HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 02.05.2009DRAFT
MINUTES
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE-CITY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
February S, 2009 7:00 pm
Council Chambers
Members present: Todd Linder, Chairman
Dan Koch, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
David Oberly, County Rep.
Kathy Siegrist, County Rep.
Miles Walton, City Rep.
Deb Horning, City Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Hazel Klein, City Rep.
Others present: James Caniglia, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
A Motion was made by Miles Walton, second by Hazel Klein to approve the minutes of
the January 8, 2009 meeting. Motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
Consideration of Member-at-Large a licant Greg Nelson
Greg Nelson introduced himself to the board members. He is a Laurel business owner.
He purchased the building that previously housed the Rock Shop located at 207 W. Main
Street. He is involved in the Laurel Alive organization and on one of its sub-committees:
the Streetscape Committee which is working on improvements to buildings and public
art. He is also president of the Roaring 20's Auto Club. He would like to further help
serve the citizens of Laurel and help move Laurel forward.
A motion was made by Dan Koch, seconded by Miles Walton to appoint Greg Nelson as
the new member-at-large for the Planning Board. Motion carried by a vote of 8-0.
Public Hearin - Prelimina Plat and Variance RE quest for Fi ins Subdivision
(out of city limits)
Chairman Linder opened the public hearing at 7:06 pm and asked for proponents wishing
to speak for the project.
George Figgins spoke regarding his request for preliminary plat and variance. He stated
that he has people attending from the church proposing to purchase one of the lots and
Roger Perkins from Aquaneering that can answer questions on the septic/drainfield issues
and he hopes the board will vote to pass this preliminary plat/variance.
Patsy Hutsel stood up and stated she is in favor of the project.
Lonnie Peterson spoke in favor of the project. He built a new house at the end of Figgins
Circle and stated that having a proposed church in the lot across from his house would be
fine.
Chairman Linder asked for opponents to the proposal.
Opponents:
Marge Herman spoke and requested that George Figgins explain how he proposed to get
water to each of these proposed lots. She went on to explain that Figgins subdivision has
a private water line and George Figgins is permitted to have 2 water taps from the private
line. She suspects that he has put more than 2 taps on the line because he has many more
than 2 residents that he supplies water to. She brought legal documentation stating that
he is allowed only 2 taps into the line. She went on to say that Mr. Figgins has been
invited to attend many meetings regarding his allowable water taps but has never
attended. She is concerned because the existing water line is not large enough to handle
more than 15 taps and feels this preliminary plat should be turned down if he cannot
prove how he is obtaining water and servicing these new lots.
John Becker spoke and stated that he checked out the capacity of the private water line.
It has a capacity of 55 gallons per minute. After the line goes a ways the line sizes goes
down to 1 1/Z". He went on to say that this size of line is not capable of servicing anymore
service lines.
James Caniglia, City Planner spoke regarding this proposal. He stated that the issue of
the waterline came to his attention in just the past 2 days. He spoke to the City water
department about the water issue and they also suspect there are illegal taps on the line
but it is hard to prove.
James will take the water issue before the County Commissioners and request their
condition of approval would 'include documentation of how water is supplied to each
proposed lot. The City of Laurel does not supply city water to subdivisions that are not
annexed into the city limits so Mr. Figgins will need to define how each property will
receive water. This is a serious issue.
James read his letter of recommendation into the record: (attached below)
Subject: Preliminary Plat of Figgins Subdivision
Type: Subsequent Minor
Variance: Seeks to extend a dead end that will be greater than 600 feet.
Zoning: Residential Manufactured Homes
Location: NE'/4 of Section 17, T.2S., R.24E., P.M.M.
2
Just South of Highway 10 on Figgins Circle and between Figgins Pond and the
West Laurel Ramp.
Property owner George I. Figgins seeks approval of a 5 lot subsequent minor; Second
Filing. The owner seeks to subdivide lots that would be less than acre by using a
drainfield instead of a septic system. The water table is only a few feet below ground on
the property, thus making it impossible to use septic tanks. The drainfield (and
replacement drainfield) must be approved by DEQ under a very stringent process to
prohibit leaching into groundwater.
The proposed hammerhead will exceed the 600 feet maximum allowed under Laurel
City/County Subdivision Regulations: Secondly, Subsequent Minors require a secondary
access. Due to building structures already in places and neighboring properties, a
secondary access will not be possible; thus qualifying the subdivider for a hardship. The
600 foot maximum length for a dead road is in place to encourage better connectivity of
developments as well as for fire purposes. The issue of fire has been addressed and found
acceptable by the Laurel Fire Marshal Gary Colley as an easement to the pond is on the
plat for Fire Department access.
At the pre-application meeting for the property, an interested buyer for the 1.2729 acre lot
2 attended and has expressed interest in placing a church on the property.
The existing homes on the property are stick built homes despite being residential
manufactured homes and new homes on the property will most likely be stick built.
City water and sewer is fairly close to the property, but not close enough to be cost
efficient in order to annex the property. In the future, as water and sewer are brought
further west on Highway 10 sewer and water will be adjoining the existing portion of the
subdivision.
When considering the project, I asked Mr. Figgins to wait until city services reach his
property before subdividing. Mr. Figgins pointed out he is a senior citizen and it could be
many years before services extend to him.
As such, I recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat while recommending the
following:
• the 15' Easement to the Laurel Pond include Public Access to the Figgins Pond
(we cannot require this as Figgins Road is currently a private road).
+ a mechanism to maintain the private road easement
• a mechanism to maintain the dry hydrant
James stated that he would add 2 more conditions:
o Approval by DEQ prior to final plat.
o Proof of acceptable water source to each lot.
3
Kathy Siegrist requested an explanation of what meant by a drainfield without a septic
system.
Roger Perkins from Aquaneering stated that the first subdivision here utilized a gravity
sewer to a 5,000 gallon septic tank. That water then flowed by gravity into a 1,000
dosing tank. On a timed interval, the tank doses to a drainfield that is sized to deliver
about .4 gallons per minute per square foot. It is a 60 minute per inch clay soil so it is a
fairly large drain field. It is dosed about 4 times per day at maximum usage.
The second filing has a planned church and 3 home sites. The church is planned for a
maximum seating of 200 people which will be about 5 gallons per seat for when they do
have church activities. That works out to be about 1500 gallons per week. The
residences would be a standard 70 to 80 gallons per person. He is assuming 2.7 to 3
persons per building occupancy which works out to be 250 to 300 gallons per day.
The plan for the 2°d filing, as far as tank size, pumps and drainfield size is exactly the
same as the first filing because it is working well.
As far as a high ground water table, the 4 observation wells that were dug into the
property in August of 2008 have shown that the ground water table is not high. The 2
backhoe pits that were dug down 8 feet have been continuously bone dry. He is not sure
where the rumor that there is a high ground water table came from except it could be
perceived because it is close to the pond and because it is clay soil that holds the water
longer on the surface.
Miles Walton questioned Mr. Perkins on the figures he gave. After a lengthy discussion
Mr. Perkins re-iterated that the proposed system will be sufficient for this proposed site.
This same system has worked without fail at the first filing site.
Question on how the water will be supplied to each lot.
Roger stated that individual cisterns will supply water to the church and all of the
residences.
David Oberly asked about the existing water source coming from the city.
Roger stated that the line was put in many years ago and is only a 1 '/a" line with no
consideration for a fire line.
For fire protection purposes there will be a dry hydrant placed that will be hooked into a
pond approximately 100 feet away. There is a 15 foot wide easement for the line going
to the dry hydrant.
Question to James on the road access.
4
James stated that the road will not have to be paved because it is considered a private
road.
John VanAken asked about maintenance of the road and the frustration it could cause to
the residents of the subdivision.
James stated that there is a waiver of protest attached to the plat and an SID can be
assessed in the future.
Miles questioned if the fire department knows that this road will be gravel?
James stated there are specific requirements for private gravel roads and the Laurel
Volunteer Fire Department is aware this road will be gravel. The Fire department was
involved in the preliminary meetings on this plat. This issue will be also be addressed
thoroughly during the County Public Works department's review of this preliminary plat.
Question on who is going to put in the fire suppression and maintain it?
James stated that this issue will be reviewed by the Yellowstone County Commissioners
prior and worked out prior to the approval of the final plat.
The public hearing was closed at 7:45 pm.
A motion was made by Hazel Klein and seconded by Miles Walton to move forward with
this preliminary plat for discussion sake and variance request for Figgins Subdivision
subject to the addition of the City Planner's recommendations.
Todd Linder clarified to both the board and audience that the Planning Board's job is to
hear public comment and make a recommendation to the Yellowstone County
Commissioners regarding this preliminary plat and variance. The final say in the plat and
variance is in the County Commissioners hands. This plat and variance will still go
forward with either a recommendation of approval or denial.
Several board members stated that they felt uncomfortable in recommending approval of
this proposed preliminary plat and variance because of the many issues that have come
forward that remain somewhat questionable.
John Van.A.ken asked if they could table this until the DEQ report was complete?
Chairman Linder stated that at this time there is a motion on the floor and he reminded
the board that the DEQ report is forthcoming and the subdivision will not go through
without total compliance of the DEQ recommendations.
Hazel Klein stated that it is her understanding that as long as this proposal meets the
criteria to go to the next step (the County Commissioners) it will be able to move along
whether or not this board recommends approval or not.
5
James stated that Hazel was correct except that the variance request issue may keep the
plat from moving forward if that part of it is not approved. Because of the variance this
is not considered an unequivocal right to subdivide.
The question was called for and the motion failed by a vote of 0-8.
Discussion - Accessory Buildings - L.M.C. 17.48.060
James handed out a draft of the re-write he would like to see done on this section of the
L.M.C. so as to make it more understandable for the board. The purpose of this
discussion is -to decide whether or not the board wants to consider going forward with
these proposed changes in a public hearing which would then go on to the Laurel City
Council for their consideration.
The change proposed for buildings greater than buildings 18 feet in height would require
a greater setback for accessory buildings. Changes would also require setbacks for
accessory buildings in commercial zoned areas.
Question on the whether or not this proposal is consistent with the City of Billings
requirements.
James stated that he would also like to see consistency with the City of Billings as it
makes it much easier on local contractors and home owners that move back and forth
from Billings to Laurel. This proposal is consistent with the City of Billings codes.
Discussion was also held on a proposed change of the maximum size allowed for a
detached accessory structure within residential zones. At this time the maximum size is
based on lot coverage and garages are allowed to be built larger than homes as long as
they fall within the percentage of lot coverage allowed. A change is also being proposed
regarding "pole barn look" garages.
A discussion was also held on the allowable projections into yards.
These issues will be put on the March 5, 2009 agenda for more discussion and
consideration.
Discussion - Alcohol Exemption
The issue came up in response to our recent recommendation of allowing alcohol
beverage manufacturing in Highway Commercial (HC), Community Commercial (CC)
and the Central Business District (CBD). There are currently 5 churches in the CBD and
new bars and/or micro-breweries are currently not allowed within 600 feet of them. This
is a Montana State Law that can be amended by cities per MCA 16-3-309. This
exemption will only be allowed in CBD district.
6
James proposes a New Section 17.48.090 be added to the L.M.C. to give the city the
ability to look at each case individually based on the following 3 criteria:
1. A distance of six hundred (600) feet between property lines, measured in a
straight line, is maintained from any building that is predominantly used as a
church or school or from a public park that contains a children's playground or
playfield.
a. Properties or establishments which are located in the Central Business
District zoning district are exempt from section (1).
b. Properties may be granted a waiver from the 600-foot separation required
in subsection (1).if the governing body finds that a physical barrier exists
between the proposed use requiring the 600-foot separation. These
barriers include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. An arterial street with no existing or proposed signalized pedestrian crossing;
2. A building or buildings that entirely obstruct the view between the separated uses;
and,
3. No direct physical access exists between the separated uses. The person applying
for the special review must provide the governing body with proof that the
proposed property or establishment meets one of the above described physical
barriers or that other types of physical barriers exist that warrant the waiving of
the 600-foot separation.
This will be placed on the March 5, 2009 agenda for more discussion.
Miscellaneous
Dave Oberly asked for a clarification on the variance allowed on 1103 E. Main Street a
little over a year ago.
James read a letter from the Laurel City Attorney and David Oberly thanked James for
looking into the issue and clarifying what happened.
John VanAken stated that the State Highway Department has been trying to clean out the
Nutting Drain below Montana Meadows subdivision and having trouble deeming who's
responsibility it is to clean. They have had trouble with beavers, muskrats and
miscellaneous objects that are thrown into the drain.
James stated that the Board should review the Tnterlocal agreement with the County
Planning Board and bring any comments to the March meeting.
James stated that there is a local auction company that wants to relocate to the old Laurel
Ford building and it was discovered that the zoning codes would have to be changed to
allow it in that building. He asked for input from the board regarding this issue.
7
After a discussion the board decided that it needed more time for consideration and
discussion. This will be brought back to the March meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
1-28-09
To Whom It May Concern:
As a downtown business owner, I have an interest in joining the Planning Board. I have a
familiarity with Planning Boards on issues I was involved with in Carbon County. My education
includes a Bachelor Degree in art and elementary education. I am a member of the Laurel Alive
Group and one of its subcommittee; the Streetscape Committee. My main interest in .Laurel
Alive and the Streetscape Committee is building improvement and public art. I'm also the
President of the Roaring 20's Auto Club. I would like to further help serve the citizens of Laurel
and help move Laurel forward.
Thank You for your consideration.
Greg Nelson
JAN 28 aoo9 D
CITY OF LAUREL
CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA
City - County Planning Board
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
R D
DEC 3 ] 2008
CITY OF LAUREL
This application covers appeals from decisions of the City Building Inspector and for
requests for variances concerning setbacks, structure heights, lot coverage, etc. but not for
variances that change land uses.
The undersigned as owner or agent of the owner of the following described property
requests a variance to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws
of the State of Montana.
1. Legal description of property: Lot 1-A-1 of Am. Plat of Figgins Subdivision,
located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, T.2S., R.24E., P.M.M., Yellowstone
County, Montana.
2. Street address. and general location: 50 Figgins Circle, just west of the west
interchange to I-90, next to the pond.
3. Present zone classification: Residential - Manufactured Home
4. Requested variance/appeal: We request a variance from 16.4.6 Streets and
Roads A. 6 & 7. Major or subsequent minor subdivisions shall have two points
of access and Dead end roads shall not be more than 600 feet in length.
5. Attach site plan showing ingress/egress, off-street parking, existing building
locations (use solid lines), proposed building additions (use dashed lines), and
other information relevant to the variance. See Preliminary Plat.
6. Owner: George I. Figgins
50 Figgins Circle
Lau el, MT 59044 406-628-4171
Agent: Kadrmas, Lee and Jackson, Inc.
2611 Gabel Road
Billings, MT 59102 406-245-5499
7. Provide copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property.
I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable,
that it pays part of the cost of processing, and that the fee does not constitute a
payment for a variance. I also understand I, or my agent, must appear at the hearing
of this request before the Board of adjustment. All of the information presented by
me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date [Z/Z'7/41S
Fee: $500 for residential variance; $ 1,000 for commercial variance. Fee pd. 5-67e. Do Date
Date application received: 42-3% OF
m
q
A A ?!
uTV
nr AVE
W- iLL
- 17tH AVE l ? _ ? _??
???_I 1.11 ?m1
lNl«-lIJ1.1
LOTH AVE
=tFl 1.1-1-} l i
tif 1 f.l _1 1m1 ;
- ?? AVE
-1a-1I??1ii.II
WfTi
N3?O f iI?Il111I1f ? NE'?''?ii ,
i
V
`6 r?xt e{ .fir '?
? O
S y
ui
N
? C
m -
? m o n
-i c?
p'YF y .' I v T V m N N
- Y` '- .-- A _7R6{i
1ZTHAVEw s W
fa A
_ -.
322
' V
7? IR ?
Z -
N u ?
N
C.
ID + + C -
.. m
- A AVE
TS .... D g
z1
i!
A I
m r
N 'f
n
1 a
u
nI
A---- -'----
L4
+ `E (A N4 A
i;u 1+- 4 I.u
CL
FOUHOAn VE T-
p -? moo.
S - ay -
r 1R 22•x; 6 NE U6
O - m- ?
C m ?- - v1- ? rn
71 T14
HIM13 -?uH
. flo q f1i
_ J I_. IU A' SEVENM AVE
AVE
- 10_
? mg 4T
N
1 dpi U:= F lips?:l?= s lnm_°I[? { .11111 Ulu, T ?J.U.11 t{SJ
??AVE
77
LL Fwfl It M,11., 11115
IyN
T WS P 1
-? 041pa,t _ s It. Tilly q?
In RK 8,
% 1 ?] l f :? W HI a ul 1???i EIrI?11~
r,? F_-?] P T ART T T1Tffff I1T! rr ?Tf 1? 1TIT ?i???
m IN
30.00' 30.00' \ a
S.89°52'50"E. 221.83' N,6?949
1 Cn
6,
??
25fl0
8, w
N.89°53'53"VU• 406.44' \ /
- Cn
a
_
...` ` J 1
??/ 0
EXIST. •\ T
- -
T ++
EXISTING I
1 ? \ g + DRAINFIELD
CnT ]
1
0.(,I?1 ocres)
EXIST.
I 0 $
? w U
ow
U w
w LOT 2 1
1.2741 acres
f j 1 PROPOSED I
REPLACEMENT
1
1 DRAINFIELD
GARAG
J I
SAW5596?E. es-m'
•°n aS 5G' PRIVATE ACCESS
'- i & UTILITY EASEMENT -1-------?
/
N DRY HYDRANT EXISTING IRRIGATION LATERAL DRCH rz
N
99•SZ'1T'W
]07
8
' 1
n + FIRE SUPPRESSION o
Ne9 80.00, s --- 0 3 .
.
.
9
.E](ISTING SANTARY SEW
ER o
?" - - -
i
- -
1 LINE TO CITY/ POND
---- ---
-
°
_ -
- 5 - - - -
' 0
s
---- ?-----
PROPOSED Sg
hlfFARY SE4YER ?..
-
0
- -
t ORNPO ELD I
EXISTING
CITY POND •
s
B s
. s
N.e ssr2m. +gr.s s
o ?? s
I I
J 1 NAWS2
22W. 72.69
to
I I7
u]
72o_oa'
ADANDONNED ?
1q,
IRRIGATION I I
m LATERAL OFFCH
$
! r n$
N ]
Si
$ I PROPOSED
81 REPLACEMENT / p
i ti
I V
r Co
J '?
-
II LOT Lf
0
?
LOT - DRAINFIELD
.
r}
I SEPT] T 1
acres i i. ;
I
I
+ 1
PUM ANK
5T N Xu'
I
` I z
I $ .
?.
5
a
j ' I ry?
r I
+
NNN
N.B9.5222'W. 357.86 119.90
I-
_r
y,f !k
1? rx
_Ef13777VG
? .. IRR??
lg r"
.. DffC 100 0 100 200
+rl i LOT In od
t
L}
I ''13t-{ HCres ?..`; sca
le
i 1 0?r feet
?
I F
} ? 7 P d.
]F,
•
I
' i ? ?.
i f
i FIGGINS SUBDIVISION
uwa cm¢uc i Nscuc ??
?1
?n1 sB'
s?- - -- PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF
- Ka rmas FIGGINS SUB. 2nd F1UNG Leg & LOT 1-A-$ OF AM. LOT i-A
- -- -_ ?? jackson OF AW. LOT 1, FIGGINS SUB.
Nw 9s 2ooa - a:oe? - ?4w??5mnx - noun\wddl°rlisoena.m,.owc
CITY ALL
115 West 1" Street City Of Laurel
City Planner: 628-4796 P. Q. BOX 10
FAX: 628-2241 u
Water Office: 628-7431 Laurel, Montana 59044
Section: 17.48.060
(i) Yards and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones. The following
setbacks shall be provided for accessory buildings in Residential zones:
(1) Detached garages, carports, patios, tool or storage sheds, playhouses,
greenhouses or other accessory buildings shall meet the setbacks required
in below Table 1.
A minimum of ten (10) feet must be maintained between principal structures
TABLE 1 Setbacks from property lines for detached garages, carports, tool or
storage sheds, greenhouses or other detached accessory structures
Side
Adjacent to Rear with Rear Without
Front b Street (b) Side Alley c) Alley
BUILDINGS LESS
THAN 18 FEET (a) (d)
(e) (f)
Approach from a
street 20 20 2 2 3
Approach at right
angle from an
alley 20 10 2 5 N/A
All others 20 20 2 2 3
BUILDINGS GREATER
THAN 18 FEET IN
HEIGHT UP To AND
INCLUDING THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
HEIGHT (a) (d) (e)
Approach from a
street 20 20 5 or 7 5 5 or 7
Approach at right
angle from an
alley 20 20 5 5 N/A
All others. 5 or
20 10 greater 5 5 or 7
(a) All setbacks are denoted in feet from the property line.
(b) In districts with Front or Side Adjacent to Street setbacks greater than those required in
above Table 1, the structure shall meet the most restrictive setback requirement.
(c) No above building or structure nor any part thereof shall protrude into or hang over the
public right-of-way.
I sY
DRAFT
a-s-oy
(d) Structures located adjacent to arterial streets must meet the Arterial Setbacks.
(e) The side wall of detached accessory in a Residential Zoned are in the Laurel city limits
shall be no greater in height than the side walls, excluding a gable wall, of an existing or
proposed principal structure on the property. (this is a Billings code, we could set a
maximum height or have an exemption for stick built structures that include an apartment
on the second floor which could only apply in areas zoned R-6000 or denser; ie. R-7500
would be excluded).
N/A = Not Applicable
(2) Garages, carports and other accessory buildings attached to a dwelling
shall be considered to be part of the dwelling and setbacks shall be the
same as those required for such dwelling. In addition, garages and
carports attached to the dwelling that have their approach from a street
shall be setback from that street property line a minimum of twenty (20)
feet or meet the front setback in the zoning district in which it is located,
whichever is greater.
(3) In the Residential zoning districts within the Laurel city limits the
maximum size allowed for detached accessory structures shall be based on
the following criteria; based on the size of the lot:
b. 10890-17424 square feet= 1,100 square foot maximum size
c. 17424-23,958 square feet =1,200 square feet maximum size '
d. 30,492-37026 square feet = 1,400 square feet maximum size
e. Greater than 37,026 square feet = 1,500 square feet maximum size }
(1) No above allowed building or structure nor any part thereof shall protrude
into or hang over any public right-of-way. .
f. Permitted Projections.
(1) Residential Districts: The following projections shall be permitted in
required setbacks in residential districts:
a. Fireplaces and bay windows not to exceed two (2) feet;
b. Roof overhangs, eaves, gutters, cornices or other architectural features not to
exceed two (2) feet;
c. Open exterior stairways or decks not to exceed two (2) feet in side yards, four
(4) feet in front yards, nor eight (8) feet in the rear yards; (Billings code-we
can modify)
d. Covered unenclosed porches over front stoops or walkways not to exceed four
(4) feet;
e. Ramps used for ADA accessibility
15'r
DRAFT
?-s-ov
f. The above projections are not permitted if they protrude into or hang over
public right-of-way.
(2) Commercial and Industrial Districts: The following projections shall be
permitted in required setbacks in commercial and industrial districts:
a. Roof overhangs, eaves, gutters, cornices or other architectural features not to
exceed two (2) feet;
b. Canopies not to exceed four (4) feet. For the purposes of this subsection,
"canopies" are defined as covers that are solely attached to and supported by
the structure on which it is attached to and which can be removed without
destroying any part of that supporting structure.
c. Ramps that provide accessibility.
The Following issue is one we need to closely look at and are a reference to vertical metal
siding or the "pole barn look." The metal in question is not a type ever used on homes. This
could be a contentious topic so we need to be deliberate in our recommendation. Existing
structures fitting this description would be considered "legal non-conforming buildings."
Please think about this issue and various ways we could approach it. Different options for
accessory buildings include, but are not limited to:
• Exposed seam metal buildings over 200(?) feet shall be prohibited unless covered with an
acceptable material.
• Exposed seam metal buildings are allowed, but cannot be taller than 12 feet.
• Exposed seam metal buildings do not qualify for reduced setbacks when more than 10
feet from the principal building
? st
DRAFT
CITY HALL City Of Laurel
115 West 1?` Street
City Planner: 628-4796 P. 0. Box 10 '
FA: 628-7241
Water Office: 628-7431 Laurel, Montana 59044
? ,- U RkL ?.
Z MT1WA
The following section is proposed in response to our recent recommendation of allowing alcohol
beverage manufacturing in Highway Commercial (HC), Community Commercial (CC) and the
Central Business District (CBD). There are currently 5 churches in the CBD and new bars and/or
micro-breweries are currently not allowed within 600 feet of them. This is a Montana State law
that can be amended by cities per MCA 16-3-309.
New Section: 17.48.090
No building, structure or premises shall be used for the on-premise consumption of alcoholic
beverages unless:
1. A distance of six hundred (600) feet between property lines, measured in a straight line,
is maintained from any building that is predominantly used as a church or school or from
a public park that contains a children's playground or playfield.
a. Properties or establishments which are located in the Central Business District zoning
district are exempt from section (1).
b. Properties may be granted a waiver from the 600-foot separation required in subsection
(1) if the governing body finds that a physical barrier exists between the proposed use
requiring the 600-foot separation. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. An arterial street with no existing or proposed signalized pedestrian crossing;
2. A building or buildings that entirely obstruct the view between the separated uses; and
3. No direct physical access exists between the separated uses. The person applying for the
special review must provide the governing body with proof that the proposed property or
establishment meets one of the above described physical barriers or that other types of physical
barriers exist that warrant the waiving of the 600-foot separation.
isr
DRAFT
a-s-o9