell you want a poor person wants. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. Make it mixed use development, with first floor small businesses and floors 2-5 apartments. Then make sure the busses get there with 15 minute service. That means less car dependence, less cars needing parking, more room for humans. It's also great for us poor people who hate having the strangling financial weight of a car. After paying for the car itself, you have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas, and a place to park it. I don't know about you, but that's 5 thousand dollars a year that I'd really prefer to keep. You guys can do better than 19 homes. Make it 76 with decent public transit, a corner grocery store, and then we're talking. on Linkedin Email 19 homes is not near enough. Since all you're hearing from is whiny NIMBYs, I'll tell you want a poor person wants. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. Make it mixed use development, with first floor small businesses and floors 2-5 apartments. Then make sure the busses get there with 15 minute service. That means less car dependence, less cars needing parking, more room for humans. It's also great for us poor people who hate having the strangling financial weight of a car. After paying for the car itself, you have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas, and a place to park it. I don't know about you, but that's 5 thousand dollars a year that I'd really prefer to keep. You guys can do better than 19 homes. Make it 76 with decent public transit, a corner grocery store, and then we're talking. link

19 homes is not near enough. Since all you're hearing from is whiny NIMBYs, I'll tell you want a poor person wants. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. Make it mixed use development, with first floor small businesses and floors 2-5 apartments. Then make sure the busses get there with 15 minute service. That means less car dependence, less cars needing parking, more room for humans. It's also great for us poor people who hate having the strangling financial weight of a car. After paying for the car itself, you have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas, and a place to park it. I don't know about you, but that's 5 thousand dollars a year that I'd really prefer to keep. You guys can do better than 19 homes. Make it 76 with decent public transit, a corner grocery store, and then we're talking.

Fiona from Ward 6 asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment will be sent to City Council for review.
Share I am Nancy low. I live at 619 Carter Ct, Missoula MT 59801. Please read letter by jo neck because it covers all area. We are a 55 and older wonderful community. I was told when I bought my house that the field behind me was would probably be developed but we were the last high density housing project allowed. I would add only one comment to jo beck’s letter. None of these high density developments are in rattlesnake or grant creek. Is that because the rich people live there and we are considered not as good? We are a retired community with part of our retirement invested in our home. This proposal will severely devalue my house. We need a lot of housing in Missoula but please don’t let greed by developers influence your decision. Nancy low on Facebook Share I am Nancy low. I live at 619 Carter Ct, Missoula MT 59801. Please read letter by jo neck because it covers all area. We are a 55 and older wonderful community. I was told when I bought my house that the field behind me was would probably be developed but we were the last high density housing project allowed. I would add only one comment to jo beck’s letter. None of these high density developments are in rattlesnake or grant creek. Is that because the rich people live there and we are considered not as good? We are a retired community with part of our retirement invested in our home. This proposal will severely devalue my house. We need a lot of housing in Missoula but please don’t let greed by developers influence your decision. Nancy low on Twitter Share I am Nancy low. I live at 619 Carter Ct, Missoula MT 59801. Please read letter by jo neck because it covers all area. We are a 55 and older wonderful community. I was told when I bought my house that the field behind me was would probably be developed but we were the last high density housing project allowed. I would add only one comment to jo beck’s letter. None of these high density developments are in rattlesnake or grant creek. Is that because the rich people live there and we are considered not as good? We are a retired community with part of our retirement invested in our home. This proposal will severely devalue my house. We need a lot of housing in Missoula but please don’t let greed by developers influence your decision. Nancy low on Linkedin Email I am Nancy low. I live at 619 Carter Ct, Missoula MT 59801. Please read letter by jo neck because it covers all area. We are a 55 and older wonderful community. I was told when I bought my house that the field behind me was would probably be developed but we were the last high density housing project allowed. I would add only one comment to jo beck’s letter. None of these high density developments are in rattlesnake or grant creek. Is that because the rich people live there and we are considered not as good? We are a retired community with part of our retirement invested in our home. This proposal will severely devalue my house. We need a lot of housing in Missoula but please don’t let greed by developers influence your decision. Nancy low link

I am Nancy low. I live at 619 Carter Ct, Missoula MT 59801. Please read letter by jo neck because it covers all area. We are a 55 and older wonderful community. I was told when I bought my house that the field behind me was would probably be developed but we were the last high density housing project allowed. I would add only one comment to jo beck’s letter. None of these high density developments are in rattlesnake or grant creek. Is that because the rich people live there and we are considered not as good? We are a retired community with part of our retirement invested in our home. This proposal will severely devalue my house. We need a lot of housing in Missoula but please don’t let greed by developers influence your decision. Nancy low

Nancy low asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. You comment will be sent to City Council for review.
Share My name is Jo Beck and I live with my husband at 605 Carter Court. We moved into this neighborhood on Carter Court four years ago because it had a strong Homeowner’s Association and well-enforced covenants in an enjoyable neighborhood tucked off River Road. We were told that this neighborhood was the last high density building development (13 houses) that the city would plan in this area, and it was only approved then for high-density because it was a 55-and-older neighborhood. We all pay monetary yearly dues to keep the common area trees and lawn in good condition. We all have flowers and trees and vegetable gardens and work to make this neighborhood a beautiful place to live in an area of town that has had disjointed planning and some seriously blighted areas. The proposal to rezone this property from approximately 10 homes to 19 adjacent to Carter Court is simply put, an affront to all of us. The meeting held by the developer last summer did not mention rezoning, variances or 19 units or even what type of development they were planning. They said they wanted neighborhood input which we gave in the context of the meeting, but it was very vague with little answers from the developer’s representative as to what was coming so there was little to comment on. We all recognize that this property is attractive to developers, and we all recognize that Missoula has a housing and rental shortage. We would hope this committee would see how ridiculous rezoning from 8-10 homes to 19 townhouses is while also requesting four variances. This acreage is roughly the size of Carter Court, and we are tight with 13 and if you study the map, you can see how small the backyards are for the Carter neighbors abutting this property. We have a cul-de-sac that allows for emergency vehicles and service trucks to turn around as well as an area for road snow to be pushed in the winter as the street gets very narrow when people shovel their sidewalk snow to the curb. This will not be possible with this new proposed development. Our covenances do not allow for street parking except from guests as this street is narrow enough and when we have parking from visitors, it is too narrow for 2 cars to pass one another. This rezoning plans for two-story townhouses that can site the home within 20 feet of the Carter homeowner’s back yard on the east side of the development. The sun will be blocked – which means late thawing in the spring and not enough sun for flowers or a garden in these very small backyards that add to the well-being of our neighbors and to our quality of life. We call Missoula the Garden City – we want our gardens to be preserved. Our covenances do not allow for homeowners’ street parking because we do not have the street width to allow on-side parking and we also do not allow owners to have vehicles that cannot be stored in a garage in order to keep the neighborhood clean of used cars, trailers, motorcylces, etc. – in other words, we work hard to make this an attractive neighborhood that Missoula can be proud of. We would welcome a new neighborhood that Missoula could be proud of. If you allow for 19 homes on the same number of acres, you will probably have two cars to each household – possibly more. Add onto that, trailers, motorcycles, a possible third car and your neighborhood goes to a jammed up mess with little space for safety vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Will Carter Court be the overfill parking lot because a developer decides that 19 homes could be built without adequate parking, garage space, normal sized streets and sidewalks? This is a quality-of-life issue and this new neighborhood could be done well within the parameters of the current zoning. I really want to know - when does a developer’s need outweigh the current residents that will be affected greatly by this poor planning? We are not against this development – we are against poor development. There is one more thing I would like to add to this that cannot be underestimated- and that is the complete lack of adequate infrastructure to support a larger development. The trailer court that is north of Carter Court across River Road lost some parking last summer due to overflow parking in this area causing safety hazards. You can guess where many of the occupants choose to park their vehicles and trailer when parking was reduced due to the hazard – good o’l Carter Court. We had oil draining on the road from leaking trucks and trailers and a traffic jam directly off River Road when homeowners were trying to get around a parked truck while someone else is coming into Carter off River Rd. Imagine if this was an emergency vehicle trying to get through. There are four street (proposal makes five) that all route onto River Road in a very small area. The trailer park has 30 trailers and inadequate parking which overflows to the front of River Road and in front of the proposed development (that will be eliminated with this proposal.) There is also Saulter Drive, Carter Court and Missy Way and this new street. This area where these five streets flow is the narrowest of the entire River Road section from Russell to Reserve. I urge you to drive here and look at how close these feeder streets are to each other onto River Road are and how narrow and how dangerous this will be if we add 19 more households with multiple drivers from each home. I am a walker and hiker. I was thrilled with the new Russell Street bridge and the underpass as well as River Front trail access from River Road. However, walking or riding a bike on River Road to get to the bridge to meet the trail is taking your life in your hands. The road is narrow, poorly maintained, and no shoulder to safely walk or ride on. Cars and trucks speed on this road as it’s a straight-away from Reserve to Russell with no stop signs. Children walking from the bus or riding bikes on this road is dangerous – and an embarrassment to our city. When my grandchildren visit, we have to load up the car and drive the ONE block to LaFray Park because there is no place to walk to get there that is safe as you are right ON TOP of the road! One of the main feeder streets to River Road is Curtis Street. I urge you all to drive down Curtis onto River Road and get a feel for these feeder roads. Curtis doesn’t even have lane lines painted on it - the so-called sidewalk is an extra layer of asphalt shoved up haphazardly onto the side – the asphalt walk is not maintained by the city so if you are walking on it – especially in the winter – beware! This street is also notorious for potholes but you don’t dare go out of your lane to avoid one as there is barely enough room on this road for two cars. I urge you to also drive down Wyoming Street near the Food Bank– another feeder into River Road. This street has parking on both sides as it is a large area of rental units with again, inadequate parking. If you are driving near the Food Bank and a car is coming in the opposite direction, you are lucky to safely drive by or you slow down or stop to let the car pass. While the Mountain Line bus service is .70 miles away, the only way to get there is walking on River Road with speedy drivers and a very small stretch of sidewalk less than a block long on one side of the road until you reach the new bridge. This is a safety hazard that has yet to be addressed and I am guessing will only be addressed when there is an injury or death from a pedestrian. This side of town deserves to have good solid planning that listens to the neighbors who are impacted, that heeds safety issues and provides Missoula with another neighborhood that can be an example of a housing development that works and improves Missoula. This request for rezoning is not that with the inadequate infrastructure and safety issues so apparent. This is a low and middle-income neighborhood, and we would like to be treated as if we are not the “stepchild” for rampant rezoning and the associated problems of safety and poor planning. Good planning for tomorrow starts today and shouldn’t be driven solely by how much housing we can cram into one area regardless of safety or neighborhood infrastructure concerns. We deserve better and so does the city of Missoula. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering our concerns. Jo Beck Carter Court HOA President 605 Carter Court Missoula, MT 59801 on Facebook Share My name is Jo Beck and I live with my husband at 605 Carter Court. We moved into this neighborhood on Carter Court four years ago because it had a strong Homeowner’s Association and well-enforced covenants in an enjoyable neighborhood tucked off River Road. We were told that this neighborhood was the last high density building development (13 houses) that the city would plan in this area, and it was only approved then for high-density because it was a 55-and-older neighborhood. We all pay monetary yearly dues to keep the common area trees and lawn in good condition. We all have flowers and trees and vegetable gardens and work to make this neighborhood a beautiful place to live in an area of town that has had disjointed planning and some seriously blighted areas. The proposal to rezone this property from approximately 10 homes to 19 adjacent to Carter Court is simply put, an affront to all of us. The meeting held by the developer last summer did not mention rezoning, variances or 19 units or even what type of development they were planning. They said they wanted neighborhood input which we gave in the context of the meeting, but it was very vague with little answers from the developer’s representative as to what was coming so there was little to comment on. We all recognize that this property is attractive to developers, and we all recognize that Missoula has a housing and rental shortage. We would hope this committee would see how ridiculous rezoning from 8-10 homes to 19 townhouses is while also requesting four variances. This acreage is roughly the size of Carter Court, and we are tight with 13 and if you study the map, you can see how small the backyards are for the Carter neighbors abutting this property. We have a cul-de-sac that allows for emergency vehicles and service trucks to turn around as well as an area for road snow to be pushed in the winter as the street gets very narrow when people shovel their sidewalk snow to the curb. This will not be possible with this new proposed development. Our covenances do not allow for street parking except from guests as this street is narrow enough and when we have parking from visitors, it is too narrow for 2 cars to pass one another. This rezoning plans for two-story townhouses that can site the home within 20 feet of the Carter homeowner’s back yard on the east side of the development. The sun will be blocked – which means late thawing in the spring and not enough sun for flowers or a garden in these very small backyards that add to the well-being of our neighbors and to our quality of life. We call Missoula the Garden City – we want our gardens to be preserved. Our covenances do not allow for homeowners’ street parking because we do not have the street width to allow on-side parking and we also do not allow owners to have vehicles that cannot be stored in a garage in order to keep the neighborhood clean of used cars, trailers, motorcylces, etc. – in other words, we work hard to make this an attractive neighborhood that Missoula can be proud of. We would welcome a new neighborhood that Missoula could be proud of. If you allow for 19 homes on the same number of acres, you will probably have two cars to each household – possibly more. Add onto that, trailers, motorcycles, a possible third car and your neighborhood goes to a jammed up mess with little space for safety vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Will Carter Court be the overfill parking lot because a developer decides that 19 homes could be built without adequate parking, garage space, normal sized streets and sidewalks? This is a quality-of-life issue and this new neighborhood could be done well within the parameters of the current zoning. I really want to know - when does a developer’s need outweigh the current residents that will be affected greatly by this poor planning? We are not against this development – we are against poor development. There is one more thing I would like to add to this that cannot be underestimated- and that is the complete lack of adequate infrastructure to support a larger development. The trailer court that is north of Carter Court across River Road lost some parking last summer due to overflow parking in this area causing safety hazards. You can guess where many of the occupants choose to park their vehicles and trailer when parking was reduced due to the hazard – good o’l Carter Court. We had oil draining on the road from leaking trucks and trailers and a traffic jam directly off River Road when homeowners were trying to get around a parked truck while someone else is coming into Carter off River Rd. Imagine if this was an emergency vehicle trying to get through. There are four street (proposal makes five) that all route onto River Road in a very small area. The trailer park has 30 trailers and inadequate parking which overflows to the front of River Road and in front of the proposed development (that will be eliminated with this proposal.) There is also Saulter Drive, Carter Court and Missy Way and this new street. This area where these five streets flow is the narrowest of the entire River Road section from Russell to Reserve. I urge you to drive here and look at how close these feeder streets are to each other onto River Road are and how narrow and how dangerous this will be if we add 19 more households with multiple drivers from each home. I am a walker and hiker. I was thrilled with the new Russell Street bridge and the underpass as well as River Front trail access from River Road. However, walking or riding a bike on River Road to get to the bridge to meet the trail is taking your life in your hands. The road is narrow, poorly maintained, and no shoulder to safely walk or ride on. Cars and trucks speed on this road as it’s a straight-away from Reserve to Russell with no stop signs. Children walking from the bus or riding bikes on this road is dangerous – and an embarrassment to our city. When my grandchildren visit, we have to load up the car and drive the ONE block to LaFray Park because there is no place to walk to get there that is safe as you are right ON TOP of the road! One of the main feeder streets to River Road is Curtis Street. I urge you all to drive down Curtis onto River Road and get a feel for these feeder roads. Curtis doesn’t even have lane lines painted on it - the so-called sidewalk is an extra layer of asphalt shoved up haphazardly onto the side – the asphalt walk is not maintained by the city so if you are walking on it – especially in the winter – beware! This street is also notorious for potholes but you don’t dare go out of your lane to avoid one as there is barely enough room on this road for two cars. I urge you to also drive down Wyoming Street near the Food Bank– another feeder into River Road. This street has parking on both sides as it is a large area of rental units with again, inadequate parking. If you are driving near the Food Bank and a car is coming in the opposite direction, you are lucky to safely drive by or you slow down or stop to let the car pass. While the Mountain Line bus service is .70 miles away, the only way to get there is walking on River Road with speedy drivers and a very small stretch of sidewalk less than a block long on one side of the road until you reach the new bridge. This is a safety hazard that has yet to be addressed and I am guessing will only be addressed when there is an injury or death from a pedestrian. This side of town deserves to have good solid planning that listens to the neighbors who are impacted, that heeds safety issues and provides Missoula with another neighborhood that can be an example of a housing development that works and improves Missoula. This request for rezoning is not that with the inadequate infrastructure and safety issues so apparent. This is a low and middle-income neighborhood, and we would like to be treated as if we are not the “stepchild” for rampant rezoning and the associated problems of safety and poor planning. Good planning for tomorrow starts today and shouldn’t be driven solely by how much housing we can cram into one area regardless of safety or neighborhood infrastructure concerns. We deserve better and so does the city of Missoula. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering our concerns. Jo Beck Carter Court HOA President 605 Carter Court Missoula, MT 59801 on Twitter Share My name is Jo Beck and I live with my husband at 605 Carter Court. We moved into this neighborhood on Carter Court four years ago because it had a strong Homeowner’s Association and well-enforced covenants in an enjoyable neighborhood tucked off River Road. We were told that this neighborhood was the last high density building development (13 houses) that the city would plan in this area, and it was only approved then for high-density because it was a 55-and-older neighborhood. We all pay monetary yearly dues to keep the common area trees and lawn in good condition. We all have flowers and trees and vegetable gardens and work to make this neighborhood a beautiful place to live in an area of town that has had disjointed planning and some seriously blighted areas. The proposal to rezone this property from approximately 10 homes to 19 adjacent to Carter Court is simply put, an affront to all of us. The meeting held by the developer last summer did not mention rezoning, variances or 19 units or even what type of development they were planning. They said they wanted neighborhood input which we gave in the context of the meeting, but it was very vague with little answers from the developer’s representative as to what was coming so there was little to comment on. We all recognize that this property is attractive to developers, and we all recognize that Missoula has a housing and rental shortage. We would hope this committee would see how ridiculous rezoning from 8-10 homes to 19 townhouses is while also requesting four variances. This acreage is roughly the size of Carter Court, and we are tight with 13 and if you study the map, you can see how small the backyards are for the Carter neighbors abutting this property. We have a cul-de-sac that allows for emergency vehicles and service trucks to turn around as well as an area for road snow to be pushed in the winter as the street gets very narrow when people shovel their sidewalk snow to the curb. This will not be possible with this new proposed development. Our covenances do not allow for street parking except from guests as this street is narrow enough and when we have parking from visitors, it is too narrow for 2 cars to pass one another. This rezoning plans for two-story townhouses that can site the home within 20 feet of the Carter homeowner’s back yard on the east side of the development. The sun will be blocked – which means late thawing in the spring and not enough sun for flowers or a garden in these very small backyards that add to the well-being of our neighbors and to our quality of life. We call Missoula the Garden City – we want our gardens to be preserved. Our covenances do not allow for homeowners’ street parking because we do not have the street width to allow on-side parking and we also do not allow owners to have vehicles that cannot be stored in a garage in order to keep the neighborhood clean of used cars, trailers, motorcylces, etc. – in other words, we work hard to make this an attractive neighborhood that Missoula can be proud of. We would welcome a new neighborhood that Missoula could be proud of. If you allow for 19 homes on the same number of acres, you will probably have two cars to each household – possibly more. Add onto that, trailers, motorcycles, a possible third car and your neighborhood goes to a jammed up mess with little space for safety vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Will Carter Court be the overfill parking lot because a developer decides that 19 homes could be built without adequate parking, garage space, normal sized streets and sidewalks? This is a quality-of-life issue and this new neighborhood could be done well within the parameters of the current zoning. I really want to know - when does a developer’s need outweigh the current residents that will be affected greatly by this poor planning? We are not against this development – we are against poor development. There is one more thing I would like to add to this that cannot be underestimated- and that is the complete lack of adequate infrastructure to support a larger development. The trailer court that is north of Carter Court across River Road lost some parking last summer due to overflow parking in this area causing safety hazards. You can guess where many of the occupants choose to park their vehicles and trailer when parking was reduced due to the hazard – good o’l Carter Court. We had oil draining on the road from leaking trucks and trailers and a traffic jam directly off River Road when homeowners were trying to get around a parked truck while someone else is coming into Carter off River Rd. Imagine if this was an emergency vehicle trying to get through. There are four street (proposal makes five) that all route onto River Road in a very small area. The trailer park has 30 trailers and inadequate parking which overflows to the front of River Road and in front of the proposed development (that will be eliminated with this proposal.) There is also Saulter Drive, Carter Court and Missy Way and this new street. This area where these five streets flow is the narrowest of the entire River Road section from Russell to Reserve. I urge you to drive here and look at how close these feeder streets are to each other onto River Road are and how narrow and how dangerous this will be if we add 19 more households with multiple drivers from each home. I am a walker and hiker. I was thrilled with the new Russell Street bridge and the underpass as well as River Front trail access from River Road. However, walking or riding a bike on River Road to get to the bridge to meet the trail is taking your life in your hands. The road is narrow, poorly maintained, and no shoulder to safely walk or ride on. Cars and trucks speed on this road as it’s a straight-away from Reserve to Russell with no stop signs. Children walking from the bus or riding bikes on this road is dangerous – and an embarrassment to our city. When my grandchildren visit, we have to load up the car and drive the ONE block to LaFray Park because there is no place to walk to get there that is safe as you are right ON TOP of the road! One of the main feeder streets to River Road is Curtis Street. I urge you all to drive down Curtis onto River Road and get a feel for these feeder roads. Curtis doesn’t even have lane lines painted on it - the so-called sidewalk is an extra layer of asphalt shoved up haphazardly onto the side – the asphalt walk is not maintained by the city so if you are walking on it – especially in the winter – beware! This street is also notorious for potholes but you don’t dare go out of your lane to avoid one as there is barely enough room on this road for two cars. I urge you to also drive down Wyoming Street near the Food Bank– another feeder into River Road. This street has parking on both sides as it is a large area of rental units with again, inadequate parking. If you are driving near the Food Bank and a car is coming in the opposite direction, you are lucky to safely drive by or you slow down or stop to let the car pass. While the Mountain Line bus service is .70 miles away, the only way to get there is walking on River Road with speedy drivers and a very small stretch of sidewalk less than a block long on one side of the road until you reach the new bridge. This is a safety hazard that has yet to be addressed and I am guessing will only be addressed when there is an injury or death from a pedestrian. This side of town deserves to have good solid planning that listens to the neighbors who are impacted, that heeds safety issues and provides Missoula with another neighborhood that can be an example of a housing development that works and improves Missoula. This request for rezoning is not that with the inadequate infrastructure and safety issues so apparent. This is a low and middle-income neighborhood, and we would like to be treated as if we are not the “stepchild” for rampant rezoning and the associated problems of safety and poor planning. Good planning for tomorrow starts today and shouldn’t be driven solely by how much housing we can cram into one area regardless of safety or neighborhood infrastructure concerns. We deserve better and so does the city of Missoula. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering our concerns. Jo Beck Carter Court HOA President 605 Carter Court Missoula, MT 59801 on Linkedin Email My name is Jo Beck and I live with my husband at 605 Carter Court. We moved into this neighborhood on Carter Court four years ago because it had a strong Homeowner’s Association and well-enforced covenants in an enjoyable neighborhood tucked off River Road. We were told that this neighborhood was the last high density building development (13 houses) that the city would plan in this area, and it was only approved then for high-density because it was a 55-and-older neighborhood. We all pay monetary yearly dues to keep the common area trees and lawn in good condition. We all have flowers and trees and vegetable gardens and work to make this neighborhood a beautiful place to live in an area of town that has had disjointed planning and some seriously blighted areas. The proposal to rezone this property from approximately 10 homes to 19 adjacent to Carter Court is simply put, an affront to all of us. The meeting held by the developer last summer did not mention rezoning, variances or 19 units or even what type of development they were planning. They said they wanted neighborhood input which we gave in the context of the meeting, but it was very vague with little answers from the developer’s representative as to what was coming so there was little to comment on. We all recognize that this property is attractive to developers, and we all recognize that Missoula has a housing and rental shortage. We would hope this committee would see how ridiculous rezoning from 8-10 homes to 19 townhouses is while also requesting four variances. This acreage is roughly the size of Carter Court, and we are tight with 13 and if you study the map, you can see how small the backyards are for the Carter neighbors abutting this property. We have a cul-de-sac that allows for emergency vehicles and service trucks to turn around as well as an area for road snow to be pushed in the winter as the street gets very narrow when people shovel their sidewalk snow to the curb. This will not be possible with this new proposed development. Our covenances do not allow for street parking except from guests as this street is narrow enough and when we have parking from visitors, it is too narrow for 2 cars to pass one another. This rezoning plans for two-story townhouses that can site the home within 20 feet of the Carter homeowner’s back yard on the east side of the development. The sun will be blocked – which means late thawing in the spring and not enough sun for flowers or a garden in these very small backyards that add to the well-being of our neighbors and to our quality of life. We call Missoula the Garden City – we want our gardens to be preserved. Our covenances do not allow for homeowners’ street parking because we do not have the street width to allow on-side parking and we also do not allow owners to have vehicles that cannot be stored in a garage in order to keep the neighborhood clean of used cars, trailers, motorcylces, etc. – in other words, we work hard to make this an attractive neighborhood that Missoula can be proud of. We would welcome a new neighborhood that Missoula could be proud of. If you allow for 19 homes on the same number of acres, you will probably have two cars to each household – possibly more. Add onto that, trailers, motorcycles, a possible third car and your neighborhood goes to a jammed up mess with little space for safety vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Will Carter Court be the overfill parking lot because a developer decides that 19 homes could be built without adequate parking, garage space, normal sized streets and sidewalks? This is a quality-of-life issue and this new neighborhood could be done well within the parameters of the current zoning. I really want to know - when does a developer’s need outweigh the current residents that will be affected greatly by this poor planning? We are not against this development – we are against poor development. There is one more thing I would like to add to this that cannot be underestimated- and that is the complete lack of adequate infrastructure to support a larger development. The trailer court that is north of Carter Court across River Road lost some parking last summer due to overflow parking in this area causing safety hazards. You can guess where many of the occupants choose to park their vehicles and trailer when parking was reduced due to the hazard – good o’l Carter Court. We had oil draining on the road from leaking trucks and trailers and a traffic jam directly off River Road when homeowners were trying to get around a parked truck while someone else is coming into Carter off River Rd. Imagine if this was an emergency vehicle trying to get through. There are four street (proposal makes five) that all route onto River Road in a very small area. The trailer park has 30 trailers and inadequate parking which overflows to the front of River Road and in front of the proposed development (that will be eliminated with this proposal.) There is also Saulter Drive, Carter Court and Missy Way and this new street. This area where these five streets flow is the narrowest of the entire River Road section from Russell to Reserve. I urge you to drive here and look at how close these feeder streets are to each other onto River Road are and how narrow and how dangerous this will be if we add 19 more households with multiple drivers from each home. I am a walker and hiker. I was thrilled with the new Russell Street bridge and the underpass as well as River Front trail access from River Road. However, walking or riding a bike on River Road to get to the bridge to meet the trail is taking your life in your hands. The road is narrow, poorly maintained, and no shoulder to safely walk or ride on. Cars and trucks speed on this road as it’s a straight-away from Reserve to Russell with no stop signs. Children walking from the bus or riding bikes on this road is dangerous – and an embarrassment to our city. When my grandchildren visit, we have to load up the car and drive the ONE block to LaFray Park because there is no place to walk to get there that is safe as you are right ON TOP of the road! One of the main feeder streets to River Road is Curtis Street. I urge you all to drive down Curtis onto River Road and get a feel for these feeder roads. Curtis doesn’t even have lane lines painted on it - the so-called sidewalk is an extra layer of asphalt shoved up haphazardly onto the side – the asphalt walk is not maintained by the city so if you are walking on it – especially in the winter – beware! This street is also notorious for potholes but you don’t dare go out of your lane to avoid one as there is barely enough room on this road for two cars. I urge you to also drive down Wyoming Street near the Food Bank– another feeder into River Road. This street has parking on both sides as it is a large area of rental units with again, inadequate parking. If you are driving near the Food Bank and a car is coming in the opposite direction, you are lucky to safely drive by or you slow down or stop to let the car pass. While the Mountain Line bus service is .70 miles away, the only way to get there is walking on River Road with speedy drivers and a very small stretch of sidewalk less than a block long on one side of the road until you reach the new bridge. This is a safety hazard that has yet to be addressed and I am guessing will only be addressed when there is an injury or death from a pedestrian. This side of town deserves to have good solid planning that listens to the neighbors who are impacted, that heeds safety issues and provides Missoula with another neighborhood that can be an example of a housing development that works and improves Missoula. This request for rezoning is not that with the inadequate infrastructure and safety issues so apparent. This is a low and middle-income neighborhood, and we would like to be treated as if we are not the “stepchild” for rampant rezoning and the associated problems of safety and poor planning. Good planning for tomorrow starts today and shouldn’t be driven solely by how much housing we can cram into one area regardless of safety or neighborhood infrastructure concerns. We deserve better and so does the city of Missoula. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering our concerns. Jo Beck Carter Court HOA President 605 Carter Court Missoula, MT 59801 link

My name is Jo Beck and I live with my husband at 605 Carter Court. We moved into this neighborhood on Carter Court four years ago because it had a strong Homeowner’s Association and well-enforced covenants in an enjoyable neighborhood tucked off River Road. We were told that this neighborhood was the last high density building development (13 houses) that the city would plan in this area, and it was only approved then for high-density because it was a 55-and-older neighborhood. We all pay monetary yearly dues to keep the common area trees and lawn in good condition. We all have flowers and trees and vegetable gardens and work to make this neighborhood a beautiful place to live in an area of town that has had disjointed planning and some seriously blighted areas. The proposal to rezone this property from approximately 10 homes to 19 adjacent to Carter Court is simply put, an affront to all of us. The meeting held by the developer last summer did not mention rezoning, variances or 19 units or even what type of development they were planning. They said they wanted neighborhood input which we gave in the context of the meeting, but it was very vague with little answers from the developer’s representative as to what was coming so there was little to comment on. We all recognize that this property is attractive to developers, and we all recognize that Missoula has a housing and rental shortage. We would hope this committee would see how ridiculous rezoning from 8-10 homes to 19 townhouses is while also requesting four variances. This acreage is roughly the size of Carter Court, and we are tight with 13 and if you study the map, you can see how small the backyards are for the Carter neighbors abutting this property. We have a cul-de-sac that allows for emergency vehicles and service trucks to turn around as well as an area for road snow to be pushed in the winter as the street gets very narrow when people shovel their sidewalk snow to the curb. This will not be possible with this new proposed development. Our covenances do not allow for street parking except from guests as this street is narrow enough and when we have parking from visitors, it is too narrow for 2 cars to pass one another. This rezoning plans for two-story townhouses that can site the home within 20 feet of the Carter homeowner’s back yard on the east side of the development. The sun will be blocked – which means late thawing in the spring and not enough sun for flowers or a garden in these very small backyards that add to the well-being of our neighbors and to our quality of life. We call Missoula the Garden City – we want our gardens to be preserved. Our covenances do not allow for homeowners’ street parking because we do not have the street width to allow on-side parking and we also do not allow owners to have vehicles that cannot be stored in a garage in order to keep the neighborhood clean of used cars, trailers, motorcylces, etc. – in other words, we work hard to make this an attractive neighborhood that Missoula can be proud of. We would welcome a new neighborhood that Missoula could be proud of. If you allow for 19 homes on the same number of acres, you will probably have two cars to each household – possibly more. Add onto that, trailers, motorcycles, a possible third car and your neighborhood goes to a jammed up mess with little space for safety vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Will Carter Court be the overfill parking lot because a developer decides that 19 homes could be built without adequate parking, garage space, normal sized streets and sidewalks? This is a quality-of-life issue and this new neighborhood could be done well within the parameters of the current zoning. I really want to know - when does a developer’s need outweigh the current residents that will be affected greatly by this poor planning? We are not against this development – we are against poor development. There is one more thing I would like to add to this that cannot be underestimated- and that is the complete lack of adequate infrastructure to support a larger development. The trailer court that is north of Carter Court across River Road lost some parking last summer due to overflow parking in this area causing safety hazards. You can guess where many of the occupants choose to park their vehicles and trailer when parking was reduced due to the hazard – good o’l Carter Court. We had oil draining on the road from leaking trucks and trailers and a traffic jam directly off River Road when homeowners were trying to get around a parked truck while someone else is coming into Carter off River Rd. Imagine if this was an emergency vehicle trying to get through. There are four street (proposal makes five) that all route onto River Road in a very small area. The trailer park has 30 trailers and inadequate parking which overflows to the front of River Road and in front of the proposed development (that will be eliminated with this proposal.) There is also Saulter Drive, Carter Court and Missy Way and this new street. This area where these five streets flow is the narrowest of the entire River Road section from Russell to Reserve. I urge you to drive here and look at how close these feeder streets are to each other onto River Road are and how narrow and how dangerous this will be if we add 19 more households with multiple drivers from each home. I am a walker and hiker. I was thrilled with the new Russell Street bridge and the underpass as well as River Front trail access from River Road. However, walking or riding a bike on River Road to get to the bridge to meet the trail is taking your life in your hands. The road is narrow, poorly maintained, and no shoulder to safely walk or ride on. Cars and trucks speed on this road as it’s a straight-away from Reserve to Russell with no stop signs. Children walking from the bus or riding bikes on this road is dangerous – and an embarrassment to our city. When my grandchildren visit, we have to load up the car and drive the ONE block to LaFray Park because there is no place to walk to get there that is safe as you are right ON TOP of the road! One of the main feeder streets to River Road is Curtis Street. I urge you all to drive down Curtis onto River Road and get a feel for these feeder roads. Curtis doesn’t even have lane lines painted on it - the so-called sidewalk is an extra layer of asphalt shoved up haphazardly onto the side – the asphalt walk is not maintained by the city so if you are walking on it – especially in the winter – beware! This street is also notorious for potholes but you don’t dare go out of your lane to avoid one as there is barely enough room on this road for two cars. I urge you to also drive down Wyoming Street near the Food Bank– another feeder into River Road. This street has parking on both sides as it is a large area of rental units with again, inadequate parking. If you are driving near the Food Bank and a car is coming in the opposite direction, you are lucky to safely drive by or you slow down or stop to let the car pass. While the Mountain Line bus service is .70 miles away, the only way to get there is walking on River Road with speedy drivers and a very small stretch of sidewalk less than a block long on one side of the road until you reach the new bridge. This is a safety hazard that has yet to be addressed and I am guessing will only be addressed when there is an injury or death from a pedestrian. This side of town deserves to have good solid planning that listens to the neighbors who are impacted, that heeds safety issues and provides Missoula with another neighborhood that can be an example of a housing development that works and improves Missoula. This request for rezoning is not that with the inadequate infrastructure and safety issues so apparent. This is a low and middle-income neighborhood, and we would like to be treated as if we are not the “stepchild” for rampant rezoning and the associated problems of safety and poor planning. Good planning for tomorrow starts today and shouldn’t be driven solely by how much housing we can cram into one area regardless of safety or neighborhood infrastructure concerns. We deserve better and so does the city of Missoula. I appreciate your time and thank you for considering our concerns. Jo Beck Carter Court HOA President 605 Carter Court Missoula, MT 59801

GrammieJ asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment will be sent to City Council for review.
Share Comment on River View Subdivision This development is requesting 4 variances and a rezoning to build 19 houses on a very narrow strip of land. It seems to us that if they cannot adhere to City standards then the lot is not adequate to accommodate that number of houses. I know it is about financial gain with developers and land owners wanting to make maximum profit - but if they were to build one row of houses and create more of a full street to include bike lane making access to the park and S. Johnson it would be a much better project. Throughout the application for variances they state that “nor is it injurious to other persons or property”. We disagree with this statement. If approved, our front room bay window view will be of 3 backyards sitting 20’ off the property line. This development as proposed will devalue our property. Why would the orientation of my house not count when making decisions to develop this lot, our home has been here for a long time! When we moved in the current zoning told us that if developed the property in front of our house would be a few single family homes with an access road. We were hoping that we could work with whoever developed this lot to share the access road and eliminate the restriction Development Services put on our property for resale. We were never invited to any neighborhood meeting and the only way I found out about the development in the first place was from a coworker in the Parks and Rec office. So, when I put in a small house for my mother on our property about 10 years ago, Development Services was adamant regarding holding me to a 25’ set back for the back of the house. But it is ok to use the 20’ setback if you are putting in 19 houses? This does not seem right that we would be held to this higher standard but a developer does not need to do the same. Variance Request 2 Design of Roads and Streets The lot is so narrow they have to use a hammer head design to allow people to turn around, this seems like a poor design for an intention road. Consider the side streets and winter driving this is going to be a less than ideal flow of traffic. 6.) I take exception to the number of times they describe the properties adjacent to this lot. They describe as “rental properties, and existing subdivision, and a public park on all sides”. This is a false statement. The “subdivision” of Carter Court are all privately owned homes, on the west side there are 2 privately owned homes that make up most of the length with the park at the end of the western stretch. Throughout this document they discount the 2 west side property owners. The only rental houses I’m aware of is the small cluster of homes off Lafray Ln, and one small house at the mouth of the trail coming into the park off S. Johnson! Variance Request 4 Road Width Any subdivision putting in 19 houses should meet minimum road design. They site River Rd as a standard because it is a narrow road as well. Not acceptable, River Road is not a safe urban collector and it should be widened and side walks and bike lane added for safe travel – it is scary to walk or fried your bike down it as is. The request is to build a very narrow road in this subdivision is unreasonable. City standard for Residential Street Proposed Difference ROW 45’ ROW 29.5’ -15.5’ from standard Street Width 33’ Width 25.5’ -7.5’ from standard Parking on only one side of the road, providing for 17 spots so those on the end would not have any off street parking. To accommodate this number of houses I feel like it would be poor planning to allow this developer to provide any width of street other than the standards set per zoning. on Facebook Share Comment on River View Subdivision This development is requesting 4 variances and a rezoning to build 19 houses on a very narrow strip of land. It seems to us that if they cannot adhere to City standards then the lot is not adequate to accommodate that number of houses. I know it is about financial gain with developers and land owners wanting to make maximum profit - but if they were to build one row of houses and create more of a full street to include bike lane making access to the park and S. Johnson it would be a much better project. Throughout the application for variances they state that “nor is it injurious to other persons or property”. We disagree with this statement. If approved, our front room bay window view will be of 3 backyards sitting 20’ off the property line. This development as proposed will devalue our property. Why would the orientation of my house not count when making decisions to develop this lot, our home has been here for a long time! When we moved in the current zoning told us that if developed the property in front of our house would be a few single family homes with an access road. We were hoping that we could work with whoever developed this lot to share the access road and eliminate the restriction Development Services put on our property for resale. We were never invited to any neighborhood meeting and the only way I found out about the development in the first place was from a coworker in the Parks and Rec office. So, when I put in a small house for my mother on our property about 10 years ago, Development Services was adamant regarding holding me to a 25’ set back for the back of the house. But it is ok to use the 20’ setback if you are putting in 19 houses? This does not seem right that we would be held to this higher standard but a developer does not need to do the same. Variance Request 2 Design of Roads and Streets The lot is so narrow they have to use a hammer head design to allow people to turn around, this seems like a poor design for an intention road. Consider the side streets and winter driving this is going to be a less than ideal flow of traffic. 6.) I take exception to the number of times they describe the properties adjacent to this lot. They describe as “rental properties, and existing subdivision, and a public park on all sides”. This is a false statement. The “subdivision” of Carter Court are all privately owned homes, on the west side there are 2 privately owned homes that make up most of the length with the park at the end of the western stretch. Throughout this document they discount the 2 west side property owners. The only rental houses I’m aware of is the small cluster of homes off Lafray Ln, and one small house at the mouth of the trail coming into the park off S. Johnson! Variance Request 4 Road Width Any subdivision putting in 19 houses should meet minimum road design. They site River Rd as a standard because it is a narrow road as well. Not acceptable, River Road is not a safe urban collector and it should be widened and side walks and bike lane added for safe travel – it is scary to walk or fried your bike down it as is. The request is to build a very narrow road in this subdivision is unreasonable. City standard for Residential Street Proposed Difference ROW 45’ ROW 29.5’ -15.5’ from standard Street Width 33’ Width 25.5’ -7.5’ from standard Parking on only one side of the road, providing for 17 spots so those on the end would not have any off street parking. To accommodate this number of houses I feel like it would be poor planning to allow this developer to provide any width of street other than the standards set per zoning. on Twitter Share Comment on River View Subdivision This development is requesting 4 variances and a rezoning to build 19 houses on a very narrow strip of land. It seems to us that if they cannot adhere to City standards then the lot is not adequate to accommodate that number of houses. I know it is about financial gain with developers and land owners wanting to make maximum profit - but if they were to build one row of houses and create more of a full street to include bike lane making access to the park and S. Johnson it would be a much better project. Throughout the application for variances they state that “nor is it injurious to other persons or property”. We disagree with this statement. If approved, our front room bay window view will be of 3 backyards sitting 20’ off the property line. This development as proposed will devalue our property. Why would the orientation of my house not count when making decisions to develop this lot, our home has been here for a long time! When we moved in the current zoning told us that if developed the property in front of our house would be a few single family homes with an access road. We were hoping that we could work with whoever developed this lot to share the access road and eliminate the restriction Development Services put on our property for resale. We were never invited to any neighborhood meeting and the only way I found out about the development in the first place was from a coworker in the Parks and Rec office. So, when I put in a small house for my mother on our property about 10 years ago, Development Services was adamant regarding holding me to a 25’ set back for the back of the house. But it is ok to use the 20’ setback if you are putting in 19 houses? This does not seem right that we would be held to this higher standard but a developer does not need to do the same. Variance Request 2 Design of Roads and Streets The lot is so narrow they have to use a hammer head design to allow people to turn around, this seems like a poor design for an intention road. Consider the side streets and winter driving this is going to be a less than ideal flow of traffic. 6.) I take exception to the number of times they describe the properties adjacent to this lot. They describe as “rental properties, and existing subdivision, and a public park on all sides”. This is a false statement. The “subdivision” of Carter Court are all privately owned homes, on the west side there are 2 privately owned homes that make up most of the length with the park at the end of the western stretch. Throughout this document they discount the 2 west side property owners. The only rental houses I’m aware of is the small cluster of homes off Lafray Ln, and one small house at the mouth of the trail coming into the park off S. Johnson! Variance Request 4 Road Width Any subdivision putting in 19 houses should meet minimum road design. They site River Rd as a standard because it is a narrow road as well. Not acceptable, River Road is not a safe urban collector and it should be widened and side walks and bike lane added for safe travel – it is scary to walk or fried your bike down it as is. The request is to build a very narrow road in this subdivision is unreasonable. City standard for Residential Street Proposed Difference ROW 45’ ROW 29.5’ -15.5’ from standard Street Width 33’ Width 25.5’ -7.5’ from standard Parking on only one side of the road, providing for 17 spots so those on the end would not have any off street parking. To accommodate this number of houses I feel like it would be poor planning to allow this developer to provide any width of street other than the standards set per zoning. on Linkedin Email Comment on River View Subdivision This development is requesting 4 variances and a rezoning to build 19 houses on a very narrow strip of land. It seems to us that if they cannot adhere to City standards then the lot is not adequate to accommodate that number of houses. I know it is about financial gain with developers and land owners wanting to make maximum profit - but if they were to build one row of houses and create more of a full street to include bike lane making access to the park and S. Johnson it would be a much better project. Throughout the application for variances they state that “nor is it injurious to other persons or property”. We disagree with this statement. If approved, our front room bay window view will be of 3 backyards sitting 20’ off the property line. This development as proposed will devalue our property. Why would the orientation of my house not count when making decisions to develop this lot, our home has been here for a long time! When we moved in the current zoning told us that if developed the property in front of our house would be a few single family homes with an access road. We were hoping that we could work with whoever developed this lot to share the access road and eliminate the restriction Development Services put on our property for resale. We were never invited to any neighborhood meeting and the only way I found out about the development in the first place was from a coworker in the Parks and Rec office. So, when I put in a small house for my mother on our property about 10 years ago, Development Services was adamant regarding holding me to a 25’ set back for the back of the house. But it is ok to use the 20’ setback if you are putting in 19 houses? This does not seem right that we would be held to this higher standard but a developer does not need to do the same. Variance Request 2 Design of Roads and Streets The lot is so narrow they have to use a hammer head design to allow people to turn around, this seems like a poor design for an intention road. Consider the side streets and winter driving this is going to be a less than ideal flow of traffic. 6.) I take exception to the number of times they describe the properties adjacent to this lot. They describe as “rental properties, and existing subdivision, and a public park on all sides”. This is a false statement. The “subdivision” of Carter Court are all privately owned homes, on the west side there are 2 privately owned homes that make up most of the length with the park at the end of the western stretch. Throughout this document they discount the 2 west side property owners. The only rental houses I’m aware of is the small cluster of homes off Lafray Ln, and one small house at the mouth of the trail coming into the park off S. Johnson! Variance Request 4 Road Width Any subdivision putting in 19 houses should meet minimum road design. They site River Rd as a standard because it is a narrow road as well. Not acceptable, River Road is not a safe urban collector and it should be widened and side walks and bike lane added for safe travel – it is scary to walk or fried your bike down it as is. The request is to build a very narrow road in this subdivision is unreasonable. City standard for Residential Street Proposed Difference ROW 45’ ROW 29.5’ -15.5’ from standard Street Width 33’ Width 25.5’ -7.5’ from standard Parking on only one side of the road, providing for 17 spots so those on the end would not have any off street parking. To accommodate this number of houses I feel like it would be poor planning to allow this developer to provide any width of street other than the standards set per zoning. link

Comment on River View Subdivision This development is requesting 4 variances and a rezoning to build 19 houses on a very narrow strip of land. It seems to us that if they cannot adhere to City standards then the lot is not adequate to accommodate that number of houses. I know it is about financial gain with developers and land owners wanting to make maximum profit - but if they were to build one row of houses and create more of a full street to include bike lane making access to the park and S. Johnson it would be a much better project. Throughout the application for variances they state that “nor is it injurious to other persons or property”. We disagree with this statement. If approved, our front room bay window view will be of 3 backyards sitting 20’ off the property line. This development as proposed will devalue our property. Why would the orientation of my house not count when making decisions to develop this lot, our home has been here for a long time! When we moved in the current zoning told us that if developed the property in front of our house would be a few single family homes with an access road. We were hoping that we could work with whoever developed this lot to share the access road and eliminate the restriction Development Services put on our property for resale. We were never invited to any neighborhood meeting and the only way I found out about the development in the first place was from a coworker in the Parks and Rec office. So, when I put in a small house for my mother on our property about 10 years ago, Development Services was adamant regarding holding me to a 25’ set back for the back of the house. But it is ok to use the 20’ setback if you are putting in 19 houses? This does not seem right that we would be held to this higher standard but a developer does not need to do the same. Variance Request 2 Design of Roads and Streets The lot is so narrow they have to use a hammer head design to allow people to turn around, this seems like a poor design for an intention road. Consider the side streets and winter driving this is going to be a less than ideal flow of traffic. 6.) I take exception to the number of times they describe the properties adjacent to this lot. They describe as “rental properties, and existing subdivision, and a public park on all sides”. This is a false statement. The “subdivision” of Carter Court are all privately owned homes, on the west side there are 2 privately owned homes that make up most of the length with the park at the end of the western stretch. Throughout this document they discount the 2 west side property owners. The only rental houses I’m aware of is the small cluster of homes off Lafray Ln, and one small house at the mouth of the trail coming into the park off S. Johnson! Variance Request 4 Road Width Any subdivision putting in 19 houses should meet minimum road design. They site River Rd as a standard because it is a narrow road as well. Not acceptable, River Road is not a safe urban collector and it should be widened and side walks and bike lane added for safe travel – it is scary to walk or fried your bike down it as is. The request is to build a very narrow road in this subdivision is unreasonable. City standard for Residential Street Proposed Difference ROW 45’ ROW 29.5’ -15.5’ from standard Street Width 33’ Width 25.5’ -7.5’ from standard Parking on only one side of the road, providing for 17 spots so those on the end would not have any off street parking. To accommodate this number of houses I feel like it would be poor planning to allow this developer to provide any width of street other than the standards set per zoning.

Shirley asked about 2 years ago

Thank you for submitting public comment. Your comment will be sent to City Council for review.

River View Subdivision and Rezoning

UPDATE: On March 14, 2022, Missoula City Council voted to adopt an ordinance to rezone the subject property to RT5.4 and to grant preliminary plat approval of the River View Subdivision. This case is now closed for comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

UPDATE: On March 14, 2022, Missoula City Council voted to adopt an ordinance to rezone the subject property to RT5.4 and to grant preliminary plat approval of the River View Subdivision. This case is now closed for comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT APPLICATION LINKS:

PROJECT TIMELINE:

PROJECT COMMENT DEADLINE:

PROJECT PLANNER:

Who's Listening

Signup Banner

Important Links

Key Dates

FAQs