Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 01.19.2022MINUTES L CITY OF LAUREL L, CITY/COUNTY PLANNING BOARD J WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2022 5:35 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Input: Citizens may address the committee regarding any item of business that is not on the agenda. The duration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the committee will not take action on any item not on the agenda. 1. Roll Call The Chair called the meeting to order at: 5:35Pm Jon Klasna Ron Evan Roger Dan Judy Nick Altonaga (City of Laurel) General Items 2. Meeting Minutes: December 15, 2021 The Members reviewed the meeting minutes from December 15, 2021. Evan motioned to approve the minutes Roger Seconded Motion Carried. New Business 3. Public Hearing: Laurel Golf Course Annexation Request Nick presented the details of the staff report Bryan Alexander, Sanderson -Stewart. Working with the Golf Club Representing the Golf Club. Ick provided a great summary of the request for annexation. Provide water and sewer for the Golf Club, as it is the best for public sanitation and water services. The soil makes it the best Other areas near the Golf Course Road could be prime for development. We worked with City Planning Staff to determine the area under review for approval. This extends from Saddleback Ridge down to the Big Ditch. This would be the easiest area developed and served by utility services. The Chair Called for Proponents. Drake Webinger, Member of the Laurel Golf Club. Have a few calls from the Saddleback Ridge residents concerned about the 7500 zoning. Plan to be involved heavily in the future development of a subdivision. Will want it to be tasteful and fitting with the surrounding area. Main goal right now is to get city services to the Club House. Short term. The Chair Called for Proponents. The Chair called for Opponents. Mark Russell, 2080 Saddleback Drive. Just heard that the 7500 zoning is the minimum they could get, which they also asked for. I support the annexation with the caveats that I provided to the Planning Department. Defaulting to an R7500 zoning is not the best strategy. It is not the best for traffic, emergency access, and financial and quality of life impacts living immediately north and East of the subdivision. We have no clue of the impacts of the future development. Would suggest the designation of Agricultural Owners (AO). That they require them to address the concerns mentioned above (Subdivision concerns) Submit information about studying the zoning designation and its impacts. Developer would require to pony -up funding for the future development. In summary saying: area cannot support a plan that has not studied the impacts on the surrounding roads and properties. Has the potential to create 300 approximate homes in the area. There is no planning being done. Approve the annexation, leaving the property as open area (AO), and at the time of development come with a changed The chair called for Opponents. Mike Casey, 2040 Saddleback. In a quandary. The Golf Course is an amazing asset to the community, and I am glad they are upgrading and improving. Want to find a way to have them capable of proceeding. Annexation planning is a long-term process with timelines of 5 and 10 years and studying infrastructure and services and priority areas. Size, Location, and Zoning combined make it pre -mature. The GMP laid out which tools should be developed, when they should be developed, and who they should be developed by, including timelines. These are essential when looking at something of this magnitude. Is important for truly evaluating what impacts. The annexation being consistent with the Growth Management Policy is not true. Growth is focused south of the area. This becomes clear with the lack of a connection for Maryland Lane. Elena Subdivision is disconnected from the rest of the city via E -W route. The level of services at 9th and Golf Course will be impacted severely. This could possibly develop many issues in the future. I would like to postulate just like the previous speaker that the best thing the city could do would be the find a way to under unique circumstances to get the Sewer and Water to the Club House. Not do it willy- nilly. The AO Zone is a means to provide a good reason to grow over time. I am confused by the requirement for R-7500 designation. One of the other comments that I have is that looking at this place is that it is the premiere spot for a PUD. I can envision condos and mixed uses that are near the Golf Course. Having this as a large AO zone until a true development plan comes in would be a super priority. The Chair suggested that we limit comments to 2 minutes in order to get through The Chair called for Opponents. 249 24 Avenue West. Per state law the 11 questions must be addressed via MCA. The Chair Called for Opponents. Pat Kimmet, 2130 Saddleback Drive. Former member of the Golf Course and think they need to get services. I think the previous speakers summed it up nicely. Should be kept as AO, due to keeping it empty for now. Ron: Do we have a history at all of annexations involving AO? Not to my knowledge. Ron: Would these impacts raised in conversation be dealt with in the Subdivision process? Mark Russell: What is the difference between leaving it as R22,000 compared with R-7500. Ron: I live on the East end, and we have been fighting trailer courts for years. Nick: provided that this would not be a final approval and would not happen overnight. Ron: to Bryan at Sanderson Stewart, Would this impact adversely the Golf Course Timeline? Bryan: Yes, it would. The R-7500 was requested as that was the minimum as required by the Annexation Policy. This also makes the most sense for the installation of infrastructure (Water and Sewer). Nick suggested also that the zoning could be amended in the Annexation Agreement, as any deviation from the code must be approved by City Council and that would be in the Annexation and/or Development Agreement. Roger: Agree that the zoning designation creates some issues with traffic and density and everything. Roads. Could this be updated and amended? Nick: We do not have to have this go directly to City Council. We can work with the Engineer to update the language of the agreement prior to heading back to coming back to Planning board and having a Public Hearing at City Council. Webinger: We have no intention of developing the land right now. We would like to see a positive development and do not anticipate Townhomes. The impact should be minimal due to the topographic nature of the Southern portion of the property. We want to get annexed and connected before the ditch gets high and it becomes untenable. We see annexation into the city making the Saddleback Ridge properties more valuable. But the development is NOT on our minds right now. Roger: What is the cost of the Clubhouse build? Webbinger: 1.89mil Dan: What about the costs of development? Webinger: We don't plan on any public improvements Bob Atkins, Board of Directors. — Very entertained on the progressive conversation we've had here. Getting water and sewer in is the priority for us. Ron: Are you willing to sit down with your neighbors and discuss options? Drake: Yes, definitely that is a focus for us. We also see this as a great development for the the area. Ron: One correction to a comment made earlier. The lack of connection of W. Maryland Lane is not because of the Mark Russell: As Drake said earlier, they plan to sell it to a developer, which would then be out of their hands. Question from Crowd: Would it be more attractive to the developer to keep it as R7500? Drake: We used 7500 due to Sanderson Stewart following the city annexation policy. The major focus is getting water and sewer services. We understood that there would be some backlash from saddleback but do not plan on Ron: Move to approve the Annexation as stated with the provisions as stated in the staff report. Roger: I believe our job is to say yay or nay and that the final changes can be made via City Council. Roger Seconded. Ron: none of the timelines The Question has been called. Motion Carried. + discussion on the Allowable use of the Golf Clubhouse. Nick will provide that comment and note to the City Council. Old Business 4. Building Permit Review: City Brew/Chen's Express Ron: It looks like the kiosk was removed to the other side, which is not my main issue. Question about Ron: Question about Steve Wells, 4772 Audubon Way, Billings, MT. Representative of the landowners. The part I would add is that it is a somewhat confusing site to begin with. It is a kind of inherited problem. We are trying to fix it with a new building and site layout. Have spent a considerable amount of time discussing options and designs to try and implement the type of changes At the end of the day, we are concerned with the shape of the property. Before we talk about the way the traffic flow works. I am mainly here to voice my support for the project. Adam Baumgartner, Billings, MT. Architect for the design team. Regarding the flow of the site and how we envision it. We see people wanting to access city brew wanting to access via S. I I Ave, and flow towards S. Montana. Chen's Express, we see it as reverse flow, accessed from S. Montana and flowing out to S. 15t. We have submitted 4 iterations and have made changes as per public comment. Moving the ATM, Creating a pedestrian walkway to the site. We feel that this is the best design for the site in regard to traffic flow. We think this will be the best for traffic flow for vehicles and pedestrians. We will have a striped drive lane for the ATM and marked as per Ron: Have they provided a signage plan? Karen Courtney: They have not. Our first priority is the building itself and they have provided just concept drawings. They will have to provide a specific signage plan for subsequent review and approval. Ron: I think the layout is better than it was before Erica Gilrean, Project Civil Engineer. Wanted to go into more detail as to what the changes were from last time. Have a dedicated Transportation engineer. The concerns were addressed were the ATM and the pedestrian access, Traffic ingress and egress to the We opened back up the front entrance area a lot which decreases the access to and from S. 1" Ave. We have removed a lot of the directional arrows and site signs Anyone coming West through that area should be able to understand the go -around. The Median on the north just north of Chen's express has been pulled back further opening up the traffic flow across the West of the site. We have also removed the speed bumps and other traffic calming to let the striping and directional for the ATM to do most of the work. We believe that the changes address the concerns of the Board. We believe it meets the needs of the city of Laurel and is a great plan for the challenges the lot provided. Joey Stazak, Sanderson Stewart. Erica hit on a lot of the high points of the changes. The goal of this last rendition of changes moves the conflict points from towards the public right of ways towards the interior of the site. At the front end of this project, we did reach out to the City and MDT to see about a traffic study. They reported that due to the traffic control existing in S 1s` that we did not need to do a traffic study. We believe that this plan brings the site back to its historic use and will bring it flush with the adjacent Conoco site as well. Another point mentioned is the cross -dimensional flow. I agree that it is a challenge and learning or not it might cause a slowdown traffic. The ATM re -location allows for pedestrian access to get to the ATM and guides traffic in a specific pattern. It should reduce confusion. The speed bumps being removed was done in order to simplify things and can be added back in the future if the lot needs it. Ron motion to approve the building permit with the condition that the building not be occupied until the full site improvements are made. Karen Courtney, Building Official. The building cannot be occupied until the requirements of the building plans have been completed. One clarification that the sidewalk and other adjacent requirements stop at the property boundary due to the NOT and Highway Right of Way. Roger: One final point of contention. Regarding the ATM. Wells: Chase bank reached out to me that they wanted to expand their reach in the area and wanted to install it as part of the project. Evan Seconded. Motion Carried. Other Items 5. Project Updates Meeting adjourned at 6:55pm. 6. Adjourn Announcements 7. Next Meeting: February 16, 2022 The City makes reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person's ability to participate in this meeting. Persons needing accommodation must notify the City Clerk's Office to make needed arrangements. To make your request known, please call 406-628-7431, Ext. 2, or write to City Clerk, PO Box 10, Laurel, MT 59044, or present your request at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana. DATES TO REMEMBER 'JuCk IRLQ190aQ� cam,