HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 04.02.2009DRAFT
MINUTES
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 2, 2009 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Koch, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
Miles Walton, City Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Deb Horning, City Rep.
Kathy Siegrist, County
Greg Nelson, Member-at-Large
OTHERS PRESENT: James Caniglia, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
The minutes of the meeting were approved with corrections.
Public Input
There was no public input.
Continuation of board discussion regarding the proposed annexation of Riverside
Park
City Planner James Caniglia spoke regarding the proposed annexation of Riverside Park.
James requested that MMIA employee Thomas Danenhower attend the Planning Board
meeting but he was not able to do so due to his schedule. He was able to share some
information with James in regards to liability at Riverside Park and the risks involved.
Mr. Danenhower's main concern as the park stands at this moment is the one million
dollar liability insurance provided by the Rod and Gun Club. He feels there needs to be a
two million dollar minimum policy for the insurance as Montana tort laws have a
maximum payout of 1.5 million. Mr. Danenhower feels that if the city were to annex
Riverside Park while there is an ongoing shooting range at the park that the city would
either need to hire a supervisor for the park or law enforcement would need to patrol the
park extensively to ensure that city code is being followed. City code allows shooting in
the city limits, but it must be supervised and the city would need to show it is not being
negligent in enforcing its codes. Mr. Danenhower believes that if the city were to annex
Riverside Park it should have complete control of the shooting range at the time of
annexation.
Laurel Police Chief Rick Musson spoke at this time.
The issue of his department's jurisdiction has always been one of controversy. Montana
State Code Annotated 7.32.4302 does state that departments can go out of their city limits
up to 5 miles but state laws, as they read, don't always mean that it is practical to do it
that way. City of Laurel Ordinance states that all police officers of the City of Laurel
shall have the powers to make arrests of persons charged with or committing crimes
within the city limits, within 5 miles around and along the line of water supply in the
city.
His boss, the Mayor of the City of Laurel does not want the Laurel Police Department out
patrolling in the county. The law says that they have the authority but because the park is
not in city limits his department is not going to patrol it on a regular basis. His officers
do go down to Riverside Park at times and they may even go up to the City Cemetery
occasionally but when it comes to arrest powers or taking action on crimes out of the city
limits his department calls the Yellowstone County Sheriff's office to handle and
investigate the case, and make any arrests.
The Sheriff's office calls upon the Laurel Police Department for mutual aid on occasion
when their deputy is unable to get to a particular call within a timely manner. The Laurel
officer will control and take charge of the situation and then hand it over to the deputy -
when he/she arrives on the scene. The Supreme Court states that jurisdiction needs to be
handed over the department (or person) that has standing in that jurisdiction.
Rick goes on to state that every small city police department in the state of Montana is in
the same boat. If it was up to Rick his department would have state wide jurisdiction. He
doubts that many small departments within the state would agree with him. His
department has limited jurisdiction outside of Laurel's area. He believes that MMIA has
a big issue with the Laurel Police Department doing work outside of the city limits. His
officers will do a traffic stop outside of the city if the traffic violation committed took
place within the city limits and the violator drives into the county. That is justified, but
his department does not patrol outside the city limits.
The issue with the state law is not just what is read but how it is done
He goes on to say that if the city wants the Laurel Police Department to be in control of
Riverside Park then the city needs to annex it. As it stands now Riverside Park is in the
Yellowstone County Sheriff's jurisdiction and that department gets paid to patrol the
park. Laurel Police do have more of a vested interest in the park because it is city owned
and city officers are probably down at Riverside Park more often than the deputy's are.
Dick Fritzler asked that in the event that the city chose to annex Riverside Park and in the
event that the Rod and Gun Club and the Rifle Club stayed and there was rigid language
in their leases that stated they would have to provide a secure building and an adequately
supervised range, would there be any reason that the Laurel Police Department be
involved in that?
2
Chief Musson stated that the city would not need to be involved in that because he feels
that the shooting clubs have capable people within the organization to handle the
situation.
Miles Walton asked about State Law 7.32.4302. He asked what took precedence, city
ordinance or state law.
Chief Musson stated that State Law 7.32.4301 states that the city "fathers" have the
authority to authorize city police officer's to go out of their jurisdiction. State Law
7.32.4302 states how far they can go out of the city limits and what they can do.
Chief Musson states that the Laurel Police Department is required to patrol within the
city limits; they only go into the county for mutual aid, as needed.
James Caniglia stated it is his view that the best uses for Riverside Park are uses that
benefit the most people and uses that to maximize the number of visitors at the park.
While he ultimately feels that Riverside Park has the potential to cater to a larger
audience that it currently has and can be of a greater benefit to the citizens of Laurel, he
feels that there should be a comprehensive plan that details how the park will be used
before annexation of the park were to occur and that the current groups who use the park
have their views addressed to see if they can also be accommodated.
A lengthy discussion was held on the city's liability insurance through MMIA.
MMIA has informed James that the city's liability at Riverside Park is higher because the
city needs to be sure that the shooting is supervised. The code says the shooting must be
supervised and James states that because it is not in the city limits it does not fall under
the city code.
James stated that MMIA's recommendation of upping the one million dollar liability
insurance to 2 million dollars should be addressed quickly by the city.
The consensus of the board is that prior to annexation a park roaster plan needs to be
done, liability issues need to be worked out and the city needs to figure out how they will
be able to finance the changes that will need to be facilitated because of the MMIA
increased insurance requirements. Also, the annexation would require that the Laurel
Police Department do more patrolling of the city park which would mean having to hire
another police officer.
Dick Fritzler spoke. Dick feels the issue of annexation of Riverside Park is a real
dilemma for the city. On one hand there are 2 shooting clubs that have been around for
75+ years wanting to continue providing recreation and programs for citizens and on the
other side the city wants to find ways to satisfy all of its citizens without posing a large
liability threat to those citizens.
The city is the core of the community and all citizens are a part of that community. The
city should annex when it is feasible to do so.
Laurel Municipal Code specifies that shooting within city limits can be done under the
right supervision and circumstances. There could be a way that both the clubs and the
citizens can be accommodated. Regardless of which way the Planning Board votes
tonight this will likely go on to the City Council for a decision. Even if annexation does
not occur the first major step should be a Master Plan for the park. Dick stressed to the
members of the clubs present at the meeting that they need to be a part of the discussion
for a Master Park Plan advocating that their clubs become a part of that Master Plan.
At this time the question was called for. The secretary read the motion from the
March 5, 2009 meeting as follows:
A motion was made by John VanAken to recommend to the Laurel City Council that
annexation of Riverside Park be denied. The motion was seconded by Deb Horning.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6 ---1 with Dick Fritzler voting No.
Public Hearin - Proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.48.030 17.48.060 and proposed
new code 17.48.090 re ardin exem tions for establishments serving alcohol
James stated that he would like to discuss the proposed changes to 17.48.030 and
17.48.060 and would also like to postpone the public hearing to the May 7, 2009 meeting
so that L.M.C. code 17.08.520 could be added to the public hearing.
James read the proposed new section 17.48.090 into the record:
"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 uses requiring the 600-
foot separation. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the
following:
An arterial street with no existing or proposed signalized pedestrian
crossing;
4
2. A building or buildings that entirely obstruct the view between the
separated use; 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".
James stated that this code is the same as the City of Billings.
Motion by Miles Walton, seconded by Dan Koch to recommend to the Laurel
City Council the addition of 17.48.090 to the Laurel Municipal Code as written above.
The motion carried by a vote of 7 - 0.
Discussion: Allowing Auction Houses in the Central Business District
Joe Bestolino from Beartooth RC&D introduced himself as well as board member
Marvin Carter and businessman Joe Hayes.
Joe Hayes contacted Joe Bestolino at Beartooth RC&D requesting help for locating a
building Mr. Hayes could have his auction business and where he could hold a weekly
auction. The old Laurel Ford building owned by Steve Solberg, located on E. Main
Street, is the perfect location and size for Mr. Hayes auction business.
In contacting Laurel City Planner James Caniglia Mr. Bestolino found out that the
building is in the Central Business District zoning which does not allow an auction house.
The only option is to change the zoning codes to allow auction houses.
Mr. Bestolino contacted businesses located in Laurel's Central Business District and
polled therm regarding having an auction business in the downtown. Mr. Bestolino
passed around a signed petition from some of those businesses.
Joe Hayes spoke and thanked the board for taking the time to listen to his proposal.
Mr. Hayes started the Longhorn Auction in Billings in 1997 with his partner Dan Tryan.
He has been an auctioneer for 20 years and moved out into this area in 1996. His
proposal is to put an auction house in at 315 E. Main. Street which is owned by Steve
Solberg. Mr. Hayes feels that this building is ideal for his business because of its size
and ideal location.
Mr. Hayes auctions off household goods. He does not have things sitting around his
building. If he has an auction that sells farm equipment he would hold that auction at the
owner's farm.
Mr. Hayes believes that he will draw people from as far away as 60 miles. He works on a
consignment basis.
As far as parking goes Mr. Hayes seems to think there will be plenty of parking available
on the street surrounding his business.
Discussion on whether or not Mr. Hayes plans to rent the piece of property across the
alley to the north of Mr. Solberg's building?
He is not sure that piece of property is part of Mr. Solberg's property but sees no reason
that he would need it.
Mr. Hayes holds his auction every Thursday night but it generally takes him 4 days to get
ready for that auction, so as it stands right now he anticipates being open Monday's
through Fridays. He would appreciate any help that the board can do to allow his
business be put into the building located at 315 E. Main Street.
Board discussion.
James stated that this will require a zone change, not a variance. James thinks there are
positives and negatives to allow auction houses in the Central Business District but is
asking the board for input. He speculated that the reason auction houses are not allowed
in the CBD could be because they are usually not open more than 1 day per week for the
auction and in the downtown area it would be more beneficial for the town to have
businesses that are open at least 5 days per week.
After a lengthy discussion a motion was made by Miles Walton and seconded by John
VanAken to hold a public hearing regarding the allowance of auction business in the
Central Business District. The motion carried by a vote of 7 - 0.
A public hearing will be scheduled for the May 7, 2009 meeting.
Miscellaneous
A discussion was held on whether or not holding a monthly workshop would be helpful
to the board.
A motion was made by John VanAken, seconded by Kathy Siegrist to have a workshop,
as necessary, on the Thursday's preceding the regular Planning Board meetings at 6:00
pm. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0.
The first workshop will be on Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
g 4
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
6
CITY 115 Westll `,Street City Of Laurel
City Planner: 628-4796 P. O. BOX 10
FAX: 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044
._ a
Water Office: 628-7431~
Final Draft
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.
11sw tV treet Cit Of Laurel
City Planner: 6284796 Y
FAX: 628-2241 P. ?' B0? 10
Water Office: 628-7431 Laurel, Montana 59044 r3?
Final Draft Section: 17.48.060 and Section 17.48.0 30
3/26/09
(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, eenhouses 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) (fl
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.
(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 two
usable stories and the upper floor is used for an apartment.
(f) Exposed seam metal buildings over 200 feet shall be prohibited unless covered with an
acceptable material.
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 1 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;
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.
Joe Hayes Laurel Consignment
-Utilize a large unused building in the laurel business district for
building an indoor Consignment Business
-Business would be conducted Monday through Friday Hours from
9am to 5pm with a sale one day a week, possibly two if there is
enough interest
*We believe if done well this would have a positive impact on main
street businesses due to increased foot traffic
-Would create four to six new jobs
-Potential for hundred or more per week in new customer base
-Space is more than adequate for parking, and traffic
Existing Structure
Corner of East Main and Pennsylvania
,4UTD CONNECTION
n?r4s6ev{ee& II?+? rENtE? j
;. ass•s=s??? ..
t
_ fyr
TRYAN AUCTION
13th and 2" d Ave North Billings, MT
HULL AND ALLEN
CONSIGNMENT/AUCTION
A
Y
BUSINESS IS SEEKING A BUILDING WITH THESE ATTRIBUTES
1. AFFORDABLE
2. 4000 to 0000 sq ft
3. Large Doors 1 Access
4. Available parking and good traffic flow