HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 03.05.2009Minutes
Laurel -Yellowstone City-County Planning Board
March 5, 2009 7:00 pm
Council Chambers
Members present: Todd Linder, Chairman
Deb Horning, City Rep.
Hazel Klein, City Rep.
Dan Koch, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Kathy Siegrist, County Rep.
Others present: James Caniglia, City Planner
A motion was made by Dan Koch, seconded by Deb Horning to approve the minutes of
the February S, 2009 meeting. Motion carried by a vote of 6-0.
Public Input
Chairman Linder explained to the audience that this portion of the agenda allows the
public to speak for a maximum time of 3 minutes about a subject that is not on the
agenda.
He asked if there was anyone presenting wishing to speak. No one spoke.
Public Hearin on the Pro osed Annexation of Riverside Park
Chairman Linder opened up the public hearing at 7:02 pm
Proponents:
James Caniglia, City Planner spoke regarding the proposed annexation of Riverside Park.
The City Council has been looking into annexation of Riverside Park for many years and
would like to move forward with the annexation. They have asked for the Planning
Board's input and recommendation regarding this matter.
Issues with the annexation are law enforcement. There are certain police protection
powers that the Laurel Police has with the park being annexed. Annexation would give
them full protection ability a why the city council wants to move forward to annex
Riverside Park.
The city council plans to look at doing a master park plan and re do many sections of the
park to try and get more utilization of the park.
There is a better opportunity to get grants if the Park is annexed by the city which could
mean more amenities and bringing more people to the park. Some of these amenities
include trails and an amphitheater and various other things.
The other issue is that MMIA lists Riverside Park as its biggest liability within the State
of Montana. This is a major concern for both MMIA and the City of Laurel.
James pointed out that as a city owned park the city can do whatever it wishes, such as
allowing groups to shoot in the Park. As far as annexation is concerned, there does not
have to be annexation to not allow it anymore. But the main, issue is safety for the police
and improvements to the Park. If the city allows shooting at the park it can do so under
certain circumstances that are allowed under the Laurel Municipal Codes.
James goes on to state that the lease between the city and the Rifle Club goes through
May of 2010 but the city has told the club for many years that the lease to allow them to
shoot probably will not continue past that time. But, that issue is for the city council to
decide.
Chairman Linder explained the process of a public hearing and went on to state that this
Planning Board is solely a recommendation board and the city council has the option of
taking the boards recommendation or not. The city council holds a second public hearing
on this matter before making the final decision.
Chairman Linder asked if there were any opponents wishing to speak.
Opponents:
Cody Thatcher spoke. She is with the Laurel Roadrunner's Club. She is going to a state
shoot and if she didn't have this place to practice she wouldn't be shooting. This is one
of her most favorable things to do and if she didn't do this she doesn't know what she
would do on the weekends. Sunday is her day to go have fun and shoot with her other
club members. The Billings state games also use this building for their shooting
competitions.
Mike Dewey spoke stating that he is opposed to the annexation. He is a member of
Laurel Rod and Gun Club. He feels the reasons stated by the City Planner don't make
sense.
He went on to state that Montana State Code Annotated 7.32.4302 states that the city
police can go out of it's city limits by 3 miles to enforce their own laws.
2
He also states that the city, as landowners, can make any change to their land whether it
is within the city limits or not to include stopping organizations from shooting in the
park.
He also went on to state that the liability issue for the MMIA is present whether or not
Riverside Park is within the city limits or not.
He doesn't feel that annexation of the property serves a purpose because it will not
change anything in addition to the fact that he enjoys shooting down at the Park.
James Knight from the Laurel Rifle Club spoke. In his opinion this seems to be an
ongoing battle down at the Park and he sees that if the park is annexed than the Laurel
Rifle Club and Rod and Gun Club are gone. If there is an amphitheater and trails put in
at the park they will have to be placed right where their shooting range is. They also
provide hunter safety programs and over 100 kids a year go through the program each
year. If the city takes the park away from the clubs where are those kids going to go
through their field course training and test? They provide a lot of shooting abilities and
entertainment for a lot of people. If the city decides to change things down there the
shooting clubs are gone. The shooting range is a landmark to the City of Laurel and the
people of Laurel are lucky to have it. He goes on to say that there are 60 members in the
Rifle Club and over 400 in the Rod and Gun Club. So, a lot of people will be affected
when the city says they want to annex this. The clubs will be in trouble. He does not see
that annexation is a good solution.
Jamie Krug spoke. She is the Laurel Roadrunner Shooting sports leader. She has done
this for 5 years. When she started she had a hard time finding a place to shoot. Through
where she works she was allowed to use the Rifle Club every Sunday all day to go down
and shoot. Two years later they were allowed to do archery. They still shoot outside. If
the city decides to put in trails they are taking the ability for these kids to have real life
experience shooting outside in the elements and learning how to deal with distances and
all of the stuff that comes in the shooting sports. The kids have a fun, wonderful time
shooting with her on Sundays. If the city takes it away from them they will be back to
where they were 5 years ago to the fact that we will be without a place to shoot. This
could cause the shooting sports to be shut down because they don't have any other
options. Please consider the kids through this. This affects more than just the Laurel
Road Runners it affects many kids. They also use this area for leaders training because in
4-H you have to be a certified leader to teach the kids to shoot. In May they will hold the
2'd leaders training. If they don't have this training in this area they lose the opportunity
to take in more kids to shoot because without training the adults it is gone. Yellowstone
County will lose a lot of this program
Ernie Freund spoke. He has been working around the park for about 30 years. He states
that he is amazed that no one recognizes the fact that this is one of the nicest shooting
ranges in the area that is open to the public. The Rod and Gun Club members use it and
they would hate to see the lose of the shooting in the park. He is wondering who the
police are going to come down and protect? He sees a few people walking dogs, a few
people that come down and drink their liquor and those that come down and eat their
lunch. He feels that the gun club members use it the most but even that doesn't amount
to much. He doesn't see any benefit in annexation unless the city can get tax dollars out
of it. If it is annexed and the shooting stops than you deny the public and the clubs the
chance to come down and enjoy those types of sports. It's not NBA basketball but the
shooting sports are very highly regarded sports. There are a lot of shooting clubs in
Billings and Huntley. It's nice to have to have one here in Laurel. They have put about
$18,000 into building the club and it hasn't cost the City of Laurel anything. By the same
toke their lease hasn't been renewed so the City of Laurel is only getting the garbage fee
paid by the club. This is not the way it was in the old days. He doesn't see an advantage
for annexing the park.
Herb Stoik spoke. He has been the president of the Rod and Gun Club for the past 5 or 6
years. In regards to the liability insurance issue he is wondering how many insurance
claims have been submitted by the park area as compared to how many have been
submitted by the town of Laurel. He doesn't remember of anyone being shot in the park
or threatened by a firearm. He wonders where the statistics are that say it is more of a
liability than the town of Laurel itself.
Mike Longbottom spoke. He has kids that are in the BB shooting sports. The one thing
that the board hasn't heard is that the city is creating a park district and he is concerned
that even if this is annexed and the city applies for grants the city's finances probably
won't have the funds to match the grant due to the failing infrastructure of the city. He
would like to see the city turn the club owners loose down in the park and let them see
what they can accomplish. He went on to say that the clubs have done wonders down in
the park.
Jim Simons spoke. He is the Vice-President of the Laurel Shooting Education program,
and member of the both the Rifle Club and Rod and Gun Club. They utilize the Jaycee
Hall on Monday and Tuesday nights. It saddens him that they are finally getting their
program up and running and a program to help kids get into air rifle program and small-
bore rifle program for college scholarship. They have invested a lot of time and money.
He thinks the clubs would put more money into their facilities if they knew they could
have the buildings (or rent or lease) and fix them up and make them nice. Everyone is
holding back and afraid to do anything at this time. He asked the board not to
recommend annexation of the park.
Ernie Freund spoke and stated that the Rod and Gun Club has been down at the park
longer than anyone in the room is old, about 75 or 80 years. The Rod and Gun Club has
been built up over the years by members and even though it isn't the Hilton it is a very
nice building even though it lacks running water right now. The Riverside Park is a nice
facility that has continued getting nicer over the years due to the (club) members. He
recommended that the board come down and look at the facility.
Mike Conley spoke. He is the outgoing treasurer of the Laurel Shooting Education
program and a member of both gun clubs. He stated that the Laurel Shooting Education
4
program averages about 40 kids per year. To his knowledge he doesn't believe there has
been a gun incident with any children within the program in the past 30 years. He is
wondering where they will go with the kids now? Everyone wants kids in the community
to stay busy. That will be taken away from the kids. They are currently using the Rifle
Club for the new air rifle program that has 10 kids involved. They have expectations that
this program will grow to about 20 - 30 kids next year. He stated that shooting sports are
dying in the United States. The programs are positive for the kids and it would be a
shame to lose the shooting sports in Laurel.
Howard Rickard spoke. He represents the Laurel Jaycees. He has maintained the Jaycee
building for the past 12-14 years. One of the concerns their club has is the ambiguity that
concerns whatever lease program is going to be available for the clubs in Riverside Park.
They do maintain and manage those buildings and use them for a lot of fund raiser's that
have a lot of community impact. The team dynamics between the clubs are all affected
with all of the clubs there. Without them knowing what their futures hold with the leases
the clubs are hesitant about what their investment is going to be in those buildings. This
year without a lease the Jaycee's have put in over $10,000 of improvements into the
Jaycee building. They have the opportunity to help families in crisis with all of the
fundraisers coming up and all of the weddings and events they rent their facility to. They
would like to do more since reading the survey that the City of Laurel did regarding the
needs and wants of the citizens of Laurel. Some of the clubs have opportunities to fill
those needs but they are hesitant to do so because of the leases and park being up in the
air. He feels the clubs need more information on what the direct impact will be on the
city buildings that the clubs use.
Terry Krum spoke. He is involved with one of the clubs and he supports the clubs that
are there. He asked the city to consider the changes that they make to the park that could
be detrimental such as removing trees and adding more people to the park which could
possibly allow the river to take over the park.
Chairman Linder asked two times if there were any other opponents that wished to speak.
There were none.
Chairman Linder closed the public hearing at 7:29 pm.
Board discussion:
Deb Horning requested that James go over the issues he brought up at the beginning of
the meeting.
James stated that the council would like to bring forward on this annexation mainly for
the law enforcement issue. It is true that per Montana Code law enforcement can give
tickets for disturbing the peace and serve warrants but the department would like to have
more authority especially as the park facilities grow and more people are using the park.
5
There are more grants available to do improvements in the park when it is annexed into
the city. The council and park board would like to see improvements made so that more
people can use the park in other ways. It appears that there are currently a lot of people
using the park but the council feel that there could be more events of a broader nature in
the park and would like to explore those possibilities.
The issue with the liability per Montana Municipal Insurance Authority is that over the
years there have been developments built close to the park and close to the shooting
range so as to make it a big risk for the people that are in the park. The MMIA has listed
Riverside Park as their biggest liability within the State of Montana. The MMIA may
attend the public hearing that will be held before the city council regarding the
annexation and the city's liability risks.
There was an incident about five months ago where a land surveyor and home owner
came close to being hit by a bullet that strayed out of the park. This is a major concern
for the city due to their liability.
James went on to state that the city has no intentions whatsoever of kicking any
organizations out of the park. The city is very thankful and appreciative of the
improvements that the clubs have done to the buildings in the park. There is no intention
of telling people that they can no longer use those buildings.
A question was raised from the board regarding the liability insurance. Has the insurance
company threatened discontinuing insurance because of the shooting range at Riverside
Park?
James stated that the MMIA has not threatened to drop the city's insurance because of the
shooting range.
Hazel Klein questions whether or not the city will allow the clubs to continue the
activities that are happening now in the Park in the future?
James stated that if the Park was to be annexed things will be decided based on financial
issues such as getting grants and how much money will be available for improvements.
The city does have the option to not renew leases and not allow shooting. The only
shooting that could be allowed (if annexed) would be for competitions or training.
John VanAken expressed that he would be very disappointed if the activities for the kids
in the shooting club were discontinued. These days it is hard for kids to find activities to
keep them busy and out of trouble. He didn't realize that there was an outdoor shooting
range and feels like there should be some type of a barrier that would help protect
neighbors. He feels that the river could more of a liability issue than the shooting range.
John also reminded the board that the Peaks to Prairies race use the park heavily once a
year. John also suggested that the amphitheater would be placed right in the middle of
many mosquitoes which is probably not a good idea. John stated he would be
6
disappointed if the hunter's safety program was not allowed to continue using the park
for training and testing.
A motion was made by John VanAken that this is not an area to be annexed into the city
limits but if it is annexed that the city make variations in the city codes that would allow
the groups using the area to continue using the area with the stipulation that either a tree
or foliage barrier be integrated into the surroundings of it to protect any stray bullet or
object that might come from the area. (this motion was never seconded)
Chairman Linder requested that John be more specific in his motion. John stated that he
would like to have some time to write out a more specific motion and asked if the board
would be allowed to table this discussion.
A motion was made to table the proposal for annexation to the April 2, 2009 meeting.
(could not identify through the tape as to who made the motion) but no one seconded the
motion. The motion died.
A motion was made by John VanAken to recommend to the Laurel City Council that
annexation of Riverside Park be denied, seconded by Kathy Siegrist.
Discussion.
Hazel Klein pointed out that there was a large amount of people present at the public
hearing that were against the annexation but there were no representatives present from
Laurel's insurance carrier (MMIA) or the Laurel Police department. She is not sure that
she has enough information to either support or recommend denial of the annexation.
Kathy Siegrist stated that the city council has big dreams for the park but she doesn't
think they will be able to come up with money to support any changes. She would hate
to see something that is working right (the clubs) get run out of the park. She goes on to
say that maybe this isn't the right time for annexation of Riverside Park. The clubs now
know the possibility of annexation exists and could start looking at other options for their
shooting ranges.
Hazel Klein suggested that it would be better for the city and clubs to have some friendly
discussion to see a direction that could be put together as far as which way the city will
go and if and how the clubs can continue with their activities at Riverside Park. It is a
fear of the unknown for the clubs involved that has come out here tonight in the public
hearing. No one knows what is going to happen after it is annexation. The city has their
own issues to deal with as far as insurance and law enforcement issues and that is an
integral part of the whole thing. There's got to be a balance between the two because it is
being used and there is a big group here that is opposing. She goes on to say that she is
not sure this is a good time to recommend annexation.
Kathy Siegrist asked if the clubs have to supply insurance or do they go only through the
city's insurance.
7
The clubs provide their own insurance.
At this point a person from the audience (who did not identify themselves) read Montana
Code 7.32.4302 "Control of the disturbances of the police" regarding law enforcement.
Kurt Markegard, Director of Public Works spoke regarding grants. The city has trouble
trying to get enough funding. The Parks and Cemetery budgets that he oversees are
dictated by the city council as to how they are dispersed. Those funds compete with Fire,
Ambulance and Police. When the city goes through tough times the first funds that get
cut are from the Parks and Cemetery. This leaves no funding for parks and recreation. If
the park is annexed into the city then the city could choose to assess a park maintenance
fee to every citizen, just like a street maintenance fee. He is not sure what the law says
about where those funds can be spent but if it can only be spent inside city limits that may
be a consideration as to why the council wants the park annexed. By having a yearly fee
assessed to each property owner than the city would have the same amount of funds in
the budget each year to use in the parks for improvements. So a park maintenance
district would help not only every park but there would be a dedicated fund level that the
city could depend on having each year and plans could be done to use those funds. This
would also free up the general fund for Ambulance, Fire and Police.
The city has a Capital Improvements Projects process with items listed that the city
would like to do inside the parks. You can have the plan but without funding nothing
will be done.
If a park maintenance fund is set up the undeveloped parks that have been dedicated in
those subdivisions could be planned, built and maintained.
Kurt went on to state that up until two years ago the city mowed 42 acres of parks and
cemetery with two 48 inch deck mowers. It was a fight to get two mowers purchased in
order to mow more efficiently. The city had two people out on those mowers five days a
week for eight hours each day. They now have two 78" deck mowers that they can mow
all of the parks within three and a half days. They have to mow a lot of grass on a limited
budget.
Kurt went on to say that for him it is disheartening when he hears that the public wants
more playgrounds and he knows that the only way to get those playgrounds is through
public fundraising. Once the playground equipment is purchased (through donations) the
city doesn't have the personnel to put the playground equipment up.
The intent was to someday get a park maintenance fund set up to get more recreation
options into the parks. He is unsure whether or not those funds can be spent in parks
located outside of the city limits.
Kurt went on to say that every budget year he asks for funds to improve the parks and
every year after the budget is finalized there are no funds left for the parks. The only way
the Kids Kingdom came about was by a grass-roots organization that went door to door
8
asking for donations. If the city had of gone door to door asking for money the doors
would have been shut immediately.
Kurt went on to say that he is neither for nor against annexation of Riverside Park.
Having gone through the shooting programs as a kid he sees the need for places to be
provided for those programs.
Chairman Linder stated that there is a motion on the floor to recommend to the city
council that the annexation request for Riverside Park be denied. He asked if there was
any discussion on that motion.
Dick Friztler made a motion to amend the motion to delay the vote on the motion made
by John VanAken and seconded by Kathy Siegrist until the April 2, 2009 Planning Board
meeting so the board can obtain the information they need to make a decision. The
motion was seconded by Dan Koch.
Wendy Thatcher from the audience spoke and stated that their grass-roots organization is
willing to do work down at the park and her group has been doing work at the park and is
wondering how annexation of the park will change that? All the clubs are asking for is a
lease that will allow them to make plans for the future.
The vote was called for (on the amended motion to delay the vote) and was passed by a
unanimous vote of 6-0.
Discussion.
The board would like information from the Montana Municipal Insurance Agency and
local law enforcement regarding insurance and law enforcement issues that have come up
on Riverside Park.
The Board would also like the Park Committee's input on what plans are being
considered to be included in the Master Plan for parks.
Chairman Linder stated that any other questions the board may have regarding this
annexation issue should be directed to James prior to the April 2, 2009 meeting.
Laurel Ai ort Authority Presentation
No one was present to make the presentation.
Discussion - Second draft of Accessories Buildin s Section 17.48.030 & Section
17.48.060
The board reviewed the 2nd draft of the proposed changes to Sections 17.48.030 and
17.48.060. (see below)
9
(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 3 2 3
Approach at right
angle from an
alley 20 10 3 6 N/A
All others 20 10 3 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 8 6 8
Approach at right
angle from an
alley 20 10 8 6 8
All others. 20 10 8 6 8
(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.
(d) Structures located adjacent to arterial streets must meet the Arterial Setbacks.
10
(e) The side wall of a detached accessory in a Residential Zoned 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 unless: the additional
height features tww usable stories and the upper floor is used for an apartment.
N/A = Not Applicable
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.
Residentially zoned districts within the Laurel city limits allow detached accessory
structures based on the following criteria; based on the size of the lot:
- Lots containing less than.25 acres = 1,000 square feet maximum size.
- Lots containing .25 acres up to 1 acre shall use the following formula:
(667 x lot acreage) + 833 = maximum detached structure size)
Lots containing more than l acre = 1,500 square foot maximum size.
No above allowed building or structure nor any part thereof shall protrude
into or hang over any public right-of-way.
Permitted Projections.
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, eight (8) 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
The above projections are not permitted if they protrude into or hang over
public right-of-way.
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;
11
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
The biggest concern from board members is making sure these sections are consistent
with Billings and the State of Montana codes in general. James made changes to reflect
setbacks and height restrictions. We would be allowing certain permitted projections
such as bay windows, porches, fireplaces to be able to exceed setback requirements.
Essentially James changed everything to be exactly like Billings codes, but he had two
questions for the board to discuss.
Under permitted projections residential districts (c: "Open exterior stairways or decks
not to exceed two (2) feet in side yards, eight (8) feet in front yards, or either (8) feet in
the rear yards") James asked for discussion by the board as to whether or not 8 feet
should be allowed in front yards or 4 feet. Billings's code is at 4 feet.
After a general discussion the board recommended that the permitted projection remain at
8 feet.
The board discussed exposed seam metal buildings (pole metal buildings) and the
possibility of prohibiting them unless they are covered with an acceptable material that
matches the houses exterior.
Hazel Klein suggested that if the board wants to exclude one specific thing it should be
specifically stated as such and not in a generalized statement. In her opinion it would
make more sense (to be specific) and create fewer variables so it can be enforced.
12
James stated that he has looked at many different city codes and no one seems to have a
universal language regarding metal pole buildings. There are many cities that do not
even allow metal pole buildings.
After a lengthy discussion it was determined that the term exposed seam metal building
will be used in the wording of the code section. Metal pole buildings will still be allowed
to be built within city limits as long as the outside of the building is covered with an
acceptable siding material as per codes.
The board discussed (e) on Table 1: "The side wall of a detached accessory in a
Residential Zoned 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."
James would like to add "unless: the additional height features tux usable stories and the
upper floor is used for an apartment. "
Discussion.
Chairman Linder asked if the board would like a 3`d draft of these proposed changes at
the April meeting or if the board would like to set a public hearing regarding these
proposed changes.
After discussion it was decided to move forward with the public hearing at the April 2,
2009 meeting.
Discussion - Alcohol Exemption
After a short discussion this was set for a public hearing for the April 2, 2009 meeting.
Discussion on allowance of auction houses in Central Business District
The people that contacted James regarding allowing an auction house in the Central
Business District were supposed to be present at the meeting to answer the many
questions that the board had at the January 8, 2009 meeting but no one showed up.
Miscellaneous
James will present a list of additional changes he is proposing to the zoning codes at the
April 2, 2009 meeting as well as a list of those issues needing to move on to the city
council.
The board discussed the possibility of holding 2 meetings per month with one of the
meetings being a "workshop" to discuss items more thoroughly prior to holding a public
hearing.
Chairman Linder stated that he was frustrated at the public hearing on the proposed
annexation of Riverside Park tonight because people key to this proposal, law
13
enforcement and the city's insurance company, were not present to answer questions and
give input that both the board and the public had regarding the annexation.
Dick Fritzler stated that he felt a park master plan should be done prior to deciding
whether or not to annex Riverside Park so that both the city and the existing clubs benefit
from the annexation.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
14