Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 03.16.2022MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL CITY/COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022 A regular meeting of the City/County Planning Board was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Board Chairperson Judy Goldsby at 5:35 p.m. on March 16, 2022. Present: Jon Klasna Evan Bruce Roger Giese Dan Koch Judy Goldsby Ron Benner (5:40) Karen Courtney (City of Laurel) Absent: Gavin Williams General Items Meeting Minutes: February 16, 2022 Motion by Evan Bruce to approve minutes of February 16, 2022. seconded by Dan Koch. All five members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. New Business Special Review Application - Firebox Kitchen & Tap Room Karen Courtney, Building Official, briefly reviewed the attached Staff report. Chair, Judy Goldsby opened for public hearing. Asked for proponents. Dana Lich — Has worked with Canyon Creek Station on properties and they have been above par in quality and feels that it will be a definite asset to our community. Therefore, is in favor of approving. Chair, Judy Goldsby called for opponents. There were none. Called for Board discussion. Jon Klasna: Will signage be brought forward later? Judy Goldsby: This special review is for the Tap room and signage will be forth coming. Jon Klasna motioned to approve application; Evan Bruce seconded. All six members present voted Aye. Motion carried 6-0. Public Hearing on Request for Annexation and Plan of Annexation - Laurel Golf Club Forrest Sanderson, Interim City Planner, presented attached staff report. Question from Ron Benner: You are stating initial zone of Public above the redline on the map. However also shows public below the redline. Forrest: City Public zone above the red line and current County Public zoning below the redline. Does not affect the Yellowstone County Public at all. Chair Judy Goldsby asked if any further questions. None stated, Chair called for proponents. Jesse Norman — 2445 Saddleback Drive — Thanked Forrest for presentation. Golf Course Board discussed the per square foot valuation and it was a concern of the board. The board also wanted to ensure that annexation would not affect the golf course's water rights on any of the ditches they currently have. Also, that the waiver or covenant would not be required and would be part of the development agreement, which he believes as written by Sanderson Stewart in documents the Planning board currently has in their packet. If we commit to keeping the golf course itself and property associated with the golf course as a golf course, that the City of Laurel does not apply any SIDS as the property is remaining as a golf course. If it was ever decided to discontinue the property as a golf course and develop it, then the city applying SIDS to the property would be understandable. There are no plans currently nor in the near future to develop this land. Intent is to keep it as a golf course. Question from Judy Goldsby: All of those issues have been addressed in the annexation request? Forrest: Yes, all of those are a part of the annexation agreement, the final form of which will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Ultimately those are terms that are negotiated. The commit to not do SIDs are not in the current version, that is something that must be discussed with City Council. Judy: Is the application that has been submitted to the board inclusive enough of these issues or does is it something that needs to be resubmitted? Forrest: No, they are inclusive enough of the issue. The question that is being asked that is a governing body decision, is the SID. It is unnecessary to what is being decided here for annexation request and initial zoning designation. Forrest did request to hold questions until all public comment has been taken, however is willing to answer one more from Mr. Benner. Ron Benner: When looking over the agreement I do not see an easement along Golf Course Road. Is there already an easement in place if that road needs to be widened due to development? If so, shouldn't it be in this agreement? Forrest: Very good question. The owner is 100% owner and have the right to do with it as they wish for access to their property. Ron Benner: But if they are requesting to be annexed into the city shouldn't that be a requirement of the annexation? Clarification between Forrest and Ron that this is Golf Course Road that Ron is meaning not the access road. Forrest: We would request that at subdivision, should that ever occur. Until we have a development plan it isn't necessary to request for annexation. Ron Benner: When we have annexed properties into the city we have asked for easement at that time. Forrest: The only ones that I have worked on is when development, subdivision and annexation have come at the same time. Most recently was the Yard Office Road Subdivision where we had annexation, subdivision, and initial zoning all at the same time. The easement was part of it due to the increased traffic from the development, is that the case here today? Probably not, we could request but is not necessary for this annexation request. Benner: There has been development out there with Elena Subdivision, Saddleback Ridge Estates, and the planned extension of West Maryland there will need to be widening of the roadway. Forrest: From a developer's point of view — why should I have to give up property for something that I would not be benefitting from? The constitutional ground that they have not burdened the existing infrastructure being Golf Course Road would exempt the requirement to request easement. Benner: Worry about having to come back and argue it later because we do not know when the development is. My thought is if we are going to do it and look at this as a growth area, even though this is a P -Zone, that easement should be in there automatically because we have hodge-podges of easement all over town. When do we stop doing this and start to address it right from the start? Forrest: Through the development process, the developable portion of this is going to trigger a traffic impact study. At that point the traffic study will tell us the needs of that portion of real property and the burden on infrastructure and the improvements needed therewith, and then we can impose by condition an exaction that meets those needs. Benner: If development grows up above the golf course this area is still impacted. Isn't the time to put the easement on there now and not later? Because later we will have to go back to get that easement. Forrest: True. You can certainly make that a condition, but I don't recommend it. I struggle with an exaction where an impact has not yet occurred. Chair Judy Goldsby called for proponents. Brian Alexander — Sanderson Stewart — I felt Forrest did a wonderful job presenting this, I offer my services to answer any questions. Also, on the topic of the easement, I wish to clarify that there is already a thirty-foot easement located on the current Certificate of Survey. Benner — So it runs along the property on Golf Course Road? Brian — Yes on the golf course side from the middle of the road. Chair Judy Goldsby called for any more proponents. None heard. Chair Judy Goldsby called for any opponents. Called three times. None Heard. Closed public hearing. Chair Judy Goldsby called for a motion. Forrest apologized for the interruption, but he does have a request for the wording of the motion, and he is happy to explain the reason for this. For this to proceed to City Council for approval in a timely fashion, there are three specific things that must be stated to allow for this to happen. The three things that need to happen and the motion covers these is as follows: The favorable recommendation on annexation, favorable recommendation on the public zone and thirdly we need to have the board to empower the board chair the authority to execute and recommendations and documents to the City Council. Ron Benner: I motion to approve the staff report on the Laurel Golf Course Annexation and Initial zoning as our findings of facts and conclusions of Law. Further I move to recommend the annexation of the Laurel Golf Course property as described in the afore mentioned staff report under Title 7-2-4601 of the Montana Code Annotated with an initial zoning of Laurel P -Public. The motion includes authorization from the Planning Board and Zoning Commission allowing the Chair to execute and forward all recommendations and documents necessary to facilitate the required hearing and decisions required of the Laurel City Council. John Klasna seconded. Jon Klasna: I do have a question for Forrest. You stated that this does not include the maintenance shop area of the property. Forrest: you are correct that the golf course maintenance facility is not included in the annexation. The simple reason is that the maintenance facilities at golf courses tend to have noise and uses that in cities could be classified by municipalities as a nuisance. It's not a nuisance it's maintenance, lawn clippings, sharpening mower blades, etc. Roger Giese: The last sentence in the motion "The motion includes authorization from the Planning Board and Zoning Commission allowing the Chair to execute and forward all recommendations and documents necessary to facilitate the required hearing and decisions required of the Laurel City Council." Would that include from previous discussion the widening of Golf Course Road? Forrest: Lets clarify there is a county road easement - Laurel Golf Course Road. Within the confines of annexation that 60 feet will become City of Laurel Street. At some point in the future if there is a cause for this ask, the developer of the project causing the need for a greater right of way, we will then act on that ask. That last sentence is allowing for us to move forward, the next City Council workshop if 5 April, public hearing 12 April. If we wait until next meeting to grant Judy approval to move forward, we are into the heart of building season. This allows us to take about 3.5 weeks out of the wait time to get this into the hands of the decision makers to make their decision on final approval of annexation and initial zoning. Chair asked for any further discussion. There is a motion and a second to approve the annexation request. All those in favor? All six members present voted Aye. Motion passes 6-0. Announcements Next Meeting: April 20, 2022 Adjourned at 6:25 p.m.