HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 05.07.2009DRAFT
MINUTES
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 7, 2009 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Todd Linder, Chairman
Dan Koch, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
Miles Walton, City Rep.
Greg Nelson, City Rep.
Kathy Siegrist, County Rep.
Deb Horning, City Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Others Present: James Caniglia, Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
Minute's annroval
The minutes of the April 30, 2009 Workshop were presented. Greg Nelson added a
correction of a name spelling after which a motion was made by Miles Walton, seconded
by Dan Koch to the April 30, 2009 Workshop minutes with the name spelling correction.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7-0.
Public Input
There was no input by the public.
Public Hearin - Preliminary Plat for Anderson Subdivision
This preliminary plat is located 3 miles southwest of Laurel Montana off of Wold Road.
PROPONENT:
Quentin Eggart from Eggart Engineering spoke regarding the preliminary plat. He is the
engineer representing owner Roger Anderson.
Quentin stated that this plat went through this process a few years ago but the final plat
was not filed in the allotted amount of time so the process had to start over again. He
went on to say that the submittal hasn't changed from the first time it was filed. The
Department of Environmental Quality had given an approval on the plat.
Jake McCoy was present representing land owner Michael McCoy's property at 2629
Red Bridge Road, located on the southeast portion of the preliminary plat. Jake went on
to say that Roger Anderson dug a drainage slough on the property and Mr. McCoy would
like to see safeguards in place that would protect the water source from being
contaminated since it is used to feed cattle.
Quentin Eggert explained that there are 2 drainage sloughs that the property owner dug
several years ago to help lower the water table on the property. One is on the east side of
the property and one is on the south side of the property. DEQ does allow property
owners to dig sloughs so as long as they are located 100 feet from an open water source,
irrigation ditch or septic tank.
OPPONENTS:
There were no opponents.
City Planner James Caniglia read his letter of recommendation into the record, as
follows:
4/30/09
Anderson Subdivision 3'd Filing
Type: 15 lot Major Subdivision
Location: Government Lots 2 & 3, Section 30, T.2S., R.24E
General Location: Southwest of Park City and Wold Roads
Variances Requested: 24' private road instead of county standard 28' road
60' foot private access and utility easement instead of 67'
Anderson Subdivision 3`d filing is a re-submittal of Anderson Subdivision 2nd filing
which was approved by the Planning Board on July 15` 2004. After preliminary approval
from the County Commissioners there is a three year window to receive final approval.
The three year window expired in the fall of 2008 and the subdivider wishes to reapply.
Variances: The subdivider requests permission to have 24' roads instead of 28' roads. In
speaking with County Public Works Director Bob Moats, he prefers to have the road size
be a standard 28' road. Based on County preference, I recommend denial of the requested
variance.
The request to have a 60' utility easement instead of a 67' easement is unnecessary as our
regulations only require a 60 easement.
Road issues- It is recommended that all roads in the subdivision be public roads. The
County Commissioners may soon ban new private roads, but they are still allowed at this
time. In this case, I have currently not been able to find an easement from the existing
private road that allows access to new lots. Many private road easements have language
that does not allow new development to access to an existing private road. If there is a
road easement that does not allow further access to the road then the subdivider must
create a new road easement that does allow access to the new lots and such an easement
would need written approval from all existing homeowners. The ability to maintain the
2
roads is not clearly identified. The SIA refers to RSIDs and they are not allowed on
County roads. If the subdivider were to have private roads a homeowners association
must be in place and which would need to clearly describe how the roads will be
maintained. It is also unclear if the subdivider intends to use a gate entrance to the
subdivision.
Conditions of Approval:
• All references of RSIDs be replaced with HOA if private roads are used
• HOA created or expanded to maintain road
• DEQ approval of sanitary system before filing
• HOA create and require a mechanism to maintain and allow access to dry hydrant
A motion was made by Miles Walton, seconded by Dick Fritzler to add under the
conditions of approval that the road be the required 28'. Motion carried 7-0.
A motion was made by Miles Walton, seconded by Dan Koch, to recommend approval of
preliminary plat of Anderson Subdivision subject to these conditions:
1. The road be 28', as required by Yellowstone County;
2. HOA be created or expanded to maintain road,
3. HOA be created with a mechanism to maintain and allow the dry hydrant;
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Public Hearin - consideration of changes to L.M.C. 17.48.030. 17.48.060. 17.08.520•
17.52.020 and 17.20.020
Chairman Linder opened up the public hearing.
Chairman Linder asked for proponents wishing to speak.
No one spoke.
Chairman Linder asked for opponents to speak.
Kurt Markegard, 1705 Downy Road spoke. He had questions on L.M.C. Table
17.16.020. Kurt lives out of the city limits but falls under the 1 mile zoning jurisdiction
of the City of Laurel.
Kurt has reviewed the proposed changes and feels that for the Planning Board to make
recommendations to the City Council for changes to the maximum height for buildings in
residential tract zoning is not fair for existing homeowners. Proposing changes to require
garage height to go no higher than the existing home height is singling out people and
telling them what they can and cannot build on their property and taking away their rights
to build large enough buildings to house larger possessions in such as camp trailers.
3
Kurt is also concerned over what kind of material he can or cannot build his buildings out
of.
He was told that these code changes apply only for inside the city limits. He feels that if
the city is only going to enforce these issues inside the city limits then he would ask the
Planning Board to not have any zoning outside of the city limits. If you can't enforce
these proposed codes outside of the city limits because they are outside the city limits
than you shouldn't be enforcing any of them.
Kurt also had an objection to the board labeling what materials he can or cannot build
structures out of due to terminology of "acceptable materials" with no explanation of
"acceptable materials". He feels this leaves the door open to anyone deciding what
acceptable materials are. He feels the materials should be specified as to what those
materials are.
Kurt went on to say that as far as setbacks for houses and garages the board should not,
all of the sudden, be changing the rules and if the board does do this it should be for new
construction only. If it was new construction only they (property owner) so they would
know that in order to get a larger garage to house an RV or camper they would have to
know that they would have to build the house taller. In Kurt's opinion if you change the
rules now it will be an injustice to those people that own existing homes resulting in
citizen's not being well served.
James clarified that Part (e) on page 2 of the handout specifically says "The side wall of a
detached accessory building in a Residential Zone 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".
James went on to point out that as far as the acceptable material: it specifically says in
part (f) it specifically says "Exposed seam metal buildings over 200 feet shall be
prohibited unless covered with an acceptable material". James thinks it can be easily
understood that the exposed seam metal building is what is not allowed and if you do an
exposed seam metal building then you have to have a different cover over it. It is not
talking about what the building is being built with, it is talking about the building being
covered with a specific material attached to it. It's not a matter of the city saying what
you can and can't do, except to say that you can't do exposed seam metal.
James went on to say that as far as the height within city limits. This was something
James looked at thoroughly and after board discussion it was decided to follow the exact
same codes as the City of Billings. James feels that the Billings codes have obviously
stood the test of time.
Chairman Linder interjected that the board is limited by certain factors. The number one
factor is that board is a city-county planning board which has to follow different rules for
the city and the county. In this particular draft the board was looking to address those
4
issues within the city limits. The board tries to follow more in line with what the county
wants in terms of their planning. This board is a dual purpose board and unfortunately
everything is not streamlined in that case.
Kurt stated that as a county resident he cannot vote for the people that make these
decisions on his zoning. He can only come in front of this board because the board
speaks for the county residents. That is why he is here tonight. The board is appointed
by the county and some are appointed by the city. This is his chance to voice in
opposition of something that he doesn't see that this board should be representing only
for the city, but for both city limits and outside of the city limits. This board should be
representing both county and city and not singling out one residential unit inside the city
limits versus property outside the city limits. Currently the zoning doesn't say city limits
any where in it, whether it is in city limits or out. It is by zoning. If the board is here as a
Planning Board to recommend zoning changes they should recommend zoning changes
through the appropriate zoning changes on R7500 and R6000. But in the draft language
it states "residential tracts within the city limits". He can't vote for the City Council
members that vote on this ultimately, he can only vote for County Commissioners which
the board represents. His point is: when you have maximum heights for a zoning area
you have it for the whole area, not for the individual residential lots. For existing
property and buildings by doing it this way everyone's property has a different zoning
height based on the size of their residence. He objects to that because if you do this in the
city what's to stop the planning board members from recommending to the city council
that he has no say in this.
Chairman Linder clarified that some issues go to the County Commissioners for their
review. The city only rules within the city, depending on the ruling.
Kurt said 1-mile zoning is under the Planning Board's jurisdiction, not the County
Commissioner's jurisdiction.
James stated that county residents within one mile of the city limits have to follow lot
coverage and setbacks standards. These are the only 2 standards they have to follow
other than lot coverage. The only thing this would change for the County residents is
accessory building setbacks. James went on to say that he put language into this draft
that excludes the county residents from height limitations and building materials. In the
newer subdivisions the Home Owner's Associations have rules regarding height
limitations and building materials that they monitor and enforce.
Kurt said that if the city is not going to enforce the 1-mile radius then take off the zoning
outside the city limits. Don't deal with it. If it can't be enforced because of regulator
review or the city is unwilling to enforce the zoning and setback regulations than why
have it?
James said that a lot of the reason it can't be enforced is that county residents do not need
building permits. So, if people see their neighbor's putting up pole barns they also put up
a pole barn. James thinks we need zoning jurisdiction outside the city limits. An
5
example would be the new interchange that is going to be built, and being able to
influence how it develops.
Chairman Linder asked for more opponents.
There were none.
The public hearing was closed at 7:35 pm.
Kurt asked to speak again regarding (e) "The side wall of a detached accessory building
in a Residential Zone 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".
Kurt stated that several years ago the City Council voted down allowing granny flats. If
these proposed zoning changes are passed and apartments are allowed the board has just
put granny flats back in as allowable in residential zones.
James stated that granny flats are allowed in zones other than R7500. They are still
allowed in R6000 zones. In R7500 and Residential Tracts you are only allowed one
dwelling unit on your property. On R6000 on lots over 7500 square feet you can still
have 2 units.
Chairman Linder said that is a little confusing. Kurt is talking about 17.16.020 which
isn't addressed in here specifically but technically the bottom half of this is changed. He
asked Kurt if this is the way he interpreted it?
Kurt said yes.
Todd Linder specified for clarity 17.16.020 doesn't change anything. The changes here
tonight are just for the accessory building.
Kurt said that an accessory building can have an apartment in it and the council voted
down allowing granny flats in any zone. Through these proposed changes granny flats
would be allowed in all zones.
Miles Walton stated that Kurt made a good argument regarding granny flats.
James said there is nothing in the codes that he has seen that says if you are allowed 2
units on one lot that it must be a duplex and that it can't be a granny flat. He thinks
perhaps adding some language in the codes could help specifying the proposed codes
only apply to certain zones for granny flats. Or the board could recommend allowing
granny flats in any zoning district.
6
Dick Fritzler recommended that the board ask the City Attorney to review the draft of
proposed changes prior to making a recommendation of the changes.
A motion was made by John VanAken, seconded by Miles Walton to table the proposed
changes to L.M.C. 17.48.030; 17.48.060; 17.08.520; 17.52.020 and 17.20.020 and
request legal council from the City Attorney. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
Laurel Airport Presentation
Craig Canfield from the engineering firm of Kadrmas, Lee and Jackson spoke regarding
the Laurel Airport and it's obligation to enact Airport Affected Area (AAA) Regulations
around the Laurel Airport.
Craig previously spoke to the Laurel City Council on February 10, 2009 and the Mayor
and Council suggested that he talk with the Planning Board.
An Airport Affected Area is the air space around the airport. That airspace is defined by
the FAA and the Laurel Airport. Airport Affected Area Regulations are intended to
control airport hazards and protect the governing bodies responsible for the Laurel
Municipal Airport from claims resulting from noise, fumes, vibrations, light, or any other
effects from normal and anticipated normal airport operations.
Airport Affected Areas (AAA) are required by Montana Code Title 67 Chapter 7 to
enact, adopt and enforce regulations relative to an Airport Affected Area.
Other airports and the Laurel Municipal Airport are part of the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) which Craig likened to the interstate systems. An
airport under NPIAS is part of our transportation system in the United States. So, there
are certain obligations that the airport has to meet. Because the Laurel Airport receives
funding from the FAA they are required, through grant assurances to protect the airspace
around the airport and to insure compatible land use around the airport.
Basically the Airport Affected Area (AAA) would replace Laurel Municipal Code 17.28.
This is being done because L.M.C. Chapter 17.28 is outdated and the area of influence
around the airport has changed and will become the Airport Affected Area (AAA). The
Airport Affected Area (AAA) will better define the elevations of the airspace around the
area and what is considered compatible land use around the airport.
Craig went on to say that changes will need to be made to the ordinance because there are
certain things that are going to change at the airport. The biggest change planned is
placing the cross-wind runway in a different area as well as being longer. Another
change planned to occur is the approach patterns onto the runways that will expand the
space around the airport.
Craig stated that he is here tonight to talk about the administration of the Airport Affected
Area (AAA) and how it will be enforced. Because the airport is located within the City
7
of Laurel's Planning Jurisdiction and because the Airport Authority is a municipal arm of
the City of Laurel it makes sense to take this Airport Affected Area (AAA) and put it into
the Laurel Municipal Code.
L.M.C. Chapter 17.28 basically addresses most of the things that are going to be
addressed in the Airport Affected Area ordinance but the administration has been difficult
to do and has not been done even with the ordinances in place. What the Airport is
suggesting is to find a better way to administer the ordinance so it can serve its purpose.
This will enable the Airport Authority to fulfill their obligations to the FAA and also the
community in protecting the airspace around Laurel.
Craig goes on to speak about how this could be accomplished. He believes that when
either a building permit, sewer permit or subdivision review comes before the city or the
Planning Board that information could be forwarded to the Airport Authority if it is
determined that had some issues with land compatibility and height. The Airport
Authority would then make a determination. If the determination by the Airport
Authority regarding land compatibility or building height goes against the property owner
the Planning Board would then become the Board of Appeals for the property owner.
Craig stated that if a building is built without approval and found to be an incompatible
use or over the height restriction it would be the Planning Board and/or City that would
be have to get involved to help rectify the situation with the property owner.
Craig asked for input from the Planning Board and went on to say that this is the next
step to move forward to get an effective ordinance passed through the City Council and
incorporate it into the Laurel Municipal Code.
Board discussion.
James Caniglia, City Planner stated that because building permits are not required for
buildings built outside the city limits he wondered how the City can find out about and
enforce the land use compatibility and building height restrictions in the Airport Affected
Area. He also feels that the Planning Board, due to their heavy monthly agenda does not
have time to be the Board of Appeals, and they are not involved in issuing septic (sewer)
permits outside the city limits.
Miles Walton had some concerns regarding this issue.
Miles first concern is that the city does not issue septic (sewer) permits or building
permits for outside the city limits and things could easily slip through without the city's
knowledge and then the city could be held responsible. Even if the city does review the
plans they cannot enforce outside the city limits if the property owner builds something
completely different than what was reviewed.
Miles went on to state that he feels that the Airport Authority should be responsible for
reviewing the issues that pertain to the airport, not the city. If the Airport Authority
wants this they should be responsible for it.
Craig Canfield stated that they are just trying to come up with the first step in enforcing
the ordinances.
Chairman Todd Linder stated that the Airport Authority is just looking for a way to force
the people that develop and build property or that live in the Airport Affected Area to go
through the proper channels.
John Smith stated that the best way for these issues to go through the proper channel is
for it to begin during the subdivision review. It has to be tied to something to begin the
process.
James Caniglia stated that the only thing that the city can and should do is let developers
know about the ordinances during the subdivision review process. He feels that the
Planning Board should not be the enforcer and the Board of Appeals.
Chairman Linder feels the board should request a legal opinion so that the district can be
re-defined.
James Caniglia stated that the City Council has reviewed this issue, as well as the City
Attorney and passed it on to the Planning Board for their input.
The consensus of the board is that the Planning Board should not be the enforcement of
The Airport Affected Area but information should be passed along to developers during
the subdivision review process.
Public Hearin - Auction Houses within CBD -17.20.010
Chairman Linder re-opened the public hearing at 8:30 pm for discussion on allowing
Auction Houses within the Central Business District.
Proponents:
Jeff Hayes asked the board to consider changing the table to allow an auction house in the
Central Business District.
Opponents:
No one spoke in opposition.
The public hearing was closed at 8:32 pm.
9
Greg Nelson pointed out that every Thursday night is bowling night at the Palace Bar and
Lanes and there could be parking issues.
Todd Linder stated that this is a broad change for a single exception and suggests putting
language in regarding a special review process.
James Caniglia stated that the board could do one of two things: they could "allow"
auction houses (excluding cattle) in the Central Business District, or they could require
the applicant to go through a Special Review before the Planning Board.
A motion was made by Dan Koch, seconded by Miles Walton to recommend that
a Special Review be required for auction houses within the Central Business District and
table 17.20.010 be changed to reflect that. The motion was carried by a vote of 7-0.
Miseellaneous Business
There was no miscellaneous business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
10